Shop now Shop now Shop now Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Profile for Fusty McDuff > Reviews

Personal Profile

Content by Fusty McDuff
Top Reviewer Ranking: 1,444,826
Helpful Votes: 70

Learn more about Your Profile.

Reviews Written by
Fusty McDuff

Show:  
Page: 1
pixel
Emmay Care  Safety Socket Covers 6pck
Emmay Care Safety Socket Covers 6pck
Offered by OnePack Ltd
Price: £1.99

1.0 out of 5 stars Waste of time for paranoid parents, 2 Feb. 2016
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
Don't waste your money, UK electrical sockets have an earth plug that must be depressed in order for current to flow. Putting a device that includes a plastic pin into the earth socket may make them MORE dangerous!


Vitamin D 3 High Strength 5000 IU 365 Tablets Cholecalciferol UK MANUFACTURED Benefits Immune System, Helps Strengthen Bones and Teeth - SMALL 6MM TABLETS not Softgels or Capsules - Good Source of Vit D - Best D3 supplement - 100 % Vegetarian Dairy and Gluten Free
Vitamin D 3 High Strength 5000 IU 365 Tablets Cholecalciferol UK MANUFACTURED Benefits Immune System, Helps Strengthen Bones and Teeth - SMALL 6MM TABLETS not Softgels or Capsules - Good Source of Vit D - Best D3 supplement - 100 % Vegetarian Dairy and Gluten Free
Offered by No.1 Supplements Limited
Price: £10.98


Always Hungry?: Conquer cravings, retrain your fat cells and lose weight permanently
Always Hungry?: Conquer cravings, retrain your fat cells and lose weight permanently
by David S. Ludwig
Edition: Hardcover

10 of 20 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Ludwig's own research counters his claims in this book!, 2 Feb. 2016
Do we really consume excess calories because we are hungry? Why is it that after a big meal when I am too full to eat any more potatoes I can still find room for cake? Isn't this the very mechanism that the food industry are exploiting?

We eating more because we're growing fatter? Was there some en masse hormonally induced horizontal growth disorder that sprang out of the wilderness if so why is this mysterious disorder not explained by any honest observation of all of the evidence?

“The cells open up and release their energy, which floods back into the body,” Ludwig says. “Hunger decreases, metabolism speeds up and weight gain isn’t a struggle because you’re working with rather than against your body.” David Ludwig unfortunately forgets to mention that his own research counters these claims. http://carbsanity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/calories-and-taubes-nusi-ludwig-co.html

As expected this is little more than another regurgitation of the old carb / insulin hypothesis of obesity. As Stephan Guyenet points out http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/always-hungry-its-probably-not-your.html#more

"1. Overeating does make you fat. Randomized controlled trials have shown that eating excess calories causes fat gain, whether the extra calories come from fat or carbohydrate, and regardless of their impact on insulin levels. If you eat too many calories, regardless of why you overate, you will gain fat (although some people are intrinsically more resistant to overeating-induced fat gain than others). That's why overeating remains a key concept for understanding body fatness.
2. Hunger is only one of the reasons we eat. We don't generally eat dessert because we're still hungry at the end of a meal. We don't drink alcohol or put cream and sugar in our coffee because we're hungry. Much of the eating we do in the affluent world has little to do with hunger-- a phenomenon researchers call "non-homeostatic eating".
3.Blood levels of fat and glucose tend to be normal or elevated in people with obesity and high insulin, not lower. That's because they're insulin resistant, meaning that insulin isn't doing its job of constraining blood glucose and fat levels as effectively. Since people with obesity/overweight don't have lower circulating energy levels than lean people, this cannot explain why they eat more. Obesity is not a condition of "internal starvation".
4.Fat cells do not have an increased affinity for fat in people with obesity and high insulin. In fact, people with obesity and elevated insulin release fat from their fat tissue at a higher rate than lean people with lower insulin (higher total lipolysis rate; ). Again, this may relate to the fact that they're insulin resistant.
5.Body fatness is regulated by the brain, not by fat tissue or the pancreas. There is a vast research literature showing that the brain regulates food intake, energy expenditure, and fat tissue metabolism to regulate the size of body fat stores. There is no known mechanism intrinsic to fat tissue or the insulin-secreting pancreas that does this. Genetic differences that impact body fatness tend to be located in genes that affect brain function, not fat tissue or insulin signaling (11, 12).
6.High insulin levels do not predict future weight gain (13, 14). This is a basic prediction of the hypothesis that has been tested many times, and the majority of the evidence doesn't support it.
7.If high insulin were a major contributor to obesity, weight loss would be a positive feedback process. In other words, the more weight you lost, the easier it would become to lose further weight. This is because weight loss itself reduces insulin levels, both between and after meals (15, 16). Yet what we observe is the opposite: weight loss becomes more difficult the more you lose, despite declining insulin levels (a negative feedback process).
8.Foods that lead to higher blood levels of glucose and insulin do not result in greater subsequent hunger. The most comprehensive study examined 38 common foods and found no relationship between glycemic index and subsequent hunger, and an inverse relationship between insulin levels and hunger (i.e., foods that caused greater insulin release tended to be more filling; 17).
9.Diets that reduce blood glucose and insulin swings (low-glycemic) are not an effective tool for weight control. This has been shown repeatedly in RCTs lasting longer than two months (18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23), including an 18-month study by Ludwig's group that found a low-glycemic-load diet to provide the same weight and fat loss, and the same participant satisfaction, as a standard low-fat diet (24). This is despite the fact that these studies often don't control for confounding dietary factors like fiber content, calorie density, protein, and/or palatability (i.e., the "low-glycemic" diet is often a whole-food-based diet).
10.Billions of people globally eat high-glycemic diets and remain lean. Many traditional diets are very high in starch and low in fat. If foods that promote large blood sugar and insulin spikes were the primary factor in obesity, shouldn't these people be obese?
11.There is no evidence that our appetites increase, and our energy level drops, because our fat cells are hoovering up fat from the bloodstream. You would think, with how often this is repeated, that there would be some kind of evidence that this process is actually happening in common obesity. Yet despite having read a number of works by Taubes and Ludwig, I haven't found anything more concrete than speculation and analogies. The concrete evidence I have encountered (#3 and 4 above) is at odds with the claim."

