GreenSmoothieGirl Logo
Lose 10 Pounds in 10 Minutes. Add 10 Years to your life.
Our beautiful template for infinite variety of greens and superfoods in your smoothies—print this and eliminate the need for recipes! Get it now for free!

Dr. Mercola attacks the China Study: clash of the titans


Robyn Openshaw - Sep 09, 2010 - This Post May Contain Affiliate Links


When Joe Mercola contradicts the basics of nutrition taught on GreenSmoothieGirl.com and in my books, we get hundreds of emails.

Mercola’s newsletter yesterday supposedly exposes the “DARK SIDE” of the China Study. I’m not going to link to it and therefore give it a higher page rank. It doesn’t deserve it.

Before undertaking to explain what’s radically wrong with this article, let me say this: I agree with Mercola on some macro issues:

  1. That prevention and natural remedies are the best first-line treatments, rather than drug/surgery medical interventions.
  2. That far too much of our data comes from research that drug companies and agribusiness paid for.
  3. That sugar and processed foods are killing us. (Mercola implies, with the “false dilemma” logical fallacy, in yesterday’s newsletter that either animal proteins are killing us, or processed foods are, as if they are mutually exclusive.)

But we must use critical thinking skills to expose fatal flaws in his comments about Dr. T. Colin Campbell and the China Study.

(When you put yourself in the public domain, you invite dissent. Juxtaposition of ideas creates a climate for the truth to emerge.)

As I strongly disagree with Mercola here, I will invariably get some angry email. Most readers will appreciate that my only motive is to learn and then explain the truth (or as close as I can get to it) in this world of nutrition that has so many competing voices.

My own 12 Steps to Whole Foods is a compendium of the best nutrition practices. It advocates for eating much more plant food (especially raw food) than the average American gets and is a practical HOW-TO guide, more than a philosophical debate or meta-review of research. It purposefully doesn’t advocate for vegetarianism or veganism, although I am supportive of others who choose to wear those labels. My own family, except for two vegetarian daughters, eats a bit of homemade kefir, and occasional animal products when we are away from home.

Mercola attempts to discredit the joint effort of Oxford and Cornell Universities by calling theirs an “observational” study, which he infers is somehow inferior to having once had a medical practice.

The Oxford/Cornell China study is a very sound, huge, comprehensive study spanning over 25 years. My own advanced degree, background in research, and understanding of research principles, lead me to say this:

I am thankful, finally, for a vast piece of research in epidemiology that was not funded or influenced by the drug companies or agribusiness (which primarily hawks refined corn/wheat/soy products and processed and refined and GMO foods). I see no conflicts of interest in the Oxford/Cornell research. I see one of the purest voices in nutrition in Campbell and his team.

I interviewed him by phone as I wrote this, and he said, “I feel personally responsible to Americans to tell them what we did with their money,” because taxpayers funded the China study, not profit-motivated industries.

The research was the next natural step from methodical and rigorous animal studies. It’s a remarkable piece of research examining 6,500 adults in 130 villages of rural China where some populations eat lots of animal protein, and others eat very little. The book The China Study represents the totality of Campbell’s experiences. Those include his many years of work in the Philippines studying malnourished children, to his experimental lab research funded by the National Institutes of Health, to the human studies project in China.

Mercola refers to Campbell “forcing” everyone into vegetarianism. This makes no sense on two levels beyond the unilateral emotionalism of the word.

First, the two diets Campbell studied were 20% animal protein (which correlates to the Standard American Diet) and 5% animal protein. Neither groups studied were vegetarian. The 5% group correlates to a low-animal-protein diet, similar to Daniel’s Biblical diet, as well as the scriptural “Word of Wisdom” counsel to eat meat “sparingly, only in times of winter/famine/cold.”

Second, Campbell takes the tone of scientist. He reports and interprets the data. He doesn’t “force” or even recommend any specific diet. He allows the reader to infer from the data whatever diet they choose to follow. He isn’t an internet maven selling a philosophy; he’s a researcher who found the opposite of what he expected to. He grew up on a dairy cattle farm and thought, well into adulthood, that a high-protein diet was ideal. Like John Robbins, son of the Baskin Robbins founder, only data convinced him otherwise. I personally am thankful for honest and pure truth seekers, willing to turn another way, when data challenges popular culture and custom.

Mercola attempts to downgrade the massive China project as “an observational study,” which he says does not “prove causation.” This is puzzling to me based on a three logic flaws.

First, Campbell is a scientist and would never say his study “proves causation.” No scientist would. I’m not a scientist but know enough about it to be aware you never achieve or claim “proof of causation.” Mercola gives a two-sentence primer on how the scientific process works: initial study, hypothesis, controlled trial. Which is precisely what Campbell and the research team did:

For the rest of this report, click here.

