Girth theory: Pumping vs. clamping

I can’t say if clamping gains are permanent or not. It’s a little off-topic, also.

I said that clamping is dangerous; I should have add more dangerous than pumping, but why it’s so dangerous? Exactly because it put much more pressure on internal structures of penis than pumping does.

And, Mr. Happy, maybe you are playing with words: if clamping give you X inch gains with 10 hours of work, and pumping give you X inch gains with 100 hours of work, this means that clamping is 900% more effective than pumping - at least if my English dictionary is giving the right translation.

Big Girtha had tons of loose skin by clamping? Literally?
I could be wrong, of course, but I remember having read that this fine guy didn’t only clamping: he did a jelq-like work with clamps, so this is the cause of his loose-skin, I think; but this is not the point.
We are speaking of what happens to most of men by using this technique or this other one: what happened to a single person is not pertinent, because we don’t know all the specifics variables involved (I hope what I mean is clear, tell me if don’t). Loose-skin is a relatively frequent side-effect of pumping, and relatively infrequent side-effect of clamping.

The opinion of urologists count nothing if isn’t supported by facts: referring to that is a sort of argument ex authoritate.

Could we agree that there is some evidence that clamping is more effective than pumping (at least for girth gains)? If so, what’s the reason? Where pumping is failing reproducing the excessive engorgement that starts tunica’ expansion? ttt posted an hypothesis; I think he is right, because it make sense and because what I experienced with both methods (pumping and clamping) seem validate that hypothesis. You say: clamping also cause fluid build-up, but the point is: at the same degree than pumping?

Finally, I think there is no need linking posts of guys that had a softer penis by pumping: is just a too common phenomenon to negate - it’s caused by an improper use of pump? Ok, but again, it’s not the point.

Shortly said, pumping is a bad imitation of clamping.

I believe that an inch of length gained on a cock is a significant gain. And there was also some girth too, attributable only to pumping.

After the first 5 months I started doing manual exercises between pumps, having learned about all that stuff here and on another site. Went on to gain 1.39 more inches of length and yet more girth.

Today (well, actually 2 weeks ago when I measured last) I am just a short tad below 8 inches L, and at 6.25 girth. That’s a loss of, let’s say for argument, a half inch of length. However, the L is stable from the previous measurement I did. I’ve found I don’t lose girth gain easily at all.

I haven’t touched my pump in many months. All I do now is a few stretch pulls in the shower when I think about it, which is not often. These gains are plenty “permanent” enough for me. I started years ago at 6 x 5.75.

I don’t think I am a rarity among pumpers in terms of gradual gains. I do think we pumpers get a bad rap from those who believe what they read at other sites on the net which are pumping-negative.

Nope. I don’t think so.

I think that the pressure at the base of the penis is concentrated on delicate tissue; that’s one vulnerablity. The other is the possibility of tearing the tunica. Clamping carries similar risks as erect bends in this regard.

I’m not playing with words but you sure are playing with numbers. Perhaps the problem is you think the dictionary will help you with statistical theory. 900% of what as compared to what? I’d say you pulled those numbers straight out of your theoretical ass.

My actual point is that you seem to be advocating a thinly disguised immediate gratification point of view in terms of what you’re calling “effective”. Your prior post indicates faster is better, and therefore more effective. I’m of the opinion that the speed of one’s results only contributes to overall efficacy as a limited point of value. Other things are of more significance to me. “Effective” PE also has to be safe and improve the overall EQ, for example.

Regardless, I don’t know that you can actually definitively make the claim that clamping is faster. Maybe a study should be done, but until one is done you’re guessing and your numbers are meaningless.

No. The point here is how the fuck do you know this? You simply don’t have the knowledge base to say this practice equals this result. Maybe his clamped jelqs were the culprit, but you don’t have any evidence of this - again you’re guessing.

He, like many here, did a number of different things. His net result was, as he called it, a dragon penis, with lots of loose skin. Clamping was his favorite technique: it’s what he did most.

And anyway, my point was not that clamping produces loose skin, because that’s an equally simplistic and indefensible position; no, my point was that your statement: Pumping cause loose skin; clamping doesn't. was incorrect on two levels because: it is possible -even likely - to pump and not get loose skin, and it is certainly possible that clampers can also get it.

