Bib's LOT Theory Revisited

Where’s the Windex, I see a mirror that might need cleaned off a little here.

Thunder,
Not sure what you mean. Is the mirror to which you aspire to clean the one you imply I should be looking into? Does this have a specific reference to my comment about excessive dogmatism?

Well, what am I dogmatic about? That gains are the result of plastic deformation, which occurs as existing levels of elasticity are spent? That one’s inherent level of elasticity is a key determinant in PE gains? That this can be, at least loosely, hinted at by one’s flaccid to erect ratio?

Is there a better model? (and this coming from a guy who used to believe something akin to the “tissue-building” model).

No other model can adequately explain several points:

1) If gains are achieving by “building,” then how can such gains be maintained long after the stressors have been removed (in my case, about 3 years)? Of all that is understood about hypertrophy, and Dr. Selye’s research on stressors (including not only hypertrophy, but sun tanning, developing callouses, etc.), this is literally impossible.

2) Why are flaccid gains usually the first to be realized? (some may think it has to do with “increased blood flow,” but that’s a claim of the pay sites). I would state that this is because the flaccid size (F:E Ratio) is a great indicator of one’s penile elasticity. As elasticity is gradually spent, the penis does not return to the smallness of its former flaccid state – regardless of “blood-flow” (i.e., erectile levels).

3) How can “building” be achieved when the penis is not even actually doing any “work”? (such as the bicep contracting during a curl or the quadriceps contracting during a leg extension). The penis doesn’t “do” a damn thing. It does not act, it is acted upon.

I believe that deformation must occur first. Now, I don’t believe that we’re “creating hollows.” There’s something occurring at the molecular level after the tissues have been “overstretched” – not before.

Furthermore, it’s logically consistent to believe that the amount of deformation that is possible must be based on upon the tissue’s potential to stretch. If this is not determined by inherent levels of elasticity, then what?

Two guys can both have an exact 6” erection, but the one guy’s flaccid size could be more than double that of the other? How could this be possible? Blood flow? No, unless you believe that when the grower goes limp he doesn’t have one drop of blood left in his penis (in which case, it would become necrotic).

Yeah, you have the flavor of the month all figured out now eh? Stay tuned as I am sure another flavor will be available shortly. Just watch your aggressiveness so I don’t have to put my foot in your ass. You know, like in the past?

If you have an anelastic TA I don’t think you can achieve an erection.Reduced elasticity from PE is a transitory phenomenon IMHO.

However, many guys that had a PE surgery gained little or nothing EL from that - there are some reports on this thread; I can’t add links right now, sorry.

P.S.: Wad, could I have the bold to say that this thread looks more a duel between you and MM than a calm discussion on the LOT theory?

Regarding LOT theory, very interesting, let me throw in my n=1 two cents. When I have been hanging for extended periods of time, by which I mean hanging daily for months in a row, I did indeed have the expected LOT changes.

However, when I got involved in other aspects of my life and did not pursue PE, the LOT changes evaporated when I had begun anew. Despite this, the gains I made were permanent, and there were no substantial correlations I could make in this respect.

At the time I was hanging routinely, I knew nothing about LOT theory or BIB, but I did feel that LOT was important in gauging my progress.

Now, after having gone through several cycles of active PE versus inactivity, I feel it may correlate with PE activity but not necessarily absolute gains, perhaps more of a speedometer than a odometer?

For me, reduced elasticity has been as permanent as my gains…about 3 years off of PE, & counting.

And, many guys that have had the surgery experienced instant length gains. I posted links, which included post-op photos, but this was all dismissed - pretty much on the basis of commerical interests, advertisements, etc.

My above comments feed naturally into this, marinera. Since I’ve been here, I’ve learned the hard way that some subjects are just too taboo - even for a penis enlargement forum, lol. Take the never-ending debate about “average size.” The only paradigm I’ve seen, with any consistency, is that the surveys that publish the lowest yields are the ones generally believed (and the lower the better). And its amazing the lengths that some members will go to in order to find the most obscure surveys, papers, etc. that will claim the smallest averages. Okay, understood - I no longer participate in those discussions.

The issue with “Race & Penis Size” is even more inflammatory. Again, I no longer engage in such posts.

But ever since the “Bib divorce” from Thunder’s Place, his theories have been under relentless attack (and remember, the LOT is Bib’s baby, not mine). While DLD’s shtick may have garnered him the most populist appeal in the forum, nobody’s PE theory was so universally sought after & respected as Bib’s….that is, until he left.

Had anybody stated that they had coded a “computer simulator” or “mathematical model” which “disproved” the premise of lig gains, they would’ve been laughed/flamed out of the forum. How somebody could presume to have the requisite medical expertise to create such a model, code all of the variables, parameters, etc. - all by himself - and get this to be accepted is astounding (for example, decades of corroborative research into mathematical models of rogue waves - by oceanographic experts - have been proven consistently to be wrong - but not a chance with the “lot simulator”).

