LOT question

Modesto-

I’m trying to find some (relatively) firm footing to stand on from whence to venture off into this LOT Theory question. Gonna need a little help with that.

If I understand correctly, you find fault with LOT Theory because LOT is relatively unaffected by change in susp. lig length, while inner penis length seems to effect LOT relatively much. From a mechanistic standpoint, I’ve thought that susp. lig lengthening (peeling back load sensing lig arrays really) caused conversion of inner penis to outer penis…a cause and effect relationship. If this is right, then are we simply finding that the magnitude to which one physiological response, LOT, changes relative to two different but related physiological responses to the stimuli that we present is non-uniform? On it’s own, nothing unusual about that. Is your objection to LOT theory rooted in the idea that for a given change in LOT, more change in lig length should occur than in IP? Geometrically, I can see why that would be.

As far as I know, Bigger never made predictive statements about the magnitude that LOT should change relative to lig length or IP length or anything. My understanding is that LOT Theory describes a qualitative relationship (a theorized trend, not a defined function) between LOT and the relative magnitude of potential susp. lig sourced length gains available from peeling back of distal susp. lig arrays. I guess I’m not seeing where your objections to LOT Theory run a-foul with my understanding of it. Maybe I just don’t understand it in the first place. Bigger once told me that I do, but that may have been during a fleeting moment of lucidity.

I feel confused but at a much higher level.

Your turn :)

xeno

Modesto-

Olley olley oxen free, come out, come out wherever you are!

My high-speed connection is down. Dialup is too painful, and this is my wife’s computer :D . I hope to be back online tomorrow.

Thanks Modesto. I look forward to your thoughts.

LOT Theory predicts that LOT is more or less a function of lig length and lig position. Consider two of the theory’s principle assertions:

The shorter, tighter or higher the ligs, the higher the angle required to lose ‘tugback’ when stretching the penis and kegaling at the same time.

and

For those with shorter, tighter, or higher ligs, a lengthening of the ligs correlates with a lowering of angle of tugback loss.

I agree with that part, and the model supports this. The trick when using the model is to realize that “peeling back” the ligs is equivalent to changing the attachment points of the ligs to the shaft and pubic symphysis. This is currently adjustable in a crude way with Low, Medium, and High settings. But you can also see that changing these settings has little effect on LOT.

I’m not sure I follow this part. What are the two different physiological responses you’re referring to? Are you talking about lig length and inner penis length?

Yes. My objection is rooted in the fact that LOT as shown in the model does not change versus lig length as predicted. The theory predicts big changes in LOT—hours not minutes.

I think I see where you’re going with this. Perhaps you’re suggesting that stretching the ligs expresses more inner penis as outer penis. Consequently, the amount of inner penis is reduced, reducing LOT. LOT Theory is proven, albeit not exactly for the reasons originally stated.

The problem I have with this argument is that, as inner penis is converted to outer penis, the attachment points along the shaft and pubic symphysis also move back. As long as they all change together, LOT doesn’t change.

OK. Now you’ve got me thinking. Stand back. I need a lot of room. :)

Looking again at the simulation, I can see that shortening the inner penis and lengthening the ligs does indeed reduce LOT. The question is whether this is actually what happens when we hang.

How can one express more inner penis while not simultaneously lowering the attachment point along the pubic symphysis? Maybe it’s possible, but I don’t think it’s ever been discussed. And how could it happen by stretching the ligs using downward angles? It’s possible, but I don’t see how. Good food for thought, however.

I don’t know that Bib ever made this into a mathematical formula. Other have, however. This one comes to mind, in particular.

Bib does use specific LOT numbers, however—not in his original post, but here, for instance:

.. Along with the rest of us confused persons.

Thanks for the challenge. What I’ve learned from doing this is that the theory can be salvaged if downward hanging can be shown to reduce the amount of inner penis while not changing the attachment point along the pubic symphysis. Maybe you could set your big brain to work on that one :) .

Hi Modesto-

Wow, lot’s to digest there. Thank you.

Yes.

I think this is where much of my ignorance lies. I wasn’t aware of a predicted magnitude scale for LOT changes.

Yes I am, at least for the case of lig lengthening due to PS/lig junction relocation such as one would do with BTC hanging. I frankly have no idea if an IP->OP conversion process is part of how gains are realized with upper angle hanging, nor do I have any idea how that could happen mechanistically as I am assuming the shaft/lig junction is one of fixity.

With respect to PE, I have a “there is no proving or dis-proving, there’s only consistent with and not consistent with” policy, so no way would I say that.

How does the attachment point along the shaft change? Isn’t that a fixed junction? With regard to the attachment point on the PS, we’ve already established that it must lower for IP->OP conversion right? So, does “back” mean lower in the context of your above statement?

Right, and I’ve been thinking that that’s not possible due to what I’ve thought was a point of fixity for the shaft/lig junction. But maybe it does move…???

