Occam's Razor & PE

Not proven in terms of penile growth….but it explains a lot? So, you’re a PE Pragmatist?

Keep adding epicycles about presumed medical conditions - which I do not have.

All kidding aside, I admire your rhetorical sleight. I wonder if others here noticed that you avoided the $64,000 question (regarding the delayed onset & inverted nature of my “decompensation.”). I could’ve avoided much typing had I limited my post to that one question - but then I would’ve denied you any chance to respond. :)

This would be the ideal. Unfortunately, there isn’t exactly a dearth of vets here who’ve: (1) made significant gains and (2) took a very lengthy layoff from PE and (3) continue to post in the forum.

More rhetorical sleight. Do you consider a doubling of shaft volume to be “proportional” to zero head gains? (Apparently, you even understanding my arguments is “not simple”.)

Fair enough - but Occam’s razor is not limited to material science.

1) As I’ve stated a number of times, I’m theorizing a form of plastic deformation - not technically the exact deformation as observed in deformable solids.

2) While my response #1 also applies to your second question, your conclusion “Why do our dicks grow proportionally?” is not uniformly true: [1] again, my head didn’t grow at all, [2] my girth gains were far greater, proportionally, than my length gains, [3] my base girth gains exceeded my mid-shaft girth gains (so, clearly pertaining to me, your question is really just another unproven assumption).

3) Vascularity in general or relating to the CC/CS? In either case, the blood passage ways could also be deformed by high-pressure impaction (via jelqs, squeezes, clamps, etc.) - this is not in any way “refute” my model.

4) Is this a sarcastic question (as in PE’ing 168 hours per week - which you know is humanly impossible) or are you referring to pe’ing 7 days per week?…such as my former classmate “the Big Gainer” did? Moreover, he eventually wound up doing twice-daily workouts (14 per week) - and gained far more than I did.

A while back Kojack10 started a thread that I thought was extremely interesting. Did you guys see it?
A Possible Breakthrough. About TIME !

Wad that was an entertaining response. It will take me a while to respond to all the points you made. Perhaps individually since it is such a chore to read monster posts.

Hey, I need to be ducking out of here (some friends are heading off near Seven Springs and I’m already late). I won’t be back until late Tuesday night, then I get up early for work on Wednesday. So, I’ll be gone a little while.

- wad

I’m sorry, I suppose you’re right - what’s the value of experience? Perhaps guys who’ve never PE’d or never gained or have PE’d for 3 1/2 weeks total should be dispensing ideas to help PE along.

I’ve achieved gains which doubled my volume, have you? And while I don’t PE now, I will be resuming shortly - lest I eventually lose all of my hard-earned PE gains.

If you understood the spirit behind my Occam’s razor reference to PE, you’d realize that I was asserting that the “tissue growth” model leaves one with the task of explaining how size gains - which eventually required 5-7 hours weekly in intense stressors to achieve - could be maintained for 150 weeks of zero stressors. Unfortunately, no such decompensation model exists - hence the claim of “adding epicycles.”

I do. And you also:

Applied to PE by who? You? So you are doing the same thing you are critiquing.

What others have suggested on this subject does explain all these things: just with some more details than your theory. What does means “loosing elasticity” or “plastic deformation”, exactly? How they happens? At what rate? Rest is required or not? Why heat should (or not) be beneficial?

Muscle growth is plastic deformation, for you? Cellular proliferation is plastic deformation? A broken tendon is plastic deformation? Creep is plastic deformation?

I can’t understand two things:

1) how you do explain penile growth? An explication is not based on vagues concepts. I can say : “An entity cause an augmentation of your penis size”; who could proof I’m wrong? That explication means everything and the adverse of everything.

2) why everyone should answer to your queries where you aren’t answering to anyone? Can your “theory” explain why some guys can gain with a 2 on 1 off frequency, where another one can gain only with a 1-on/1 off or 7/7 ? How useful is here “plastic deformation”, “elasticity loosening” etc. etc.?

