'Cheat Days' - Myth or Fact?

[ellebelle]

Hiya..!

I have been doing quite a bit of reading online and a lot of trainers talk about creating room for a 'cheat day'. One day when you can let your diet slip and indulge in your temptations, they say that this will shock your body's metabolism and increase your metabolism. could someone please tell me if this is true or not?

I try to keep my calorie intake at 1200, so how many more calories should I include in my diet on a 'cheat day'?

Thanks!

 

[KaraCooks]

Well, it doesn't really boil down to "myth or fact" that simply. A cheat day will not increase your metabolism. It just doesn't work that way. But there are lots of benefits to free days/refeeds/diet breaks.

Many fairly strict plans call for a "refeed" day or even a period of a week or more where you give your body a rest from calorie deficits. Lyle McDonald talks a lot about refeeds and diet breaks (a bit more long-term than just a free/cheat day, but the same concept sorta). He also talks about flexible dieting:

The Full Diet Break | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
Rigid vs. Flexible Dieting | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

For most people, a cheat/free day is beneficial because it gives them a break from the "diet" mentality. It gives them a day where they can indulge in otherwise "forbidden" foods. That can help someone to not feel deprived, which in turn helps them to stay "on plan" on their regular days.

Here's a post I wrote recently on "free days" (I refuse to use the word "cheat" - I think it sets the wrong tone): http://weight-loss.fitness.com/nutrition/33510-losing-weight-free-days.html

If you're going to do a free day/free meal whatever you want to call it, you cannot use it as an excuse to go all out and binge like a madwoman. Stick as close to your maintenance calories as possible. Obviously sometimes you save a free day for a special occasion like a party or a cookout or any type of event where you might drink, eat cake, eat rich fingerfoods, whatever .. and maybe on that day you will consume far more than your maintenance calories. The thign to remember is that if you choose to do this, you have to accept the consequences w/out freaking out and you have to remember that a REASONABLE number of free days isn't going to screw things up long term.

Hope that helps some.

 

[Cord the Seeker]

Agree with Kara.

I personally detest the word "cheat" in this sense. Don't think of it as cheating. Think of it as a 'free' meal, or a 'non-diet' meal or whatever, but not as a cheat or treat.

I won't say what effect they have on the metabolism, but I do believe they help you stay on track by giving you one meal a week or whatever that you don't feel confined by a rigid plan or anything. This helps you not binge on something you have been denying yourself.

But don't go nuts, try to stay close to your caloric targets, and do remember that you need to stay on programme the rest of the time.
I think that people who do this may well have better long-term success than those who are rigid all the time.

 

[Charlie Golf]

Hiya..!

I have been doing quite a bit of reading online and a lot of trainers talk about creating room for a 'cheat day'. One day when you can let your diet slip and indulge in your temptations, they say that this will shock your body's metabolism and increase your metabolism. could someone please tell me if this is true or not?

I try to keep my calorie intake at 1200, so how many more calories should I include in my diet on a 'cheat day'?

Thanks!

Simply using the common nomenclature, a "cheat" day is simply a way to not take it so seriously all the time. To give yourself a break. I don't know if you are a Biggest Loser fan but Jillian Michaels made a point of this last season basically insisting that one of her team members have a glass of wine with dinner and just RELAX. That is the basis for a cheat day. It is more mental than physiological.

That said, an entire day of "cheating" can blow an entire week of healthy eating. It is "safer" to have a "cheat" meal once per week. And realistically, you could even potentially blow a whole week in one meal.

Some people do cycle macronutrients percentages (Protein/Fat/Carbs) with the theory that it does stimulate the metabolism. I know a few heavy-lifters who do. Not really sure of the validity of it but they are all pretty lean and buff FWIW.

Curious, how did you come up with 1200 calories for your intake goal, and are you doing much exercise? How is your energy level?

 

[KaraCooks]

Curious, how did you come up with 1200 calories for your intake goal, and are you doing much exercise? How is your energy level?

Check out her other threads. For her height and current weight, 1200 calories is about where she should be.

