• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

NFI Diet. Experiences?

Hi @ziggy_w

Glad to find someone who has had a similar experience with the system here. I must say though that my current Internist has been very patient with me and has motivated me a bit to do something about my situation. He is very honest though that he is not qualified to give dietary advice and I say fair enough. The experience I have mentioned above is what I had with my very first Internist.

Like I have mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I have tried a few different things and the way I see it, it boils down to one thing, fat getting into places where it shouldn't be, thereby upsetting the balance of things and derailing the glucose metabolism mechanism. LCHF works on the principle of getting fat adapted so one does not have to worry about glucose metabolism. It comes with the drawback though that one's response to carbs will only get worse over time.

Vegan diets (when done right) seem to clean up your random fat storages, streamlining mechanisms the way they should be. Scientific evidence in this regard seems to be still emerging and a lot of it is still anecdotal. However, there are two things that convince me. Firstly, it is relatively easy to try and intuitive. Secondly, I come from a culture where generations of my family have been vegetarians. So any arguments about malnutrition etc can be easily ignored.

I agree that there is no one solution that fits all. Had that been the case, this epidemic would not have spiralled out of control the way it has. What we need to acknowledge though is that very different things will work for different people.

I see that your A1C went from 11 to 5.5 in just 4 months. Did you do it with LCHF and Metformin alone?
 
Hi @target6point4,

It's great to see that you've found an internist you can work with. I'm also fine with my GP, whose specialization is also in internal medicine, by the way. The good thing is that he's trying to keep up with current research (which isn't always easy as busy as GPs usually are) and he's also come to accept my way of eating. When my first follow-up HbA1c after diagnosis came back, we was actually very surprised and said he's never seen anything like this.

As to the drop in my HbA1c from 11.3% to 5.3% -- I credit changing my way of eating more than taking metformin. If I remember correctly, research shows that metformin can decrease your HbA1c as much as 1.1% at the maximum dose. So, this would have only put me at 10.2%. Plus after decreasing and eventually eliminating metformin, my HbA1c has remained stable. Still, I think it is probably one of the best drugs for people with T2 diabetes as it decreases the chance of experiencing some of the complications of diabetes.

I definitely agree that internal fat around your organs is one of the problem associated with T2. The question is however, what put the fat there? There are some competing theories regarding this. Some argue that once your body runs out of fat cells (thin T2s just have fewer fat cells to begin with) where it can store more energy (unused glucose turning into fat), it then starts storing this extra energy as fat around your organs including liver and pancreas making them insulin resistant (if interested to find out more, you want to google Roy Tailor or Ben Bikman). Another school of thought is that it is the excessive consumption of fructose (as in sugar) that leads to fatty liver, Robert Lustig is a proponent of this approach. Some also argue that it is excessive consumption of fat, especially saturated, that is then released into the blood stream then gums up the pancreas causing the beta cells to misfunction, but I believe this theory has been pretty much disproven by now (because while this was demonstrated in vitro (in a petri dish), it couldn't be shown in vivo (in a living human being). Anyway -- this how I interpret the research on this, but to be sure I am no expert on this.

As to the response to carbs worsening through low carb -- this seems to be a matter of physiological insulin resistance (also known as adaptive glucose sparing) rather than pathological insulin resistance. In other words, when we consume few carbs, the body starts conserving these carbs for essential functions in the body (such as making red blood cells) rather than burning them for energy. However, if low carbers go back to eating higher carb for a few days, the body starts returning to a glucose-based metabolism and burning carbs for energy -- and thus the response to carbs starts normalizing again. So, physiological isn't a chronic condition such as pathological insulin resistance, but just a normal reaction to eating fewer carbs.

Anyway, I agree with you -- we are all different. We come with different preferences as to the way we like to eat and the foods we like. Ultimately, we'll have to be able maintain our way of eating in the long term.
 
Last edited:
I wondered where all the data for a low carb way of eating was - then I realised it would be off the lower edge of the graph.
 
A Vegan diet is unsustainable in my view as sooner or later we would run out of vegans to eat.
 
