Exploring the Science of the EtP Model

8 Points to Explore

* - I want to give serious treatment to each of the following points using, wherever possible, scientific references. Hopefully, this thread can be spared the chaotic descent of a recent thread on a related subject.

(1) Why does one’s penile elasticity (expressed by the F:E ratio) decrease as enlargement occurs?

(2) Why would one’s penile elasticity increase as shrinkage occurs?

(3) What is the scientific role of elasticity in penile enlargement?

(4) Why is the glans so resistant to enlargement?

(5) Why do PE gains in general, for the vast majority of practitioners, seem rather paltry?

(6) Why are girth increases so difficult for many guys; indeed, for a number of guys, they’re seemingly impossible – yet others, like myself, gained girth quickly?

(7) If the GvM model (Growth via Mitosis) is true, why can a PE’er cease training for (in my case) 3+ years with nearly zero losses – or, as in the case of lil12big1 – go 6 years off and lose only 25% of length gains?

(8) If the plastic deformation model (EtP Theory) is true, why should shrinkage ever occur?

Having read a number of threads/posts by hobby & Shiver (& others), I started to reconsider the "GvM" model of PE. An earlier thread I started on this subject: Revisiting Plastic Deformation (July 6, 2004)

I also began to wonder if gains could be predicted, in the "deformation" model: P.I.V. - gains forecaster? (Jan. 29, 2005)

The following are some recent, more developed threads on the subject….

* wad’s Systemized EtP Theory (PDF) (Sept. 14, 2008)

* Occam’s Razor & PE (Sept. 1, 2008)

* wad’s Unified Theory - LOL! (Mar. 1, 2008)

Wad, your killing me here. Why are you reconsidering the GvM theory? I think the EtP theory is a dam fine working theory, I read your PDF, you make a lot of great points, its definitely well thought out. I don’t have time to respond to you tonight, or read any of the links you’ve provided, but perhaps you can give us a brief synopsis as to why you’ve had a sudden change of heart? I think the argument you’ve made for EtP theory is pretty hard to go against, the evidence points toward it.

HardbodyPEer, bear with me bro.

Establishing a Link Between Gains & Loss of Elasticity

In an earlier thread, I included a dB sampling (Post #10)

Here’s a dozen random vets from the PE dB. Notice that in every case the F:E becomes less steep (shallower) – and the FL % of EL increases [signifying loss of elasticity].

I tried to search out other vets…but some didn’t post their sizes in the dB (such as… ), others didn’t include flaccid lengths, or some didn’t list a starting flaccid – or they stopped including the FL as they filled out the dB over time, etc.

* - Note: In no way did I “cherry pick” entries from the dB so that they *all* would jive with my premise. In fact, I actually searched dozens of entries but few met the 'criteria' I needed:

(1) 4 measurements were critical: Beginning EL & FL and Ending EL & FL *
(2) At least some level of gains (they ranged from 0.6” to 2” EL gains).

* - intermediate entries didn’t matter - only the “beginning” & “ending” measurements

ahund: 1:538:1 to 1.4333:1 (+ 0.6” EL) – from 65% of EL to 70%)
avocet8: 2.400:1 to 1.280:1 (+ 2.0” EL) – from 42% of EL to 78%)
beenthere: 2:381:1 to 1.595:1 (+ 1.125” EL) – from 42% of EL to 63%)
CaptnHook: 1.929:1 to 1.600:1 (+ 1.25” EL) – from 52% of EL to 63%)
Dicko6x5: 1.631:1 to 1.544:1 (+ 0.788” EL) – from 61% of EL to 64%)
gprent: 2.000:1 to 1.400:1 (+ 2.0” EL) – from 50% of EL to 71%)
Iguana: 1.438:1 to 1.381:1 (+ 1.5” EL) – from 70% of EL to 72%)
Kojack10: 1.500:1 to 1.474:1 (+ 0.25” EL) – from 67% of EL to 68%)
Lampwick: 1.857:1 to 1.615:1 (+ 1.375” EL) – from 54% of EL to 62%)
pudendum: 1.311:1 to 1.242:1 (+ 1.04” EL) – from 76% of EL to 81%)
Sparky: 1.905:1 to 1.697:1 (+ 1.0” EL) – from 53% of EL to 59%)
Stevie31: 1.833:1 to 1.716:1 (+ 1.68” EL) – from 55% of EL to 58%)

1 or 2 exceptions I’ve found:
memento: 1.278:1 to 1.409 (+ 2.0” EL) – from 78% of EL to 71%) ???
* [This might be more common in men who’ve had some type of E.D. or other medical condition, perhaps]

Dino9x7 seemed like an anomaly, because he stated that he was originally 7”; later, similar to my circumstances, he lost 1/2” EL before beginning PE…but he doesn’t begin the database until he’s 7.75” – so I’ll leave that alone.

