Testing LOT Theory

I’m not saying it is all assumptions either - but the more detailed looks at anatomy that you and MM have shown us makes it pretty clear to me, at least, that there is no clearcut support for LOT theory. It doesn’t nicely wrap up - we are left with as many, if not more questions than before; not the sign of a strong theory.

Agreed. As modesto pointed out, there wasn’t really enough tests to accurately call it LOT theory. On top of that, I don’t think there was enough information in the original LOT thread to support it. It left me with many many questions. A lot of them have been answered, but I still have a few.

IMO, you are right, it wasn’t wrapped up neatly, and that is why we are all here questioning the importance of LOT.

I posted the first LOT test. It is located here: The truth about LOT. Test # 1

I’m sure I never would have bothered exploring the mechanisms behind PE as much as I have if I had just pulled on my dick and it grew. As for dedication, I see PE as a fairly self-centered pursuit. We do it because we want our dicks to grow. There’s nothing wrong with that or the fact that it’s selfish, but on the other hand it’s not like we’re curing cancer here. What’s socially valuable is that we can get together and chat about it, and by doing so advance the state of the art.

Absolutely.

Your picture shows the shaft being rotated about a point somewhere along the middle of the shaft, about a point located an inch or so below the pubic bone. I’m not sure this is meaningful.

If you pull your glans straight up toward 12 o’clock, the shaft will be pulled up against your pubic bone, wrap up the face of the pubic bone, and extend straight up toward your navel. How far your glans reaches toward or past your navel has absolutely nothing to do with your ligs (assuming normal anatomy), since your ligs (I believe) are lax in this configuration. If your ligs were to become longer while everything else stayed the same, your glans would reach no farther up. This is because the ligs are not a limiting factor with the penis held in this position. They are not holding anything up or holding anything back. You could cut your ligs completely and your penis would still extend no farther up.

Everything changes, however, if you pull your penis down. Stretching your ligs certainly does allow your glans to be pulled closer to your knees. The role of the ligs is to hold your penis up (and also forward, to prevent prolapse). Stretch the ligs and they don’t do as good a job at holding the penis up—they let it be pulled down lower.

If I had to identify a flaw in your drawing, it would be that the penis does not naturally rotate about the point you drew as the center of rotation. It rotates about the attachment point to the IR, deep within the body. Its rotation is constrained in the upward direction by the pubic bone, and is constrained in the downward direction by the ligs. The simulator does a good job of showing this, to a first order approximation.

The CS anchors to muscles and connective tissue in the perineum. It doesn’t achor to bone. The CCs do anchor to bone, however. It makes sense that you’d feel different things in your perineum depending on the angles you use to pull. Pulling between SO or OTS I believe stresses the full length of the shaft uniformly. Pulling down, however, causes the stress to be intercepted by the ligs, and thus shields the more internal portions of the shaft from receiving much (or possibly any) stress.

I’ve done a fair amount of SO hanging during the past year. I have noticed that my tugback length (TS, in the simulator) appears to be growing. I measured my TS at 6mm about a year ago. Now, from a quick visual inspection, I believe it is more like 1 or 1.5 cm. In other words, it’s approximately doubled. During this time, I’ve also grown about 3/8" BPEL. Sorry to mix the units, but you can see that my growth corresponds about 1 for 1 with my increase in TS. That’s weird, because it suggests that the tugback muscles in the perineum may have been stretched.

I think the idea of lig stretching comes from the very early days of PE. Tom Hubbard talked about it, and Bib really popularized it. The intuitive source of the idea is that penis lengthening surgery focuses on cutting the ligs, so people naturally thought that stretching the ligs would accomplish basically the same effect. The problem is, however, that penis lengthening surgery really doesn’t do much to increase BPEL (at 9 o’clock). There was a thread recently that linked to a study showing that most guys who receive lig snipping surgery are dissatisfied with the results. I think the simulator shows why. Gains through lig snipping alone are quite small; in fact, they are zero, I believe, at high angles.