I agree with what you say but would like to add some of my research findings. One thing most people (including most doctors)do not understand, is that we manufacture cholesterol a la carte, in other words only produce what our body needs at that moment in time. Cholesterol is not an inert balloon of lipids, it has a very advanced chemical keylock system that declares what it is, what its status is and where it is going (much like a customs manifest) which hormones in the cells and immune system read and verify. Ingested cholesterol is alien to our bodies and would be attacked by the immune system. We scavenge the ingested cholesterol for its component parts such as glycerol and choline which we reuse since it saves energy. Our cholesterol is unique to each of us.

As regards the creation of fat cells, again research I have read has shown that we are born with a certain amount of pre-programmed adipose tissue cells. During our life we expand this stock by taking out own stem cells and programming them as fat cells as needed. Once programmed as a cell type, it cannot be deprogrammed or returned to the stem cell store so once we are Fat, then the cells remain available to be filled and emptied as we make lipids that need storing. So it becomes easier to put on weight. Since these are stem cells in the body, they already occupy space in the structure, so there is no additional overhead apart from the lipids that fill them up.

Of course, cells do die over time, and this depletes the storehouse capacity, which is why as we age we lose weight and plumpness and our brown fat cells are the first to go (apparently) which is why elderly folk feel the cold more.
 
I can see a common line of thought here that improper fat storage seems to be the root cause of the issue. As @Oldvatr says, some have a better fat storage system and are less prone to becoming diabetic while some like yours truly are a bit more vulnerable.

At this point I have to confess that I had a terrible lifestyle for nearly five years leading to my diagnosis. This included an excessive consumption of fizzy drinks, alcohol, highly processed carbs and terribly late dinners (sometimes as late as 4 in the morning). All that had to catch up sooner rather than later.

What remains now is how one goes about solving the problem with this excess fat. What the NFI diet seems to suggest is that certain food combinations act as a catalyst for fat metabolism, a lot like being fat adapted. I find this particular aspect interesting as it would address the root cause, a lot like the Newcastle diet but without the severe restrictions that come with it.

I do not mind eating in a fixed way for a period of say two months every year if it means that I can indulge myself a bit later if and when I wish and still know that things will not spiral out of control.
 
bulkbiker said:
So why not follow a ketogenic diet become fat adapted and burn off the pounds whilst eating great food?
Click to expand...

I see fat as predominantly a means of storing excess energy and not a primary source of energy. Agreed that fat has a much higher energy density than carbs or proteins but I am not convinced that one can thrive on a ketogenic diet long term. I can imagine that a ketogenic diet would demand an extreme amount of discipline, the longer one sticks to it. The more your body adapts to fat, the tougher it can get to handle carbs in the future.

Besides, if I can optimise my system to handle both carbs and fats, I will always be on the safer side.
 
As I said in a previous posting here, THEY suggest a lot of things, but do not provide a single bit of evidence that there is a scientific explanation as to how they come to their conclusions and thus the combinations. I have not seen any independent evidence that supports this diet either. At least LCHF has now amassed evidence that holds together scientifically - there are good reasons why it works. The VLCD diets also have plenty of formal evidence to support their claims too. However, vegetarians struggle to provide proper evidence as shown in that meta study I posted, which refers to a very old and debunked trial (ADVENT 2) for its main evidence.

You have found a diet that suits you. It will be interesting to see how it pans out, and if it lives up to its claims to remove adipose fat, which is where I have my doubts. As a matter of interest. did you have to pay to get your diet plan? They do say it is personalised to your needs.
 
bulkbiker said:
I'm almost 5 years in.. never healthier.
Carbs are completely unnecessary for life so why would I want to handle carbs in the future?
Click to expand...

It is nice that you are enjoying great health on a keto diet but calling carbs "completely unnecessary" is a bit extreme. What applies to you might not apply to others. It is likely that if you come from a region with extreme winters then you have evolved to be dependant on fats. If on the other hand, you come from a tropical or equatorial region then you have probably evolved to consume a lot of fruits, vegetable, greens and grains.

The diabetes epidemic has been pretty indiscriminate with numbers going up all over the world. These numbers correlate well with the ease with which people have access to food these days, carbs or fats. Going keto could be an extreme step for a lot of people. It is important to find ways that sync well with the way people already live rather than force them into making extreme changes.
 
