Testing LOT Theory

Yes, absolutely. First, I want to note that these are my observations, of course.

The simulator is currently set-up in a linear model. It doesn’t take into account the curves and angles of the inner penis. I attached a picture, and this is the way I see it.

This is how I believe the inner/outer shaft is connected. I tried simulating this from a another picture, which is attached for observational purposes.

Basically, I don’t think the outer penis, as I define it, shrinks at higher angles. I can’t see how this is possible because the exit point would change as a result.

Simply put, it will help answer many questions regarding LOT. I don’t think a lot of people understand LOT theory. Furthermore, I think it is time we either a)confirm the theory or b) put it to rest. In this, the article will also display any findings that I come across when we test the LOT theory.

For this reason, the article won’t debut for a while. I haven’t started writing the article(s) yet, and that I probably won’t until I have more time to think and act upon LOT theory.

I can see what you are saying. Perhaps that is why you took offense to my comments earlier (because you had a bad experience with Bib and believe I am here defending his views). I hope you now understand that this is not the case.

Are you suggesting that the force of the kegel can affect LOT?

The three questions I asked earlier about assertion 1. Also, I shouldn’t have used the word defend. I would like to fade out of these type-of attacking words (i.e. you defend, I offend,) and the accusations. In particular, what I meant was that you didn’t answer my questions from earlier.

You may be right. I can surely remember that I pushed the ruler in harder and harder when I was getting to closer marks. For example, when I was at 6.8 inches, I’d be darn if I didn’t want to claim I was 7. So I made sure I pushed that ruler in with all my strength. In the eyes of a man claiming he had a big dick, this method worked very well. However, in the eyes of a man claiming he had grown so many inches, this method was horrible.

However, I don’t think all the gains we obtain are apparitions. If lig stretching is how men accumulate some of their gains, which seems reasonable to me, then maybe the ASL is what makes it more difficult to gain as times goes on. Or maybe with people who naturally have a low LOT, the ASL is why it is so hard for them to gain length at all. This is, of course, speculation. Personally, I think gains are possible from both lig stretching and tunica (i.e. shaft) stretching.

Also, I’ve been searching through my notes and the web and I attached a picture of what seems to be the ASL.

I can definitely see a change in attitude. I thank you for that. I would like to cut the crap. It was never my intention to start a pissing match. I think it would be better for everyone involved in this thread.

I don’t understand what you mean by the fundiform ligament being an unknown. Could you clarify?

I agree.

What is your take on this? Do you believe it would build evidence for/against (or neither) LOT theory?

Indeed, but it would be interesting to find out the LOT’s of those with severed ligs. There are a few guys in the PE community that went under the knife. They would be a good place to start.

A survey would be good, but that would take a long time. In fact, the second PE survey should be coming along soon (right?), but I don’t think its worth waiting until the results pile up if we can get the same answers now. I suggest questioning several people (e.g. 25-100). From there, the results can be monitored and maybe a correlation can be found.

Yea, I asked Bib for them and he was unable to find them at the time. I might ask him for them again.

I sure can. I am referring to the three questions I asked earlier. They are at the bottom of this post: remek - Testing LOT Theory

- remek

Remek,

I’m tied up but will try to come back in a day or 2 to reply.

Modesto,

OK. Take your time. I understand life can get a little out of hand, leaving little room for PE talk.

I’ll be checking back on this thread every few days to see if you posted back.

- remek

You are correct that the simulator does not take curves into consideration; however, it does consider angles. The simulator’s consideration of angles is critical, I believe, since LOT IMO basically comes down to a linear geometry problem.

I do not believe that the simulator’s failure to consider curves is a problem, however. When performing a LOT test, structures are either under tension or they are lax. Structures under tension are straight. This goes for the outer penis, inner penis, and ligs. One possible exception is the region of the shaft that passes directly under the pubic bone. That region can be curved. Oops! I forgot. I actually do show that.

From the point of view of your argument, I think it’s important to see that the inner penis is straight when pulling the penis at high angles (e.g., 10:30 or above). The length and attachment point of the ligs are not relevant at these angles, since the ligs are lax. This is why stretching the ligs won’t add any length to the penis at these angles.

Your drawing suggests that the IP is somehow curved or has some “slack,” so that stretching the ligs allows that curvature to be straightened and thus allows length to be added.

I don’t think this is the case, however. If it were, the IP to buckle during an erection. I don’t think that happens. Also, the IP would never bear tension at any hanging angles. Yet guys who hang SO or OTS commonly report feelings of stress behind their testicles, near the pelvic bones.

I think I’ve addressed this above. Please let me know if my response is not clear.

