LOT Theory not right

Good garden hose analogy, Jm. You should post more often.

Shiv,
Wanking doesn’t count as PE. :homer:

I just PE and sometimes gains magically appear, I don’t worry about lot. I’m not saying it may not be true but I tried working around the theory and didn’t get any gains.

If it did, I’d have a lot of letters after my name.
Actually, I’m not sure if that’s a brag or a self put down [scurries off looking confused].

Still, regarding LOT, I just feel that penis enlargement is a Tunica thing. Body part relocation is a different puzzle. If PE is really only about the ligs then it means gains are finite, and I don’t like to believe that because it would mean that my gains are more or less up. A more solid reason for believing that Ligs aren’t the be all and end all of PE is because my LOT hasn’t significantly changed since I began, and I’m still making gains. It’s a little lower perhaps than when I began, but less than 1 hour difference on the clock visualisation. I don’t want my unit to exit next to my ass since it would get in the way when I take a dump. That said, if anyone told me to go fuck myself, I’d be able to answer “I could. But I won’t”.

With a LOT of 12 o’clock any changes in lig are going to show a pronounced difference in accessible length, which is a good thing, but I’m at a loss as to why proponents of LOT theory would want their dick to come out of their body at less than 90 degrees off vertical(?) I don’t know what that equates to in LOT, but I would haphazardly guess probably 8 or more based on my study group of 1 person.

I’ve never understood LOT and have never bothered to understand it, anything that requires pictures to explain and a full length article is prone to error and poor explanation… There’s street smarts and there’s book smarts. Experiment with various things to see if it works and hey if it does you are a lucky SOB.

I’m afraid I really don’t understand the controversy here. Are those opposed to LOT Theory saying it isn’t anatomically valid or just that it is not the strong predictor of gains that people once thought it was?

Why do people have a beef with LOT?

My beef with LOT theory is that LOT is inevitable if you pull on a bent rope. Saying LOT tells me the tightness or otherwise of my ligaments does not seem to me to be logical.

mbuc-
If your ligaments are not interupting the tug back of your kegel you will experience tug back all the way to 6:00.

LOT Theory is not exact, that has been said over and over again. It is simply a guideline one can possibly use to help focus their attention and energy when seeking length.

I have to agree with ModestoMan: I'm afraid I really don't understand the controversy here.

Somebody please answer MM’s question:
Are those opposed to LOT Theory saying it isn't anatomically valid or just that it is not the strong predictor of gains that people once thought it was?

To me it’s a flawed theory that works well enough to have people make decisions based on it, simply because a change of LOT can and does often happen with a change in measurement (at least in the early days), so people erroneously assume LOT is a solid predictor of what exercises would be best to focus on. You could also say that RPM equates to fuel usage, which would only be somewhat true.

My main beef with LOT is not just LOT, but LOT and its association with hanging (and all that it entails in terms of what it does to tissues).

<<mbuc-
If your ligaments are not interupting the tug back of your kegel you will experience tug back all the way to 6:00.>>CaptnHook

That seems totally wrong. Bend any pliable length into a ninety degree angle to the applied force, imagine a pinned joint at both ends of said length and a pinned joint at the angle.
An applied force (or displacement) at one end will result in a negligible displacement at the other end. The loss of tug back is inevitable when you bend the pliable member away from the axis of tension.
<<Somebody please answer MM’s question:
Are those opposed to LOT Theory saying it isn’t anatomically valid or just that it is not the strong predictor of gains that people once thought it was?>>CapnHook

My opinion is that “loss of tug back” is an inevitable consequence of pulling our dicks in a direction in which our pc/bc muscles cannot operate. That is why the “tug back” is lost. That’s my theory.

mbuc-
It appears you agree with westla, so I’ll ask him this question because he has a very thorough understanding of anatomy.

Westla,
Both of the above statements agree that the force of tugback cannot be transmitted around a corner/axis. Curiously, what is left out of the equation are the ligs.
When our ligaments are brought back into the equation - and they must be, seeing as how we all have them - both statements lend support to LOT Theory.

Remove the word “not” from your statement and you have LOT Theory in a nutshell.

I’m interested to know why you discount the role of ligaments in your rebuttal when it is precisely ligaments that Bib’s LOT Theory seeks to test?

At the very least, if I am reading your posts on this matter correctly, you only half disagree with LOT Theory. Nothing you have said takes into account those cases where loss of tugback happens at higher angles - as it does for quite a number of guys.

Here was my attempt some months ago to model LOT. I’m pretty sure this is still the way I think of it, except for some minor corrections. It may help to read the entire thread.

An attempt to model LOT

I’ve said before that there are many factors in creating and measuring “tugback.” If one’s BC muscle is weak, for whatever reason, then a weak tug is produced. That alone can account for a high LOT. How hard one pulls, whether he’s measuring visual or tactile LOT (even though instructed otherwise), or if he just can’t understand the “hours of the clock” image, can all affect how one determines LOT.

