I have a hypothesis about PE, would anyone like to help me test it?

My hypothesis is that PE is driven by something that increases the volume of the penis, independent of the elongation of the fascia and connective tissue.

I think, based on previous experience, that the dimensions of the penis are arbitrary and rapidly changeable so long as the dimensions accommodate the current penis volume.

I would like to see if anyone wants to test a facet of this hypothesis by converting girth into length by using a circumference of penis pump cylinder that is smaller than their current erect circumference. I expect that 3 months of pumping with a smaller circumference cylinder will result in rapid penis length growth to accommodate the existing penis volume. If this occurs, it would indicate that penis dimensions of length and girth are arbitrary and redefine how we access the effectiveness of PE methods to be evaluated on volume increases, not length or girth increases.

Currently PE techniques are built around the paradigm that stretching the fascia allows for greater total expansion and penis size, but that may be wrong. Regardless of how much we stretch the fascia, some other factor might be determining whether or not the temporary larger size can be maintained, and if so elongating the fascia of the penis itself might be useless for PE. If we build sufficient evidence that the dimensions of the penis are arbitrary so long as they accommodate the existing penis volume, it will lead to better PE techniques due to PE techniques being evaluated by the correct criteria, volume gains.

The information I would like is as follows:

- Starting non-pumped length and girth measurements.

- Starting date.

- Dimensions of the smaller diameter cylinder used.

- End date, 1-3 months after starting date.

- Ending non-pumped length and girth measurements.

If anyone has past measurements that fit the criteria of switching to a cylinder smaller than their erect circumference, that would work also to clarify whether or not this is the case.

Information invalidating this hypothesis is just as needed as information validating it. The goal is clarifying how PE works so we can do PE more effectively.

Risks?

Even in this were true. Why would anyone give up girth?

My question too…

This has been my thinking for 2-3 years. A thread a while back stated (or linked to) the fibres around the cavernosa where actually laid across each other like a radial tyre.

So if they are stretched “lengthways,” the diameter will reduce, and vice versa. However, it is extremely difficult to stretch them outwards radially. The only way I feel I get any true stretch is by using very high pressure carefully crafted fulcrum squashes.

Mixing it up, working length, working girth, all the while keeping an eye on volume is where it’s at in my book. Great post and let’s see how it progresses.

Because girth is so easy to gain, but it contributes much more volume than length gains. For gaining volume, PE designed exclusively for length gains is miserably slow and difficult.

If we can confirm that girth can be converted to length without a loss of penis volume easily, then we can probably triple the rate that penis enlargement takes place by dedicating the bulk of the PE exercises to girth, which is more effective for gaining penis volume.

To use myself as an example, if this hypothesis is correct, I could probably reach my goal size within a year and a half. I think I could gain 2 inches of girth in a year, maybe a year and a half, and that would give me about my goal volume.

8.75” x 6” is 12.5 oz., about my current volume.

8.75” x 8” is 22.22 oz., I think I could gain to this size relatively quickly with my past PE experience with major girth gains.

11.5” x 7” is 22.36 oz., this is my current goal.

I already have an indication from my own PE stats that this might be possible, but I need more evidence before I can be confident it works this way.

Can girth be converted to length by pumping with a thinner tube?

Well keep going and report “your” findings. I’ll keep my girth.

The risk seems to only be losing girth without any benefit to length. But girth is so easy to gain, you will likely regain it while continuing to pursue length without any extra effort.

If you already have data on this, switching to a smaller diameter tube, then there is no risk.

The reward of reaching a consensus on this, if the hypothesis is correct, is everyone making much more rapid gains because they have a more accurate paradigm of how PE works.

I hope I have something positive to report soon. If this is correct, it would be a major breakthrough. I really thought if I made a breakthrough it would be through my investigations of chem PE, but I think I would actually be happier with this since I don’t have to go through the trouble of making sure someone can’t monopolize this with a patent.

And if the theory is wrong, I hope I can end it here so no more time is wasted on it.

How would one insert an erection into a cylinder with smaller circumference than the erection itself?

I have to respectfully disagree with this statement.

Case in point: Over the past 2 years I was able to gain slightly more than 1.5 inches in length easily with minimum stretching and jelqing but hardly 0.2 inch in girth - despite focusing on girth work (jelqing and clamping).

Some have an easy time gaining length. Some have an easy time gaining girth. (Of course, some (lucky ones) might be able to gain in both easily)

Regards
RJ

You would have to insert it while flaccid and you would need to use a good lube to keep it from sticking to the side to get full length expansion.

It’s possible you’ve hit a brick wall with clamping because too much collagen has been deposited in the penis. During my first PE journey, I hit a brick wall while doing clamping and couldn’t continue to gain by any method I tried.

Is your penis fibrous? A decade ago, when I stopped PE my penis was like a baseball glove wrapped in a fruit roll up when flaccid.

This time around, I’m not doing any jelqing or clamping at all.

Well, I’m getting my 2.5”+ cylinder ready for coming out of retirement to see if I can replicate past rapid length gain by first gaining a ton of girth and then switching back to a 2” cylinder. I’m not sure I will go all the way up to 8” circumference before switching back to the 2” since that’s not strictly necessary to test the hypothesis, and I don’t like the possibility of getting stuck with an 8” circumference penis, but I’m going to go up to 6.5” mseg or so.

If the hypothesis is valid, 8.75” x 6.5” should be converted to 10.25” x 6”, both are about 14.65 oz..

It’s interesting for sure. Why the smaller tube for length rather than some form of stretching after the girth gains have been realized?