Opinions or even facts?

So I was thinking about PE. I would say that jelqing and pumping are the most similar in a few aspects. They both cause cells to pressurize with high volumes of fluid. Granted pressure and fluid volume differ, but it seems like these two methods cause micro tears. IOW via pressure or volume, cells can only hold so much before they tear, and form a second new cell.

Hanging, stretching, or a traction device (ie penismaster, jes-extender) would cause cellular multiplication.

Thats what I “think” as of now, if anyone could present me with facts, that would be cool. If not, im still very intertested in reading everyones opinion on this who participates. :)

I’m not entirely sure about this myself. I’ve often wondered about it, as one may have more permanent results. As I understand it, tissue traction doesn’t necessarily result in new cells, as much as it does stretched cells. But I don’t know how any of this relates to the penis.

It’s been a while since I’ve heard anything about tissue traction—from a doctor, at least—but if memory serves me right, I think that new cell development comes with extended traction, which would serve our PE purpose very well.

If a new cell is made via any form of PE, I dont comprehend how you could lose much in the way of gains. Just from that, I would think PE is permanent.

Personally, I think the only new cells formed are the ones that are formed during the repair of the tissue. I don’t believe cellular mitosis can be brought about by adding any amount of pressure to a cell. Without getting into the 4 stages of mitosis, cellular division is a fairly complex process which includes nuclear division, chromatid polarization, etc. Internal pressure of a cell is known as turgor pressure. In any cell without a cell wall (which is any cell that is not a plant cell), the cell ruptures when turgor pressure is too high, not undergoes mitosis. What I believe occurs is simple plastic deformation or micro-trauma. There are four ranges of stress for a tissue. The first is the elastic range. The tissue is temporarily deformed, but no actual permanent deformation takes place. The elastin within collagen allows it, to some extent, to expand beyond its normal capabilities without the shape being forever changed. Next is the range of plastic deformation. The individual collagen fibrils are taken into a hyper extended state that is past the range of elasticity and thus the tissue itself undergoes a permanent change. Beyond that, we have micro-trauma - failure on a microscopic scale in which individual collagen fibrils are actually broken. And finally, there is macro-trauma - failure on a much larger scale. Repetitive strain injuries such as tendinitis are caused by micro-trauma to a collagenous tissue whereas injuries such as a tear in the skin are an example of macro-trauma to a collagenous tissue. As I stated before, I strongly believe that PE gains are attributed to both plastic deformation and micro-trauma. I can’t really speculate which accounts for more gains because collagen has a very high tensile strength and it is impossible to distinguish what percentage of fibrils are elongated and what percentage are actually broken. As far as why gains can be lost, I believe it is because of the protein actin, which is produced in the phase of cellular mitosis known as Cytokinesis (when the new collagen cells are being made within the tissue). Actin is what is known as a contractile protein. It’s function in Cytokinesis is actually to pinch the new cell being made during mitosis and the old cell into separate cells. When collagen is first formed it is almost gel-like. It takes around 2 to 3 months for it to completely solidify. I believe that if force is applied to the tissue during this time, it will combat the contracting action of the actin in the newly formed tissue and hence gains will not be lost. However, if no force is applied after the new cells form, the actin will contract and thus gains are lost.

Notice that you will read the words “I believe” and the like in the above paragraph. Although some of it is indisputable scientific fact, other parts are mere speculation. That being said, I have not really heard many others discuss their views on the actual method of growth we achieve when we PE, but some people who have expressed their thoughts on the subject do share similar ideas.

Regardless, its still very interesting reading.

Soon2b9,

This may just be the layman in me talk so correct me if I’m wrong. I heard somewhere that every cell in the body is replaced ever five years or so, I assume this takes place in the penis as well. The cell division that takes place in the penis is basically setting its self up to replace the cells that are about to die off.

Now my stab into possible medical fiction is to ask if there is a way to get the cells in the penis to divide ahead of schedule. Ideally the procedure would only need to be done once. The mass of the penis may possible double from the one time. And since the cell division was caused by artificial means I would assume that all the cells, even the new ones, would continue back on the schedule the body typically employs baring any more artificial stimulation.

>>This may just be the layman in me talk so correct me if I’m wrong. I heard somewhere that every cell in the body is replaced ever five years or so, I assume this takes place in the penis as well.<<

Actually, that could be correct as an average. Some cells are replaced every 90 days, but some are only replaced every 7 years. Then there are the few cell types that the human body has a limited quantity of and they are never replaced such as the lens of the eyes (in which the cells are replaced with collagenous scar tissue if they are damaged, but never the same type of cells that make up the lens).

>>Now my stab into possible medical fiction is to ask if there is a way to get the cells in the penis to divide ahead of schedule. Ideally the procedure would only need to be done once. The mass of the penis may possible double from the one time. And since the cell division was caused by artificial means I would assume that all the cells, even the new ones, would continue back on the schedule the body typically employs baring any more artificial stimulation.<<

Well, I can’t say for sure whether or not it is possible, but I can tell you that I sure as hell don’t know a way to force cellular mitosis. :p
I do know however that most cells spend 90 percent of their time in the interphase state. This is the state inbetween cellular divisions. The cell uses some of this time to synthesize DNA. After this, the cell synthesizes proteins and organelles for the next upcoming mitosis. I think one thing that would limit the ability to force cellular division would be the fact nothing can be done to give your cells extra energy to complete these processes more quickly. They produce a certain amount of adenosine triphosphate via aerobic respiration, and that energy is used to carry out cellular functions. No matter how much more 6-C glucose you add, mitochondria can still only produce ATP at a given rate. I would venture to say that the only way to force cellular mitosis is to speed up this metabolic reaction. I don’t know of a way to do such, but that is by no means to say it can’t be done. Sorry I can’t be of more help than that bro.