I replied, “I wasn’t presuming that you had any type of condition, per se, or that you were misrepresenting your stats. Just didn’t know if you used a different measuring technique over time - or if you gained a lot of weight during the time period..

Of all the data I looked at, you were the only one who appeared to gain elasticity as you grew. The only one. Your erect gains outstripped your flaccid gains, which raises the question, Where did that extra dick come from? (when you go from flaccid to erect).”

I tried to analyze the F:E ratios of some posters critical of my EtP model, but ran into problems.

lil12big1, Tossed Salad, mgus, Mick had incomplete entries in the dB, while bigtiny454, E man made no entries.

Of the dB info I was able to analyze:

kingpole: 1.375:1 to 1.269:1 (+ 2.75”) - from 72.72% of EL to 78.78%)
beretta92: 1.833:1 to 1.692:1 (+ 1.1”) - from 54.54% of EL to 59.09%)

CubanB: 1.727:1 to 1.794:1 (+ 1.3”) - from 57.89% of EL to 55.71%)

Of the 2 exceptions - memento & CubanB - they appear to have actually gained elasticity as they enlarged; memento, 7%; CubanB, 2%.

Considering the 2 Exceptions

In the 1st sampling, 12 out of 13 subjects lost elasticity as they enlarged [I could not include Dino's delayed-start entries]; of the 2nd sampling, 2 out of 3 subjects lost elasticity as they enlarged. Overall, 14 out of 16 subjects (87.5%) were consistent with EtP Theory.

(1) Consider that flaccid state varies greatly. Unlike erect size - which is quite straight forward - it can be difficult to determine your “typical flaccid.” This usually requires a series of flaccid measurements. It’s quite possible that memento and CubanB may have inadvertantly measured their respective starting flaccids at some degree of “inflation.”

Their F:E ratios would then be skewed. Or, alternatively, they might have taken their ending measurements, respectively, during a degree of “turtling.” (They could re-measure now to check the latter, but they probably can’t be certain that their original flaccid measurements were of their “typical flaccid” sizes).

(2) The real problem with the 2 exceptions is that their entries seem inconsistent with both models - EtP and GvM…

* - from the EtP model: if EtP “transfer” results in enlargement, how did those 2 achieve enlargement but actually gain elasticity?

* - from the GvM model: if you’re really “building beef,” then why isn’t that “mass increment” consistent between the flaccid & erect states? Furthermore, if your erect gains outstrip your flaccid gains (proportionally speaking), then where’s the “extra beef” coming from? Is the penis telescoping outward from deep in your abdomen?

…exploring possible answers….

I don’t know how elasticity is worked out, which is probably a good thing for the purposes of what I can say to help explain it.

What you said in 1) of the exceptions, measuring flaccid sure is a bitch. I mention it in the post when I post measurements every month in the progress log. It varies so much throughout the day, and can be really hard to find the right average of how it hangs. I can say for sure that I didn’t inflate starting measurement. But maybe I underestimated the flaccid size in the last two months. I measure flaccid NBP and try to measure while it looks like an “average hang”, but I think anytime I grab the ruler it somehow shrinks up .1 or .2. Just yesterday I noticed flaccid was longish, quickly measured and it was 4.1 or 4.2 (as opposed to 3.9). It’s really hard to feel confident about any measurement when it goes up and down every 30 seconds. I don’t know if flaccid:erect girth means anything in the elasticity calculations because I feel alot more confident about the consistancy of those measurements.

I don’t know if that helps, but it’s all I can think of.

wad, your thinking too much into this thing, don’t worry about the 2 exceptions. The theory fits very well. As CubanB said, he can’t get an accurate flaccid measure, so that is a good explanation for 1 of your 2 exceptions.

