Pound Per Minute Theory PPM

The strongest men in the world lift weight according to pushing max, not time-under-tension. The two theories both have their fans, and both sides use both theories to some extent.

(…of course the strongest penis would stay short better)

As the effort must endure in the long term, I tend to think a light ADS weight is the most feasible and effective strategy, especially if it is associated to an initial warming and a short intense traction.

buby, with a plan such as that, the ADSing fuctions as a method of holding gains earned during the intense traction, as oposed the teporary ligament creep fading away before the next intense traction session. Instead of two steps forward and two steps back, the ADS only allows one step back, so the next two steps farward are approaching new territory. It’s the two-step dance.

Kojack,

I am not sure I understood your post.
At any rate, I believe an ADS stretch is not only a way of holding gains earned during intense traction, I think an ADS induces gains by itself.
Certainly, the less intense effort will not cause the same response but, as it may be applied every day for 12 or more hours, without demanding any particular privacy or dedication, it results in a far more feasible and rewarding long term activity.
I also think - actually I should say I know - PE is no fast way of increasing your measures, is a sort of sport one can choose to engage practicing.
It takes years to build up cemented gains and, to me, it is really uncomfortable to spend hours and hours a day, locked in the bathroom, for years (as I have done, by the way).
On the other hand I discovered, lately, a light ADS works and gives your life back.

Good reply buby. I wasn’t very clear, but I think that you understood it.

I think I did get the step concept: I had to leave with it in my pumping past.
Today, I think in terms of slow reaching out to my full time ADS.

P.S.
Of course I also hang and pump for fun :-)

It’s time for us to consider this PPM theory again. The last couple of times that I visited this thread I started to agree with others that weight and time were not equally interchangeable, and that increasing the weight would increase more creep than increasing the time. Even at that time I felt that the two were very close, but that weight was more productive.

I’m beginning to rethink this stance though. I’ve been reading lots of information about lengthening connective tissues, particularly ligaments, and the graphs are somewhat linear. Now, the lines on the graphs are generally described as non-linear, but there is a specific region of the line that is called “linear”. In the toe region, the stretch increases quickly as weight is added, then in the “linear” region, the line increases consistently in a straight line till nearing the yield point. This leads me to believe that weights of 4 lbs and above are interchangeable with time, until you reach the very heavy weights that may cause injury. I cannot confirm this to be a fact, but this is how it appears to me at this time. I will read more and take a look at more graphs in order to form a better conclusion.

It would useful a very extensive record of hangers/ADSers whit report of : a) time totally spended working;
b) weight used; c) gains achieved. Having these data, we could extrapolate a function based on on such variables to predict most productive time x tension (maybe I wrote this already in some other post).

I think this hypothetical function will be predictive only in a fixed range of weight: it’s unuseful, probably, using 3 gram (1/10 oz.) 24 hours a day; however, there are members here thinking other way - see the Static Stretching thread; results reported seems not convalidate the believing that risible tension for very extended time are productive, and somebody reported less of length.

On the other side, are reported experience of extreme hangers (up to 75 lbs) for minimum amount of time (1 rep, like powerlifters); they also reported stopped gains. This make sense: those who lift 500 lbs in the deadlift
haven’t arms touching the floor; the body doesn’t adapt that way.

Very interesting, but aren’t you referring to a force vs. elongation curve? This ppm theory I think would be best charted as a

(F * T) vs permanant gains curve. Can you relate the two?

To put it another way, it is intuitively obvious that more weight causes more elongation, but will more elongation for shorter times give the same gains as less elongation for longer times?

mravg, I am referring to a force verses elongation curve. In biomechanics, they call it the stress/strain curve. Maybe, since the “time” variable is left out, using a stress/strain curve will not be accurate. I was hoping that it would be accurate, give or take 10%.

Well, here’s a curve for us to look at. Let’s take our time and discuss this.

Here’s a load/elongation curve, the same as the stress strain curve, but it includes the same term mravg used, elongation.

One other thing. Basically, what we would need to know is the “creep rate” for each commonly used amount of weight. Formulas do exist for determing the “creep rate” and the rate of deformation in ligaments. The formula looks quite complicated, like advanced calculus.

One other thing, if we do eventually determine that weight and time are interchangable within a specific range of weights, it still may be best to use light weights for longer total hang-times. I say this for two reasons. One, lighter weights may cause less imflamation and less eventual scar tissue, which is harder to stretch later on in your PE career. Two, many articles have been stating that long-duration stretches are superior for creating plastic deformation. Still, this does not tell us exactly what is considered “long-duration”. Is the long-duration of dynamic splinting superior, which is 6 - 12 hours. Yet, possibly 20 - 30 nimute sets are considered long-duration when compared to 10 second repetative stretches. Long-duration is most always mentioned in the articles about dynamic splinting.

Just to play…Tom Hubbard wrote that hanging with a loop, weigths from 1.8 to 2.8 kg, 140+ hours, gave him 3.2 cm of length gains;

kristian69 posted in his log that wearing an extender for 968 hours, tension varying from 0.6 to 1.5 kg, gave him 2 cm length gains.

I have considered 140+ equal to 145, and resolving the equation we have that formula is this:

length-gains = (weight)^3.1 * hours/600.

(why when you do something well there is nobody seeing?)

marinera, I really appreciate your interest and effort in this.

Those weights used by Tom Hubbard and kristian69 are very similar to the amount of force applied with dynamic splinting mechanisms that are used to elongate connective tissues elsewhere in the body. Those mechanisms are also worn for a long period of time.

It would have been great if those two guys would have taken three month deconditioning breaks, then gone back to using the exact same weights and routine in order to see if the gains continued. I believe that Tom Hubbard went on to hang heavier weights, but I may be wrong. What did kristian69 do?

I really like that you are trying a formula, but unfortunately I don’t understand it.

Something to consider when working with any of these time/gain estimates is that younger guys have more elasticity withing their connective tissues, which makes it tougher to create permanent elongation. On the other hand, older guys have less elasticity, which gives them a slight advantage in reaching the point where permanent things begin to happen. The amount of elasticity, or lack thereof in a guy’s connective tissues, will effect the amount of time it takes to create gains. Still, comming up with a middle of the road average doesn’t sound unreasonable. I believe that other members that have come up with pound/hour estimates and so forth are on the right track.