I’m only a ‘lay preacher’ on this, but if we can generate new cells while the old cells still exist, wouldn’t that be ancouraging cancererous cells to develop?

I understand the reason cancer forms is becuase when new cells are generated, the old cells don’t ‘commit suicide’ This is caused by various means such as inhaling chemicals that alter the cell’s make-up. So would continually over-stretching the cells have a similar effect.

That argument can be counteraxted by the fact that in daily life we stretch various muscles and tissue, so it is something the body may have learned to cope with. But there is no doubt that as we get older lumps and bumps form in our muscles, etc.

In another thread I postulated the theory that, as stretching the skin was possible; so the same could apply to the other parts - lligs, blood cells and tissue - rather than the formation of new cells.

So has any research been done on whether say, bodybuilders create new tissues when training or is it simply a stretching of the tissue. I imagine there must have been some research carried out on this. So it would be interesting to see what has been discovered.

Did anyone else space out when they read Soon2b9’s first post? No offence Soon2b9, I just had a flash back of college chemistry and had that teacher from the snoopy cartoon saying ‘wah wah wah, wah wah,’ in my mind. Then again maybe its because its 5:50 am…goodnight. :)

Way oversimplified, cancer is cell division gone awry.:)

The issue of micro-tearing is a straw man. Whether a stretched ligament exhibits fissures or not there is an increase in cell death with ANY stretching. Cells are always and constantly dying and growing albeit at a snails pace in any tissues, even bone. The level of mitosis of the cells is regulating by the chemicals given off by dying cells in addition to genes and groth hormone. Histamines, prostaglandins etc. The best way to increase mitosis is to wound a tissue, particularly structurally important tissues. But cell death and therefore cell replacement is increased by ANY amount of stain (i.e. externally applied elongation) in ligaments in particular :

"The statistical threshold of cellular damage was found to be at 0% strain from preload in the rat MCL. That is statistically, cellular damage begins with the application of tissue strain…" (i.e. any strain above zero)

(see the reference in this thread, pretty pictures and everything How can PE work ? There are no scientific proofs! )

So theoretically hanging a dime from your cock has killed at least SOME ligament cells. These cells release dead cell stuff which causes a cascade of scavenging and "mitotic-stimulating chemicals", i.e. healing. From other references on healing and remodelling ligaments (the formation of Type III collagen fibrils and their gradual replacement with Type I fibrils) the ligament changes shape, thickness, concentration and orientation of fibrils etc. to conform to the new average range of motion. There is some speculation that there is a Piezo electric effect that guides the re-modelling process.

I’m starting to think that the phenomenon of nocturnal erections in youth has its purpose as assuring the elongation of the penis during the nocturnal high growth hormone release periods.

The interested reader can google combinations of the terms: "ligaments wound healing remodelling collagen fibrils Type I Wolff’s Law" PE kills ligament cells.

PE KILLS LIGAMENT CELLS.

Healing-stimulated mitosis grows them back quicker through replacement of those cells.

HEALING IS ANOTHER NAME FOR DAMAGE STIMULATED GROWTH OF CELLS TO REPLACE DEAD CELLS IN STRUCTURAL TISSUES

The initial patchwork elongates and strengthens to meet further PE demands.

Excellent explanation, rakishly. Thank you.

I would have taken this post seriously, if it didnt start out condescending. Then reading it, it becomes evident that you are trying to confuse the reader with big terms and theories that have no merit. Im not even going to bother addressing this. What are you trying to say, that you know whats happening inside? Everyones an expert. I asked for your theory on it. That doesnt mean your post is a science lecture, filled with your ideas like they are fact. You can have the last word, im out of this post, I already see it will be cluttered with novice scientist.

Fieldmouse,

Wasn’t the point of this thread to invite people to offer their “amateur scientist” opinions on this matter, since no actual medical researchers are studying PE specifically? (By the way, I suspect from a number of rakishly’s posts that his career is in biological research, so this might by why his jargon is difficult — it’s not on purpose, to make anyone feel dumb. As I’m sure you know from your own line of work, whatever it may be, you can get used to communicating with only those individuals who share your area of expertise.)

If anything in a post is confusing, just ask the poster to clarify and he’ll be glad to do so. I certainly didn’t understand every detail in rakishly’s post, but I still feel I profited just from getting the gist of it.

rakishly,

Although cells death is what causes cell growth as you said, that doesn’t help in relation to LongEnough’s question because killing cells to be replaced wouldn’t cause near as much of an increase in the total number of cells as if none of the original cells died. I know that’s obvious, I’m just saying that it’s not really a way to force cellular mitosis in the way that he was asking about.