A Study of Flaccid Variations

As doctors have explained on a number of occasions, flaccid size varies more between men than does erect size. According to Kinsey, 83% of all men are between 5-7” erect [a 2” range]; yet, the flaccid lengths of those same 83% might vary from 2, 2.5” to 5.5” – or more [a guy with 7” erect could even have a 6” flaccid)]. Indeed, the flaccid range is probably double the erect range. So, why?

Many might claim that “better blood flow” is the reason. Let’s take a look:

Imagine 2 guys, each with a rock-hard 6 x 5…

Fred is five inches flaccid.
Tom is three inches flaccid.

(That is not an “extreme” scenario either, by the way.)

So, why the difference?

If you say that Fred has “better blood flow” than Tom, I would argue the opposite: Fred only expands 1 inch to erection, while Tom expands 3 inches (that’s triple the blood flow).

But if you argue that Fred’s bigger flaccid is the result, some how, of “better blood flow,” let’s consider an experiment.

Fred & Tom are both standing there naked – Fred with his 5” flaccid and Tom with his 3” flaccid, both of which are pointing straight down (at 6 o’clock). So, let’s “increase Tom’s blood flow” - so that he’s 5 inches now, like Fred. What happens? Well…

(1) Tom is no longer “pointing straight down” – he’s pointing out, at about 8:30 or so.
(2) Tom is no longer flaccid – he’s already traveled 2/3 of the way to “full wood.” *
(3) Tom’s unit is no longer “soft,” like Fred’s, his tunica is about 67% loaded.
(4) But at 5”, Fred’s tunica is 0% loaded, he doesn’t even have a “partial.”
(5) “Increased blood flow” doesn’t give Tom a “better flaccid” – it makes him hard, loading his tunica.

* - The “range of inflation” for each man, respectively, is 1” and 3 inches. For Fred, a 100% boner “travels” 1 inch; for Tom, it “travels” 3 inches. When Tom’s measurement reached 5”, he had already expanded 2” (67% of his erection range).

The difference between the two “6 x 5’s” is clearly not “blood flow,” it’s elasticity. The tissues of Fred’s 5-inch flaccid are capable of expanding only 1” in length (to hit 6” EL); conversely, they will contract – from full erection – by only 1 inch.

Tom’s 3-inch flaccid, however, is capable of doubling it’s length; and, on the flip side, when Tom’s 6” boner goes limp, it goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay limp, shrinking a full 3 inches.

* - During my own PE journey, my steep F:E ratio became less steep as my gains progressed. To argue that my heftier flaccid was the result of improved blood flow from PE exercises fails to account for how I kept my size for 3+ years away from PE - cold turkey. It was only after more than 37 months had transpired since my last PE session that I began to suffer noticeable losses. In time, the losses to my flaccid size became disproportionately greater than my erect losses. Presently, my F:E ratio has nearly returned to that of my pre-PE days.

Thus, not only did my size shrink, my elasticity increased.

The difference is not “blood flow,” the difference is elasticity. How can elasticity vary so much between men? Genetics.

Does Hypertrophy involve Elasticity?

Consider the classic “front single biceps pose.” An individual raises one arm, bends the elbow then flexes their arm muscles.

When I used to work out all the time, I wanted to pack on maximum muscle, but like most gym rats, I admired huge arms. I also admired trainees whose arms looked thick & impressive, even when relaxed and hanging at their sides. As such, I tracked 2 different measurements for each arm:

1) Flexed upper arm – measured “cold” (i.e., “non-pumped”).
2) Relaxed upper arm, hanging down at my side.

All throughout my training years, the increases of the above two measurements remained proportionate. That is to say, neither measurement ever lagged behind, or got out in front of, the other – vis-à-vis my gains.

To put this in PE terms, the size of my “flaccid” (relaxed) upper arm remained proportionate to the size of my “erect” (flexed) upper arm.

With few exceptions, this does not appear to be the case with PE gains. The flaccid size will usually increase disproportionately more than the erect size. Indeed, in PE most guys tend to get flaccid gains before they get erect gains.

(Imagine a gym trainee saying, “I put some size on my upper arms – but not when I flex, only when my arms are relaxed.”)

With the exceptions of very obese people, the upper arm will “grow” significantly when flexed. Whatever your individual level of relaxed-to-flexed expansion might be, that ratio will remain quite constant throughout your lifting career – regardless of how much size you pack onto your arms.