Excellent.

In that case: most men do not get either softer penises or any loose skin on their flaccid from pumping, unless they go way overboard with hg pressure on a consistent, ongoing basis. In which case the pumping isn’t really the problem.

The problem there is impatience.

Uh, no. Because the topic is being discussed in broad terms.

So on that level, particularly with regard to the issue of safety, it is relevant to include such facts: some urologists will recommend a pump to help facilitate erections and improve circulation. Used as directed it carries no risk. Clamps will never be recommended and, used as directed, they always carry risks.

That’s pretty cut and dry and, yes, it is most certainly is relevant when comparing the two techniques on a broad, general basis.

Nope, not at this point; because there is no concrete evidence that this is true. Some people have better luck with one, others with the other.

You could do a poll. :-k

I’m saying any sort of trauma to the penis will cause the lymph system to become engaged. It is, after all, one of the bodies main lines of defense. As to which technique cause more, I’d say that has to depend on the levels of force used and the individual physiology in question in a given, specific circumstance.

What is unquestionably true is the pump will tend to pull more of this fluid to the skin surface where it is more readily visible, but the lymph system is engaged whether pumping, clamping, hanging, or stretching. Probably jelqing too if one does it really hard.

Uh yeah, it is the point. If you are doing it wrong than the technique is not the culprit the execution is. My penis hasn’t gotten any softer from pumping, and there are many here who will argue that point.

But if we are arguing improper use:

Even with improper use, a pump might make the skin balloon up a little with a donut, but that will usually subside after no more that 24 hours (and that’s if it is really severe).

Improper use of a clamp, on the other hand, can easily result in a tear that takes months to recover from. No PE, no sex, no erections, just recovery.

With the two techniques, the negative effects of improper use of a pump (i.e. ED, softer erections, loose skin from too many donuts, etc) will only occur with frequent, and repeated misuse.

The problems you can run into with a clamp can happen after one use.

When comparing the effectiveness of the two techniques, safety is a legitimate point of comparison. As far as safety goes, the wider margin for error that the pump has is something to seriously consider.

Well, I don’t think you can make that claim, as first of all they don’t seek to “imitate” each other except in the general sense of producing a controlled form of priapism.

If you like clamping better and are getting better results, that’s great. I have no beef with that. Just be careful, is all, and happy gaining.

However, your statements as to which thing is ‘superior’ seem more than a little ethereal, and much of your deductive reasoning is overly speculative. My advice? Speak from your experience and you won’t have to qualify as much.

Hope you had a good holiday. :)

Naab -

If you get fluid build-up during clamping the reason is not the pressure difference. Rather, clamping closes the lymph vessels which are running along the veins it the tissue under the skin - wherever you place the clamp. Consequently, the lymph which is normally produced in your penis cannot exit and accumulates causing some degree of fluid build up.

By contrast, pumping increases the amount of lymph fluid due to the increased pressure difference to a degree that it cannot be cleared. In addition, similarly, but to a lesser degree than wile clamping, the exit of the lymph fluid from the penis is impeded due to compression effect of the base of the tube. This effect increases as your dick continues to swell and accelerates the accumulation of edema fluid. This is unfortunate because once that swelling begins things accelerate considerably.

My argument is not that the lymph production absorbs much pressure. However, the laws of fluid filtration simply dictate that the pressure gradients accross a membrane dictate the fluid transport over that membrane.

If you want/need more details check/google for STARLING-EQUATION.

Other than that, I agree with Mr.Happy, regarding condom pumping etc, although I found it problematic at higher pressures.

However:

You get the total dick expansion, yes, however what we want is tunica expansion, and for that purpose pumping might be less efficient.

I’m glad you clarified that, tick.

There are others I’m arguing with where that was not was being put forth; they were saying instead the idea is that the fluid build up would significantly lessen the internal force of the hg pressure within the CC. That sounds speculative to me; and nonsensical speculation to boot.

Even if we were to assume the majority of the lymph fluid was being drawn from lymphatic systems outside the penis (which I doubt), I still think the ultimate pressure on the CC would be pretty close to the same. There would be some variation, I would think, based on mass, but nothing that would be of a significant amount.