 

[Charlie Golf]

Check out her other threads. For her height and current weight, 1200 calories is about where she should be.

I did. I just get really wary anytime someone gets down near recommended minimums (1200 for women, 1500 for men). Those are ACSM numbers and even they admit they are pretty low.

At 4'11", 25 years and her current weight, her BMR is about 1340 calories.

Even at her initial weight she posted in her thread yesterday, it would be around 1320 calories.

As you well know, BMR is the calories required simply to make your body operate while remaining sedentary (respiration basically). Any activity beyond that creates a need for additional fuel otherwise the body taps into its minimum "gas" and begins to scavenge muscle for fuel. Which, in turn, creates a corresponding decrease in metabolism and a corresponding weight (fat) gain or cessation of weight loss.

A general ACSM recommendation is to add approximately 300 calories above BMR for an "active" person for weight loss.

People sometimes get wrapped up in less calories consumed = more weight lost, and vice-versa. That is true to a point. When the body gets down near those minimums I just think it's treading on thin ice.

It seems likely to me that at 1200 calories (120-140 below her BMR) her body may already be headed into "starvation mode" and quite possibly her weight gain (although minimal IMO) is her fat reserves increasing. Although her measurements indicate a weight gain but an overall fat % loss.

I wouldn't be surprised if she increased her caloric intake to about 1600-1700 calories per day (properly balanced of course and in the vicinity of 120g of protein) and was able to increase the intensity of her workouts to create the weight-loss she is desiring. I have actually experienced this very physiological phenomenon myself.

Again, I would be curious to know what her energy level has been like both before and after her workouts.

I would also be curious to know if she is still "hungry" at 1200 calories. If so, that may answer her question on this thread and she could experiment with increasing on her "free" day to 1600-1700 calories then judging her energy level, workout intensity level and hunger from there.

 

[KaraCooks]

I wouldn't be surprised if she increased her caloric intake to about 1600-1700 calories per day (properly balanced of course and in the vicinity of 120g of protein)

1600 calories at her height and weight would NOT result in weight loss. *I* eat at 1700 calories a day and I have 5" and nearly 50 lbs on her.

Don't make it so complex. Boil it down to it's most basic:
Estimate 14 calories per 1 lb of bodyweight for a moderately active adult woman.
Her weight now: 121 lbs.
Maintenance calories (121 * 14): 1694.

That means her MAINTENANCE calories with moderate exercise are 1600-1700. If she eats that much a day, she's not gonna lose weight.

1694 * 80% (a 20% deficit) = 1355 calories
1694 * 70% (a 30% deficit) = 1185 calories

1200 calories is a perfectly reasonable and safe amount of calories for her to eat to lose.

A free day would be around the 1600-1700 calorie level.

Exercise alone will NOT cause her (or anyone) to lose weight. Diet must be managed. It's the main subject of one of her other posts.

(El - sorry to talk about you in the third person in your own thread ! )

 

[ellebelle]

Again, I would be curious to know what her energy level has been like both before and after her workouts.

I would also be curious to know if she is still "hungry" at 1200 calories. If so, that may answer her question on this thread and she could experiment with increasing on her "free" day to 1600-1700 calories then judging her energy level, workout intensity level and hunger from there.

Hiya Charlie..!

First off, apologies for the late reply. We were in the process of upgrading our internet connection and I was able to access the net today.

To answer your earlier questions about how I came up with 1200 cals for my intake goal, I did a bit of reading online and in the forum and it all added up to this number.

I would say that my energy levels have increased after cutting down to 1200 cals. Earlier I felt very sluggish and sleepy almost all the time. I had to drag myself off to exercise earlier (this could also be atributed to the fact that I am VERY LAZY), now the sluggishness has disappeared. Post exercise I don't feel that tired as oppossed to a couple of weeks back. I go for my jog in the evening, earlier I used to be too tired to even cook. In the past few days,once I cool down, I am good to go!

I don't feel very hungry at 1200 cals. The hunger pangs begin every 3-4 hours after a meal/snack.