Posted in: 12 Steps To Whole Food, Lifestyle, Whole Food

18 thoughts on “Dr. Mercola attacks the China Study: clash of the titans”

Leave a Comment
  1. I think basically what Dr.Mercola is trying to say through the article is that not everyone can thrive on a wholly plant based diet. Not that some people can’t. I took the test several times and even changed some of my answers to some questions and still came out a veggie type. Does that mean I’m going to eat protein with each meal? NO… not for any reason other than I just don’t feel it necessary for my personal well being. Isn’t that what Dr.Mercola was saying? Listen to your body.

    I’m all for sustainable eating and I believe that everyone should have more raw living foods in their diet. But to say that everyone can thrive on XYZ diet would be highly illogical.

    As with all health and wellness news, you have to test it and find out the truth for yourself.

  2. Anonymous says:

    While the China Study has given us some very useful information, I also believe there are flaws.

    Rather than pick out several examples of why the study is flawed, I will refer you to Denise Minger who has done an excellent critique of the study, digging down deep. It is rather long, but very enlightening for those interested in the actual ‘nuts and bolts’ of the data on which the conclusions were based. I urge everyone to read this for a more clear understanding of the study.

    http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

    That said, while I do know many people feel far better on a raw or vegetarian diet, I also know that many who were on one, developed heath/energy issues a few years later, despite doing all the ‘right’ things, and only regained their health by incorporating good fats and meats into their diet.

    We have all seen studies that were lauded as fact, done and endorsed by many ‘experts’ with impressive degrees. And then we discover later that the conclusions were eventually proven to be false once the data is dissected, or upon new evidence. So I do not necessarily believe a study to be irrefutable fact simply because a group of experts say it to be so.

    We are all biochemically different. Anyone saying there is only one right way to eat for everyone is giving dangerous advice, IMO. And that includes the China study.

    1. Robyn Openshaw says:

      Cindy, watch for Denise Minger’s paper to be taken apart by a group of epidemiologists, and note that the China Study doesn’t advocate for any one right way to eat. It just shows the dangers of heavy consumption of animal proteins, and the disease risk reduction for eating plant foods (which are literally hundreds of types of foods).

  3. Anonymous says:

    I really appreciate your gumption in your dealings with the Mercola brand. I think there is far too much emphasis on subscribing to one, highly regimented way of eating/living (and usually therein labeling these choices). Not even touching the lack of science and information to back up his claims and the lack of attention to detoxification, I think the real disservice is not allowing people to draw their own conclusions. When Mercola puts out these highly opinionated and often fear-driven pieces, it does not give his subscribers the latitude to make their own opinions about the topic. Isn’t science supposed to be objective? And if you want to be opinionated (which is totally his right to do so) then don’t parade it as science unless you have the science and info to back up your claims.

    Finally, I think it’s worth noting that everyone is different. No one diet or nutritional plan will work for everyone, but I think incorporating more whole, natural foods will benefit everyone. So maybe it didn’t “work” for him, but that doesn’t make the findings false.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Bravo, Robyn!!!

  5. Anonymous says:

    I just couldn’t read this and then NOT leave a comment. Awesome. Thanks Robyn.

  6. Anonymous says:

    You go girl !

    I also see too much of the natural , healthy ,raw food industry turning into big business and starting to spread the wrong information . Mercola get a big reputation from those who promote him not because he is the best . And they are going after big money not helping people . They have lost track and taken over by greed!

    I admire you standing up for what is right ! And even if some think you are wrong , you are still much more right than Mercola ! Common sense people !

  7. I agree with you that the China Study has outstanding validity and I am sure has already changed many lives of those who have read it. Maybe Joe should apply some of the principles to his own life before attacking the study.

  8. Anonymous says:

    I have read a lot of Dr. Mercola’s stuff, and I took his nutrition typing test and found the concept confusing, as you did, and the choices listed inadequate. I also purchased and read his book on bird flu. It was poorly-written, full of repetition, contradictions and hyperbole. It was obviously thrown together to hit the market at the time it would sell the most copies, instead of being the result of careful research. I got off his mailing list after reading the results of my nutrition type test because I was tired of getting alarming emails all the time trying to sell me cookbooks and supplements that I don’t need. To me, Dr. Mercola is a charter member of Crackpots R Us.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Interesting takes here– although quite lengthy to say: The China Study doesn’t advocate a total vegetarian lifestyle.

    I don’t see this as a clash of the titans but more of a clash of ignorance to fully read a book. Critics of TCS can never provide me one reference: the page number where Dr. Campbell says to make your diet “zero animal protein.”

    I read the article you chose not to link to. I agree with you, most critics of TCS tend to run with the idea that zero animal protein is 100% best. Hving read TCS 3 times I’ve never come away thinking meat = bad. It did change my desire to incorporate more veggies and (much) LESS meat into my diet.

    It is unfortunate ad hominem attacks on Dr. Mercola crept into your blog. These take away from an excellent job at pointing the fallacies of the opinion article.

