The Upper Limit of PE: Does it exist?

Right. I think you would profit by going back and reading that entire thread wad.

Hey Wad,

Regarding my “Testing Lot Theory” thread, you are completely correct that the thread itself did not take aim at “disproving” Lot Theory (if I remember correctly). It was really about using the simulator to try to learn something about LOT and possibly shed some light on the theory.

The simulator did not seem to support the theory. I exchanged some emails with Bib about it, expressing my doubts about LOT Theory. He did not accept my assertions that the simulator seemed to weaken the case for his theory. Things got unpleasant, and I eventually lost the stomach for arguing with him.

I went back through Bib’s original posts on the theory and found that there was never much of an effort to validate it or really even to explain what it meant when the theory first came out. From all I could see, it was just a bunch of naked assertions based very loosely on the reported histories of a few guys.

This lead to the realization that “LOT Theory” may not have ever been so much a theory as a hypothesis (thank you Xenolith for reminding me of that). It was just an idea. It was never proven; it was never even corroborated. Bib adopted the idea and started counseling people to hang according to their LOTs. Others, who viewed Bib with high regard, adopted the idea as well. A movement was born!

But the real reason I no longer believe in LOT Theory has nothing to do with how the idea was born. The real reason is that the idea doesn’t make any sense. The simulator shows approximately how the anatomy is arranged. The stuff doesn’t work according to the theory.

Bib tried to explain LOT Theory to me intuitively. His explanation made no sense to me at all. His explanation presumed that the penis’ origin (insertions into the ischiopubic rami) was directly behind the pubic bone, and that the pubic bone was shaped like an arc describing the hours of a clock. The arc was approximately horizontal at the bottom and vertical at the top. His explanation also presumed that the penis shaft was bound to the pubic bone. People with high LOT had their shafts stuck all the way up to the top of the pubic bone, whereas people with low LOT had their shafts attached lower.

None of this appears to be true. The penis’ origin is both behind and well below the bottom of the pubic bone, not simply behind it. The pubic bone is sometimes arc-shaped, but not always. It is sometimes concave and sometimes flat. It doesn’t start out horizontal and curve vertical. It is actually inclined at a fairly low angle—about 30 degrees. Also, the penis is not adhered to the pubic bone, as he said. It hangs down and is suspended from the pubic bone. The ligament has to have non-zero length to allow for erections. In summary, Bib’s numbers didn’t add up. His geometrical/anatomical model was wrong.

This all lead me to conclude that LOT “Theory” is simply a wild-assed idea that should not be taken seriously—at least until someone can make a compelling case that it is valid. I think I have communicated that sentiment since writing the original “Testing” post, which I intended to be objective and free of opinion. I don’t know exactly where I’ve said it, but it’s pretty clear I don’t ascribe to the “theory” any longer.

Well, that’s way too much to write on a notebook computer in front of Cartoon Network. I hope this helps to clarify the issue.

ModestoMan: Do you have any theories on why LOT is different from individual to individual? After reading through your appraisal and study of Bib’s original LOT theory, it occurs to me that any opinion you might have on what actually causes LOT to differ from individual to individual would be interesting.

Do you think that the majority of guys out there could gain 2” if they were to apply themselves with intelligence and dedication over, say, a three year time period?

What does LOT mean? LOT is simply the answer to a geometry problem—at what angle do the ligs divert tension away from the “inner penis.” That’s all it is. I see no relationship between LOT and gains at all. Gains have to do with adding new meat to the penis—literally, stimulating it so that cells grow and/or divide and tissues proliferate. LOT is about angles and lengths and has nothing to do with growth.

I remember back when I was working on the simulator, I thought I saw that the location where the ligs attached to the shaft along its length was a strong determinant of LOT. You can check the testing thread to be sure. I can’t say what that might mean as far as prospective gains are concerned. I think very little.

It’s worthwhile to consider that stretching one’s ligs might be an effective form of PE. But it’s not because the ligs get longer and the inner penis comes out. Rather, it may be because the looser ligs allow PE to be more effective farther back along the shaft. Assuming that tissues that receive PE-induced forces grow faster than those that don’t, you can see how having somewhat longer ligs can be helpful.

But I don’t think people should go nuts with it. I’m a big fan of varying the angles, and mixing with your hanging a hefty dose of jelqing.

As for gaining 2”, I think that’s a matter of biochemistry, as well as the usual factors of consistency and dedication. Some guys seem to be built for gains. For other guys, it’s harder. In any case, it has nothing to do with LOT, IMO. It’s all about your penis’ ability to add new mass.

Most guys would probably be able to do it, but it might take longer than 3 years. For some guys, it may not be possible. I’m coming up on my 3 year anniversary, and I still haven’t gained 2”.

