Paul Savage training log

Wayne_Cowdrey said:Your definition of 'natural' differs from mine, but good luck with it.

yiannis said:
That's like saying ' I'm not a wife beater! I've not hit my wife since last week so it doesn't count now'
Again good luck with it but I have to say I would class that as cheating as there are comps that allow you to compete Unnatural!

KevC86 said:Unless the rules have changed (very possible, ive not looked in years) bnsf requires you to be drug free for 3 years prior to competing.
True, they cant test that far back, but entering when youve knowingly broken those rules is definitely cheating.

AMH_Power said:I posted earlier but it doesn't seem to post.

I appreciate everyones mileage differs in terms of basal metabolic rate etc, but to sustain a mass of 174kg @ 37C (without external acting forces or insulation), you'd need more than 2800 calories per 24 hours.

that means LIFE and movement aside, the simple sustaining of that temperature requires more. Basically, to keep a dead 174kg human at 37C, it would take ~2920 calories (given total R-value of human and a cal warming 1g of water by 1c)...

So given that she is very much alive, and has many metabolic processes on top of maintaining temperature, the calorie requirement would be much higher...

anyways, the point i'm making is, no way does she eat under 2200 cals and sit at 174kg; it would be like driving the M4 &rt; M5 &rt; M6 and then realising your fuel has gone up. Whereas everybody elses has gone down in varying amounts... she is 'over unity'.

If you have weight management goals for her, I'd revise how you are counting her calories as its innacurate.

Also, 174kg isn't a healthy weight for any human, no matter how much of it is lean and other habits. Blood vessels don't care, they harden to account for the pressure exerted by the heart to keep up with the volume of blood in the body.

I know you didn't ask for advice, but her strength accolades might not mean much if shes on dialysis by the time she's 30 or had heart failure. Sorry for the doom and gloom, but to claim 'healthier than most' is outright wrong.

PaulSavage said:
Oh i didn't realise you were a doctor that's health checked Becca, when did you do this? Did you get a different blood pressure result? The other two doctors got it to exactly 120 over 80 and both said she was in really good health from further tests. You are discrediting these doctors? What did your results show?
You are thinking of human being = human being, and it just doesn't work that way. Everybody is different, did you know a lot of Geoff Capes family have lived till 80+ and they are/were all overweight like him? Becca would be a big person no matter what, she was 170kg when I met her, now lot less fat and lot more muscle at 175kg. Yes she is going to be cutting now, no she doesn't eat more calories than I said she does. Surprisingly I have figured out how to count a calorie16 years after getting my btec level 3 in nutrition..

PaulSavage said:
Again, I don't know but since they can't test that far back a rule like that wouldn't have any meaning. I don't even see it as a positive thing in terms of performance either, you need to factor in that your test is now lower, it works both ways. Cheating to me is getting an unfair advantage, not an advantage in the past but now when training/competing a disadvantage.

AMH_Power said:
I'm commenting out of concern. If my girlfriend was 174kg and a doctor told her she was healthy, I'd get another doctor.
This is going to go full circle one more, but instead of everybody saying "told you that you wouldn't do 300x10", sadly it will be about your girlfriends health.
As for "it doesn't work like that", it really does.
We have three scenarios:
1. She is exempt from the laws of thermodynamics
2. You can't calorie count
3. She's a sneak eater
I'm happy to take bets it isn't number 1. That puts you in a bad place mate, she's deceiving you or your BTEC is invalid.
Naturally number 2 and 3 are an impossibility in your head, so do you really think she is exempt the laws of thermodynamics!???
It wouldn't surprise me, you seem to believe you are exempt newtons laws of motion; 300x10.
Paul, she is morbidly obese. That is irrefutable and is not healthy. If you think she is healthy, then the same institute which educated your doctor is pushing out bogus stats.

KevC86 said:
Breaking the rules is cheating. Clear as day.
AAS use is a performance enhancer, the drop in natural test levels doesnt begin to balance the scales. That comes not only from the science, but from the fact ive used on and off over the years myself.
Would you honestly rather cheat and win a natty title, than do untested and lose?

PaulSavage said:
It was over two doctors. She doesn't sneak eat. You are coming with all this science but you don't have enough brain power to realise peoples genetics can very different, this is extremely obvious. Do you think Andy Bolton being able to deadlift 300kg no training is the same under his skin as me being able to do 60kg no training? Nope, not even close, may as well be a different species. You think Becca is the same as you? Nope. Everybody is different.