Competitive cheerleading carries disordered-eating risk among the highest of any aesthetic sport, with collegiate and all-star prevalence estimates clustering near one in three and the flyer position consistently most affected. This paper argues that the prevailing nutritional approach, namely unstructured restriction under an unnamed dual demand for athletic performance and aesthetic display, is not a contestable point on a performance-aesthetics tradeoff frontier but a dominated one: strictly inferior, across every coherent objective a stakeholder might hold, to the periodised, individualised, position-specific model that endurance sport has spent two decades building. We establish a structural isomorphism between cheerleading and professional cycling, position-specific body-composition requirements layered over high event-variability schedules, sufficient to license direct transfer of the cycling model, and we locate the mechanism of harm in chronic low energy availability, the aetiological factor of Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S). The dominance claim is defended across the objective space the practice purports to serve and the one it should: athletic performance and physiological health; aesthetic outcome, where in-population data show chronic negative energy balance producing higher, not lower, body fat; cost, evacuated at the professional tier and near-zero at the amateur tier; and human thriving, the objective a healthy society should rank first, where the harm is the disordered eating itself, catastrophe-weighted and borne disproportionately by minors who never consented to the tradeoff. The single objective under which restriction is not dominated, the minimisation of scale mass as such, is metric-over-territory reasoning rather than a coherent goal. Crucially, cycling has not solved its own disordered-eating problem; it has built the team-level infrastructure and is visibly moving away from the leanness culture, which makes it a mid-trajectory precedent rather than a finished one. That distinction strengthens the argument: a dominated practice does not earn a reprieve by pointing at the dominating practice's remaining imperfections, and every year of non-adoption forgoes compounding gains in data, destigmatisation, and prevented harm.
Storm Bjørn Flindt Temte (Mon,) studied this question.