I look forward to reading the article. However, I have to question whether an article absent any scientific research or statistics will prove or disprove anything.

I am ready to put that behind me.

Not the force, per se, but the length of tugback. I indicated above that “tugback strength” in the model is really a misnomer. It should be called, “tugback length.” The simulator predicts that increasing tugback length does effect LOT. Give it a try and see.

I’ll go back and take a look.

I think the ASL is actually lower that what you’ve pictured. It’s at the very base of the pubic symphysis. I’ve provided a hand drawing of it on page 2 or so of this thread. That drawing is very close to the drawing shown in the paper I purchased.

I’m not suggesting that all gains from downward stretching are “apparitions.” I do think, however, that we misunderstand where the gains come from. Some (small amount) come from actual lig stretching. Some (a bit more) come from the fact that we can push the ruler in farther. Some (variable amount) come from traction induced growth of the shaft itself.

I think it’s likely that the fundiform lig affects LOT. I haven’t modeled it. I probably should have. The fundiform lig is located somewhat forward of the susp. lig and is attached to the abdominal fascia. It doesn’t physically attach to the penis but forms a loop around it. Pulling down on the shaft pulls on the fundiform lig. I know this because BTC stretching always caused me abdominal pain.

The test you prescribe would help to prove that LOT is caused by a transfer of tugging stress from the inner shaft to the ligs. I think that is a given, but it never hurts to confirm the idea.

It would be very hard to get reliable data on this, since the ligs sometimes tend to reattach. Also, we’ll need to understand whether the surgery released all lig bundles (and the fundiform lig) or just some of them. If some, which ones.

You might want to take another look at his original LOT Theory thread. I think he provides at least some of the statistics there.

IR is the ischiopubic ramus. In the simulator, this is the red dot where the inner penis attaches to the pelvic bone. PS is the pubic symphysis. In the context of my statements in connection with Assertion 1, PS was used to indicate the attachment point of the lig line to the pubic symphysis. It appears as a blue dot on the simulator.

I never really determined the distance between IR and PS. What I did was found some medical drawings of the male pelvis and superimposed the penile structures on top. I never cared much about the exact dimensions, only the proportions. By sheer accident, the proportions ended up being very accurate. On second thought, maybe I did do some tweaking. I don’t remember.

The exact positions of the IR and PS certainly vary from man to man, but the angles are probably similar across different guys.

Modesto, good to see you back in action. I have been going over quite a few of your other threads lately. Mainly threads pertaining to you not gaining (deconditiong break ideas and alike). I don’t know your current PE situation, but I am curious, have the decondition breaks helped? Have you been blessed with the same fortune as MX?

Anyways, onto the topic at hand.

I tried to copy the anatomy picture I attached as best as possible. I am assuming the curve, or “slack” is small and is probably caused by the curve of the ischium (maybe, not for sure.)

I don’t understand what you mean by the last part. Why wouldn’t the IP bear any tension? I am sure the IP bears tension at all angles, even low angles (albeit very minute tension.) However, at the higher angles it bears the most tension. I don’t see why my drawing is at odds with this statement. Can you please clarify it for me?

I attached another picture. Again, this is the way I see it. The exit point stays the same, and the real penis (i.e. the part of the penis that can be used during sex) stays the same size too. I can’t see why this would change. Maybe we are talking about two different definitions again. :shrug:

Also, since we are on the subject, I want your opinion on the Inner Penis stretch. Do you believe that results come from stretching the inner penis and its surrounding structures (tunica, etc.) or the outer penis and its surrounding structures (again, tunica etc.), or both? If both, which one do you believe is more the cause of gains?

You’re right. If there isn’t any evidence, statistics, or scientific research, then the only thing it will be is an informative article.

Great :up:

Hmmm, I tried this, and you were right. I even played around with the big numbers (you know me and big numbers), and changed it to 100. At this point, and many numbers below it, there was a complete LOT.

A question: What do you mean by tugback length? Is it the distance that the penis tugbacks when retracted?

In an essence, you believe we gain very little from lig stretching?

If thats the case, then I can’t disagree with you. I have no evidence to prove otherwise. In time, this can definitely be tested if men here are willing to put forth the effort.

Following your belief, if the shaft/tunica/CC growth is where the majority of length gains come from, then it would be best for men to focus on the shaft when stretching. Straight out and straight up then, eh? Or even better, shaft-focused exercises such as the dual fulcrum would be the real way to gain.

Yep. The fundiform ligament (and in some ways the suspensory too) are influenced by the tightness of your abdominal muscles. That is why it is good to “tighten” the abs when doing exercises that focus on the ligs (that is, if lig stretching is the way to gains.)