Despite the recent ward study this theory still proves popular, it's time it was laid to rest not rehashed. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/more-thoughts-on-recent-low-fat-vs-low.html

I suppose the lure of the money from the billionaire John Arnold combined with the kind of cash being thrown around by the Atkins foundation is enough to buy off many unscrupulous "scientists" these days.
Comment Comments (4) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Mar 23, 2016 9:32 AM GMT


Pmp Exam Prep: Review Material, Explanations, Insider Tips, Exercises, Games and Practice Exams
Pmp Exam Prep: Review Material, Explanations, Insider Tips, Exercises, Games and Practice Exams
by Rita Mulcahy
Edition: Paperback

4.0 out of 5 stars Thanks for the help Rita, RIP, 8 Sept. 2014
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
Rita nicely simplifies the PMBOK and writes a far more readable version. RIP


Big Fat Surprise: why butter, meat, and cheese belong in a healthy diet
Big Fat Surprise: why butter, meat, and cheese belong in a healthy diet
by Nina Teicholz
Edition: Paperback

49 of 86 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Another tired rehash of the 1980s Carb / Insulin hypothesis of obesity, 8 Sept. 2014
I thought this might shed some new light on the obesity problem but instead I read a re hash of Atkins / Gary Taubes et al. Beware the ramblings of another psuedoscientific "nutritionist" demonising "carbs" in a similar biased manner to those she criticises who demonised fat. Hasn't nutrition moved on from demonising macronutrients or is the attraction that it still sells books because it sounds like a simple solution.

The reasoning goes that the government gave out bad advice (low fat) based on Ancel Keys and people followed it (presumably to the letter) and it caused obesity.

She says "How did we go from a meat-eating, butter-slathering, lard-cooking society to the fat-fearful, heart attack prone, constantly dieting people of today? The blame for that can be laid directly at the doorstep of one man." - Ancel Keys

I have a problem with this, if this was really the case why didn't people stop eating fatty foods completely and why did KFC, MacDonalds and the meat trade continue to do so well, did high fat foods tank in this period? By this same reasoning did people stop eating "carbs" when Dr Atkins told them to in the 1980s and that caused obesity since?

Why do food companies spend vast amounts of money on neuroscience if insulin is the simple answer?

Isn't demonising "carbs" as foolish as demonising fat? People can succeed on a low carb or low fat diet why? Could it be as Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse says “The common denominator of such diets is that neither allows consumption of the very caloric and seductive foods that combine high fat with high carbohydrates”

Isn't the carb / insulin hypothesis all rather outdated considering the discovery of Leptin in the 1990s?

People like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom", but obesity is a complex state and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses. According to literally thousands of publications spanning nearly two centuries, the brain is the only organ that is known to regulate body fat mass in humans and other animals-- neither fat tissue itself, nor the insulin-secreting pancreas have the ability to regulate body fat mass as far as we currently know.