I also doubt it would be true that all that much lymph fluid would be drawn from the rest of the body (other than what was already present in the penis) in large enough amounts to make even that kind of difference. My guess (and it is only a guess) is most of the fluid would be already present and the pressure would simply pull it to surface. Any ‘reinforcement’ lymph fluid would only come into play in extreme cases. These are, however, guesses on my part.

Not least, though, and no guess: I would say that if one is pumping to the point where the lymph system is engaged to that degree you're doing it wrong. Which is probably the most important point. :)

If you use a heavier duty silicone sleeve it can exert more force on the skin, keeping it pressed tighter to the shaft. This seems to minimize the lymph fluid being pulled to the skin surface at high hg levels, but it certainly doesn’t have much impact on overall expansion. With a thick silicone sleeve higher Hg levels can be used without fear of donuts and the post-pump flaccid expansion is retained longer. I have no quantifiable evidence that this leads to increased gains, but I think it might.

I do know it lowers the risk of donuts at higher hg levels and gives a longer post pump flaccid - at least on me it does. :D

I think it may well be true that the pump puts less direct stress on the tunica. Or stresses it out in different way.

Pumping, when done at safe hg levels, probably does not hit the tunica as hard, but I think this has to do with a significant difference between the two approaches.

Pumping does grant fast, but temporary gains (which I look at as a preview of the shape of things to come). One’s actual gains do seem to come at a slower more incremental pace.

As far as the fast temporary gains, I want to make clear I’m not comparing pumping to clamping with this statement, just describing the immediate result of a pumping session as compared to the gains that are left behind on a more permanent basis after having pumped consistently.

If the overall goal is more rapidly overcoming the tunica, the clamp may well do so more effectively; I don’t know that it does, but it’s possible it does.

Just be careful. :)

We want to clarify the difference between clamping and pumping, and you come with erect bends, just to add other possible confusion?

Statistical theory? Where? Do you know what a statistical theory is? And…theoretical ass? Ok, let’s go ahead: I said “if clamping give you X inch gains with 10 hours of work, and pumping give you X inch gains with 100 hours of work, this means that clamping is 900% more effective than pumping”. Numbers here are just for example.

Let’s say it in another way: in this thread we are debating two things : 1) If it’s true that this quotient: ((gains/(time)) is lower for the pumping techinque than for the clamping technique; 2) if the point sub 1) is true, what’s the reason.

So, you are confusing things. You should say :a) clamping is more/less/equal effective than pumping; b) clamping is more dangerous than pumping. These are two distinct points, and mixing them in one question can only cause disorder in our debate. BTW, I said that clamping is dangerous.

I said : could we agree that there is some evidence that clamping is more effective than pumping? You are saying: “I don’t agree”. Ok.

You said that Big Girtha had tons of loose skin by clamping. Now you are saying that you don’t know the cause of that loose skin; maybe because you have seen you was wrong?
I know that those who pumps, as sole PE work, frequently gain loose skin; I know that the frequency of loose skin among those who only do clamps as PE work is lower.That’s how I know this: a) by reading posts; b) by my personal experience. Have you anything better?

I haven’t spoken of loose skin on flaccid.Many uncut guys (like I am) had loose skin on erect.
However, to achieve pressure in the inner structure of tunica comparable to the pressure reached when clamping, you have to “go overboard with hg pressure” etc. etc.; so you are validating what I was saying.

Nobody was speaking about safety, because was not the topic of this thread. As above said, you are mixing things.

I’ve read lot of posts of pumpers, clampers, and guys that have done both. A poll could add near nothing, I think. Polls aren’t a so wonderful way to solve doubt, but If you like, do it.

I’d say pump cause more. It’s just a consequence of Physics law. Practice confirm that. You are assuming (in a confuse way) that both cause the same degree of fluid build-up; then you say, to negate the evidence, that when clamping one cannot see (for misterious reason) this fluid build-up.

I answered to this in my last post: by your knowledge, there is a significative number of persons that reported softer penis by pumping? There is a significative number of persons that reported softer penis by clamping?

All this things have nothing to do with what we were speaking about.

They don’t imitate each other: pumping is a bad imitation of clamping; pumps were designed for those enable to have an erection, if you are able to have erections clamping is a more natural choice. If you like to say this isn’t true, ok, I don’t want convincing anybody.