Some people who seem to be reliable do report gaining from BTC hanging. I think you need to look to the "Why BTC" thread to explore the possible reasons for that. I think the simplest reason is that the ligs blend in with the dorsal fibers of the tunica, which are the toughest parts of the tunica. Stretching the ligs, therefore, has the effect of stretching these fibers, which may promote shaft growth and explain the gains from hanging in this position.

As I suggested above, there may be benefits to downward stretching, but the conventionally accepted logic for explaining those benefits may be wrong. Certainly, I no longer believe statements like, "my LOT is 10:00 so I plan to stretch BTC to express more inner penis as outer penis." That way of thinking just doesn’t work for me any more.

A more accurate strategy statement might be, "The dorsal fibers on my shaft seem to be very tight when I’m erect. I plan to hang down, or perhaps SO using a fulcrum, to concentrate stress on those fibers."

One good reason for changing angles and introducing and/or moving a fulcrum is to concentrate stress on different parts of the shaft. A well-rounded approach is probably best, however, at least at first. Stretching in all directions seems like a good idea for beginners. Once beginner gains slow down, maybe focusing on specific parts will yield better results.

Let IP = Distance between IR attachment (the red dot on the IR) and junction of shaft with lig line (red dot along the shaft).

Let L = Distance between IR attachment (the red dot on the IR) and the attachment point of the lig line along the pubic symphysis (blue dot).

Let R = the ratio IR:L, or IR/L.

Then,

If R>1, LOT decreases as lig length increases.

If R<1, LOT increases as lig length increases.

If R=1, LOT doesn’t change as lig length increases.

Note that I’m not super-sure about this. I observe this effect from the simulator but I haven’t thought about whether the math requires this all the time. The intuitive answer is that you can probably knock this relationship a little bit out of whack by changing TS. But I think the above summary is a good first order approximation.

When I first set out to develop the simulator, I really though the answer would slap me in the face. I thought it would be intuitively obvious why LOT Theory was valid. But I found that it wasn’t intuitively obvious. Kog did a good job trying to explain the theory intuitively in his LOT 101 thread. His explanations made sense, but only to a point. As I recall, the problem was that they didn’t adequately explore the origin of the kegeling force, nor take into account all the angles involved.

Various people have tried explaining the theory in words. The words made sense, but the problem appears to be that the theory, in particular the relationship between lig length and LOT, simply depends on too many variables to provide an intuitively obvious answer. The devil is in the details. In this case, the answer is in the math. You have to do the math to get the answer, and it may not be what you expect or where the words lead you.

We could certainly find out that the underlying assumptions behind LOT Theory are wrong. For that matter, we could find that the assumptions behind the simulator are wrong. You’re right that too much is unknown.

Given this level of uncertainty, I think the responsible thing is not to counsel people according to LOT theory, but instead to give well rounded advice based on what has worked for people in the past and what seems reasonable at the time.

Well put. We are all here for one thing: growth.

Ahhh, I think this we found our disagreement. When referring to ligament gains, the actual shaft growth comes from the inner penis. This happens because the ligaments are stretch (or peeled off, however you want to look at it), and the inner penis comes out as a result. When this happens, the exit point becomes lower.

How much lower will your exit point be? Theoretically, it should go down as much as you have gained from ligament stretching. Therefore, your glans aren’t any further up because the gains isn’t at that part of the penis. The gains are at the base (where inner penis becomes outer penis). Your whole package is lower. Beacuse it is lower (in accordance with how much you have gained), you will measure gains, but you won’t measure any closer to the naval.

Everything is closer to the knees. Your base and your shaft too — not just the glans.

The point I drew as the center was the exit point. This point, I believe, always stays the same. It does for me and I can’t see how it would change when pulling your penis up. However, the simulator suggests that the exit point becomes much higher when stretching up. Like I stated, I can’t see how this is possible. It isn’t consistent with my anatomy. Maybe it is with yours.