As far as increasing the intensity of my exercises goes, this is my first ever serious attempt at exercising so I am buliding it up slowly but surely. I can't afford to go to a gym or buy expensive equipment right now, so all I am doing is jogging (C25K), mat exercises, free weights and dance cardio.

I hope I have told you everthing you wanted to know!

Thanks Charlie for taking the time to reply to the post and for the advice.

 

[ellebelle]

Kara...

Thanks a million for replying to the post. Apologies for the late reply, I was unable to access the net until today.

I think I had my free day last night. We were invited to a friend's house for dinner and they served a pasta bake with loads of cheese! Even though I took a really small portion, I think I have gone over my maintenance calories even! So that does it for this week.

I am yet to read the two links that you posted,but I read your post and as always it makes so mcuh sense! In saying that, I don't think I am ready to include a free day in my diet as of now. I want to see a couple of pounds come off before I settle for a free day. I already know what my free day is going include - RICE!

It was a little weird to read about myself in the third person, but its ok...!

N it helped 'Lots'!

 

[ellebelle]

Hello Cord...

Thanks for the reply.

I agree with you, calling it a 'cheat' day makes it seem like it is something that I shouldn't be doing.

It also makes perfect sense to have a day or a meal in which you can indulge those cravings in order to prevent binges.

Thanks again for the advice!

 

[alphaX]

Hiya..!

I have been doing quite a bit of reading online and a lot of trainers talk about creating room for a 'cheat day'. One day when you can let your diet slip and indulge in your temptations, they say that this will shock your body's metabolism and increase your metabolism. could someone please tell me if this is true or not?

I try to keep my calorie intake at 1200, so how many more calories should I include in my diet on a 'cheat day'?

Thanks!

This advice is worth what it cost you, nothing. You can choose to believe it or ridicule it; it makes absolutely no difference to me.

Here is my layman's understanding.

1200 cal per day is low enough to slow your metabolism to a near halt if the number of meals per day are between 1 and 3. Even though you may very well feel energetic and OK with the diet, the only way to feel this at 1200 cal per day is by eating between 5 and 6 times per day. I believe that if you have a high bodyfat percentage and you spread 1200 cal over 5-6 meals per day, the number of meals kicks your metabolism into action and your body will start to metabolize it's own extra fat for the energy which is missing from your daily caloric intake, in other words you won't lack energy. Keep the protein high during this time, though, so your body burns mostly fat and not too much muscle. There will be some unavoidable collateral loss of muscle, but you can attempt to minimize it via higher protein intake (and you can always build muscle again). Of course as your bodyfat percentage drops, you will need to raise your daily caloric intake because you will have less and less bodyfat available to metabolize into energy.

Give your metabolism a kick in the ass now and then? Drink a whole bottle of red wine (low tannins if you want to prevent/minimize hangover) and a few litres of water (to control the water loss) by yourself on Friday night, but stick to your diet otherwise every day of the week. A 750ml bottle of red wine, at 13.5% alcohol, is roughly 750 calories. You will feel hot all night long as you sleep. Weigh yourself the next day and the day after, and see if it works for you. If it doesn't work, then don't do it again. If it works, well then it works. I have been doing this for several weeks, and it seems to work for me (plus I like wine) - my biggest weight loss of the week comes 1-2 days after the bottle of wine, and the weight doesn't come back, either. I suspect that kicking the metabolism in the ass will no longer be very effective when the bodyfat has gotten down to around 17% or less - that's when the fat loss becomes hard work.

Just my thoughts.

 

[sarahg]

Cheat days work for some people but don't for some. For me it breaks my momentum. My "cheat days" are usually involuntary during celebrations or when I lost control.

After an involuntary cheat day, I usually find myself craving for indulgent foods even more and I usually submit. But that's me. I do find that after a series of high calorie days, the weight drops off really effortlessly once I eat right again. Of course, I'm only dropping off the pounds I gained anyway. Faster metabolism? Maybe.