I think it’s important for each guy to try different PE methods to find what works for him. Many routines will work for some guys, but not for others. One objection I had to Bib’s approach was that I thought it was overly formulaic and suggested that gains were inevitable given certain routines. Gains are not inevitable, and you have to be able to give up on a routine that isn’t working if you’re ever going to meet your goals.

Interesting info. I feel the same way about LOT as you do pretty much. Just wondering about what you see as the anatomical reason behind people’s differing LOT’s. This makes a lot of sense to me.

amen

Link

Here, “IP” stands for “inner penis,” by which I mean the length of the shaft between the pelvic attachments to the ischiopubic rami and the attachment of the suspensory ligament. The simulator suggests that LOT is primarily a function of where the ligs attach along the shaft. This may account for the differences we see in LOT among different guys.

Link to Simulator

Quite a read Modesto. Thanks for that. After reading your correction on page 5 regarding the amount of length gains that you feel actually come from the ligs, would it be safe to say that you now feel that the majority of gains do/should come from working the tunica?

I agree with you on this entirely. I just believed that if a guy had a high so-called LOT, he might make some quick lig gains - again, not “massive,” but quick.

As Dino had mentioned before, I agree that jelqing is THE “granddaddy” of PE work. I believe that if a person stubbornly chose to do only *one* PE exercise, he should do jelqs - even above stretching alone.

For quite some time I’ve believed that other indicators were far more important to gains; personally, I think it has a lot to do with one’s F:E (Flaccid-to-Erect) ratio. Experts tell us that flaccid size varies even more than erect size between most men. This clearly has to do with elasticity (the grower’s tissues expand far more than the show-er’s tissues). You could have 2 men with the exact same EL, but the one guy’s flaccid could be twice as large; this is not unheard-of. Why?

Elasticity. But there’s a double-edged sword to that. I think the grower has more gain “potential,” but the show-er might gain more quickly/easily.

I also thought Bib’s formulaic approach was overly simplistic. PE is not a math equation; gains, unlike math answers, are not inevitable.

As for the 2 inch EL gain, not “everybody” can do that…in 3 years or 6 years. Personally, it took me a long time - of on and off PE - to just hit the 2” mark. And for a long time, I thought I never would.

I recommend guys work the whole apparatus. Really, though, it’s a false dichotomy—ligs versus tunica. One cannot stretch the ligs without also stretching the tunica, since the tunica is the tissue though which stretching forces reach the ligs.

The real question is which part of the tunica one should work. Traditional lig stretching focuses stress on the dorsal side of the tunica. This is not a bad place to start, since the tunica’s strongest fibers run from the ligs to the glans along the dorsal side. In fact, some fibers of the tunica have their origin in the suspensory ligament.

For most guys, about 1/3 of the penis is inside the body—beneath and behind the pubic bone. Stretching at high angles (e.g., above one’s LOT) allows tension to pass by the ligs uninterrupted and to reach all the way back to the penis’ origin in the pelvic bones.

Ignoring that 1/3 of the penis by stretching the “ligs” only may slow one’s progress. Also, it may be that much growth happens at this inner 1/3, in which case you sure don’t want to miss out by omitting it.

So, my recipe for gains (and your experience may vary) is to stretch in all directions and jelq, jelq, jelq.

My favorite form of stretching is the A-stretch, and I try to spend 1/3 to 1/2 of my total stretching time on this exercise. I really like the A-stretch because it focuses stress on the dorsal fibers of the tunica (the strongest ones), but, because the shaft is angled up as it passes the pubic bone, it also transmits stress all the way back to the pelvic bones. It therefore stresses the shaft over its entire length, stem to stern.

With just a small adjustment in angle, one can also apply an excellent lig stretch while still maintaining the basic A-stretch position.

To answer your question more directly, YES, I certainly think one should focus on the tunica, by which I mean the shaft of the penis rather than the ligs themselves. But doing justice to the tunica, I think, REQUIRES that you spend some time on the ligs, since portions of the tunica are actually integral with the ligs.

This might be true, but I don’t see why. Most guys get quick gains to start out.

I have not idea whether “elasticity” is a valid predictor or gains, but it would be interesting to study. Maybe it’s a good topic for a poll, if we can figure out how to construct one. In my experience, I have found that my gains tend to come after my flaccid increases and stays larger than usual for a long period of time. That would suggest that they come after I have lost “elasticity.”

I’m still not sure I can.

Actually, now that I’ve had a shower and thought about it, this might be true and is supported by the LOT simulator.