Good. Since this is the easiest of the three, I think it would best to go this route first. I will start a thread.

Very good point. I spoke to one guy who claimed that he has 12 friends that went through penile lengthening surgery. He stated that all 12 of these men had a LOT of 9 or more.

Yes he did. Though, I would like to have the raw data if possible.

OK, this is where my curiousity sprung. I can’t see how your repubtal to assertion 1 (highlighted below), can hold any relevancy if the number you provided for the distance between IR and PS isn’t 100 percent accurate.

And as you have pointed out, the distance is surely different for every man. Therefore, I can’t see how the IR-PS distance can be precise (which I believe is needed to suggest what is being suggested). Does that make sense?

Let’s see. I took about 2 months off last February (complete rest) and then started back in with Mem’s momentous routine—stretching in the mornings and jelqing in the evenings. I also did some light sideways (OTL) hanging, alternating sides. I managed to pick up between 1/8” and 1/4” from a combination of these efforts. That seemed like a lot to me, since I had not managed to gain anything (I mean, zero) from a very intense, 6-month hanging regiment that immediately preceded my break. I’ve also picked up an extra 1/8 to 1/4” since, which brings my length up from 7” BPEL (pre-break) to 7.375” BPEL now. Not bad for a year’s work

All in all, I think the break was worthwhile, although I’m not sure whether the benefits I experienced were primarily physiological or psychological. After 6 months of hanging with no gains whatsoever, I certainly needed a break, for my own mental health. When I returned to PE I had a very different philosophy.

Sounds like a good idea.

I’m not sure I understand, and I hesitate to try to answer without a clearer picture of the question. I don’t want to go around in circles. Could you please identify exactly what you would like me to clarify?

Again, I would appreciate it if you could be as clear as you can possibly be about what you are asking. I don’t know how to answer this. Also, sorry, but I don’t see any picture.

I have no idea. It seems to me the inner penis and outer penis are made of essentially the same stuff. So, my guess would be that growth is probably more or less uniform, assuming tension is applied uniformly. However, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that more growth occurs in certain regions than in others. I’ve noticed that the CCs tend to narrow considerably as they pass under the pubic bone (at least in the flaccid state). Possibly, that region is a site of increased growth potential. Also, the areas where the ischiocavernosus muscles surround the crura may be other high growth sites. I say this largely out of ignorance, however, since I really don’t know the anatomical details of the muscles and how they attach to the crura.

Yes. Holding the flaccid penis with light tension at 10:00 or 10:30, tugback length is how far the glans retracts when you do a kegel.

Apparently. However, there’s always the possibility that stretching the ligs hits the shaft in some special way that speeds shaft growth. I don’t know. But from lig stretching alone (with no coincident shaft growth), yes, we appear to gain very little from lig stretching.

Maybe. Fulcrums may not be required, at least initially.

Because it’s not the number that’s important, it’s the ratio of IP length to the distance between IR and PS. This sounds complicated, but it’s really quite easy to see. It’s been awhile since I’ve looked at the math, but from memory the basic idea is that LOT gets lower with increasing lig length if the IP is long enough so that the lig has to reach forward to hit its attachment point along the shaft. However, just the opposite is true, that LOT actually gets higher with increasing lig length, if the ligs have to reach back to hit the attachment point. The “forward” and “back” directions are determined with the flaccid penis held out by tension, as it is during the LOT test.

Both conditions can clearly be simulated. It’s probably true that the lig reaches forward for most guys—maybe. Not necessarily, however. I honestly don’t know.

The distance is surely different. The ratio is probably more consistent, since shapes tend to be more consistent than sizes. So you understand, however, my response to assertion 1 is actually supported if the ratio is not consistent. My answer for whether LOT decreases with increasing lig length was, “it depends.” It depends on the ratio I described above. I did not make any definitive statement about which way things change. I just illustrated the mathematics behind the LOT versus Lig change and showed it was possible for LOT to change either way.

EDIT: BTW, I thought this was an important finding. Defenders of this aspect of LOT Theory had always assumed, I thought, that the geometry that gave rise to the change in LOT with lig length was obvious or intuitive. I believe I showed that it was not. It’s a fairly subtle geometry problem, and the results can turn either way depending on this forward/backward anatomical detail.

I truly admire your dedication. It’s easy for guys like Bib, BG, and other big gainers to spend a lot of time here and PEing. They make big gains; they see big results. You have to work for it. You have to learn the physiological processes that take place in hopes of finding your grail. I admire that. Many men that don’t gain simply give up.