As Stephan Guyenet (Phd neurobiology) says in his wholehealthsource blog "If elevated insulin leads to increased fat storage and increased food intake, then experimentally elevating insulin in animals should replicate this (since insulin acts on fat cells in the same manner in humans and non-human mammals). However, this is not observed. Insulin injections at a dose that does not cause frank hypoglycemia do not increase food intake, and in some cases they even reduce it (48). Chronically increasing circulating insulin without causing hypoglycemia reduces food intake and body weight in non-diabetic animals, without causing illness, contrary to what this idea would predict (49, 50). If anything, insulin constrains food intake and body fatness, and research indicates that this action occurs via the brain. Insulin infused into the brains of baboons causes a suppression of appetite and fat loss, which is consistent with the fact that insulin and leptin have overlapping functions in the brain (10, 11). Knocking out insulin receptors in the brain leads to increased fat mass in rodents, suggesting that its normal function involves constraining fat mass (12). Insulin is also co-secreted with amylin, which suppresses food intake and body weight (13). This is why insulin is viewed by some obesity researchers as an anti-obesity hormone."

Then we come to the errors and the references that appear to me difficult to follow: Nina says "The Native Americans he visited were eating a diet of predominantly meat, mainly from buffalo" Hrdlička's book is available online thanks to google books I suggest you search it for "buffalo" No mention to the comsumption of buffalo in that book, but you can find copious references to legume, grain and fruit consumption. If they were healthy as Nina states then could the beans, grain and fruit have helped along with buffalo meat and clams?

Why does Nina consider the studies upon which the Diet-Heart hypothesis was advanced riddled with Methodological Problems yet studies funded by the Atkins Foundation in the past decade a Gold Standard Well Controlled Paragons of RCTs? Why the bias, this is not religion after all it's supposed to be science.

What about the studies of populations who remained healthy and lean on low fat diets such as the Kitavans and the Okinawans? Didn't they deserve a mention?

The picture of Pentane to educate the reader is wrong, it's missing two hydrogens. Was there a proof reader here?

No doubt I am a heretic for drawing attention to the problems of this book I was sadly let down by it.
Comment Comments (9) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jan 10, 2016 6:57 PM GMT


Why We Get Fat: And What to Do about It
Why We Get Fat: And What to Do about It
by Gary Taubes
Edition: Mass Market Paperback

11 of 42 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Misleading and fundamentally flawed, 31 Oct. 2012
Don't waste your time!

There is a fundamental flaw in this book in that it relies on the carb - insulin hypothesis of obesity that was popular in the 1980s. People like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom", but the fact is that obesity is a complex state and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses. The discovery of Leptin in the 1990s advanced obesity research and these days scientists are reaching a consensus around the food reward hypothesis.

As Stephan Guyenet says "If elevated insulin leads to increased fat storage and increased food intake, then experimentally elevating insulin in animals should replicate this (since insulin acts on fat cells in the same manner in humans and non-human mammals). However, this is not observed. Insulin injections at a dose that does not cause frank hypoglycemia do not increase food intake, and in some cases they even reduce it (48). Chronically increasing circulating insulin without causing hypoglycemia reduces food intake and body weight in non-diabetic animals, without causing illness, contrary to what this idea would predict (49, 50). If anything, insulin constrains food intake and body fatness, and research indicates that this action occurs via the brain. Insulin infused into the brains of baboons causes a suppression of appetite and fat loss, which is consistent with the fact that insulin and leptin have overlapping functions in the brain (10, 11). Knocking out insulin receptors in the brain leads to increased fat mass in rodents, suggesting that its normal function involves constraining fat mass (12). Insulin is also co-secreted with amylin, which suppresses food intake and body weight (13). This is why insulin is viewed by some obesity researchers as an anti-obesity hormone."

[...]
Comment Comments (6) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jul 2, 2015 3:22 PM BST


iTwit: Fake Apps for Genuine Idiots
iTwit: Fake Apps for Genuine Idiots
by Fintan Coyle
Edition: Paperback
Price: £7.99

5.0 out of 5 stars A better stocking filler than a satsuma, 13 Oct. 2010
Hilarious. When I read this book the sheer delight that racked my body forced me to look deep inside my soul and upgrade my humour bone to something more robust. It is the visual equivalent of being blindfolded and shoving your hand into a tub of raw sausages whilst somebody screams INTESTINES through a baked bean tin.
Thankfully all those idiots busily giving themselves RSI flicking their fingers round their poncy screen and those of us who look on in bemusement or jealousy now can happily share a wry chortle at the banality of the app store.
The authors must have worked their photocopied butts off putting this together and they should big up their chests.


Page: 1