LOT question

LOT Experiment 1 month results

Well now you know.

When I figure out these frickin’ smilies, I’m gonna use ‘em! Until then…you crack me up Thunder!!!:)

:gulp:

Yeah, you mustve missed the irony ;)

:gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

Everyone does ;)

:)

Addendum to the preceeding:

Provided that person has already ascertained that his physiological response characteristics ARE consistent with LOT Theory…if one has determined contra-evidence (I’m guessin’ like Slack has), then of course, there is no point in using it as a guiding principle when designing your training program.

Seriously Modesto. My assessment of the mechanics of LOT Theory revealed nothing wrong with it. But I haven’t done the work and research that you have. I strongly suspect that I’ve missed something. This is not a challenge. This is a plea to be rescued from my ignorance. Pretty please :) .

Xeno,

I’ve been traveling and my connections have been sporadic. What I’m referring to is that the model shows that large changes in lig length effect only minimal changes in LOT. Also, large changes in the attachment point of the ligs along the pubic symphysis effect only minimal changes in LOT.

According to LOT Theory, large changes in lig length or attachment point should cause large changes in LOT. But this doesn’t happen. The theory doesn’t appear to hold up. Play with the simulation and try this for yourself.

As far as I’ve been able to gather, Bib based LOT Theory on a belief that the pubic symphysis was highly convex and essentially described an arc that resembles the lower-right quadrant of a circle. I also believe he thought the penis attached to the ischiopubic rami directly behind the bottom edge of the pubic symphysis. As I think he saw things, the penis extended straight forward from the ischiopubic rami to the pubic symphysis, and then traveled up the front surface of the pubic symphysis while staying very tightly bound to it. The penis then exited the body off of the top edge of the pubic symphysis.

If this is a correct description of the anatomy, then LOT Theory holds up—at least I think it does. I haven’t actually modeled it.

But the facts as best as I’ve been able to ascertain them say that Bib’s view of anatomy is incorrect. The crura do not attach directly behind the bottom edge of the pubic symphysis, but rather behind it and significantly below it. Also, the penis does not travel up the face of the pubic symphysis and stay tightly adhered to it. In every anatomical drawing, dissection, or MRI I have ever seen, the penis is suspended a considerable distance down from the pubic symphysis. The suspensory ligament has a length greater than zero. Also, the pubic syphysi of different guys appear to be shaped differently. Some are arc-shaped, some are straight, and some have a funny inflection and actually have a concave region.

According to my view of the anatomy, which I believe is mainstream, LOT does not change as a function of lig length or position the way Bib described. The simulation is based on my view of the anatomy and does not support the theory.

Again, play with the simulation and run different scenarios. Let me know if you come up with a different result.

Of course, I’m just a computer geek. I’m not an MD. But I never miss an opportunity to inspect drawings or models of pelvic anatomy. Just this week I had the honor of sitting next to a real skeleton of some dearly departed anonymous person. After confirming that the skeleton was male, I carefully (but discretely, out of respect) inspected the pubic symphysis of my dear friend. It perfectly matched my model—about 1.5” long sloping down at about 45-degrees with a slightly convex aspect. The ischiopubic rami ran from either side of the pubic symphysis and traveled DOWN and back, just as I’ve modeled them.

I’d be thrilled if someone told me I was wrong or had missed something. I’m not married to this conclusion. Just doin’ my best.

Correction: My “friend’s” pubic symphysis may have been a bit smaller than 1.5”. He was a small person, when he was a person.

My objections to the LOT theory are based on the fact that it uses the bulbocavernosus muscle (the BC muscle or the one used for Kegel’s exercise) to do the tugging. As we know that muscle is well developed in some and not so much in others. That can cause a variation in the tugback therefore introducing a reason for error in what one sees.

Additionally, if you look at - this diagram which I posted in another thread, the tug of the BC muscle is in line with the penile shaft from a fixed point. The tug it creates is along that penile axis. Yet the LOT theory requires one to move the penis in a vertical arc above and below the axis and, as shown in the diagram, anything not nearly in line with it will show a weaker tugback, especially in the lower numbers (toward 6 o’clock). Lengthening the suspensory ligament only lowers the angle of the penile axis, but does not change its relationship with the tugging muscle. So how can a reduction or disappearance of the tugback mean anything except that the glans end of the penis has been moved out of line with respect to the axis and the BC muscle?

West,

First off, thanks for posting that pic. Ironically, this pic shows the shaft more or less conforming to the pubic symphysis—the shaft does not hang down in this pic, and the susp. lig. is very very short. Maybe the subject is supposed to be lying on his back.

In any case, this particular aspect of the anatomy accords with Bib’s view. However, here, the pubic symphysis has only a slight curve, and the crura still attach both behind and below the pubic symphysis. So, this drawing still doesn’t nearly show what Bib was describing.

As for how LOT can possibly change with lig length, I think that’s a complicated matter based on a number of factors. The simulation is helpful in that it lets you tweak each factor. And the simulation basically agrees with your intuitive conclusion. LOT doesn’t change much with lig length.

The real determinant of LOT appears to be inner penis length, which corresponds to the length of the crura between the suspensory lig and the anchor points on the ischiopubic rami. The shorter the inner penis, the lower the LOT. This effect is fairly dramatic.

It could be that some guys see their LOTs decrease over time, not because they’ve stretched their ligs, per se, but because they’ve somehow shortened their inner peni. I don’t know how this could happen. Possibly, they convert some inner penis to outer penis and form new lig strands that connect further back on the shaft. But that’s just speculation.

We all benefit from your efforts, Modesto…Thanks. Thanks to you and West for the info you’ve presented. I’ll consider and study it and attempt to articulate any understanding or, more likely, questions, later.

Admire you guys! You are really PE expert. But I wish the LOT theory wasn’t true. My lot is very low - lower than 8:00 and this is very discouraging!

Xeno,

What’s the verdict? Do you affirm, reverse, or distinguish? Or are you waiting to decide?

Happy anniversary, BTW.

Hi Modesto-

Thanks for the kick in the pants :) . I’m sure that I’m not understanding something but I don’t know what that is! I’m afraid that nothing that you or West offered provided an epiphany. But, I haven’t taken the time to focus and re-consider your comments’ in a methodical way…it is on my to do list though. Bunch of stuff going on for me now, but your nudge will help me to move it up the list! I’m sure I’ll have something to say.

Thanks for the congrats on my anny :)

yaktayalater-

xeno