LOT question

Can someone break down the “LOT Theory” as if they were talking to a 2 year old. I consider myself a pretty analytical dude but this “LOT theory” is just blowing me freaking mind. I guess the last week or so I’ve done alot of reading and maybe it’s just information overload.but I can’t get a grasp of the “LOT Theory” no pun intended.

Anyways..

1. How proven is the Lot Theory?

2. What is the ideal situation? To have high Lot I presume?

3. So you pull your penis and do a kegal and look for the tug back?

Please help me with this fellas.. I need some guidance.

Check the Articles forum for a thread started by KOG.

No doubt. I’ll get on that and report back my findings.

WOW.

I read most of the info I could on the LOT THEORY.

I even test my own lot and it is low (I think) Not even sure if I’m doing it correctly. I’m just going to do the Newbie routine and see what results I get. I think the LOT theory has probably discouraged a lot of newbies and I refuse to let it stop me before I even start.

ModestoMan has done a ton of research on the LOT theory. I believe he reached the same conclusions that I did. Watching your dick pull back during a Kegel won’t tell you anything about its potential for growth while hanging in one direction or another.

An attempt to model LOT
- Lot Simulator
Lot Simulator Feedback
Testing LOT Theory

I am persuaded by ModestoMan’s arguments.

They also happen to conform to my personal experiences with PE and LOT :)

As much as I like and respect westla and PG, based on my experience, I have to disagree with my colleagues, or more accurately, I apparently have a different experience than they.

Funny thing about PE, while the statement that “what works for one MAY NOT work for another”, is certainly true, the corollary, I believe, is also true, “what works for one MAY work for another”.

When I was training for lig sourced gains in accordance with LOT Theory, my gains and LOT changes (decreased) came as predicted by LOT Theory. Now that I’m training for tunica sourced gains, my gains are coming and my LOT is changing (increasing) as predicted by LOT Theory. I’ve observed this LOT Theory concordant relationship in my physiological response to my PE training uniformly throughout my 1 year old PE career. An important thing to note is that it does take both gains AND changes in LOT for one’s physiological response to be considered concordant with LOT Theory. If one observes (either) one without the other, a contra-result is indicated and one’s physiological response may be considered nonconcordant with LOT Theory. It can take a long time to make enough gains and LOT changes to provide sufficient resolution in the gains vs. LOT changes data to recognize a relationship. I was not able to convince myself of a positive correlation between gains and LOT decrease until after 4 months of BTC hanging, over which time I gained 0.5” EL and my LOT went from 8:30 to 7:30. My high angle tunica sourced gains training cycles have also shown gains accompanied by LOT increases. My current tunica training has resulted in a 0.125” EL gain with a LOT rise from 7:30 to 8:00. My physiological response to my PE training has always been concordant with LOT Theory.

My understanding of LOT Theory is incomplete, but based on my experience, I do view it as having great utility as an index of the relative “amount” of lig sourced gains that are available at any given point in one’s PE career.

IMO, the wise PE practitioner will use LOT Theory as a tool, among others, to calibrate and shape their training.

Bottom line though is: in order to determine whether your physiological response to PE training is consistent with LOT Theory one would need to do either high or low (most guys start with low in order to go after the “easy” lig sourced gains) angle work for a long time, long enough to track a gains vs. LOT relationship over the course of the training. If you’re curious enough to find out whether your physiological response is consistent with LOT Theory, great, you now know how to proceed. I know westla and PG will agree with me when I advise you to simply not worry about it. Whether your physiological response is consistent with LOT Theory or not is not that important, doing the excercise is what’s important. Sure, measure your LOT and note changes in it as your PE career progresses, but place more emphasis on other more important considerations (such as what you enjoy, what you works into your life best) as you design your training. PE should be fun :) .

1) Its not proven AT ALL
2) Read 1)
3) Read 1)

Seriously, its a theory. Its been DISproven a bunch of times. Dont worry yourself about LOT, just get stuck into the newbie routine.

Gee. He didn’t say he liked and respected me. :confused:

Seriously, Xeno, you’ve gained something like 2”, right? I think conventional LOT Theory would predict more than a 1-hour change in your LOT.

Also, and not to be critical, but I think it’s very hard to measure LOT consistently from one day to the next, let alone from one month to the next or one year to the next, during which time a person may be gaining and the whole anatomical arrangement may be changing.

For the record, and to cover my ass, I’ve never said that LOT Theory was wrong or that I had disproven it. I’ve only said that I saw no intuitively apparent reason to believe it was true. The simulator exposes the gross mechanical operation of the penis with respect to its attachment points. Nothing in that model convinces me that LOT Theory has to be true. It still might be valid for other reasons that none of us has realized or discovered yet. Who knows?

