Focus Your PE and Gain! TGC Theory

Didn’t find that figure ..

Great work Remek and Iguana!

I would seriously like this thread not to become a mud-slinging contest. I will address this point with one final post and then I would like to move on.

I don’t have a problem with questions being raised, that’s what science is all about. My issues are with the manner that things are addressed. It just seems that when someone posts a new theory/hypothesis, idea or anything out of the norm, there is an immediate attack to discredit the information. With some guys, it’s pretty much, “you’re wrong, now lets prove it.” At least that is the way it comes across, intended or not. From your very first post you focused solely on disproving what was stated. You showed no appreciation for the effort and time put into researching and compiling this information. Your very first statement was, “Do you have some proof of this?”

You have to realize that when researching legitimate scientific information for the purpose of enlarging the penis, the information is practically nil.
The best you can hope for are ED/impotence related studies and a few others. Sorry, this is pretty much all we have. And unfortunately, we are not going to find statements such as “and as a side point for all you guys trying to enlarge your penis, this study shows more smooth muscle will give you a enormous throbbing penis.” We have comb through tons of studies and try to extrapolate information that might be useful in understanding
how and why PE works. Some of it requires drawing our own conclusions and then testing them to see if they are valid. At this time, this is all we, and anyone else, proposing a scientifically based hypothesis can do and I think in this case we have did a pretty darn good job doing it.

As far as your repeated question:

“Can you provide anything to back up the supposition that in a normal person - without ED, without abnormal venous leakage during an erection - an increase in smooth muscle helps erection quality? Can you provide anything that takes it out of the realm of malfunction? If you can get there can you get further; to this statement “AN IMPORTANT POINT: More Smooth Muscle = Harder Erections”*?

I think we have already established that in a previous post.

The above study involved “patients of different ages with normal erections”, no ED here, no venous leakage, etc. The study clearly states
“this decrease in smooth muscle content may be responsible for the decline in erection in older men.” Notice that it says “may be”.
We are very much aware of this. In fact, I don’t recall any scientific article stating anything as an infallible fact. Studies draw conclusion base
on observation, tests, data, etc, much the same way we do. So here we have to make an educated assumption; if older men with less smooth muscle have a decline in erection, then more healthy smooth muscle should have a positive effect in erection quality. In fact, the younger guys, with more smooth muscle, in the study obviously had no decline in erection. In all the studies we have cited and referenced dealing with smooth muscle volume, they all agree that smooth muscle quantity is important in a healthy erection.

These are things that I believe the studies show to be accepted as truth:

1.) The erectile chambers are composed of a substantial quantity of smooth muscle.
2.) The erectile chambers are the dynamic components responsible for inflating and expanding the penis.
3.) Smooth muscle cells multiply and expand as a result of altered blood flow and/or stress.

From these 3 established truths I can deduce that if I effectively alter the blood supply to my penis, I will elicit a growth response from the smooth
muscle. And if my smooth muscle grows I will have added volume to the erectile chambers. The added volume should (logically) increase the size and
strength of my erectile chambers.

Can we prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, that’s why this thread has the word “theory” in the title. But, I think most thinking individuals would have no problem drawing the same conclusion.

Well when you pontificate around here, you have to expect someone to throw mud on your robes. We will try to not hit your pointy hat though as I know those are a bitch to clean. ;)

First time post, but let me put in my two cents..

I think most everything presented in these forums, or other similar venues, mostly qualifies as “underground science”, and thus, to expect the exact same standards of quality and exhaustive study, including clinical trials, as found in the standard peer reviewed medical journals is asking for too much.

I believe the theory (hypothesis) offers as much or more logic, research and formal presentation than just about anything else I’ve read on these forums, and the entire theory is easy to apply. So, it stands to reason, that for those who are experiencing difficulties gaining, this theory provides a road map for those to alter their program if they so choose. Furthermore, for those who do apply the theory, and then gain (or not), the incoming results would be further evidence or corroboration of the theory’s validity or lack thereof.

This is a very interesting theory. For someone like me whose goal is length, yet according to this theory I could obviously benefit from girth work, makes me re-evaluate a routine. My routine is mainly hanging, and 20 mins jelq a day. My bpfsl is almost an inch greater than my bpel, by which this theory would indicate I should be doing girth work.

I think I’ll give my jelqing more focus, but continue with the length work.

Just to throw it in there: It’s widely believed among hangers that if you do girth and length at the same time, the tunica fibers will grow “crossed” or “linked” or something, making them much harder to continue gaining with.

I’ll report these results - this theory sounds like it might be a winner!

