Originally Posted by Grocery Store
My body whether weight training or PE always seems to do well with 3-4 days of rest.
Knowing your body well is extraordinarily valuable to PE.
While I firmly believe that that all comparisons of PE to weight training are utterly specious, your basic intuition of your body’s response should be of great value to you.
This understanding of your body will clue you in, better than any sort of mathematical formulation, on how best to proceed.
Originally Posted by jelqfanatic
I agree that 24 hour period between jelqs may not be appropriate. Am am doing research and I think that the optimum recovery time would be related to the Fibonacci sequence. Any good ideas. How long does it take for you to regain EC after a heavy lifting session.
Your dick is not a muscle.
What PE is about has nothing - repeat NOTHING - to do with how our body recovers from weight lifting. The anabolic/catabolic mechanisms simply don’t apply.
Think of this like physical therapy, whereby we are encouraging growth by controlled use of stress. Orthodontic correction has more in common with PE than weight lifting does.
Honestly.
Originally Posted by Scipio81
I presume that this is the theory you are referring to, Xenoliths IPR-thread, post 115.
{…}
His two weeks are a slow build-p within reasonable limits, and after those two weeks you are supposed to take a further 4 weeks while using an ADS of your choice, ending the cycle with a 2 month total rest.
There is great merit to Xeno’s approach. Unfortunately we haven’t had enough folks apply his principles in a consistent, dedicated fashion to see if it is indeed the magic PE formula.
It should be noted that with any physical therapy, monitoring the response and adjusting it to the individual is key. Our physiology, while having many clearly definable similarities, are all individual. Which is why I began this post with my response to Grocery Store; carefully monitoring our response to the stresses we apply will tell us a lot about what works and what doesn’t.
There’s really no “set and forget” formula for PE at this point.
Even with orthodontics, which has been practiced successfully for years, they still have to keep track of each individual’s specific and unique response and adjust accordingly. I’m certain the same holds true here.
Originally Posted by Scipio81
I must say that progressing to a total of 3000 jelqs within 2 weeks is one of the more insane things I’ve read here (although not up there with kamasutra wasp stings for girth).
My thought exactly; the wasp stuff immediately sprang into my mind as well.
Originally Posted by Scipio81
The result will IMO at max be an interesting thread in the injury section.
Indeed.
I’m glad to see people are thinking, and challenging themselves to think creatively. I’ll give jelqfanatic that, at least. I’m equally glad to see that our members are also able to think critically when a proposal is put forward.
It’s a mistake to expect the human body to respond in a desired fashion with such rigid mathematical ideas as your basic model. Even if the exponential math were more realistic than this is, my guess is that it would still be problematic. Our physiological tolerances do not come out of a can.
Originally Posted by buttonbuck
3008 Jelks done at 3 seconds each would take 2.51 hours
Right? And that’s assuming one could do them like some sort of machine, without getting tired or, God forbid, stopping to pee or something.
I think the essential idea of IPR is on to something substantive, and overall “moderate force + time” seems to be the most universally successful way to think of PE - whatever the method or flavor-of-the-month outside-the-box idea.
First and foremost, you want to maintain the healthy use of the organ in all things, and then you want to see growth. Adaptation seems best accomplished over time incrementally, and the increments have to be accomplishable on a human scale.
I’m not quite sure why, exactly, you have latched on to the Fibonacci sequence as your magic bullet. I guess you have start somewhere. But think about ligaments and tunica. See what the current knowledge base for stretching living fibrous tissue is and see if that doesn’t change your thinking a wee bit.
The subject here isn’t, ultimately, math; it’s biology.
Oh, and 11” X 7”? Really? You planning on dating a giraffe?