:)

I’m kinda thinking that’s what happens with low angle hanging, high angle hanging, no idea. Maybe some hybrid hypothesis could be made that combined some proportion of concepts from end members “strict LOT Theory” and the sort of “dynamic stasis” end member that

describes.

No idea, also no idea why that’s required, you’ve stated that

Is it possible that high angle hanging causes a change in the shaft/lig junction location instead of changing the PS/lig junction location? I don’t know, just tossing things out there for consideration.

Sorry Modesto, a bit tired here, I’ve lost track of what “it” is.

Sure, I hate being ignorant.

Well, that’s something isn’t it. Still confused, but at a much higher level.

Not big enough apparently!

Thanks again. If I can offer further pearls of confusion, let me know :)

xeno

To summarize my understanding to this point:

LOT changes that I’ve observed have been “qualitatively” consistent with LOT Theory…it went down with low angle work and went up with high angle work, IOW, LOT moved in the predicted direction. As I understand it, Modesto thinks that the magnitude of the LOT changes that I observed were too small to be considered “quantitatively” consistent with LOT Theory…

Is it possible that with big gains come big changes in LOT, medium gains come with medium changes in LOT and small gains come with small changes in LOT? Bigger of course gained oodles and reported big LOT changes. I’ve gained medium and observed medium LOT changes. I’m pretty sure lots of guys have gained little and observed little change in LOT.

I’d love to hear from Alice on this one.

Did Bigger report big changes in LOT? Did Bigger even think (or know how) to see what his LOT was when he first started?

Beg your pardon Thunder, I mis-wrote…I’m not aware of any such report myself, but Modesto claims that LOT Theory would predict bigger changes in LOT than I observed relative to my gains and I’m not aware of any language that address the predicted magnitude of LOT change relative to gains, lig stretching or anything else. Therefore, I’m (still) wondering where this perception comes from. So, in the absence of that information coming to light, I’m hypothesizing ways that Modesto could have come to make the statement that he did.

Let me try again, I’m wondering IF Bigger reported big LOT changes in addition to the big gains we know he reported, is Modesto using that information as the basis for his assertion that I should have observed greater changes in LOT than I did when I gained. IOW, is he expecting that my medium gains should correlate to the same magnitude of LOT changes that Bigger saw? I can’t imagine that he would, but in the absence of some information indicating that some magnitude of change in LOT is predicted relative to some metric like gains or lig stretch, I’m stuck with grasping at straws trying to understand the origin of Modesto’s objections. I do hope we hear from Modesto some more on this.

I still don’t understand why my observations are inconsistent with LOT Theory.

I have no idea.

I apologize if this has been discussed, I haven’t read every word here but have tried to get the gist of what each of you believes…

Isn’t the purpose of measuring the LOT to predict which hanging method or direction will help most in gains? You guys keep talking about seeing the LOT numbers change, but my understanding of the theory is that seeing changes wasn’t the point. New guys who read it bemoan their fate if they have a low LOT number, meaning (to them) that they have a poor chance of gaining. Why do you guys keep talking about how the theory is validated by observing changes in the LOT numbers? I thought the point was to tell you which method/direction of hanging would help a new hanger most. Have you worked out that low numbers means no gains? That’s the question that would validate the theory.

My objections are purely anatomical. I don’t see how a BC muscle tug along the axis of a fixed in place penis can predict anything.

westla-

That’s my understanding.

I’ve tried to understand that, but to this point have not. Would you mind directing me to the post where you described the mechanics which support your objection to LOT Theory? I’d like to re-read that and take another stab at making sense of your objection…I think I’ve failed at understanding Modesto’s.

Thanks,

xeno

Xeno et al.:

Sorry to keep ducking out. I hope to address all of the points raised above. Until them, I hope this will suffice.

As far as I know (and I’ve read a lot), Bib had no idea what his starting LOT was. He guessed that it started high. His theory was supported by statistics taken in 2003 with a very small sample size, wherein he showed that there was a strong positive corellation between between big gainers and low LOTs. He has no statistics regarding changes over time, as far as I know.

He then theorized that the reason big gainers had low LOTs was that the anatomical changes (which he assumed) that gave them their low LOTs also caused them to gain. He theorized that stretching ligs caused LOT to fall, and that the change in LOT corresponded to an expression of inner penis into outer penis.

As far as I know, he has no data to support this. Also, as far as I know, he has never provided an adequate explanation of the theory, which would have made it easier for others to understand and contest.

I think this was the first time I explained my objection, I had been a bit vague before.

westla90069 - SO hanging

I tried to find out my LOT but my kegel muscle isn’t strong enough right now.

Thanks so much westla, I’ll take another run at it :)

Braised Salmon-don’t worry about that now, keep up with your newbie routine, do your kegels and that situation will fix itself.