Yep, this is what many people advocate. When stretching SD, the stress is intercepted by the ligaments. SO & SU stresses the “tunica” (I call it the shaft, because really, we are stretching the whole penis.)

Maybe you are stretching the tunica at the very point of orgin (the muscles.) The tunica, afterall, is just a continuation of the IC & BC muscles. In a way, it is a lot like a muscle. But to be specific, it is more like a tendon.

This also suggests that stretching the inner penis is a really good way to make gains. Interesting. Maybe the point of orgin is a growth spot, as you guessed/suggested earlier.

That could definitely be the case. Maybe the dorsal aspect of the tunica (between 1 and 11 o’clock), is another “sweet spot.” This is odd though, I assumed that best sweet spot would be at the weakest point (between 5 and 7 o’clock.) The weaker it is, the easier it can be stretched, I figured.

I also think some gains can still come from ligament stretching, just not what we have perceived it to be. I recently started a thread “Ligaments Shmiagments,” in the main member forum. It asks men to note any changes they have noticed in their exit point. A few guys said they have had minor changes in their exit points. I think these are true ligament gains. But again, the ligament potential isn’t what we have perceived it to be.

This is, afterall, why we are discussing these issues. Hoping to find a better way to stretch our dicks.

I completely agree.

That is fine. I think we are done discussing the LOT simulator. My underlining point that I was trying to make with assertion 1 is that I don't think it's possible for the ligaments to “grab backwards,” as the simulator suggests. I have no evidence to prove otherwise, and either do you, so we can just leave it at that. At this point, I don’t think it’s important.

At this point, I have to agree with you. Until evidence suggests otherwise, I vote LOT theory into a timeout. “Go to your room!

But here we are again, with a problem. We can’t give well rounded advice based on what has worked for others. What worked for Bib, Big Girtha, and others who used great amounts of intensity, doesn’t work for you. What works for Werner Ashford, might not work for others. Wadzilla’s friend, and another friend of mine, have both gained multiple inches from jelqing and stretching alone. What does that tell us? Nothing, yet. Some guys don’t make gains until they use the extreme exercises. Others, well, don’t make any gains when they use the advanced exercises. I have been reading some old old posts on this forum, and I think we have made a complete circle. We are now back where we started.

It would take quite a bit of lig stretching for the inner penis to significantly “come out.” I think what tends to happen is that the shaft, which previously may have followed an upward course under the pubic bone, becomes more horizontal. This slightly increases length at 9:00.

I’m not sure about the comments regarding exit point. I haven’t paid much attention to exit point. It makes some sense that lig stretching would cause your whole unit to hang lower. But the anatomy is complicated, and I’m not sure.

Of course. The glans can’t be pulled lower unless the shaft it’s attached to is pulled lower.

The simulator doesn’t show the exit point, so I disagree that it “suggests that the exit point becomes much higher when stretching up.” I also disagree that the exit point doesn’t move around. For people with short ligs, the exit point is fairly stable since the shaft is pretty much glued to the pubic bone. But, for people with long ligs, the exit point will naturally rise and fall with the angle of the penis.

I don’t like talking about exit point because I view it as a minor concern. Exit point is mostly determined by skin and superficial fascia—stuff that doesn’t factor in to a LOT measurement or a BPEL measurement.

Certainly, the penis doesn’t rotate about the exit point. The exit point is not a constraining structure. It doesn’t hold anything up or down. It’s just the point where the shaft naturally emerges from the abdominal skin.

SD and BTC also stress the tunica, just not so much the parts that are behind the ligaments.

Maybe. As I recall from my reading, the IC muscles surround the crura, which are covered with respective tunicae. In other words, I think the tunicae run straight back inside the IC muscles.