 

[KaraCooks]

only way to feel this at 1200 cal per day is by eating between 5 and 6 times per day. I believe that if you have a high bodyfat percentage and you spread 1200 cal over 5-6 meals per day, the number of meals kicks your metabolism into action and your body will start to metabolize it's own extra fat for the energy

This is a complete 100% dieting myth which has been debunked several times over. You should read the sticky posts at the top of the forums to get more accurate information on the benefits of multiple meals or meals/snacks. There are good reasons to break out your food, but "raising your metabolism" is not one of them.

Of course as your bodyfat percentage drops, you will need to raise your daily caloric intake because you will have less and less bodyfat available to metabolize into energy.

That also makes no sense. As you lose weight, RAISE your calories? Um ... no. As you lose weight, your body needs fewer calories to function, so raising calories is counter productive.

Drink a whole bottle of red wine (low tannins if you want to prevent/minimize hangover) and a few litres of water (to control the water loss) by yourself on Friday night, but stick to your diet otherwise every day of the week. A 750ml bottle of red wine, at 13.5% alcohol, is roughly 750 calories. You will feel hot all night long as you sleep.

What an absolute crock of bs. Not to mention - drink a whole bottle of wine by yourself? What? Are you trying to give people alcohol problems. Good grief. I've read some weird advice on this site, but this is right up there in the top 5.

my biggest weight loss of the week comes 1-2 days after the bottle of wine, and the weight doesn't come back, either.

Yes, because alcohol causes you to retain water ... so 2 days after your alcoholic binge, your body releases the water it's held because you've screwed up your electrolytes by drinking a whole bottle of wine and your weight loss shows up on the scale.

Seriously BAD BAD BAD advice all the way around here. Certainly not based on any real, factual science or understanding of how your body works. Please don't follow any of this advice - and especially the drinking a whole bottle of wine at a time.

Good GRIEF.

 

[Jae0]

Aw man, Kara! I just bought this whooole case of wine. Guess i'll just have to drink it all today to get rid of it.

 

[sarahg]

What an absolute crock of bs. Not to mention - drink a whole bottle of wine by yourself? What? Are you trying to give people alcohol problems. Good grief. I've read some weird advice on this site, but this is right up there in the top 5.

That was friggin weird huh. But you know, people are gonna try it if they're desperate enough.

 

[KaraCooks]

Heheh!

My housemate just mentioned that it's probably easy to lose weight after drinking a whole bottle of wine in one evening ... that's 'cause before you go to sleep, you puke up everything you ate.

Probably helps with the hangover, too.

 

[Charlie Golf]

1600 calories at her height and weight would NOT result in weight loss. *I* eat at 1700 calories a day and I have 5" and nearly 50 lbs on her.

Don't make it so complex.

It's really not all that complex, albeit if one does the math themselves it would require a bit more time, but not much. Of course there are multiple on-line calculators that are available.





The Harris-Benedict equation to calculate BMR and the Mifflin equation to calculate RMR (Resting Metabolic Rate) are commonly used by both the medical and nutritional science communities.

Estimate 14 calories per 1 lb of bodyweight for a moderately active adult woman.
Her weight now: 121 lbs.
Maintenance calories (121 * 14): 1694.

That means her MAINTENANCE calories with moderate exercise are 1600-1700. If she eats that much a day, she's not gonna lose weight.

1694 * 80% (a 20% deficit) = 1355 calories
1694 * 70% (a 30% deficit) = 1185 calories

1200 calories is a perfectly reasonable and safe amount of calories for her to eat to lose.

I guess it all depends on the method used.

The equation links I provided above yield a basic need of 1341 calories should she desire to stay in bed and do nothing else, and a maintenance number of 1609 calories should get up but remain otherwise sedentary (no exercise but common, everyday activity) and desire to stay at her current weight.

If she exercised "moderately" (3-5X per week) it yields 2078 to maintain her current weight.

Using those and the commonly used example she could reduce her calories by 3500/7 = 500 per day from her active maintenance requirement and lose 1 lb/week.

2078 - 500 = 1578 calories.

