LOT theory.

Well my fellow Thunderians I have just learned something very valuable. Once upon a time, I had a LOT of around 8:00; this was back in 2004. I checked it again today and it was 6:30; holy shit! Now I know that LOT theory is just that, a theory, but something has obviously changed in my physiology. Let’s assume it’s a fact, the LOT fact, and under that assumption this potential fact I’m about to present could be the case.

If LOT is true, then maybe just maybe, it would be optimal to exhaust your LOT; despite it’s starting position. If you started at 12, or at 9 o’clock, or whatever; it may be advantageous to render your LOT to about 6:00 and then focus on the tunica.

I for one have stretched at low angles for the duration of my PE career, with little upward stretching, thus my LOT has been almost exhausted! I’ve been stuck at the same length for the last couple months, so I’m going to now focus on upward stretching. If this kick starts my gains, and my LOT doesn’t decrease, it suggests my tunica is stretching, just as LOT theory states.

I would be interested to have some statistics of members who accurately documented their LOTs from the beginning, and simply worked at lower angles to stretch the ligs; then I would like to to know when they have exhausted the LOT and if gains had stopped at this point. This would help to at least add some more validity to the theory. I’m sure this has been posted elsewhere, and I apologize if so, but I’m really interested in this. If any one has statistics that are consistent with what I mentioned, please speak up.

From what I’ve read, if your LOT is low, it’s good to go ahead and start doing upward exercises, but why not try to exhaust the LOT? (Even if it was at 7:00 to start with.) That’s the part I haven’t heard of yet.

(To add, it would be good to have the statistics of the actual gain in length; if enough are consistent, then maybe we could calculate the amount of length gain per o’clock.)

Oh Jesus.

LOT was for hangers. It has nothing to do with stretching, jelqing or anything else.

Let it die. Please.

I’m not sure of any jelqing application, I never implied anything along those lines. It “was” for hangers? Why is it not still? I would have to say that stretching is a valid application to the theory, assuming it’s correct of course. I’m really convinced that gains can be made by applying this LOT theory to your routine.

Let’s put it this way, everything that has been stated about LOT has been consistent with my gains, and observations. Nothing else has been as consistent with me at least, and that’s all I can really go by. We have to pick something to have faith in, and LOT really makes sense. There maybe some flaws to it, I don’t know, but it seems to be a generally good overall theory.

If you want to ignore it, there is nothing wrong about doing so; I simply choose to study it further.

A quick example: I have stretched downward through most of my career, and almost all of my length gains are at downward angle. There is little change upward toward my belly button, which is totally consistent with lig gains. Now I can’t prove that the loss of tugback shows how tight or bound my ligs are, but as I gain length and lose my LOT angle, it is consistent. (It’s by no means prove, but it is suggestive.)