Again, returning to marinera’s insightful discussions, marinera and I agreed that there is some potential to smooth the volatility of gains through adding more exercises to a routine (basically - but we don’t have that many to deal with). I was previously actively researching pumping because it is the only other PE exercise which can promote girth gains from a unique fatiguing method. Girth gains from jelqing seem to be the same as clamping in their incentive for growth, they are just less extreme, far less quantifiable, and take more time, so adding jelqing is pretty much useless here for experienced clampers (except to induce blood flow after a set obviously). We are left with pumping.
After all the research I did, I believe that it can cause permanent gains on people independent of other PE exercises. Avocet & Peforeal are the vets in this field, I plan be PM’ing them shortly to ask some specific questions (and any useful info back here God willing). As a mathematically inclined person, one of my main ways of looking at things are in terms of quantifying change. I can see that clamping causes growth. I can see that pumping causes growth. If we create a regression, we could regress Y = growth on X = clamping time, sets, etc. or X = pumping time, sets, etc. and we would find some correlation. We can call that correlation the effect the independent variables, ie our exercises, have on our dependent variable, ie growth. However, as naturally occurs in the real world, there is often a correlation between two independent variables and the dependent variable, such that X1 and X2 used together create more of an increase in Y taken independently. There is also a chance that there is an effect between the independent variables, so that regressing X1 on X2 will give us some correlation (say the amount of clamping TUC you can do after pumping). Briefly:
1. Clamping may have an effect on growth.
2. Pumping may have an effect on growth.
3. The effect on growth may be larger if both clamping and pumping are used simultaneously than the effect of using them individually (due to interdependent effects explained next).
(a) Interdependent effect one: The effects of clamping on growth allow more growth from pumping, or vice versa. Y, growth, is actually changed because of X1 or X2, making it more susceptible to change from the other variable.
(b) Interdependent effect two: The effects of clamping on pumping allow more change in Y, or the effects of pumping on clamping, allow more change in Y. As in, pumping may make clamping on its own more productive (imagine BG’s idea - engorgement, it may be more engorged), or/and vice versa.
Realistically, there is also a fourth matter to consider, which was mentioned briefly at the opening of the post. Pumping may be used to constraint gains and minimize fatigues of any one kind, so that including pumping and minimizing sets of clamping might cause less clamping fatigue, and little pumping fatigue, yielding possibly the same growth pattern but with less risk of over-fatigue which would necessitate a break, therefore stalling gains (marinera agreed that the break’s and basically due to over-fatigue). This is an attempt to make gains as continuous in nature as possible, not make them discrete as is another idea.
Now, pumping has a lot of theory to it. Wadzilla and sparkyx have posted prolifically on this on several threads, and I commend both of them (excellent posts) for that. To me, the theory is not relevant as of yet, since it is not empirically verifiable and therefore can’t yield to better models for me to work with. But, if this does work out and we can develop some working theory and test it, their work would be heavily useful. For now though, I’m not interested in medical reasons for growth of pumping or in proving if it works or not empirically - I’ll try to leave that alone and just work empirically for now (through experience).