The ligaments create the focal point at which the flaccid penis hangs. This very likely is different in all of us, but the difference shouldn’t be great. We know that downward stretching or hanging will pull on the ligaments. Upward stretches or OTS hanging will not work on the ligaments. Those are based on the anatomy and should be fairly clear.

The penis below and behind the pubic bone is fixed in place by ligaments and muscles. Like the position of the suspensory and fundiform ligaments, this varies from man to man, but the difference isn’t all that great.

So here we have the rope, half of it under the table and in a fixed position. The other half is hanging, suspended not by a rubber band that gives easily, but by a fairly strong rubber cord. It is resistant to movement, but given time and enough effort, it can be stretched out a bit. Now someone under the table is giving gentle tugs on the fixed end of the rope. While it is fixed at a certain angle under the table, a force can still be transmitted along its axis. Someone standing beside the table is holding the rope straight up (12:00 o’clock), then a little lower (11:00 o’clock), then a little lower, etc. They are watching the part of the rope that disappears under the table to see if it moves with the tugs. As they pass the axis of the rope and move downward, with the strong cord of rubber as the fulcrum or point around which the measurements are made, they see less and less tugback.

What does that mean? As far as I can see, it means nothing in regard to how strong the cord is (ligs), how strong the tug is (the BC muscle), or what the angle is at which the rope is fixed beneath the table (position of the “inner penis”). Without knowing these thing, and even if we did know them, I don’t see how the position the rope (external penis) is in when tugback is lost can be predictive of anything. Why do we need a number? Everyone can benefit from downward stretching/hanging to work the ligs. Everyone can benefit from upward stretching/hanging to work the tunica. Why make a big deal of the number?

This is especially troubling for newbies. I see, frequently, a new guy bemoaning his “fate” of a low lot and how he’ll be a “hard gainer” or other nonsense. My advice would be, pull downward first. When you don’t seem to be gaining, pull up. When that doesn’t work any longer, pull down again.

I don’t think there’s a controversy. Someone said he didn’t think the LOT number meant anything. I agreed and pointed to my previous explanation. Like most things in PE, if you think something is important or works in a special way, then use it in your routine. If you don’t, then do your own thing.

Westla,

You make a good point with your explanation of the BC and the angle it contracts at, however if the ligs do not effect LOT, then why does downwards hanging lower our LOT? Why does the LOT change at all?

Very good response, westla. Thanks for taking the time.

Of the three things you noted - strength of ligs, strength of BC, and the position of the internal penis - I don’t recall that Bigger was ultimately concerned with any of them when he proposed the LOT Theory. This is why I agree with Modesto Man when he queried as to where or what the controversy is here.

Bigger was concerned with gauging the length and position of one’s ligaments and how knowledge of that could benefit a PE’ers approach to expediting length gains. That is all.

More than a few times I recall Bigger expressing exasperation - just as you have - at the mindset that said “I have very long ligaments (low LOT) I am doomed”. He, like you, made clear that he believed length gains could be had regardless of one’s LOT.

The matter of “rearranging” existing anatomy (lengthening ligaments to express more inner penis) has been established and confirmed by mainstream physicians/surgeons. I really don’t think there is debate there - not especially among we cretin’s of the PE underworld.

With that in mind, the idea that some might come to PE seeking length and not first and foremost attack their ligs seems a waste of time to me (that’s just a personal opinion) and if anything, the LOT Theory helps emphasise this. That is, if the damn thing doesn’t get all screwed up in translation.

That might be true. I imagine only the smallest percentage of guy’s would have no room in their ligs for “growth”.
Whether they can actually succeed in breaking down those ligs is another matter entirely - but I hear you.

Agreed. It would be nice not to find people so concerned over their LOT. I also believe Bigger would agree. Especially since only in the smallest percentage of cases would the matter of ligament stretching be a moot point.
The one other thing I find perplexing - and it is evidenced all over this thread - is how so very many people will say “I don’t understand LOT Theory, LOT Theory is bullshit”.
Understanding the theory and then concluding to ones own personal satisfaction that it is bullshit is a far cry from debunking the theory, and to date I have yet to see anything offered that adequately, for better or worse, puts Bib’s LOT Theory to rest.

Thanks again Westla. I think I better understand your thinking here. You can go back to ignoring me now. :)

From the last half dozen posts it seems that I was taking the wrong end of the stick to everyone else. I’m not saying that LOT doesn’t add up, only that it’s relevance to PE is far over weighted.

If someone isn’t gaining I don’t think it’s because of LOT, it’s because of the state of their dick. I don’t know how to say it in a more simple way without losing the message.