When I commented about the “tree roots syndrome” (which has also been mentioned by Bib, Dino, Piet - to name a few), that was also dismissed by the contention that the inner penis is narrower [yes, the deep inner penis]. Not surprisingly, I never received any valid explanation regarding the large thickening at the base - other than some “muscles” (which muscles, I don’t know).

Climbing levels of shaft hair….No.

Post-op photos of phalloplasty patients & documentation of instant length gains (some of more than 1.5”) … No.

And, as I pointed out, some have resorted in desperation to authoritatively quoting the dismissal of any possible “lig gains” by authorities who deny the very possibility of any natural PE gains.

So, that’s what it’s come to: sophistry. The litmus test: does it bash Bib? - or, does a certain Moderator agree with it?

I mean, I can see no other standard. If the reportage is personal, that’s merely “anecdotal” (at best). Despite the sparsity of “expert research,” we’ll dismiss urologists who claim instant lig gains after surgery, accept urologists who seem to be undermining the theory behind lig gains - then dismiss those same urologists when they extend their dismissal to cover PE in general.

I have no doubt that lig gains are real - nor did anybody here, for the longest time. Indeed, many PE’ers had been stuck until they followed some of Bib’s advice, and then they reported lig gains.

I’ve always stated that I thought lig gains could only make up the minority of one’s overall PE gains. And I’ve also expressed some doubt as to the value of the LOT Test (what it shows, why, and how consistently).

Whatever lig gains might yield is well worth it (after all, it’s not like we stand to make 4-5 inch gains overall, do we?) - so every little bit helps. To mislead a newbie into dismissing lig gains is no “service” to him.

Theory matters - it’s not just to be argumentative. Because how can one formulate any PE approach without an underlying theory. And if you dismiss somebody’s (beneficial) theory merely out of malice - or to become the next “PE Guru” yourself - then you cheat members here out of possible gains.

I had been working for quite some time on practical applications, but I know what would happen if I posted the entire body: I would be attacked, and then attacked again for defending my views.

Just not worth it….sorry to waste anybody’s time.

Wad, I think you could not negate that many supposed testimonials of 1"-2" gains in EL after penile surgery are suspectous; let’s briefly see what "independent sources" have to say on this topic, ok?

Penile lengthening: the most common technique to lengthen the penis is to cut its suspensory ligament then perform plastic surgery to provide additional skin to cover its new length. The results are difficult to judge, as surgeons have not collected data in a systematic manner. The results of the only reliable study indicate that dividing the suspensory ligament alone results in an average increase of 0.5cm (around 0.25in) in length, while skin advancement increases the length gain to 1.6cm (around 0.75in). These figures do not compare well with the claims made by some clinics. Some people, undoubtedly, do better than average, while others do worse.

The suspensory ligament does have a role, in that it helps keep the penis pointing upwards during erection. After it has been divided, that support is no longer present. After surgery, some men find that they have gained a small increase in flaccid length, but the erect penis is about the same size and now points towards the floor!

Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 2, March 19, 1999
https://www.ejhs.org
PENILE AUGMENTATION SURGERY
CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION
………

Penis size

1. There will be no significant difference in the pre- and post surgical measurements of the patient's penile flaccid length. This hypothesis was not supported. Before their penile enlargements, the mean flaccid length of the respondents in this study was 2.6 inches. The average flaccid length of the respondents after penile enlargement surgery was 3.6 inches. This significant gain in length raised the average of the respondents from far below one standard deviation to just below the mean.

2. There will be no significant difference in the pre- and post surgical measurements of the patient's penile erect length. This hypothesis was supported. Before their penile enlargements, the mean erect length of the respondents in this study was 5.4 inches. The average erect length of the respondents after penile enlargement surgery was 5.7 inches. This is not statistically significant.

http://www.ejhs … ein/penis60.htm

Penis enlargement (length) surgery
Approximately one-third to one-half of the penis is inside the body, and is internally attached to the undersurface of the pubic bone. Penis lengthening involves the release of the fundiform ligament and the suspensory ligament that attaches the two erectile bodies to the pubic bone (ligamentolysis). The suspensory ligament makes the penis arch under the pubic bone. Release of this ligament allows the penis to protrude on a straighter path, further outward to give more functional length. With the penis on stretch, the ligament is divided close to the pubic bone until all midline attachments have been freed. Once these ligaments have been cut, part of the penile shaft (usually held within the body) drops forward and extends out, enlarging the penis by 20-30 mm (0.78-1.18 in.).

Penis enlargement - Wikipedia

The fact that while Bib was here the LOT theory was believed has nothing to do with the fact that such theory is right or wrong; using this argument seems more a kind of moral denigration : you are too smart for this shit, Wad.

It isn’t your message that causes the problem wad, it’s your delivery. I am pretty sure I have said this to you in the past a couple of times.

I liked your last post above. Make that the edge and stay a step or two away from it and you will do fine. Can you handle that?