Sometimes groups like the IIFYM.com facebook page and any other type of public forum often lend themselves to debate.
This is not at all a bad thing. In fact, it is by sharing and criticizing our beliefs that (ideally) we progress and be more rigorous in what we believe and offer as advice. Problems arise when these debates go badly. Namely, when debates turn ugly and emotions and the desire to protect sacredly-held beliefs takes precedence over rational minds.
Luckily, logic stays true whether we like it or not. Furthermore, even if the zealot you’re arguing with categorically refuses to concede he’s wrong, other people reading the thread will hopefully see who’s being more reasonable and draw the implications of whatever argument to their logical conclusion.
This is why I believe it’s important that as evidence-based and rational members of the fitness community, we are sufficiently armed with the tools logic offers us to be able to refute nonsensical conjecture.
Below, I aim to outline (with examples) some of the most common logical fallacies and invalid moves that are committed in debates about fitness in general.
1. Argumentum ad hominem – denying your opponent’s argument by attacking personal features of his.
A: You are misinformed in thinking chin ups will give you superb calf stimulation.
B: Fuck off you scrawny bastard, you’re skinny and don’t know shit about training.
Unless any refutation is offered of your premises or the conclusion that follows, it doesn’t matter how skinny you are or the amount of pimples you have on
your face. Your argument stands.
2. Argumentum ab auctoritate – when a statement is presented as true only because the person supporting it is deemed authoritative.
A: Doing 30 sets for your legs once a week, in light of recent research for natural bodybuilders, isn’t the most efficient means to achieving good leg
development.
B: That doesn’t matter, [IFBB PRO] said so, so it must be right.
They still carry a burden of proof to show why the IFBB PRO is right. Appealing to authority without offering the argument itself is a very weak response,
one of the weakest in philosophy.
3. Strawman – misrepresenting someone’s argument or position to make it easier to attack.
B: Of course IIFYM will fail, what do you expect when all you care about is calories and mostly eat Pop Tarts anyway?
As the name suggests, you have no business defending a falsely posited position. Make sure you define and explain your terms before using acronyms and
technical terms.
4. False cause or post hoc fallacy – asserting that because B followed A, A caused B.
B: I started seeing a great increase in my lifts after mixing glutamine into my BCAA-Creatine-Colostrum shake.
A: Are you sure that’s not because of the 200g carbs you added to your diet and additional 3 hours sleep?
This is the classic correlation =/= causation that the fitness industry loves. Make sure to use this appropriately.
5. Personal incredulity – asserting that something is wrong just because you find it hard to understand.
B: Back in my day we just trained every muscle group once a week and did mostly strip sets and super sets. All of this DUP stuff is too complicated and
can’t be better than the good old way.
A: Just because you can’t understand DUP doesn’t mean it’s definitonally inferior.
How difficult someone finds a concept has no bearing on its truth claim. Just because bros find the concept of calories in VS calories out as difficult to
understand, doesn’t mean the concept itself is wrong.
6. Burden of proof/Hitchens’ Razor – the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.
B: I think IIFYM is a load of shit, prove me wrong!
A: You can’t reverse the burden of proof like that. Onus is on you to back up why it’s shit.
If you’re making a positive claim the onus is on you to defend it. You can’t say any random crap and then ask your opponent to disprove it. That which is
presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
7. Bandwagon fallacy – asserting a belief is true because it is widely held.
B: Countless of Pro bodybuilders have a day dedicated to arms, lots of them do it; it can’t be wrong.
A: Number of participants doesn’t necessitate the validity or truth of a claim.
Saying something is true because something is popular is a poor argument. Popularity =/= truth. Ask to see some premises and some evidence, not a leap of
faith.
8. False dilemma – presenting only two options and excluding a middle ground.
B: To get stage-lean you must adhere to a 100% food-restricted and generally restrictive diet, or not bother competing at all.
A: Or alternatively get stage-lean whilst incorporating limited treats within reason.
The example used isn’t superb, but in general make sure you’re not being tricked whenever you’re presented with only 2 options. Try to see what’s being
hidden.
9. Is-ought fallacy: asserting that just because something is the case that it ought to be so. Jumping from how things are to how things should be.
B: Look around you, most of the top bodybuilders eat clean and incorporate cheats when needed.
The claimant still needs to justify why the status quo is desirable; it’s not definitionally so.
10. Appeal to nature – asserting that X is good because X comes from nature without any justification.
B: Paleo Diet is definitionally the best diet because it doesn’t go beyond what we find in the world around us.
Even if it’s in nature the onus is still on the claimant to show why that specific thing is good.
11. Fallacy of composition (linked with anecdotal arguments) – coming to a conclusion about the whole when only truth about the part is known.
B: Doing 12 strip sets for legs every day worked for me and my 1 client, so it’s gotta be a good method and work for everyone.
It’s clumsy to jump from the part and generalise to the whole like that. Hence why the methodology needs to be proved consistently in a range of people as
opposed to assuming that worked for you = works universally.
That’s all. There are many more I wanted to add but the list would’ve been too long. These are some of my favorites and most common ones.
Enjoy.
About the author
Suad Skillz