What makes me think the theory is probably wrong is that Bib’s own rationale was based on geometry. This is exactly what the model is based on, and the model does not uphold the theory.

Now, I’ve promised Bib a revision of the model to address some of his concerns. The new model is still a work in progress. From what I’ve done with the new model so far, however, I can say that LOT Theory probably doesn’t work as a predictive aid for most people (those whose anatomy looks like that shown in Grey’s and the other texts), but it might work as a predictive aid for others—especially those with large, highly convex pubic symphysi and shafts that are bound to it very tightly with very little play.

The problem is, one doesn’t know whether one is a person for whom the theory works or not.

Slack-

Please direct me to a reference wherein LOT Theory is disproven.

Is it possible that what you mean is that its been shown a bunch of times that an individual’s physiological response to PE activities can be discordant with what would be predicted by LOT Theory? Of course this is true, but so is the contrary…

Let me say this several different ways…

IMO, proving or disproving LOT Theory has no meaning outside of the context of one’s own individual physiological response.

What is disproven to you may be proven to someone else.

LOT Theory validity may only be evaluated on a case by case basis.

In other words…

I’ll presume that you have determined that your physiological response to PE activities is discordant with LOT Theory.

xeno

xeno-

Please direct me to a reference wherein LOT theory has been proven.

You cant. Because no one has PEed exclusively on the premise of LOT.

Modesto-

Aw, you know I love you Modesto, but you hadn’t chimed in on this thread yet and I was secretly hoping that with your recent gains, you were also seeing some LOT movement.

>>>Seriously, Xeno, you’ve gained something like 2”, right? I think conventional LOT Theory would predict more than a 1-hour change in your LOT.

1.625”. Yea, I know conventional LOT Theory would predict more than a 1-hour change in LOT. Hey, I can’t help it if my physiological response isn’t “textbook perfect”! Just goes to show there’s more going on than just conventional LOT Theory is what I’d say, but still, my physiological response is qualitatively consistent with LOT Theory, and for me, that’s sufficient to give it some credibility when designing my training programs. Whether anyone else considers their physiological response to PE activities in the context of LOT Theory when designing their training programs is a personal choice really, but one that I think the prudent PE practitioner will assess based on HIS assessment of HIS physiological responses.

>>>Also, and not to be critical, but I think it’s very hard to measure LOT consistently from one day to the next, let alone from one month to the next or one year to the next, during which time a person may be gaining and the whole anatomical arrangement may be changing.

Maybe that’s one of the reasons for this…

>>>For the record, and to cover my ass, I’ve never said that LOT Theory was wrong or that I had disproven it. I’ve only said that I saw no intuitively apparent reason to believe it was true. The simulator exposes the gross mechanical operation of the penis with respect to its attachment points. Nothing in that model convinces me that LOT Theory has to be true. It still might be valid for other reasons that none of us has realized or discovered yet. Who knows?

“Agreed” and “sure as heck not me!”, respectively.

>>>What makes me think the theory is probably wrong is that Bib’s own rationale was based on geometry. This is exactly what the model is based on, and the model does not uphold the theory.

Please try to convince me of that.

>>>Now, I’ve promised Bib a revision of the model to address some of his concerns. The new model is still a work in progress. From what I’ve done with the new model so far, however, I can say that LOT Theory probably doesn’t work as a predictive aid for most people (those whose anatomy looks like that shown in Grey’s and the other texts), but it might work as a predictive aid for others—especially those with large, highly convex pubic symphysi and shafts that are bound to it very tightly with very little play.

I’m not sure what most of that meant, but it does mean you’re still working on it and that, of course, is great!

>>>The problem is, one doesn’t know whether one is a person for whom the theory works or not.

My point exactly.

xeno

Slack, my friend, you’re missing the point. There is no “proving” and “disproving” (that’s why I knew you wouldn’t be able to produce a reference of such :) ), there is only “consistent with” and “not consistent with”. And of course no one has PEed exclusively on the premise of LOT Theory, no one suggested that.

xeno

Been a long hard stressful day, sorry, I will rephrase.

There have been several cases of PEers gaining well, that have not been consistant with the LOT theory.

Better? :D

Sorry to hear it bro, time to pop a cold one, eh?

Sure have, you bet. Absolutely. And that’s consistent with everything that I’ve been hammering away at here…

I’d recommend making it a cold 5 or 6 Slack :)

I still love you.

xeno