OK this diet is a repeating 2 week cyclic diet, so is intended for long term use. I note with alarm the following taken from their advice for T2D Remission
"As long as you follow your tailored diet correctly, you do not need to count your calories, will have no concerns about vitamin or mineral deficiencies and you will be losing weight naturally without even realising it."

As I have found with other vegetarian . vegan diets, it is possible to be missing out many essential minerals and vitamins unless foods are carefully chosen to boost them. The classic deficiencies that can occur are vitamins B6, B12, D3, K2, A, and the minerals calcium, iron, and other nutrients such as choline. Since we do not know how they select the food pairs, then we cannot be assured that these problem areas have been fully addressed, and so long term use of this diet may not be of benefit in terms of general health.
 
Apparently there are no scientific studies of this diet yet, but one is supposedly in progress
https://nfidiet.com/clinical_studies.php

Apparently Pravda is associated with this study. I can find out the names of the founders of NFI, but absolutely zilch about their credentials, experience etc. They are, I suspect, chemists. They do talk of analysing the chemicals in the foods to match them up to create new super chemicals that attack lipid fat. Now if they do this in the stored fat then that's one thing, but if they attack the lipids in transit (i,e, while in the bloodstream) then it can get very messy. If that is their science then I will avoid this one thank you.
 
Last edited:

I found the study linked below to start off:

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/lin...:scds:US:dfac234d-d226-48da-8e76-4fcc54e552e1

Other web searches refer to ongoing studies where results are still awaited. I am planning to drop an E-mail to some of the authors to point me towards any further information.

I would not be so rash as to compare this to any other vegetarian diet. There are a lot of ways one can do a vegetarian or even vegan diet wrong. This diet seems to take a very narrow approach focussing on well known physical and chemical principles.

As a matter of fact I am paying to get my tailor made plan. This is no paid promotion though The program costs far less than the cheapest CGM out there for a two week period and as long as the results are satisfactory, I intend to see where this could lead to.
 

I would say obsessing over micro nutrients is a bit like missing the forest for the trees. If you see at the sample diet plans for the NFI diet then you will see that it includes sources of all the nutrients you have listed except may be B12. The B12 debate though is well documented so i won't be getting into that here.
 
Yes its the study, Yes its in Slovakian. Yes I cannot read it.

It appears to be a cloud based document that is open for peer review, so be careful in accessing it since one could corrupt it as it appears to be live.

I am wondering why they make reference out to studies on meat based diets, and also a study that dietary iron can cause T2D. I see ND Barnard features heavily which is not surprising but makes much of the info they use single point referenced.
 
Indeed Alpro is fortified, as will the bread rolls and buns. One of the founders says it is based on the Mediterranean diet and indeed that is one of the references in the study, but it is missing the vital sources of meat, fish, and dairy. Hence my interest in how these are substituted in the diet. Remember that the website is quite specific that supplements are not necessary since ALL nutrients are covered.
 
Well known physical and chemical principles? I see no evidence for this, which is why I am twitchy. Like I said, they are taking an NHS recommended diet that has a proven track record with the nutritionists, and meddled with it by excluding a major component or two. I see a website with hardsell messages making many claims for success but without any track record.

I have no problem with you choosing to use it, but I am mindful that this website is not just a conversation between you and me, but is read by people around the world, It is right and proper that we try to make sure that any recommendations we make are sound and safe, As it happens, I too use the Mediterranean diet but adapted for low carb use. I eat many of the components in the NFI menu plan, but my version is omnivore so covers the essential nutrients. As a diabetic on Metformin, I have to make sure I get B12, I have a tendency to anemia, so need iron and vit C, and elderly sedentary so need D3 and K2.

I would not benefit from the NFI diet and would be harmed by it if taken long term. I suspect I am not alone in this. The lack of supporting data for the diet concerns me. The fact that they charge such a high fee for their info, and make such bold claims without evidence tells me to be wary.
 
target6point4 said:
It is nice that you are enjoying great health on a keto diet but calling carbs "completely unnecessary" is a bit extreme. .
Click to expand...
It is actually perfectly true - we do not need to eat carbs.
I chose to eat 40 gm of carbs a day for the colour texture and variety they bring, and the micronutrients they have, but that is far too few calories to get by, so the protein and fats make up the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…