If you like pumping better and are getting better results, that’s great. I have no beef with that. Just be aware that you’ll need lot of time to getting results. I hope not, but I think this will happens.

I never used the term “superior”, because it’s too vague. About ethereal statements, look at your posts.

Happy holiday to you, and I hope you have a wonderful 2008 year.

At least all of us are here for the same reasons… To grow bigger and stronger where it counts!

I noted this writing on a second reading. I don’t know if you are referring to me, but just to be clear: I don’t think that the major cause of less efficacy of pumping is the fluid build-up:

page 1 of this thread.

page 2.

The more fluid build-up with pumping than with clamping is a separate issue :I think that it affect, at limited degree, the effect of external pressure on the expansion of penile inner structure, but it’s not the foremost element. The first who speaked of fluid build-up was sam1966 - pumping fun - at page 2 of this thread.

And, speaking of ED caused by pumping: 1) I mean temporary ED; 2) ED without tears/breaks of tunica:

page 1 of this thread - I was speaking of this phenomenon, often associated with softer penis.

Before saying so irrespective words, you should read carefully.

Little bit of physics?

We need to introduce the term Compliance, C here. It describes the ability of something to increase it’s volume dV in response to a pressure increase dP. D is short for delta, or a change, either in volume V or pressure P.

The relation between these parameters is:

C = dV / dP.

A body with a high compliance is one that increases it’s volume a lot even with small pressure differences.

Now let’s take a look at our favorite organ (at this moment, at least). Imagine it came without skin and without the loose tissue under the skin. Just a blood sponge surrounded by the tunica. Apply a certain pressure difference dV between the blood compartment inside of, and the surrounding air outside of, the tunica. Relatively little volume increase would then occur, due to the low compliance of the tunica.

Same experiment with the skin and the loose tissue underneath. It is much more easily expanded as there is fluid build up in that compartment due to increased lymph production in the dick (see STARLING equation, right - Mr.Happy?).

Now lets construct a real dick with an inner compartment (blood sponge), an outer compartment (loose tissue), separated both from one another by the tunica and from the atmosphere by the skin.

If we artificially increase the pressure within the sponge, this pressure increase will translate 100 % in wall stress in the tunica resulting in a slight volume increase. The skin and the tissue under the skin will almost not notice that there is a pressure change inside. ("Good!”).

If we decrease the atmospheric pressure, we will obtain a volume effect (skin and tissue underneath). How this would affect the pressure remaining operative between the sponge and the outer surface of the tunica is the real question here. Unfortunately, the physics of such interleaved chambers are unclear to me at this moment. I could speculate that a significant amount of the pressure is “lost” somehow.

Could a physicist try and help to clarify things?

I am reading carefully, marinera. You don’t seem to be. You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the points I’m making.

For example:

Nope.

I did not say he got his loose skin from clamping. In response to this assertion: Pumping cause loose skin; clamping doesn't. I used Big G as an example of an instance where your sweeping statement could possibly be wrong, as clamping was (is? where are you Big G?) his primary activity.

If you were reading carefully you would perhaps note that I didn’t go as far as saying clamping caused the loose skin because… I don’t know - similar to you: you don’t know either. The difference is I’m not claiming to know. With regard to pumping you don’t seem to know very much from what I can see.

Something I do know: I don’t get any loose skin from pumping, nor do I get soft erections. Maybe ask supersizeit or any number of other pumpers what their experience is. You might learn something.

If you’re willing to make sweeping statements that don’t have a concrete basis, that’s fine, but don’t be surprised when people take issue with what you’re saying.

Just for clarity: I believe that both pumping and clamping have been shown to be effective. I do not see that there is any reliable data to show that one is more effective in general than the other.

In terms of looking at both, as they fit into an overall approach to PE, it is very clear that pumping has more uses than simply PE, and that it is overall safer, with a wider margin for error and much better track record for recovery in the event of inadvertent (or even intentional) overdoing it. For me, the issues surrounding injury and recovery factor in as something that should be looked at in terms of evaluating both approaches over all. Seems pretty logical that any and all risks and benefits should be considered. And pumping does have general benefits to the organ’s health, assuming it’s used properly.

