Punctuated PE Theory

I think we have three different attempts at humor here that are not being well received. xeno, I’m pulling your leg here, attempting to use a little humor (very little it appears), to get you to notice the same thing that Alice pointed out. That’s all. Not pissed, not serious. :)

The graph thread would be cool though.

While I think you can be serious and hardcore PEer without plotting, Xeno does have a good point. A cybernetic approach of making adjustments based on actual feedback will ultimately outperform blind adherence to a generic routine.

Sure tracking everything may seem like an unreasonable pain in the ass. But in the words of George Bernard Shaw, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

Xeno is one of the most unreasonable people I know :)

I alaways found humor is hard to convey through the Internet in just text without any help with facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, etc. It’s like a skill you just pick up I guess through practice… haha.

All right…a couple of things.

To my friends LM and MX, please provide an alternate definition of serious in the context of PE.

This thread had no ill defined language in it when I bumped it, your definitions will keep it that way.

Regarding me missing the humor, pretty much, yep. However…my hanger may have been a little tight :) . Anywhooo, all is forgiven…I’ll attempt to look for more “hardy har hars” here.

I always liked GBS…thanks MX :) .

Unreasonably yours,

xeno :)

Serious could mean committed to following a given routine in order to produce a result. Or it could mean committed to finding ways to improve the method by which a result is produced. IOW, you can be serious about making your dick bigger and/or you can be serious about finding a better way to make your dick bigger.

Not everyone wants, or is will to do the work necessary to take PE to the next level. Some just want a recipe to follow. No judgment, just different goals.

Nice graph Xeno. That’s almost exactly as I had always visualised my projections (I do mental graphs because I’m posh! :D ). The only difference, and a difference I was hoping not to see on your One Year Gains presentation is this:

1. There is an initial newbie gain which has an eventual logarithmic decay as expected.
2. Flat line which is presumably a deconditioning break(?)
3. Restart with new gains, which athough smaller than newbie gains, do follow the same logarithmic decay.
4. Flat Line, Gains, Flat line, Gains etc

Unfortunately it looks like each subsequent gain is smaller than the previous. I was hoping it would be at least linear with the exception of the newbie gain (which could have other factors to explain it). In fact, it looks like there may even be a fibonacci relationship in there. Do you have sufficient data plots to determine if this is true?

Great job MX! Thank you.

Everyone’s definition is as valid as everyone else’s..it’s a subjective thing. I like yours a lot.

Shiver-

I think your description of my gains plots (the following discussion refers to BPFSL and BPEL…EG is different) captures the essential nature of the curves. I do have 2 basic gains phases after my newbie gains phase. I’m at the tail end of the last gain phase plotted now. Even though the last gains phase looks to go flat at 8.125” BPEL, I may actually be closer to 8.25”, so that would bring up that flat portion…that last data point assumes I won’t have gained anything further by 4 days from now (365th day). Note the spike in BPFSL at the end of the plot…I want to convert some of that to BPEL before I terminate this gains cycle.

I reserve the right to post a plot with bigger numbers if I’m bigger in 4 days!

Yea, it does look like a fibonacci nested exponential decay function. SOME of that is undoubtedly due to the decreasing levels of work load that I’m willing to do with each succeeding campaign. But some of that is in part due to the difficulty in moving more dick. It is a bigger job to do in each succeeding campaign. IMO, there is no doubt that there exists a biological “brake” (oh God stand back!) that fundamentally limits our gains rate. That being said, if one wants to work right at that limit, fine…I know I’ve done that (during my first post newbie gains gain phase). I’m still trying to hug the max gains rate curve by trying to keep my erect volume vs. time plot approximately linear. In essence, this has manifested itself as conversion of principle gains from length to girth…it’s just harder to move that big sucker out more.

I seem to be brainfarting on how to convert my .xls files to .doc, as soon as I remember how to do that, I’ll post my EV and %change in EV plots. You’ll see that they are pretty darn linear.

Thanks for your interest.

xeno

Okee dokee. Here are my EV and % EV change plots. After my newbie phase, the curves are relatively linear (especially if I’m really 8.25” BPEL). I’m trying to do that. This means that volumetrically, I’m holding to a pretty good gains rate, as good as in my most aggressive of PE training programs. Pretty neat huh?

Where these plots will go, I don’t know. I do know that they will reveal more and more about my gains physiology as they develop.

Thoughts, comments?

Well done, xeno.

I haven’t forgotten about that Thunder. I’ll even let LM off the hook and absolve him of any need to define serious first. I’ll get something together on this before long.

Thanks to Alice for the gracious PM. I apologize for my temporary lack of a sense of humor, but really my BIB was on prett’dern tight :) .

Looking at the first plot, I notice now that the most recent flattened length seems to have been traded for increased girth in instead(?). I have noticed that I can ‘gel’ measurments for one or the other within a certain limit.

Looking at your BPFSL, I think you will indeed get that last bit of BPEL, if not in the next 4 days, then certainly in the next 3 weeks or so.

The EV charts look interesting too, and something that I’ve never plotted. It just goes to show how misleading statistics can be if you don’t have the whole picture :)

So, from what MXL said originally, and from what we can gleen from these charts, it looks that there is an optimal gains rate for a person, and the the particular exercise routine used is of secondary importance. More than that, (imho) it appears that higher intensity stuff carries little benefit over moderate intensity (provided it is ‘enough’ intensity), and that time is always the final rate limiter - 3 or 4 cycles per year and leave it to get on with things(?)

Beautifully articulated Shiver. Thank you. I have a hunch that this concept has applicability fairly uniformly, something that we all know is a rarity in PE! IF one is a PE practioner who chooses to measure (tip to Nine :) ), it just makes sense to me to record those measurements. Over time, in aggregate, they tell a story that you can use to get a bigger dick as EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE. I think.

I got your tip ole’ buddy. :)

Cool bro.

BTW, I’m not always a serious* PE practitioner, but because I have a definition to work from, I know when I am and when I’m not being serious* about it.

*= considers all available tools.

And the definition only says CONSIDER not USE…it’s very easy to be a serious* PE practioner…the definition is more accomodating than Lily Thai after a Lex Steele reaming! How’s that for humor? :)