Exercise alone will NOT cause her (or anyone) to lose weight.

I never said it would. HOWEVER...Yes, nutrition is key (and admittedly a very important one at that), but weight loss is caused by creating a calorie deficit. If a sedentary person is eating "maintenance" calories (let's assume 1350 cals) and then adds exercise on top of that, are they not creating a calorie deficit?

In such a case, weight loss is caused by the calories burned through exercise.

Likewise, that person could replace those calories burned with additional balanced calories and still maintain their present weight. This is because their "new" maintenance calories is equal to those necessary for basic body function + calories expended through exercise.

Look, there are many methodologies for calculating caloric need and many other methods to break those calories down by macronutrient. Many will give numbers within +100 calories of each other. Others will be very skewed either high or low.

But the ability to continue cutting calories and continue normal, healthy body function is not infinite. Your body will only accept minimums for so long before it begins to act in "defiance" of what may otherwise be normal. This is why such things as menstrual cycle disruption, hair loss, etc. occur in severely restricted diets. As do things like injury, inability to exercise and "bonking."

Almost all methodologies will set some type of floor (I would be very wary of any that didn't) and usually that is in the range of 1000-1200 calories. And that number usually assumes NO exercise.

I do understand that her "gain" occurred during a few months of poor nutrition by her own admission but I will offer again, that should she continue to gain weight while maintaining 1200 calories or cease to lose, she may want to consider increasing calories incrementally to the 1600 range while maintaining her exercise routines.

Like I stated before, I experienced this myself. I was on an 1800-calorie intake and lost weight initially and then "plateaued." Both a clinical nutritionist and personal trainer recommended I increase my intake to around 2100 calories. Within no time, my weight loss resumed, nice and steady.

Of course, all these equations or rules-of-thumb are based on averages, some with science behind them and others without, and it really all depends on the individual.

Ellski, maybe you can get ahold of a BodyBugg or a GoWear Fit and get a "personalized" measurement (using their algorithm of course). If you were to go to a nutritionist, they would most likely utilize the Harris Benedict/Mifflin equations I provided above to determine caloric need.

And I too apologize for talking "about" you but this is an academic debate, and a good one at that, so consider yourself famous!

 

[KaraCooks]

I do understand that her "gain" occurred during a few months of poor nutrition by her own admission but I will offer again, that should she continue to gain weight while maintaining 1200 calories or cease to lose, she may want to consider increasing calories incrementally to the 1600 range while maintaining her exercise routines.

I understand what you're saying and if she were not losing at 1200 calories, or 1300 calories, I'd agree with you. But in this case you're putting the cart before the horse and giving advice that could be confusing ... if not completely counterproductive.

When giving advice on boards like this you have to follow the zebra rule .. you know the one that says if you hear hoofbeats, look for a horse, not a zebra.

She herself said that she'd gained weight. She herself said she'd "eaten a lot more than usual" on the assumption that if she exercised, she could eat as much as she wanted.

The hoofbeats here are pretty obviously a horse.

Cut back on the calories, lose weight. At this point, with the information given, telling her to eat more calories is quite simply, bad advice.

 

[ellebelle]

A whole bottle of red wine to lose a few poundst? It might work for some people but I don't think I want it to for me...! Thanks for the advice though!

 

[alphaX]

That also makes no sense. As you lose weight, RAISE your calories? Um ... no. As you lose weight, your body needs fewer calories to function, so raising calories is counter productive.

If you are on a low grain diet with a significant calorie deficit, then your body can easily access stored fat for energy. In other words, you are not on a calorie deficit because your fat that is being burned is making up the difference.

If you are on a high grain diet with a significant calorie deficit, then your body can not easily access stored fat for energy. You will feel like you are starving, because you are.

Stick to a low grain diet with calorie deficit and your fat will burn. When there is not much fat left to burn, then you will need to eat more calories to make up the difference. Otherwise you will feel like you are starving, because you are.


While the biochemistry behind this might be a bit deep to understand, this phenomenon is already well understood.

Here is one reference, out of many available: