A (Completely Biased) Look at The Illogical Arguments of the Opposition
We’ve spent a lot of time this past week discussing every aspect of cheating on your diet. From the cheat day cheat sheet to videos of the most cheat-y cheat day I’ve had, we’ve established that I am firmly in favor of strategic overfeeding as part of a dietary strategy.
However, as a follow up to my last few blog posts, I thought I’d round out and conclude our discussion of cheat days with a look at the arguments offered by those who oppose the practice.
But first, let’s take put all the cards on the table: despite the fact that today I find myself in the position of defending cheat days, I certainly didn’t invent them.
In fact, cheating isn’t a new idea by any stretch; in 1999, Bill Phillips put forth the idea of the “free” day in the bestselling newbie bible Body-for-LIFE. More than a decade later, in his own bestseller The 4-Hour Body, author Tim Ferriss again extolled the virtues of the cheat day.
In between those two bestsellers (2002), T NATION published The Cheater’s Diet by Joel Marion, and since then Joel has followed with a number of highly successful programs that incorporate cheat days, such as Cheat Your Way Thin and the Xtreme Fat Loss Diet.
Now, having talked about and been a part of the development of those programs myself, I don’t have to tell you my views. And, considering that some of the best pros in the biz recommend those programs, it’s easy for the laymen to think that cheat days are accepted by the fitness community across the board.
Not so! You see, recently cheat days have come under fire. A number of respected coaches, including a few T NATION top guns, have spoken out against cheat days, despite their apparent popularity.
Of course, what’s popular isn’t always right, but to dismiss cheat days completely out of hand seems a bit rash.
This is especially true when some of the arguments against cheat days are founded in illogical reasoning and sensationalist statements—which is what’s been going on.
The main purpose of this article is to defend cheat days. But rather than present a stack of before and after pictures or testimonials supporting their efficacy, we’ll explore the most common argument against cheat days, and ascertain whether it even holds water.
Let’s first cover the theory behind cheat days and why they’ve been included in nutrition plans to begin with. (This was covered in my last blog, but it’s a nice refresher.)
The theoretical benefits of cheat days are:
Those are the physiological and hormonal benefits of employing cheat days. Of course, there’s the psychological benefit of being able to take a day off from your diet; eat whatever you like and be comfortable in the knowledge that you’ll still get lean. It’s hard to quantify how much that actually helps, but the majority of folks who opt to use cheating protocols cite this as one of the most significant benefits.
The issue that arises in any discussion of cheat days is that from a purely scientific or research based standpoint, the studies are conflicting and the conclusions that are most solid aren’t always applicable.
Essentially, the idea of using cheat days is to get leptin-depleted individuals to increase leptin levels, which will result in all the benefits listed above. That would be great, but the problem is that often those using cheat days simply aren’t leptin-depleted; at least, not insofar as their metabolic rate is slowing to a significant degree.
The Fact Is…
Cheat Days WORK. They just work. Even if there is evidence to suggest that cheat days or periodic overfeeding doesn’t enhance the rate of fat loss, at this point there’s too much anecdotal evidence to say that they slow fat loss.
I’ve worked with hundreds of clients, and while I’m not testing leptin levels, I know that cheat days DO NOT slow progress. And so, if they don’t hurt and probably help, what’s the problem?
There’s a growing trend to argue against cheat days based NOT on any physiological basis but rather a psychological one, comparing cheating to addiction.
I’m not kidding. I wish I was.
The illogical argument is as follows:
“Telling a dieter to have a cheat day is like telling an alcoholic that it’s okay to binge drink one day per week.”
Ummm…actually, NO. No the fuck it is not.
That argument ONLY holds water if a few things are assumed as fact:
Now, it’s true that for some, food can be addictive, and as such it can be used and/or abused for comfort and the like. I’ve no real issue with the first assumption, in theory.
The problems start to arise when we get to the second assumption, that people who eat cheat foods are (all) addicted to them.
That’s ludicrous. Fact is, basing an argument on such an assumption is to commit a logical fallacy known as “affirming the consequent.”
The assumptive argument would be, people who are addicted to junk food eat junk food; therefore anyone who eats junk food is addicted to it.
Clearly, this isn’t accurate.
To go back to the example of alcohol, the representation of this utter nonsense would be, alcoholics drink alcohol; therefore everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic.
You can see where this is going.
As the saying goes, not all rectangles are squares. Not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic, and enjoying pizza once per week doesn’t mean you’re addicted to pizza or have fantasies of copulating on the counter at Papa John’s.
The third assumption is that eating cheat foods perpetuates the addiction to cheat foods. This requires the second assumption to be true—that is, in order for it to even be considered, you’d have to accept that everyone who eats a little non-diet food is addicted to those foods.
Since it’s quite clear that the second assumption is false, and the third relies on the second to be relevant, the third can’t be true, either.
So, of the three assumptions that would NEED to be true in order for the original argument to work, two are logically invalid.
It’s not hard to see how this type of thinking could lead to some weak arguments.
To be fair, there are folks who do battle serious issues with food. For these individuals, cheat days aren’t a wise idea. However, as with any dietary protocol, there will always be certain populations that would be better served following a different approach. We can’t allow dietary practices that have value to many to be dismissed outright.
Another argument that’s been used (again, comparing food to alcohol) is, “Even for non-alcoholics, is it a good idea to encourage excessive recreational drinking one day per week?”
Um, yes—that day is called Saturday, and it’s the day when epic things occur and embarrassing pictures are taken. See my Vegas post for insight on such inanity.
Seriously, again this argument implies a strong assumption. It assumes that proponents of cheat days suggest excessive consumption of “bad” foods as the sole or even primary source of nutrition.
That simply isn’t true.
First, there’s no rule in any cheating protocol that states a person has to eat unhealthy foods on cheat days. As long as the dieter gets in adequate carbs, fat and calories, it doesn’t matter if it’s from oatmeal and egg whites or oatmeal cookies and Egg McMuffins.
On cheat days, clients can—and should—eat whatever they want. Most of them want to have some junk food, and that’s fine. No one has ever published a diet involving a cheating protocol that suggests or requires that ALL calories be obtained from a drive thru window.
The great thing about cheat days is that they’re about freedom and choice, about removing the dietary mental shackles and enjoying yourself. Food choices and amounts are intensely personal, and the client chooses what’s best for them.
To go back to the example of alcohol, I might tell a client it’s okay to have a few drinks; that of course will mean different things to different people.
The point is that no coach recommends only bad foods for an entire day, and so the abundance argument is also irrelevant.
The fitness and nutrition industry is in part dependent on debate of various topics—hotly debated ones get attention and that’s good for everyone. While it’s certainly acceptable to enjoy a debate and I don’t mind defending the ideas of what I endorse, I take issue with the way those ideas are attacked.
Whether someone agrees with and recommends cheat days for their clients or readers should be based on their assessments of either the science or the practicality. It seems, in this case, the arguments are based on emotion rather than logic, and that does everyone a disservice.
Hopefully this article has shed some light on the issue, and helps you to decide—logically—whether you’d like to include cheat days in your diet.