Also : how could you explain the simple fact that many have gains when deconditioning? What could means here “plastic deformation” precisely?

How could you explain why some guys have gains only with pumping, others only with stretching, others only with jelqs and so on?

I did compile some information on that thread that "I" felt supported the micro-tear theory. I am undecided at this time whether or not micro-tears are created in the connective tissue of the penis by PE methods.

I don’t want to pull Fire Goat into our debate, but I’m currently researching some of the ideas that he has written about.

To be honest, I bilieve that Wadzilla’s theory is of great value. I’m excited about the information that he has shared with us.

Wad, I really like your theory. I sure am glad that you kept well organized records.

I’m currently looking into the science behind connective tissue elongation in non-injured persons, such as in the CT of dancers, gymnast, and yoga practitioners. Could an elastic to plastic response be occuring in their connective tissue?

Your theory seems sound. There are a lot of members who never thought gains were permanent, but closer to muscle building - if you don’t use it, you lose it.

Avocet8 is a good example. He has been PEing for some time I believe, I wonder if he has had his gains for over 3 years? He follows a maintenance program in order to keep them, something you don’t appear to have done.

I think the next step in PE is finding out how much maintenance is generally needed in order to keep gains.

Wad,

First off, kudos on taking the time to think this through and to post your thoughts. I have always been a staunch advocate of PE theory
and appreciate anyone who is interested in furthering our knowledge. I applaud your efforts!

I could agree more! The more we understand the less time we will waste on ineffective routines and speculation about what works.

However, (you knew that was coming, didn’t you? :) ), I have a few “issues” to comment on…

I think this comment is bad form. Given the hard work and time that you invested in formulating your ideas, shouldn’t you accord some respect and appreciation for the research and insight of others attempting to do the same? Referring to their posts as “sh*t” is not cool. I don’t think anyone’s attempt to further this endeavor is sh*t or a distraction. If you want your ideas to gain respect you should respect those of others.

So, how are we to have a discussion, if we can’t disagree?

Sorry man, in the scientific community the burden of proof is on you. You propose a “theory” or hypothesis you should be the one with the evidence to back it up. The whole, “if you can’t prove me wrong then I’m right”, argument won’t fly.

Speaking from experience, if you post a theory, be prepared to defend it. I still have black eyes from the TGC theory. But I’m not here to trash your theory. I, for one, am glad you posted it and look forward to discussing it.

All things considered, I’m an open minded kind of guy. Whether or not I agree with everything you have say is not important. What is important are
open, honest, objective discussions, that focus on gaining insight and understanding and not on winning arguments. Hey, if someone revolutionizes PE with a theory, more power to them! Who cares who figures it out? Let’s just figure it out.

I am interested in entertaining your questions but first I need some clarification. I read through your post a couple times and in all honesty I’m not even sure what your theory is, other than “plastic deformation.” I’m sure you have probably explained it in detail in other threads but in the spirit of not sending us all on a excursion to find it, would you mind reposting (or copy and past) exactly what you believe happens when we gain?

I’m assuming you believe plastic deformation adds no “epicycles?”

Lastly, my biggest question is, do you believe plastic deformation is responsible for the enlargement of ALL tissues in the penis, regardless of type? Are you basing your theory solely on your own personal experience?

There are some really great PE thinkers on this site. Here are a just few I can think of right off the top of my head…

wad
sparkyx
kojack10
remek
ModestoMan
firegoat
memento
marinera
and many many others…

Why is it everybody is set on promoting their “own agenda?” I have read tons of “theories” and hypothesis about penis growth here. In my opinion, all of them have something positive to offer. But, it seems most are received with an “all or nothing” approach. It seems too many are quick to criticize and dismiss. I’m not saying we just blindly agree with everything being promoted. Just that we look for the positive and useful information from each persons contribution and not just trash the whole thing because we disagree with one of more points. I don’t agree with everything wad has posted here; I’m sure no one here agrees with everything I have posted. But, I’m sure there’s something good and useful from his observations and experience. Let’s all can the “I’m right and your wrong” attitude and work together.