These things are not true of using a clamp.

What I know to be true of clamping is some people get good results with the clamp. Those that do report gains and many of the same positive PI’s that go along with any effective form of PE; but the risks are greater, as you have acknowledged. Some of the risks include injury to the plumbing around the base (where the clamp is applied), or the possibility to tear the tunica - similar to problems that come about with erect bends. I bring this up not to confuse anybody, but because the injuries are indeed quite similar.

If you’re confused by that perhaps you should do some more reading around here. What I’m talking about does not require a major intellectual leap to grasp.

:D

:thumbs:

So, you haven’t had enoguh,Mr. Happy? Ok.

Let’s see:

(page 2 of this thread)

I ask to English mother-language now: isn’t Mr. Happy arguing that Big Girtha had loose skin from clamping, here?

(page 2) of this thread

His primary activity? So you don’t have an example of one doing clamping as sole Pe work that had loose skin from that? Which thesis is validate here?

It’s obvious that it’s possible that clamping could cause loose skin: we are debating here, and we are reporting what we know. If you know some data that could confirm that clamping cause loose skin, post references, links or whatever else - I’m all ears. But saying to somebody that he is an ignorant or he is saying things coming from his theoretical ass (just remember that me and ttt aren’t English native speaker, so these stament just look as insults - maybe are only slang-statements, but you should consider all circumstances, agree?)

OK:

(from pumping lead to extra skin.)

So what’s coming, now? You’re calling avocet8 ignorant, as you called us? Or that avocet8 doesn’t know about pumping? Note: this is a better example of Big Girtha, because avocet8 was doing only puming as PE work - you can see the methodologic difference?

As noted, the only person that appear to be confused here are you. Every member who posted in this thread made pertinent observations (not necessarily I agree with them, but I haven’t sayed to anybody
How the fuck you know, just ignorant, etc..) every one but you. As you posted, near everybody showed you that you said superficial things.

Another personal attack. Well, if you want to go brickering like an infant go ahead alone, I’m annoyed.

:rolleyes:

Saying something doesn’t take a major leap to grasp does not constitute a personal attack. Calling someone an infant is another story, marinera.

Dial it back.

You are clearly, and with seemly deliberate intent, misinterpreting what I’m posting. It’s boring and it doesn’t make for good debate or even interesting discussion.

I’m not debating avocet, because avocet isn’t making sweeping statements or putting forward faulty deductions to support weak arguments. He’s speaking from his experience (as I suggested you do), and he has a history of putting forward reasonable and supported hypotheses should he stray from his personal experience. He also knows how to have a discussion. You, on the other hand, do not have such a history on the former and are not proving yourself very well on the latter.

I never said pumping doesn't ever cause loose skin; I have basically been challenging your absolutist ideas, and saying variations of “Your mileage may vary”. Pumping can certainly produce loose skin, just as it’s possible that clamping can. To put forward the idea that it always produces loose skin is not supported however, and is misleading as a conclusion.

The examples I have used have not been to illustrate any particular concrete conclusion, but merely observing that, as exceptions, they show many of your basic ideas are superficial (to use a word) and over-generalized; therefore your overall ‘conclusions’ about pumping are ill-informed and therefore ill-considered.

Now I’ll offer you a choice: either find a way to discuss this reasonably or take a time out.

Is that clear?

Holy diversionary argument Batman!

Here’s my experience for whatever it’s worth. Both pumping and clamping increase the stresses on the penis in a way that can cause growth. I (and many others) have effectively utilized both and achieved gains that have been permanent with both. I go through phases where each seem to provide an alternate kind of stress that actually rounds out improvement. Although I experienced donut woes at the beginning of my pumping career, over time the tissue at the circ scar seems to have adapted and the only way I’ll get a minor donut now is from a rare marathon session where I went too far and too long.

You’re going to have lymph issues of some sort with either method if you restrict/alter lymph flow in the body (which both techniques do). After either, some gentle massage from tip to stern can help get things moving again and flush out the trapped fluid.

Pumping can cause greater lymph build up on the outer layers, but that in no way negates what’s happening deeper.

Well said, danwilke; on all counts.

I like your observation about one ‘rounding out’ the other. That makes a lot of sense, and jibes with my experience.