    I tend to side with Dr. Mercola’s advice: do what works for you. Listen to your body. That is sound advice and hard to refute–much like the advice from Hippocrates: let food be your medicine and medicine be your food.

    Dr. Mercola iis off on one (although huge) point in his critique of TCS: the research does not advocate a complete withdrawal of animal protein. Beyond that, there is good advice to be found on his site.

    1. Robyn Openshaw says:

      JP, I consider it a defense against the ad hominem suggestion of Mercola’s that because someone is a PhD researcher rather than a (current or former) practitioner, the research is somehow less valid.

  10. Anonymous says:

    I used to follow Dr. Mercola, and read all his newsletters, until he passed around a video by some reactionary wacko that urged everyone NOT to fill out their Census forms. The video was so irresponsible, and so filled with misinformation (like doing a Census every 10 years isn’t in the Constitution – it is) that I was convinced he hadn’t really looked at it. After that I unsubscribed from all his emailings and told them why.

    I know Mercola has a big following, but this year his work has really gone down hill into conspiracy theories.

    Frankly, his criticism of the China Study seems to be along that vein. The only thing you can really say about these kinds of surveys is that often people are inaccurate in reporting what they eat every day – especially if there is social pressure around a heightened awareness of nutrition, which I doubt is present in China.

    I am especially saddened to read that he thinks that any researcher worth his or her salt would force a diet on this large a group of people. To think that the Chinese authorities would even allow this is just absurd.

    Sad. I really think Dr. Mercola is doing downhill.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Robyn!

    THANKS so much for writing this! I read what Mercola said and I was just so blown away that he would say stuff like that about such a thorough study. . . I am so glad you came through with this wonderfully thought out and complete article! You addressed all of Mercola’s points and blew him out of the water! Needless to say, I won’t be looking to Mercola for any more information, but will definitely be looking to Green Smoothie Girl for more insight into health and well-being!

    You’re Awesome!

    Lauri

  12. Mercola used to be my number one website for information, but it seemed the more commercial he became, the more I started questioning some of his articles. So, I unsubscribed. My number one website now is http://www.doctoryourself.com No commercials, just common sense info backed by science. I also love following your blog Robyn. I had to chuckle at some of your answers to his arguments. Well done. Can’t wait for the Dr Campbell interview from you. I loved that book. And I in no way felt I should be a vegetarian after reading. I felt I should decrease the amount of animal foods in my diet.

  13. Anonymous says:

    It’s clear many of you did not read his whole article and drew your own conclusions. He said that eating should be individual for every person. He states that he did try the principles of the China Diet and his tryglicerides went through the roof. He also said a vegetarian diet can be the best for some but not for everyone. I thought his article was good and in no way an attack as some of your are taking it, maybe you should actually read it. I love green smoothies and wouldn’t stop drinking them or living the way I live, but he had some valid points. It’s not like he was saying you guys are wrong and everyone should got get a big steak, he was simply saying he has treated thousands of people and one size does not fit all.

    1. Robyn Openshaw says:

      Julie, apparently three sizes (Nutritional Typing) fits all.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Thanks Robyn for the additional details. I read Mercola’s article about the China study yesterday and was confused because he didn’t provide any specific details from the China study. I become a bit more skeptical when someone arguing against something provides little details. It usually means they don’t have a lot of substance behind their objection. I’m glad too that you shared your feelings about Mercola’s nutritional typing. I took the test as well and was confused by the questions because they were based on feelings and not fact and there were many questions where I couldn’t choose from his answers because none were exactly what I was doing. While I agree with Mercola’s stance that you should listen to your body, I will probably stop getting his newsletters because I think he’s gone too far.

    Thanks!

  15. Dear Robyn,

    I’m sure you’re not going to be able to read the avalanche of emails generated by your response to Dr. Mercola’s “slam”, but I just want you to know I’ve got your back on this one girl…

    I’m LDS in Wisconsin and just found Dr. Mercola’s site last week, took his “test” and thought it was “junk” science as well. He does have “some” good info on his site but I don’t agree with a lot of it, whereas I do agree 100% for instance with the late Dr. J. R. Christopher.

    I saw where Dr, Mercola commented on the Diamond’s, “Fit for Life” not my favorite top 3 doctor, Dr. Joel’s, “Eat to Live” book or I would have personally railed on him. Here’s the paragraph on “Fit for Life” by Dr. Mercola. I’m sure you’ve caught it by now.

    “Quote” After finishing my family practice residency in 1985 I read the book Fit for Life. The book made some very compelling arguments encouraging the consumption of raw fruits and vegetables. So I started its recommendations and had fruit for breakfast. After a few weeks I tested my blood work and was shocked to find my fasting triglycerides were nearly 3,000. That is not a typo. Nearly three thousand…This was surprising because they had never been over 100 in the past. “Closed Quote”

    Thank you for sharing your wonder recipes with me. I just found you 2 weeks ago and love your info.

    Thanks, Carl

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Skip to content