In other words, if your flexed upper arms are 16” and your relaxed upper arms are 14”, that’s a ratio of 1.1428:1 (or, relaxed arm is 87.5% of flexed arm). That ratio would remain quite constant. If you bulked your flexed arms up 18.5”, your relaxed upper arms would have grown to about 16.2 inches.

That appears to be the tendency of true GvM size increases – not the declining F:E ratios of PE practioners.

If you’re really “packing on the beef,” you’re doing so on both ends: relaxed/flexed….or, flaccid/erect.

Here’s some information on my penis:

My flaccid can be stretched out a lot further than my erect length, I’m 7.6” - 7.8” and my flaccid was in my extender at 9.2” (I did get cut a lot due to the pressure) after not wearing the extender for 5 - 6months I can get in it at 9.0” although it does hurt a little, when pulling my flaccid with my hand it always appeared a little longer than my erect length, I cant remember how much more due to it being so long ago that I done it, I would do it now but due to currently being ill, it would be sure not to give the same readings as if I was 100% healthy, especially when two of the problems are relating to my penis.

My Changing Elasticity

On My Way Up

When I began PE (Aug. 2002), I was 6.12 x (<) 5.2, erect
My flaccid length was around 3” (often less).
My flaccid girth was over 4” (always).
I was a flaccid chode: 3 x 4
My starting F:E was about 2.04:1 (FL = 49% of EL)

At my peak size, I was consistently 8.12 x 6.25
My flaccid length was usually around 5” or so.
My flaccid girth was at least 5”.
Flaccid, I became 5 x 5.
My (shallowest) F:E became about 1.62:1 (FL = 61.5% of EL)

This is consistent with the 14 out of 16 dB subjects who’ve experienced the same.
That brings the new number up to 15 out of 17 PE subjects (88.24%).

On My Way Down

After more than 37 months off PE, I began to experience my first noticeable size losses. As those losses mounted (& even accelerated for a while), the elasticity of my penile tissues began to increase….

Currently, Jan. 2009, I am < 7.00 x 5.38
My FL is no longer 61.58% of my EL…it’s about 51%
My flaccid length is about 3.5 inches.
My current F:E has steepened to about 1.97:1 (FL=51% of EL)

That completes the cycle, bringing things full circle.

* - Note: I would not recommend any practitioners, who like their increased size, to stop PE cold turkey for a number of years. Sure, you’d bring your EtP to PtE – thus adding to the statistics base – but you’ll likely feel rather shitty about it.

P.S., Keep doing your workouts.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

TO RECAP THUS FAR:

1) There is a sizeable percentage of PE’ers (88.24%, so far) who’s experienced a loss of elasticity as they’ve enlarged their members.

2) This reduced F:E ratio cannot have much to do with “increased blood flow”; rather, it appears to be solely predicated upon diminishing levels of tissue elasticity.

3) This lessening ratio of relaxed:flexed (F:E) is not observed in a true GvM model – hypertrophy. Where tissue is genuinely bulked up, the gains are proportionate – both relaxed & flexed.

4) After more than 3 years off PE, cold turkey, I began to experience size losses. Eventually, I also experienced increasing levels of penile tissue elasticity.

Too much crazy assed artistic bullshit for me to read. Would be easier to consume if you left out the font/color manipulation. Seriously.

Wad, I haven’t followed this debate much, but do you have evidence of your point #2 (directly above) other than your own experience? I’m unsure whether other guys retained their increased F:E ratio after stopping active PE workouts, the way that you did for a long time. Myself, I’ve kept most of my erect length gains (maybe because I’ve continued to do occasional PE), but my flaccid isn’t much larger than before PE, except during those phases where I’ve done some PE again. I get the same sort of awesome flaccid hang from daily PE workouts (even hanging, strangely enough) that I get the day after a great, long sex session, or after taking an ED drug recreationally. But this goes away pretty quickly if I stop PEing.

Wad I’m always impressed by your research and the amount of effort you put into these things. I came to the conclusion several years ago that PE is like body building and while the penis is not a bicep it more or less behaves the same way. I’m convinced most will very slowly lose gains if not on a maintenance program. I have also noticed and would love for you to prove me right that lost gains can be reclaimed very quickly.

I get confused contemplating LOT theory so this is all a tad confusing for lill old me.