I don’t think of the 11-1 o’clock region of the tunica as a sweet spot. I think of it as a limiting factor. It’s the strongest part of the tunica. Therefore, you won’t be able to stretch the tunica (or, more generally, the CCs) without stretching that part first.

I’ll check out the thread.

The article I discussed above relating to penile ligaments made a point of stating that the primary purpose of the suspensory ligament was to prevent the penis from pulling back (prolapsing) into the body cavity. The ligament holds the penis forward. That means it’s generally grabbing backwards to reach the shaft. Only when the penis is stretched out (such as during a LOT test) or erect do the ligs reach farther forward. So I don’t think it’s impossible for ligs to “reach back,” especially for showers who don’t get much longer when erect than when flaccid.

Exactly.

I think the real progress will come from understanding how the penis responds to exercise intensity, sustained traction, and rest. Hanging at different angles is important for focusing the stress along different portions of the shaft, but I think the real breakthroughs will be around understanding and tweaking growth mechanisms.

We may be making some progress along those lines, but I agree with the sentiment that we’ve made a complete circle. We thought LOT Theory made PE more predictable and scientific, but, as it turns out, it was probably just a distraction.

I really don’t think it’s impossible… nothing is impossible. But I don’t think its really to probable. The ligaments hold the penis up when erect. From what I understand, when the penis becomes erect, the ligaments (both the fundiform and the suspensory) hold it in place. Now maybe a guy that is a shower and has a very low Erection Angle, can have the ligaments reaching back. But again, this is all speculation on my part.

Exactly. I think understanding the molecular processes that take place when we PE will provide the breakthroughs. I already have some very in-depth ideas. Maybe even enough for a hypothesis. I still have quite a bit of research to do, but expect something fairly soon.

If LOT theory is completely false, then surely we can call it a “distraction.” Many guys get bummed out about LOT theory. But hey, you know, hindsight is always 20-20.

Either way, I have learned a lot from our little debate here. Discussions like these will bring out the real answers, IMO.

So after so many pages of discussion, can someone please summarise where exactly we are at here at this point? I am very new to all this and find it very difficult to read and follow thru out the thread.

If someone could give a condensed cliff notes of what we have learned out of all the discussion in this thread, Id VERY much appreciate it. I know I should take the time to read everything and understand it for myself, but I have tried and could not do it. Please do not flame me for just asking for a summary of we stand on this issue as of now.

Thanks

-Sunny

Summary (as I’ve understood the learned discussion):

LOT sounds like a plausible theory at first glance, but further investigation makes is seem less clear, or even unlikely that lig stretching as we know it has anything to do with actual gains.

That pretty much sums up my current belief.

Sunny: We now think it is best to “hit it all.” Stretch in every direction. Don’t let LOT keep you from stretching up. Conversely, don’t only stretch down. Your best gains will probably come from stretching in all directions. The rotating stretch is good for this.

I wanted to post a follow-up to this remark. I recently had the pleasure of touring a natural history museum with an old friend who has a PhD in physical anthropology. We were having fun looking at different human skeletons, both modern and prehistoric.

At one display, modern male and female human skeletons (not plaster models—the real things) were placed next to each another.

Of course I checked out the angle of the pubic symphysis :D . I was actually surprised to see that the angle was much less than 45-degrees, for both male and female skeletons. I would estimate that the angle for the male was more like 30-degrees or less. I asked my friend whether this angle was typical, and he confirmed that it was.

I think this information strengthens the argument above that lig gains are largely illusory. Bib’s old drawings show the pubic symphysis being approximately vertical. With that model, one could imagine that lig gains could be geometrically possible. However, the real angle of the pubic symphysis is closer to horizontal. This means that lig “gains” only cause the penis to extend down farther, but they do not cause it to extend out or up any farther.

(If Remek is reading, I should add the qualification, “except in cases where the penis is pulled completely away from the pubic symphysis, in which case a small gain may be seen when pulling out, but not up.”)

Thanks for the update, MM :up: