Dr. Cinque vs. Dr. Saladino: Round 1
- Created on Saturday, 23 October 2021 06:25
Dr. Paul Saladino is an advocate of the Carnivore diet, which entails eating only animal foods and avoiding plant foods completely. He eats a lot of meat, and he does eat eggs. He doesn’t seem too keen on dairy. He is an M.D. but my impression is that he doesn’t have a regular medical practice. He does consulting with people who want to go Carnivore. He also has a supplement company, and it’s all animal-based.
I am going to respond to a lecture he gave in defense of the Carnivore diet.
He started with a picture of himself with his shirt off, and he looks fit, rugged, and well-developed. He said his weight is 175 pounds, and he does look good. He also showed a picture of himself when he was a scrawny 140 pound vegan. I take his height to be about 5’11”. I could be wrong, but that’s my best guess.
How old is he? I don’t know. I’m going to guess and say he's in his 40s.
So, let’s start with what I make of his impressive physique. Well, it is impressive, and there’s nothing to criticize, but the question is; how much weight should we give it? Being well-developed and strong is certainly a health value, but it’s something you should keep in perspective. Professoinal athletes usually have strong, impressive builds. But, they don’t have any longevity advantage over those who don’t. And, it’s entirely possible to be muscular and look great and still have underlying maladies. So, the physique thing, even though it’s real, is somewhat of a veneer. And, I think one would be very foolish to think, “He looks good. I want to look like him. So, I’m going to eat what he eats.”
Are you aware that one can be very athletic and muscular and then have a heart attack? Or, be diagnosed with cancer? Again, I’m not saying the strong build isn’t impressive, but I don’t think you should read more into it than is warranted. It only counts for so much.
Furthermore, I am willing to concede that animal proteins are more anabolic than plant proteins. They stimulate muscle growth more than plant proteins do. It’s more difficult to succeed at muscle building on a plant diet than an animal diet. There, I said it. But, we need to keep our priorities straight. I’m a 70 year old man, and I’m not interested in growing my muscles at all. I think I look pretty good for a 70 year old man, and my goal is to hold on to the muscles I have. If over the next decade I can avoid losing muscle, I’ll be doing better than 95% of people because most people lose a lot of muscle in this decade. You’ve heard of osteoporosis, and it's practically universal. Well, the corallary that goes along with it is sarcopenia or muscle wasting.
But, getting back to the anabolic effect of animal proteins, what worries me is that that same anabolic effect that stimulates muscle growth, may also stimulate tumor growth. The ease by which muscle cells can grow on animal proteins, does the same hold true for cancer cells?
There are a lot of researchers who believe that is the case, and they write up their findings in various journals. T. Colin Campbell is one of them, who feels that animal protein consumption is directly related to cancer incidence.
So again, I get it that animal protein facilitates muscle growth, but what I’m mostly intersted in is maximum lifespan and avoiding degenerative diseases. So, for that reason, I’m not really that impressed with Dr. Saladino’s muscles.
The next thingg he addressed is the idea of Evolution creating a mandate for us to be carnivores because we supposedly did it for so long. Thousands of years of evolution, or is it millions?
Well, I don’t put any stock in evolutoinary argments, and that’s because I don’t believe in Evolution. Now, before you think that I’m crazy, consider that there is an organization of PhDs who question the validity of Darwinian Evolution. It’s called Dissent from Darwin.
Check it out:
To belong to that organization, you have to have a PhD in either biological science or Mathematics.
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence fr Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
That is their position statement. It would be a tangent for me to delve into it, although I assure you I could.
But, when people make such arguments what they’re really doing is claiming that since humans ate meat in large amounts for a very long time, that we have to keep it doing it. But, there are lots of things that people have done for a very long time. People have drunk alcohol for a very long time, going back to Antiquity. But, that hasn’t changed the fact that alcohol is a protoplasmic poison that harms any human who drinks it. The "alcohol is good for the heart" claim has been completely debunked. All the thousands of years of drinking alcohol hasn’t enabled us to handle it.
But, there is another big issue, and that is that humans have survived Ice Ages. You realize that we emerged in the tropics. All the indications are that we are tropical beings, for instance, our lack of body hair-relatively speaking. We have some hair on our bodies, yes, but we don’t have fur. So, we learned to cover ourselves in order to survive cold. But, the point is that, under primitive conditions, a human during an Ice Age would have no choice but to eat meat. So, was all that meat-eating an evolutionary necessity or was it climate-related? And of course, I realize that even in areas that are tropical, people do eat meat. But, what people eat today is more of a cultural thing.
But, the most important thing I can tell you is that there is no Ice Age today, and there is plenty of plant food available. So, even though it’s cold in Winnipeg and Edmonton, they have the same commerce and distribution as other major cities. So, there is plenty of plant foods in winter, even in places like that. To make the argument that we should eat like Cavemen today because they had to, even though we don’t, is ridiculous.
But, before we leave the subject of Nature and what is natural, I will remind you of what I wrote in a recent post, that human breast milk is the sweetest of all milks. No mammal puts as much sugar in its milk as do humans.
And it’s not just that. No mammal has as many sugar sensors on the tip of its tongue as does a human being. What do you think they’re there for? To commit suicide with? When you talk about what’s natural for a human being, sugar is it. It’s very natural for humans. Of course, I am talking about sugar as it occurs in Nature in whole fresh fruits and also vegetables that on the sweet side, such as peas, carrots, sweet potatoes, and winter squash.
The argument from Nature does not support the Carnivore diet at all. Do you know how many sugar sensors cats and dogs have on their tongues? Zero. They can’t taste sweetness, period. You might be able to getyour dog to eat something sweet, but he’s not tasting the sugar.
Human dentition supports plant eating. Look at the crushing molars that we have. Compare it to the teeth of a dog with big incisors, and teeth for cutting and searing but not for grinding and pulverizing. Our teeth say that we should eat plants.
The point is that his Evolutionary agument carries no weight. It’s completely bogus. His “look at my muscles” argument carries a little weight, though not much. His Evolutionary argument carries none at all.
OK, I am going to quit here for now, but I’ll continue this for as long as it takes. If you’re interested, please come back. And if you’re not, no hard feelings. Meanwhile, here is the link to his lecture.