Pound Per Minute Theory PPM

That question is tricky. In general, probably more is better.

I agree with mravg

Remember that your penis does not grow when it is broken down, it grows after you have broken it down, during
The repair of the damage.

Your theory is good I think, but would be best thought of in the overall context of using ADS with a light tug after the broken down phase, so that your penis rebuilds while in the elongated state.

Also, we must not forget the progressive application of the stress and that is after you rebuild, it requires slightly more force to break it down again, so keep in mind that it time it will require more force then allow sufficient time to rebuild and just keep repeating the cycle.

I hope this helps clarify how we might want to think about this.

Jim

I think that, once the the process of tissue breaking and repairing has started, it is important to make it continue by not letting it heal completely between sets.

IMO, long breaks (more than one or two days) should be avoided in order to keep growing.

If you were to look at daily PPM in terms of a weekly average do you think achieving 1,440 on a 7 day average would be as good as achieving 1,440 each day during the 7 day week span of time?

In other words, during the 7 day week, you may hang 1,200 one day and 1,680 the next but the average (if my math is right) is 1,440.

baywatch, no one knows the exact formula. This ppm theory is just speaking in generalities. A higher number is obviously better. A lower number is worse. If you mix high ppm days with low, is that the same as a consistent medium PPM? Who knows? Your low days will do less, but if they are too low they will do nothing. The high days may make up for it, or not.

I tend to think however, that rest is not a good thing when using an ADS type strategy. You want to keep the stress on as much as possible, so it would be best to not have light days (unless you are trying some kind of longer term rest to decondition strategy).

If you do heavy hanging however, rest is probably more important.

Right,

the theory should just be seen as a benchmark which could help one asses his best time weight ratio.

If I could, I would hang an hour each day with 22 pounds, but it’s too heavy for me, jet.

So, also taking into account other hangers theories, I tend to start heavy and do the rest of the work with lighter weight trying to get to 1440 every day.

Interesting.

Buby:

I don’t see how this is a theory without any supporting facts? To me, it’s merely a speculation.

Now I agree that both weight and time have significant influence on the length gain. However, I am yet to see any supporting data that their contribution is equal and hence they can be represented with a single term (that is; weight x time), as your so called theory suggests.

Let’s be a little bit more careful.

You make a good point, TDM, but unfortunately PE is not a topic supported by lots of scientific data. Most of what you read here will be individual observations, anecdotal evidence, and speculations for discussion. I’m sure the actual function would be a very complex equation indeed. (And different for each individual). Increasing weight increases gains, but very light weight probably does not, and very heavy weight may also be counter productive etc. But there may be a place in the the curve where the weight - time relationship with gains is relatively linear. Even if it is not, it is just a mathematical simplification of saying what is instinctively obvious for many people, which is that “if you use less weight, you will need to spend more time to get the same gains”.

In SI engineering mechanics, a force of 1 Newton acting through a distance of 1 metre gives 1 Joule of work.

In other words, 1N x 1m = 1J

The important point, is that there is a definite one-to-one correlation between the units: one is doing the same amount of work whether…

(a) one has 100 newtons acting through 5 metres, 100 x 5 = 500
(b) one has 5 newtons acting through 100 metres, 5 x 100 = 500

In both cases, one is doing 500 Joules of work.

In the realm of PE, we are talking about ppm theory, that is, trying to find relationship between time and weight. And we are talking about it in pounds per minute. It is a good start, but it is too naive to assume that there is a one to one relationship between minutes and pounds. If there were such a relationship, then one could get the same results by cutting the weight in half but doubling the time, or cutting the time in half but doubling the weight. This is probably not correct. Also, there is probably some minimum weight at which the stress is too small to stimulate any real growth. It’s complex, huh?

What we are trying to determine is the most effective weight to hang-time ratio that causes maximum growth_stimulus. Therefore, I’ll call the units “gs.” The trick is, we need to find the relationship between the two. And it probably isn’t linear as the ppm dialogue seems to presuppose.

Let’s for argument’s sake say that weight is way more effective than is time in stimulating growth. That is, within the realm of reason, a 10% increase in weight causes a larger growth stimulus than a 10% increase in hang time. In fact, to sharpen my point, lets say that weight is a squared function. If that were the case, the equation would be…

growth_stimulus = weight^2 x time

We need units for the equation, and I’ll say that the units are called “g’s” (gees)

Ok… given that weight in this example is a squared function, then if you double the weight for a given time frame, you _quadruple_ the growth stimulus, the g’s.

5 pounds for 60 minutes 5^2 x 60 = 1500 g’s
10 pounds for 60 minutes 10^2 x 60 = 6000 g’s <— 4x the stimulus!

On the other hand, if you double the time but keep the weight the same…

5 pounds for 60 minutes 5^2 x 60 = 1500 g’s
5 pounds for 120 minutes 5^2 x 120 = 3000 g’s <— only 2x the stimulus

Key point:

If one knew this relationship to be true, one would strive to hang at maxium safe weight for shorter time periods, rather than hang at minimal weights for maximum time. Until we know what the relationship is between pounds per minute, then we’re kind of shooting blind. We’d need a test group to move ahead and quantify the relationship.

Ddog

I am afraid we ARE the test group!

Well, de facto we are, but where do we find a statistically large enough group with various individuals practicing only hanginging, with discipline, and each member sticking to one weight and one duration only over a statistically long enough period of time?

That would be hard to arrange. I know I am learning so much over time that I am shifting my routine slightly every few weeks. To be scientific I would have to not do that. I think most people are like me, eager for any advantage, and we’ll never find a core group willing to practice consistently and not change their practice even slightly till the data is in.

Ddog

Thanks for that wonderful information!

Stretching the penis using 1 pound of force is an accurate predictor of erect length (per info learned here at Thunders).At 1440, one is “only” making your flaccid length equal to your erect length on a 24 hour basis.

If the penis has any memory ( cementing gains) , then 1440 should make you more of a shower than grower as your flaccid length approaches your erect. But overall, it should have minimal effect on erect length-if nothing else than because the ligaments aren’t being stretch and therefore the ligaments are fighting any stretching of the penis itself.

The PPM theory has to have merit, but I think much more than 1440 is needed to have a significant gain in erect size.

I think that you have to localise “inner penis” and ligament stretching as well, since a tight inner penis fights ligament stretching, and tight ligaments fight inner penis stretching. Stretch one to fatigue and immediately begin stretching the other(providing you have good color and aren’t numb). This should reduce the PPM figure to its minimum, thereby reducing the likelihood of injury.

Just my thoughts though, since I still haven’t been able to get the length I had in my teens. In fact, after a breather, I haven’t been able to even reach

the best showings in my past PE attempts.