~L

I completely agree 110 %. I’ll be the first to admit that this theory could be wrong. As I said in the intro in the article, “Like nearly everything else in PE, all the information in this post is no more than a theory. “

Iguana and I have put countless hours into building the idea behind TGC theory, getting data for it, debating over it, and finally writing about it. That said, these hours mean nothing if it turns out to be another theory that points men on a wild goose chase. I’m willing to accept that if a) it turns out not to work for the majority of men who try it or b) our research was flawed somewhere

Our goal is that hopefully a few guys who are struggling will find this theory and try it out … and hopefully gain. If not, it’s time to hit the books again :) In any regard, hopefully this thread/article will get guys thinking about the clues the penis might be giving them and how it can help us in PE. Most clues the penis give off are usually considered “random with no meaning.” I think sparkyx was onto something big when he thoughtfully discovered the PIs — and I hope there’s more to come.

Someone just asked me:

I’ll try to make it as simple as possible here:

STEP 1: Find out whether your tunica is the limit or the smooth muscle is the limit. Here's how:

1) Measure your BPFSL and your BPEL. Find out how much greater your BPFSL is than your BPEL. If it’s around .5” or more, it indicates that the smooth muscle is your limit. If it’s around .25” or less, it indicates that your tunica is probably your limit.

2) What’s your erection quality like? If you consistently have rock-solid erections and very hard erections, then the tunica is most likely your limit. If your erections are anything but, you’ll want to work out your smooth muscle.

STEP 2: Focus on your limit.

1) If your smooth muscle is your limit: Adjust your routine so it is mostly girth-based (i.e. clamping, supra slammers, Ulis, and other girth exercises).

2) If your tunica is your limit: Adjust your routine so it is mostly length-based (i.e. with length exercises, hanging, extenders, jelqs with a low erection level, etc.)

Hope this helps!

Ig,

>My issues are with the manner things are addressed. It just seems that when someone posts a new theory/hypothesis, idea or anything out of the norm, there is an immediate attack to discredit the information.<

I think you are reading this wrong. I see this more as a constructive process to pull apart the information, see how it stacks up, and then put back together what remains (if anything). If you pull out a plank does the whole structure crumble or do you simply rebuild slightly and end up with a more comprehensive structure.

>You have to realize that when researching legitimate scientific information for the purpose of enlarging the penis, the information is practically nil.<

I think we all realise that and the reasons for it (money).

>The best you can hope for are ED/impotence related studies and a few others. Sorry, this is pretty much all we have.<

Sure, there is a lot of work on ED. There’s money in that.

>And unfortunately, we are not going to find statements such as “and as a side point for all you guys trying to enlarge your penis, this study shows more smooth muscle will give you a enormous throbbing penis.<

No it doesn’t. That’s the problem. What it shows is that men with mechanical ED often have less smooth muscle. It infers from this that lower smooth muscle may result in low quality erections in older men. Beyond that everything is an inference too far.

Let me give you an analogy to see if that helps clear up what I’m getting at. If you have a car, the more wear (i.e. less clutch left) beyond a certain point - the more the clutch will slip. You can’t infer from that that adding a clutch twice the thickness will help if the clutch isn’t slipping in the first place.

So more smooth muscle may impact on leakage beyond a normal point in erection (clutch slippage) but that doesn’t mean if you add more smooth muscle (double thick clutch) in someone with no ED (no clutch slippage) that anything will improve.

Also I think you have the mechanism of erections slightly wrong. Restriction of outflow of blood is as a result of the pressure from the blood in the penis putting pressure on the veins* not the relaxed smooth muscle in the CC pressing against the veins (just thinking about the location of the dorsal vein helps with this). If you have an anatomical source that suggests otherwise, please link it.

>We have comb through tons of studies and try to extrapolate information that might be useful in understanding how and why PE works. Some of it requires drawing our own conclusions and then testing them to see if they are valid. At this time, this is all we, and anyone else, purposing scientific based hypothesis can do and I think in this case we have did a pretty darn good job doing it.<

I would hope that one of the reasons you post here is to have more eyes testing whether your ideas are valid.

>1.) The erectile chambers are composed of a substantial quantity of smooth muscle.<

Substantial is pushing it, I think.

>2.) The erectile chambers are the dynamic components responsible for inflating and expanding the penis.<

i.e they hold the blood

>3.) Smooth muscle cells multiply and expand as a result of altered blood flow and/or stress.<

I think it might be safer to say that smooth muscle cells atrophy if there is not enough oxygenated blood. You are talking about a relaxation mechanism for erections after all, thus if you wanted to compare it to building another muscle it might be reasonable to assume that training the penis to lose an erection quickly would increase mass.

>From these 3 established truths I can deduce that if I effectively alter the blood supply to my penis, I will elicit a growth response from the smooth
muscle. And if my smooth muscle grows I will have added volume to the erectile chambers. The added volume should (logically) increase the size and
strength of my erectile chambers.<

Again, though I can see that by preventing blood reaching the area you may be able to cause atrophy, I don’t see how this helps. You are talking about a relaxation to gain an erection not a pumping of the muscle to train. There isn’t more blood in the penis during an erection because the smooth muscle requires it, there’s no lactic acid buildup if blood flow doesn’t keep up with work rate (because there is no work rate).

