Length: Optimal Stimuli for Growth

Impossible. My erection level has been 100% due to clamping. It literally could not get better before I had even began pumping. If anything…it is possible that erection level went slightly down (if anything).

Viscoelastic properties of the TA time to stabilize the elastic gains? How does this fit into our wood sheets framework (from that excellent post)? How does this compare to STRETCH and TRUE GROWTH?

This is all quite contradictory, don’t you agree?

By the way, I am not meaning to be argumentative. I am simply frustrated with my own lack of knowledge of what the hell is going on in my penis.

Absolutely not. But, your rigor in thought is very useful, I hope you may help me in this discussion for this reason, as well.

This was found empirically, it’s not my guess. The finding is related to tendons not TA; things could be different for TA, but I do suspect that the distance between a tension that can cause micro-tears and a tension that can cause injuries isnt’ that wide. How many hangers have injured themselves? I don’t know. But, if anything, it does reinforce the guess that most of gains hangers have are due to simple viscoelastic deformation, agree?

1. Base girth: I don’t think it is the blood issue? I have never encountered this or heard of anyone witnessing it. The issue of the stress being applied to the exit point is well known, I mentioned this base girth issue to refute your claim that increases in “toughening” of the inner structures would not yield girth. Remember, on the PM I asked the question, and you said they would be minor changes.

2. Stretch vs. true growth, viscoelastic deformation vs. mico-tears: I think you are describing micro-tears as quite a major event. I am not sure if anyone is actually doing this, since your thread showed it was so close to causing major-tears. Is it not more likely that hanging is also creating viscoelastic deformation? I think this point (number 2 in general) is the main issue that I failed to completely understand in your thread, as I am not sure it fits the empirical evidence (at all?).

3. Healing: I agree. I will tell you, despite my little knowledge of the biological sciences, two things seemed intuitively wrong: 1) I do not see how keeping the penis “extended” could in ANY way help gains, unless it was extended to its maximum amount (where the tissue would have reason to “change,” as the body is smart). 2) I cannot understand why healing could be negative. In fact, for the second one, this is simply illogical. If you need to keep it under fatigue over time, then you are encouraging fatigue while healing. If so, there is no point trying to prevent healing (as some people have offered), because that would defeat the purpose of incurring fatigue while healing. It would seem better to simply break the dick off.

4. Tunica: I did not realize how thin the tunica is. Does this mean that most girth growth is a function of smooth muscle hypertrophy, exclusively? I am beginning to realize that the thread encouraging length gains through tunica growth as a catalyst for growth work through smooth muscle hypertrophy must have been accurate. I think this may be the case with me also. After gaining the slight change in BPEL, my erection seems SLIGHTLY weaker.

Exactly. I was typing the same thing at the same time, haha. What does this tell us, then?

Also, why do you think ADS users are empirically worse gainers?

It seems: stretchers gain the most, followed by hangers, and then followed by ADS users (if we ignore pumping - if not, pumping seems to generally create similar gains as hanging). But, the exercises are also favored in that order, it seems. I wonder which is truly optimal.

I have no problems with argumentative people, as long they are civil and do their homeworks. ;)

I don’t think there is any contradiction. Wood sheets framework, in that analogy, can shift, lengthening the structure: this is the viscoelastic deformation; or the links between the sheets (or even the sheets) could break: when this happens, the body start repairing the structure, and this is when true growth happens. I think Shiver was makin an analogy with the extracellular matrix of connective tissue and a wood sheets framework.

You know, I have been thinking. It seems that both low and higher levels of stress have caused the same sort of growth, it is just dependent on the time necessary (hanging vs. ADS). The only kind of growth in length in the PE world that is completely unique is pumping, and this is the reason I brought this up.

The confusing part with pumping is with inexperienced people who mistake edema for growth. I am not like that, so I am discussing an edema-less, grown penis, that has grown a solid amount of length, and then proceeds to lose a portion of it, and then not lose any more. This does not seem to happen with hangers or ADS users, but happens very often with pumpers. Should this not be a useful point to plug in to your theoretical framework?

