Originally Posted by marinera
Now, it seems this thread is becoming about ‘Long Vehicle debunking Marinera’. This is not what the title says, and what the OP suggest. So I’ll leave it for a while. I’ll read what others have to say about - I see Sparkyx is online, I hope I’ll like to post because his are always good post to read. See you later.
marinera,
You seem to be somewhat emotional. If I have caused you to be upset because I did not actively participate in the specific discussion you provided, I am sorry for this. The reason I stopped discussing things and said that this was futile is because after I started the thread and made my posts, my view changed. My initial (selfish) purpose was to figure out, in essence: is there any anatomical/medical conclusion that refutes certain methods of lengthening and promotes others? Or, in other words, I wanted to clear up my confusion. After posting, I read more and realized that everyone is confused, and decided it was not worth discussing. Firegoat said it best in your thread:
Originally Posted by firegoat
I’ve said many times that there are so many methods of PE that work. It doesn’t matter how or why they work, only that they do. And when one method stops giving gains, it’s time to vary the routine. We find what we like and what works for us; it’s trial and error.
I try not to get sucked into the ‘science’ threads unless someone is putting forward dangerously wrong ideas. I read hundreds of pages of research a year on connective tissue, but I can still only hypothesize on exactly how it relates to PE. Some guys read one article and base their whole theories around it. Maybe that approach just feels right to them, or they have used it and gained, so they ‘like’ that method and want to champion it.
Plenty of guys post their progress threads; some use high load/short duration, some low load/long duration. Some mostly work on girth, some on length. Some do PE every day, some only a couple of times a week.
We are working, ligs and tunica, girth and length, erection strength, etc. there are too many variables to say ‘this approach will work best, because science says so’.
I returned and posed the question in the aforementioned post to you because I was under the impression that you really wanted to discuss the issues, as you replied to my reply to sparkyx that stated that this effort was useless, in essence. So I thought, if you want to discuss anything, at least it should be beneficial.
Again, I am sorry for wasting your time - this is because I wanted to clear up my confusion, and then changed my mind midway and realized the thread was not worth continuing in essence. The reason I continued is because of my respect for you, your work here, and your good discussions - exclusively. I hope that this waste of your time will not leave you with a negative attitude toward me, as I believe at other times I’ve provides some beneficial posts here for others as well.
Finally, a parting word:
Originally Posted by marinera
That is where the question becomes circular. We can’t say what the best PE regimen is if we don’t know what causes growth and how. Saying : do X sets of hanging for Y times per week with Z weight is better than manual stretching 30 minutes…. has little or no meaning. Things varies largely from a guy to another. Why? If we do have a clue, we can think what’s the best way, if not, we tend to become dogmatic and say the same medicine is good for everyone. Not true.
You are referring to causality, and saying that understanding causality is necessary to benefit from any discussions here. I agree that understanding causality would be the golden key to PE - I just said that it has become clear to me that I will not effectively understand it by pursuing this discussion further.
Is causality the only way to utilize variables in a system? Not at all. Consider the process as a black box. We cannot see what is happening inside the body. We see stimuli, recovery, fatigue, and results (among other things). These are the variables we see - we do not understand what happens inside. Through statistically analyzing empirical information, we can create a model to optimize the output we want (growth) from the variables we have, without knowing causality (this is a reverse of forecasting, if you are familiar with regression procedures). Here, we can’t do that because we do not have reliable data. BUT, we can still create a mental model through qualitative data, taken with a grain of salt, and employ it to create a quasi-optimized model with fuzzy parameters.
I am not sure if this last part was confusing. Anyway, it is an epistemological issue and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Edit: I am not sure if you still have the moderator capacities, but it may be best to delete this thread. Nothing useful was presented from my side other than posing questions, realizing it was futile and then stopping.