The problem is, the “gains” one sees are not generally accompanied by an increase in penile mass. What I think is happening is that guys succeed at lengthening their ligs, while their shafts stay about the same. As a result, guys are able to push their rulers in farther when making their bone-pressed measurements. With the lig lenthened, the shaft hangs farther down from the pubic symphysis. Since the pubic symphysis is angled, the lower the penis hangs, the farther the ruler can be pushed in before it hits the bone.

This observation may help to explain why some guys see a quick increase in BPEL but no accompanying increase in NBPEL. Their dick’s aren’t growing; it’s just that their rulers are able to be pushed in farther.

I’ve thought of this before in relation to lig length, but I haven’t thought of it in connection with LOT. I’m frankly not sure whether one’s LOT is the real determinant of whether these phantom “gains” occur. I think it’s more a matter of starting lig length. We’ve come to associate short ligs with high LOTs, but the simulator shows they don’t always go together.

A two-inch limit on gains does seem reasonable to me.

I’ve been hanging the crap out of my unit, increasing my time and dedication on a consistent basis and the trend I’m seeing is no increase in speed of gains (and maybe even a slowing of gains), which is kind of depressing me.

I hang seventeen to twenty sets a day (twenty one sets being my record for sets hung in a day.) and now it seems I’ve run out of room to stretch. I’ve adjusted my Bib so that it’s cone shaped and attaching all of the weight behind the head to try and expose more of the shaft to greater forces.

It had become quite painful also, as though I’d really exhausted all of the available elasticity and now it had reached some kind of limit.

Having said that I am still hanging and I have had disruptions to my routine over the last month, so I’m not sure if I can in good faith report a slowing of gains. If my gains don’t pick up again soon I’m just going to assume that I’ve reached some kind of limit (maybe time for me to take up jelqing).

Also— the graph in the wiki seems to show that a two inch gain is the most that the most dedicated make, and those that report reaching lengths of eight and a half to nine inches generally start off at six and a half or seven inches.

Yes, this is precisely what I mean. Gains come as elasticity is exhausted (& plasticity occurs). Ergo, those with more elasticity (“growers”) have more gain potential - although a lot of elasticity can be tough to combat. While those with less elasticity (“show-ers”) might respond quicker (i.e., achieve plasticity sooner), they would theoretically have less potential.

Sorry if I’d explained my theory poorly.

This, I believe, is a brainstorm. This makes a tremendous amount of sense to me and rings true regarding my perceptions with a lot of my initial newbie gains. The measurement was there, but the actual useable extra length was somewhat questionable for a time. Then, as I really came to understand PE and how my dick was reacting to it more, and I began to focus more on my SHAFTand stretching, I started to see gains that really spoke to useable increases- noticeable increases to both me and my lovers.

Great stuff ModestoMan. Making big sense here.

I believe that gains definitely come about as elasticity is exhausted, used up, spent, etc. Therefore, I would conclude, that those posessing the most elasticity (i.e., “growers”) have the most potential for gains.

However, this gets complicated. Those with a lot of elasticity, tend to have a very gummy unit, that easily “springs back to normal.” This can make gains very tough.

Whereas, those with little elasticity (i.e., “show-ers”) can make gains quicker - because achieving plasticity is not so difficult. However, their overall gains potential would appear to be less.

Therefore, those with a “l’il gumdrop” (which balloons up a lot) should take heart: they probably have a lot of potential. The question is, Are they a stubborn-enough bastard to stick with it, until they find their own personal “threshold,” where the gains start coming?

If I can make an example, by way of personalizing this, I believe I’ve come much closer to my girth potential than my length potential.

My flaccid girth is never, ever, EVER less than 83% of my erect girth; however, my BPFL is not even close to 80% of my BPEL (how I wish it were!).

Ergo, when I’m flaccid, I’m a major “chode.” (Yes, I’m still a “grower,” not a “show-er” - at least in terms of length).

So, I would conclude, that I’m closer to my girth potential than my length potential.

However, after finally topping 8” BPEL, much of my “psychic tension” has been released. Therefore, I don’t have much motivation to really work hard at PE.

I commend your interest to pursue this scientifically; however, I believe that other factors make this sort of test “difficult…”

Many “show-ers” might make gains quickly, therefore stay with it long enough to show a decent gain.

Many “growers” will encounter difficulties (due to much elasticity), and would be more likely to quit before ever coming close to their gains potential.

I’m about 6.8” EG (base). I think if I hit it really hard, I’d get to about 7.1” or so (give or take).

But I suspect that I have a godd bit more than 0.3” EL gains potential; however, I don’t really have the drive to pursue that right now.

Yes, and in term of “lig gains,” you’re right - that’s more or less exposing more inner penis, as opposed to “growing more meat.” But it still shows up on the ruler, no? (And, it can be “inserted.”) :)