Good post Iguana.

Thank you sir! :)

Iguana,

Touché on your comments about my statement, “If you can do so, then I’m wrong; if you can’t, then I’m right.”
After I reread it later, I found it to be rather crass – but by then it was too late to edit.

Having said that, I want to remind you about one thing – you stated that the onus was on me to prove my theory, as if the prevailing view in this forum was a “Law.” Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Both views are theories – nothing more, at this point. So, the onus is on all of us!

Furthermore, the cell/growth view is actually the one that has been roundly dismissed by the medical community (in other words, their rejection of natural PE is based upon the very view in this forum regarding the “mechanism,” which the doctors know cannot happen). So, the prevailing theory here is actually the one with a big strike against it – not my theory.

For the sake of convenience, let’s consider a few abbreviations…

Stressor-Induced Growth via Cellular Mitosis: Let’s call it GvM (growth via mitosis).
Deformation/Enlargement from Elasticity to Plasticity Progression: Let’s call that EtP (elasticity to plasticity).

The medical community has repeatedly & emphatically stated that natural PE cannot occur because the penis is not comprised of tissues that are conducive or responsive to GvM.

I have never heard them dismiss it within the framework of EtP (I don’t doubt they would caution against attempting to deform your penis via exercises – if only out of fear of litigation – but I’ve never heard them consider natural PE within that framework).

So, let us say that my theory is not the one that has been debunked by the medical establishment.

I’m going to work on concisely presenting my views (judging from a number of the responses in this thread, I haven’t done a very good job of that up to this point). I assure you, however, that this thread will be last that you EVER hear about this from me – if there’s not much interest afterwards.

I’m also willing to demonstrate, in concrete terms, just why the difference of theories is so important – in terms of pursuing PE breakthroughs.

I’ll be pretty busy the next few days, but let me leave you with a few things to ruminate. If the GvM model is true: (1) the phrase “cementing” a gain is absolutely meaningless, and (2) there is no such thing as a “maintenance routine.”

Those are not “arguments,” by the way, just a few bits to chomp on.

As I won’t be posting again until maybe Saturday, Iguana, I’ll do you a service and show you my cards – giving you time.

My presentation will deal with: [1] the nature of stressor-induced GvM – using not only the model of hypertrophy – but other instances as well (including the phases of damage, compensation, supercompensation & decompensation), [2] the observable instances of tissue deformation, [3] the problematic nature of the GvM model, [4] answering the questions with the EtP model, and – if this thread is still alive – [5] looking forward, from the perspective of the EtP model - including the concept of “cementing,” a “maintenance routine,” and where I suspect the next breakthroughs might lie.

As a teaser, here are 6 “Facts” that I propose to deal with. Using the EtP model, I can address all of them. However, using the GvM model, I can answer only the first two – before that model drops to the ground like a dead bird.

The Clear “Facts of the Case”

1) I undoubtedly realized size increases from vigorous PE – indeed, I doubled my erect size, by volume.

2) Although I PE’d tenaciously, I quit altogether, doing not even a skeleton routine for maintenance.

3) Despite a layoff, cold turkey, for 3+ years, my size remained the same (more or less).

4) A few months ago, I began to experience a loss of size.

5) A recent, and even larger loss of size, has indicated that my size losses are apparently accelerating.

6) My penis has gained elasticity as it has lost size.

Back to you in a little while.

pudendum also, I’d like to hear him chime in.

I am only lurking on this thread as I don’t consider myself even close to having the experience or knowledge to make meaningful comments.

But it seems to me that there is something very important about wadzilla’s #6.

Actually, no. The onus is on you to prove your theory. Your theory stands or falls on its own. If it stands, it then becomes relevant how it compares and contrasts to the “prevailing view” (as if there was just one prevailing view here!).