In reference to the break, I the benefits were probabaly both physiological and psychological refreshing. People tend to get bored easy. I know I do. Taking a break surely refreshes the mind (along with the tissues).

Opps. I was sleeply at the time of my last post. I didn’t attach the picture, but I attached it now. Maybe it will help explain my reasoning. You are right, I don’t want to go in circles again.

Primarily, I don’t understand how the outer penis changes size at different angles. I must admit that I haven’t measured at an upward angle yet, but I will tonight. Maybe I am wrong, but the way I set it is the exit point stays the same, thus so does the OP (to my definition). I think we may be having a definition problem again.

I too noticed the narrowness of the CC’s as they pass under the pubic bone. I replied to your Why BTC? thread about this. The reason I ask this question is because I have been playing around with quite a few stretches lately and I stumbled upon a stretch that feels very intense on my inner penis. In this stretch I feel a lot of tension in the perineum, and I wonder the potential. Without jumping to conclusions, I would have to agree with you — the tension is probably uniform.

I believe your description of the IC muscle to the crura to be right on. The ischiocavernous (IC muscle) is attached to the crus through tendon and muscle fibers on both sides of the crura. Maybe this is a high growth site, but I don’t know. Only time and research will tell.

I understand what you are saying. Your other thread (referenced above), describes this much better. At this point, I can’t say for sure if lig stretching is the way to go. In fact, I’m not sure where this idea came from. Who came up with the idea that the tunica is harder to stretch than the ligaments? Here it is passed along as common knowledge, or as you call it — conventional wisdom. However, my own conventional wisdom has taught me something else: you can’t always believe conventional wisdom. If we did, then we would all be afraid of falling of the Earth (because conventional wisdom told us it was flat.)

My point is that I think we are going at this all wrong. We being everyone in the PE community. We tell people to stretch down, work them ligs. For all we know, we should be telling them to stretch up or straight out (like Wad’s friend.) Right now, conventional wisdom tells me we know very little.

This of course depends on where the "growth sites" (as you referred them) are. If there are good sites to focus on, then I think fulcrums could help. I also think fulcrums are amazing for stretching the outer penis. It really allows for good stretches at certain points on the penis.

Where does this ratio come from?

The LOT theory requires a lot of assumptions and sub-theories to be considered before it can be considered valid. Like I stated above, I’m not so sure that ligament stretching is the way to go anymore. And if it isn’t, then LOT theory is, well, useless. I’m surely not saying that we should stop studying it. Nor am I saying that I believe it is wrong. However, I’m too the point where I think it would be best to restart my thinking with a clean state. A tabula rasa, if you will.

I discussed theory of theories with a scientist once; he said that a theory that needed a lot of side rules of exceptions, assumptions that weren’t readily checked etc was considered a weak theory. A strong theory is one that wraps it all up, with few or small exceptions and no strange assumptions needed.

Considering the rather iffy background material (8 people, was it?) of the LOT Theory (or hypothesis) and the rather unclear results shown by remek’s and ModestoMan’s inquiry above, I hereby declare the LOT Theory a weak theory. A stronger theory will follow, so stay tuned.

mgus, I think it was 20.

I am very excited to hear your theory (or hypothesis). Don’t make us wait to long now that you have let the bait go! ;)

No, I meant that the the rest of should stay tuned to the discussion that the two of you are having. To me it makes a hell of a lot more sense - that ligs are attached to (and part of) the tunica, and that stretching the ligs themselves doesn’t give a lot of result, but that the part of the ligs that make up the tunica is stretched as well and that this is what is responsible for what is percieved as “lig gains”.

This would tie in very nicely with the ideas discussed in the “new hanging technique” thread, using a hanger to rotate almost like a pulley over a rice sock and thereby hitting the upper part of the shaft the most.

I want to make it clear that I think your rebuttal to assertion 1 is this:

Basically, the LOT theory assumes that the ligs have to reach forward. I don’t know if this is an assumption (in fact, I think I read this somewhere; Gray’s perhaps?)
Anyways, you are suggesting that the LOT simulator shows that if the ligs have to reach backwards (which I don’t think they do, but they might), then the whole theory is thrown off.
If this is the case, then there hopefully there is something about the ligaments reach in the ligament article you read.

Also, mgus, I’m not saying that the LOT theory is a whole bunch of assumptions. For the most part, it just requires very detailed knowledge of the penis anatomy. This right here is why I think many men don’t understand the LOT theory. However, it does assume what I mentioned above: the ligaments are the key to gains. Personally, I don’t know if they are anymore. Even Bib himself said he gained a lot from tunica stretching.