Just to make this clear: if what we are saying is true, golf weights as an ADS cannot cause growth because they do not fully extend the penis. The same goes for all other ADS that do not fully extend the penis or a portion of it - ie it cannot be retracted at all in the portion that growth is looked for. Fowfers may work because a portion of the penis might be fully extended and stretched, while other parts are not.

I’m not understanding you here.

I think you can create micro-tears with jelqs: they do put a lot of force on a small area; maybe it can happens, for the same reason, with fulcrum stretches. It’s hard to do the same with hanging, because your ligs have a failure point below your TA failure point.
Micro-tears required force is close to the ultimate tensile strength, but using cyclic loading and viscoelastic deformation you can go closer to the zone of micro-failure without having macro-failure.

Smooth muscle hypertrophy or hyperplasia, probably, but not mainly. I think the limiting factor for girth gains is alway TA, because for most of people CC could expand more than TA allows.

It will take some time to read all this stuff, but I want to weigh in on this initial statement. I have been of the opinion for a long time that with our limited resources, there is no way to KNOW exactly WHAT we are actually causing as far as which tissues are doing what, or preventing what. We can certainly speculate, and I think that is almost needed.

HOWEVER, the only thing we can say with certainty, without tissue studies and biopsies and all that stuff where extensive money and lab resources are needed is, the EFFECTS of PE. And that is really what we are shooting for, larger more functional dicks.

So, really most of the arguments that occur in these type of threads are really ridiculous as far as I am concerned. I think where these discussions do well is when you report your experiment and results, and some effort to figure out how to be even more effective.

Its obvious all kinds of applied forces have resulted in larger penises. If we come together in a attitude of MUTUAL RESPECT, then we can all share what we have found to work, the limitations of that approach, and by this sharing expand our effective knowledge as an individual and hopefully advance the effectiveness of PE for the entire community.

sparkyx,

I basically wrote this thread to flesh out the confusion I had after reading the LLH thread. I have read many of marinera’s posts here before and I know that he has a rigorous mind, so I could not see how he reached such a comfortable, conclusive stance with his theoretical views.

Since posting the thread, I have been reading a number of logs (particularly xeno’s, for example - nice posts there by the way) and came to a conclusion that this theorizing is not helping anything. A lot of what was presented in the LLH thread does not match empirical evidence from what I consider relatively reliable sources (Bib? No..but Xeno?).

I think there was a medical practitioner who said the same thing in the LLH thread. Much of this is a pseudo-science, we are missing MAJOR parts of the knowledge here, so arguing with the knowledge we have is almost a waste of time.

With that said, I understand why marinera went through all of that in the LLH thread. He stated clearly: the argument from the other side IS illogical. This is true. The argument is illogical - but that does not mean that there is no missing information that MAY adequately explain their methods (such as Monty’s). They may have stumbled upon something that works, but just not realized WHY it works. Neither will we, for now, so I will keep treating these variables as black boxes and studying them from the results, as I am used to doing, statistically :) .

Well, maybe than you could:
a) explain what’s the theorizing presented in the LLH thread;
b) explain where it doesn’t accords with ‘empirical evidence’ - since you are there, you could also explain how you can be sure that data at the base of empirical evidence are reliable.

By the way, have you read the whole Xenolith’ thread?

So guys, we still need to pull our dicks to grow right? Just kidding. ;)

We as a PE community have had some success at answering the “how” questions. But the “why” questions is more elusive and difficult to answer like sparkyx said.

How do we gain? We do A which usually results in B. Example: We stretch which usually results in length gains.
Why do we gain? A results in B because of C. Example: Stretching results in length gains because of C.

This is where our knowledge breaks down. What is C?

marinera,

Your major work in the LLH thread is actually to collect and interpret, and re-interpret, various studies. That portion is fine. However, you have what I would call a “working hypothesis” that you insert into the discussion at several points during the thread. The hypothesis is about the optimal use of stimuli (with ADS for a a certain period of the training followed by high stress to cause tears, etc.).

While, clearly, not many people have performed what you see as being the optimal use of stimuli, what people have done contradicts your conclusions. One, for example, is the issue of major tissue failure (injury) from high stress loads repeated too often (we have already discussed this in this thread) - I cannot recall this happening to any, even the heavy, hangers. Another issue we have is why they see major growth after using a weight several times per day instead of only once per day - increasing volume but not stress, while not using an ADS.