>Can we prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, that’s why this thread has the word “theory” in the title. But, I think most thinking individuals would have no problem drawing the same conclusion.<

I think there will be a lot of people here who will go for this, you’re right. I’m not sure that it makes any less of a stack of cards.

Remek,

>I completely agree 110 %. I’ll be the first to admit that this theory could be wrong. As I said in the intro in the article, “Like nearly everything else in PE, all the information in this post is no more than a theory. “<

And hopefully the point of posting is to get more input. That (I hope) is what you can see me doing. If you and I didn’t know each other to some degree, I probably wouldn’t have bothered responding to this thread. As it is I’ve only scanned it for inconsistencies.

>Iguana and I have put countless hours into building the idea behind TGC theory, getting data for it, debating over it, and finally writing about it. That said, these hours mean nothing if it turns out to be another theory that points men on a wild goose chase. I’m willing to accept that if a) it turns out not to work for the majority of men who try it or b) our research was flawed somewhere<

Yeah and I truly get how hard it can be, in that situation, to have lots of people posting with their issues with it. The more work, the harder it gets, I presume.

>Our goal is that hopefully a few guys who are struggling will find this theory and try it out … and hopefully gain. If not, it’s time to hit the books again In any regard, hopefully this thread/article will get guys thinking about the clues the penis might be giving them and how it can help us in PE. Most clues the penis give off are usually considered “random with no meaning.” I think sparkyx was onto something big when he thoughtfully discovered the PIs — and I hope there’s more to come.<

I think you have to separate out the theory from the recommendations. I personally believe that girth work can help in gaining length. I have nothing to back that up beyond material science. If that works for others then it may be because my understanding of materials is valid for this situation or it may be other factors. So whether your theories are correct or not, the recommendations may work and they may work because there is some gut instinct thing going on with people who’ve PEd for some time or it may have something to do with the theory propounded here, it seems it would be very hard to tell.

Thank you Remek and Iguana for your efforts on the subject. I appreciate your efforts and understand that amount of work that you have put into this effort.

I suppose some of the response is akin to that old saying that “Pioneers usually end up full of arrows.” That seems to be the standard in postulating a theory. I also think that having any theory attacked is good as well, and certainly the comments have been on point. I appreciate those comments as well, as I do think that we are advancing the knowledge base on PE.

What I found particularly interesting was the comments on smooth muscle, and the percentage of smooth muscle in the penis. While I am not advocating anyone attempt a chemical PE program, your information does give a very good foundation for the success that I have achieved in girth by the use of IGF-1. That IGF-1 is the most powerful muscle builder in the body seems to be without dispute. That 50% or more of the cc is muscle was an unknown to me, but it does explain my growth.

Thank you again for your efforts. I am most appreciative.

>Substantial is pushing it, I think.<

I take that back. I was misreading the figures in the Claro study as some non-arbitrary counting method but not as a quantitative pertencentage of actual tissue. It still doesn’t seem to be terribly clear on rereading.

I think you are misunderstanding this. Re-read this post: Iguana - Focus Your PE and Gain! TGC Theory

Proper PE exercise should not restrict the flow of blood to the point of oxygen starvation. But even this in some cases can trigger growth.

Thanks stagestop,

Yea, I suppose you are right. I don’t mind the scrutiny and criticism just as long as it’s constructive and not destructive.

I’m certainly glad you found something beneficial in the information. I’d like to think we’re all here to help each other and to benefit
from what others have learned. We are hoping that this theory holds up under fire and proves to be another building block
in the foundation of what we know.

I have been following your chemical PE thread for quite sometime now and admire your efforts as a pioneer in this field. I am seriously considering trying a chemical routine sometime in the future. I’m just waiting to see your penis falls off. :) I have a thousand questions and will venture over soon to pick your brain if that’s OK.

Thanks for the kind comments.

Hi Iguana,

You are welcome. Please know that my penis is still firmly attached to my body. It still functions as intended as well. Please do stop by and chat.

Best regards,

Stage

I know, and you’re opinion is always more the welcomed. :)

This is true. But we have to start somewhere. If we leave all our theories and gut instincts inside our brains, out of fear they will be rejected (or fear that there isn’t scientific backing), PE isn’t going to get no where. The scientific method isn’t the only way to make discoveries — and I don’t think we’ll have any scientific evidence coming our way anytime soon.

A mod here (I think it was hobby, I could be wrong) said it best a while ago when he said something along the lines of “PE hasn’t changed much in the past 5 or so years. All of the basic recommendations are still the same.” Why is that? Is it because there aren’t ways to PE better, and more effective? I think not. I think it’s because a lot of guys are afraid to say there way might be a better way, because their way is quick to get shot down.