Girth theory: Pumping vs. clamping

A very well made point Thunder. I apologize for not saying something to that effect myself. Its important that guys understand that when I was doing this I was also routinely (and still am) hanging very large weights (100-200 lbs for extended periods, 300 for shorter). Its reasonable to conclude that my tunica was atypical with respect to strength and the related quantity of minimum threshold stress required for inflammation onset.

My thoughts exactly!

You sound like me about 2 years ago. I’ve spent a LOT of time, effort and thought on this exact hypothesis. My experience’s data, interestingly (to me anyway) for both length and girth focussed training campaigns have conformed remarkably tight (haven’t calculated R -squareds, but should) with, believe it or not, a Fibonacci sequence (Golden Mean graphically). I’ve written oodles about it so I’ll spare you and me the hassle of going over it here and just tell you that a read of my Progress Report thread will reveal most of the relevant info.

:D , I’ll work on it.

How were you able to keep 300 lbs attached to your penis, Xenolith? :eek2:

BIB, small or HC. Lead weights help with geometrical logistics.

I’ve been saying for several years that this is precisely what happens with ultra-high intensity PE.

I believe that one of the reasons I’ve managed to gain more than 1 1/4” of EG (1.3+ midshaft, 1.5+ base girth), is that I’ve always avoided this type of work. It’s also the main reason I’ve never suffered any type of vascular injury either.

Just my observations.

I will try if I can find these clamps. I have seen similar ones but without the handle (srewdriver driven, less handy). As soon as I can find them I will give it a try. Thanks again.

The experience of xenolith and others’ (if I recall correctly - dustpan) clearly shows that heavy duty PE can be done quite (very - look at their PE-stats!) successful.

Apart fro the obligatory warning to newbies (see ThunderSS’s comment and obey!) I would like to make a few statements:

Pudendum’s theory that heavy duty sthrengthens the tunica and ligs is certainly correct. However, it is not per se a disadvantage:

First, because it may conribute to the base girth increase experienced by many hangers (including myself).

Second, the negative effect of growth can be overcome by incrementing the weight load successively (sort of running ahead of the tissue strengthening).

Third, the tissue strengthening is certainly reversible: after a deconditioning break it should be possible to start again at a lower initial weight and follow an incremental schedule.

Some attentive readers may remember how much I liked pudendum’s statement on the tunica that

‘Girth is circumferential length’.

He nicely proved - with the orientation of the collagen layers in the tunica - that this is in fact correct.

On this basis I would like to look at things from another angle, and make the following statement:

‘Length is longitudinal girth’.

On this basis I believe that it is correct to infer from length theory to girth theory, at least in regard of the tunica. I am alluding to this because hanging has found in our thread which might seem inappropriate prim vista, but which I feel is absolutely ok under the above premise.

Xeno - what is an ‘extended’. What a ‘short’ period in minutes?

And may I ask whether your erections are really completely uninfluenced by these high weights?

Btw - that is more than your body weight and reminds me of a picture that was posted in here some time ago with a guy hanging on the ceiling of a room, head down, apparently (really?) attached only by his dick. Remember the pic? Truth or myth? You?

Check Xeno’s stats.

Can you you describe in more detail please. Wrap technique and so on.

Do you use anesthetics?

I’m not sure I’m understanding what you’re trying to say here. Are you referring to longitudinal stress of hanging leading to circumferential gains at the base? Please elaborate.

EXtended 30-60 minutes. Short <10 minutes. It should be understood, as described in my Prog. Report thread, that this type of hanging is not for PE purposes. Indeed I consider it counter-productive for PE purposes. I do it as part of my Seminal Kung Fu practice. I’ve gained only 0.125” of EL during the >2 years of very heavy weight training for SKF purposes. That being said, I’m sure that a decon break of 4-6 months would facilitate further length gains, but that’s less important to me than the gains from further mastery of SKF (which I won’t discuss on this Forum…my comments will be restricted to PE).

Well, they are bigger :) .

Missed that one…there are so many reasons why that isn’t me I don’t where to start.

One HTW with a 3” long section of 2.125” inch (mountain) bike inner tube over the HTW. I’ve modified my BIB HC slightly…cut the teeth down and taken the hinge off and replaced the lower front bolt with a 3” long one. All adjustment is made with the bottom rear bolt…bottom front is about 1.375” open (fixed length).

:) No. I find hanging quite comfortable. Usually I meditate while hanging. Sometimes transitioning into sleep. Makes for a most refreshing nap.

Pudendum -

I was referring to your argument that fibers in the tunica are oriented longitudinally and an a circular manner. Mechanisms to make them longer (wanted) or thicker (not wanted) are probably similar/same. Therefore, an argument that holds fr girt holds for length as well, and vice versa, as long as we are discussing tunica effects.

Thanks, I agree.

In post #226 in this thread, mravg posted an interesting 2006 paper from Egypt about the cavernosa pressures at peak erection and the influence the Bulbo- and Ischiocavernosus muscles (http://www.andr ologyjournal.or … l/27/5/695#SEC2 ). They report a very disturbing finding in this study:

A number of us posted that we were disturbed by this finding. Experience tells us this could not be true.

Well today, I found a study published in 1986 in the Journal of Urology that counters these results (Lavoisier R, et al. Correlation between intracavernous pressure and contraction of the Ischiocavernosus (IC) muscle in man. Journal of Urology 136 (1986) 936-9). This Canadian group took nine guys with ED and studied the effects of IC muscles on cavernosa pressure. They placed a 21 gauge needle in the right cavernosum to measure pressure using a pressure monitor and a 19 gauge needle in the left cavernosum to fill both chambers with saline (a salt solution) to get an erection. They, like the other study, placed needles in the IC muscles to record their activity. They then injected the saline to bring the penis to a 90 degree angle to the body. These patients were preselected because they had no venous leak. They asked their "needled participants" to voluntarily contract their pelvic muscles while they recorded IC muscle activity and the cavernosa pressure. Lo and behold, they saw exactly what we thought they’d see. When they contracted their Bulbo- and Ischiocavernsus muscles, cavernosa pressure rose, between 100 to 575 mm Hg above precontraction levels. (see attached file; upper trace is muscle activity, EMG, and the lower trace is pressure, ICP).

There are definite difference between the two studies. The older study uses a much larger needle to record internal (invasive) pressures, 21 gauge versus 28 gauge. That’s a 3 fold difference in internal diameter of the needle (0.495 mm versus 0.165 mm, respectively). The very small needle diameter dampens pressure tracings and may have completely missed short bursts in pressure with contractions. The effort of the volunteers in contracting their pelvic muscles may also have differed as well, but this can not be determined from what is written.

Yes, both studies had artificially produced erections. This 1986 study mentions that it would have been better to have normal guys with normal erections, but they couldn’t get any volunteers. I wonder why. They said guy’s with ED will do anything to get better. Both had needles sticking out of guy’s penises when they went from flaccid to erection. This definitely influences Kegel effort (ya think?).

It is interesting to note that the authors of the 2006 study in the Journal of Andrology quote this 1986 study to justify that spontaneous reflex IC muscle contraction causes cavernosa pressure to rise well above arterial (but only temporarily). But they do not mention that the older study totally disagreed with their findings regarding ICP responses to Kegels’. I have great problems with this. It is intellectually dishonest. Mentioning that your results differ from prior ones and why you think this is so is part of the purpose of a scientific paper.

With all this said, however, the earlier study correlates well with our own experiences and I know which one I believe.