Clearly, there is a problem with the data we have here. First, we cannot perform any proper statistical analysis because the majority of PE’ers do not keep accurate records, particularly manual PE’ers. Second, even if we use the data as a point of reference in discussions (the same way as you mention Beretta and your Italian friend), this data may simply be false. However, we have ENOUGH data that correlates that we can simply remove the suspicious people (such as Bib, or any other people claiming ridiculous gains that the theory rests on) and rely on a majority of gaining hangers, for example. Xenolith is a good example of gaining hanger, another is ironaddict. These people provided pictures and grew reasonably so. There is no need to involve the suspicious ones.

I have…I came across the IPR issues and all the drama that occurred in the end. I am still reading it as I read it lightly the first time, I was primarily trying to understand Xeno’s technique in hanging, as he hung a very large amount of weight. I intend to continue reading his posts in various threads to better understand his views, along with several others that were involved in the discussion.

I am not trying to refute your current hypothesis. I am simply saying that in the majority, you can see that there is a lot of evidence to support the view of high volume, high load hanging. Why does that work? I do not know - we are probably missing some critical information that would logically explain their process.

Exactly. There are several missing “C’s” to explain how these high-volume, high-load hangers gain. They have named a C which I do not feel is logical, but that does not mean the method does not work; just that the argument is wrong.

Note: aside from your exhaustive compilation of articles, I believe this is the major benefit of your thread. You have sufficiently refuted their argument.

I have no hypothesis there other that too much stress causes stalling, than if one insists working minor injuries, and finally, if he goes ahead overworking, a major injury.

The collecting studies-hypothesis works that way, not the adversely as you are supposing. I have no ‘preconceived perfect PE strategy’ that I’m trying to backup searching for studies that can help and excluding studies that can refute that hypothesis, as you seem to underlyine.

Injury from high stress loads repeated too often is a tautology, actually. Before that, a stalling will happen and then a minor injury. Hanger who don’t stop after seeing a plateau and spending several hours daily hanging will likely stop after having a minor injury.

So maybe what you want to mean is "There aren’t people who hangs with high frequency and report injuries"? If so, I posted some example in the LLH thread that counteradict what you believehigh. I recall also having read of other people reporting minor injuries; a very quick search gives some:
Injury from improper hanging
Buster’s Injury and Sabbatical
Bib & Others ~ Hanging Injury & Abdomen Pain

I’m sure you can find more by yourself. I recall this happening, if you can’t maybe you should read more.

Xenolith used the IPR protocol, that is actually near the opposite of the current PE school : infrequent hanging, high weights, etc.. It’s actually far more similar to my 2-phase PE and supercompensation cycles than to the Bib’ ideas.

Just because we are here, I want to recall, for fairness, that Xenolith wasn’t the father of IPR theory, Shiver was. Xenolith just attempted to make that theory incomprehensible :D .

Why doesn’t it work? It seems you believe it works with everybody, well actually that’s not the case. Have you read this, for example?
Who hanged religiously but DID NOT gain?

I don’t know how Ironaddict’ experience can confirm what you do believe: Ironaddict hasn’t hung 6 hours daily, by what I know, and, listen this: he stopped hanging because he wasn’t gaining anymore. So, which points of view his personal report do supports?

There is another point that you are missing I think: if I say "You have to hang the more you can, every day, or you’ll not have gains because your penis will heal stronger", this allow a good margin; I mean, if one has no gains, I can just say: "Hey, you did only two hours daily, you need more than that. - Hey, this day you did no hanging, that’s why you had no gains: your penis has become stronger in that span of time. - Hey, you are using too heavy/toolighe weight to have gains." and so on.

In practical terms, the school you want to support can’t near never be disproved, because very very few people can do hanging many ours daily, all days, all months.

Among the few guys who tried this mad regimen there is one that I think you can trust around here, ModestoMan : he was hanging under Bib’ direction, he had no gains, and if I remember correctly he had a minor injury consisting in a ligament inflammation. Have I said the the weak link when hanging are probably your ligs?