Finding xeno: a penis tale

EG(ms)=6.0”.

I’ve now gained 2” BPEL x 1” EG(ms).

Now (5/09/06):
BPFSL=9.25”
BPEL=8.50”
EG(ms)=6.0”
EG(base)=6.5”
Volume(ms)=24.35ci

Volume change(ms)=88%

2” x 1”? That’s really impressive!

Good gains xeno! Keep it up!

/Swensk

Congrats Xenolith! That is allot of gains!

Almost finished with my second cycle for length. Seems like I will make less gains this time around.

Congratulations to your great gains, Xeno!

Do you think major gains are due to your non-wanking theory? I’m just interested whether there is something behind the thesis that not jerking off more than once or twice a month (whilst constantly working out one’s unit) could eventually trigger some additional biochemical reactions in the penis which promote growth.

Cool, the Scandi gang with the props. Thanks fellas.

Thats affirmative Swensky, 2” x 1”. I’ve kind of drifted from my plan to go for 2.5” EL gains before going after EG gains. But I figure if I want it bad enough, which I’m not sure I do, I can still get that additional 0.5” EL. We’ll see.

bab, I’ll be curious to see how round 2 works out for you. I’ve offered a few thoughts regarding your curent cycle based on your comments in your Prog. Rep. thread.

Enveloped bike seat (:) ), my experience indicates that IPR training cyclicity is the most important criteria for reliable post-newbie gains and that seminal retention increases gains rate. Just in case you haven’t read it, here’s the most complete version of my thoughts on the subject of seminal retention and gains rate that I’ve posted.

kayaker-

I’m not sure how to help you other than to advise you to use the IPR training protocol that I recommend and try to limit your ejaculations during your I-phase. If you’ve got any questions, I’ll take a stab at ‘em.

Congratulations on your gains, you’re doing great!

And welcome to the Forum and to posting!

Xenolith, I’m gonna double-read your theories!

What’s still unclear to me: what’s your opinion about ballooning?

Wasn’t there another theory of increasing the amount of testosteron receptors, and other good side effects that come along with edging, yet holding back or stopping before ejaculation?

I don’t know anything about those things Dweener.

From The Penis (smooth) Muscle (I refuse to call it Theory because there isn’t one) thread:

Suspend that belief. xeno can do anything :) . As long as I know HOW to do it. But how to find out HOW? Here’s how:

Forget about trying to understand WHY PE works (I can’t believe how much effort you guys give to researching everything but the sytematics of your own dicks) and focus on HOW PE works. Forget about the input variables, there are too many covariant ones which we know nothing about the co-variance of. Just boil them all down to one variable, work (= load x time), and analyze variation in THE output variable, gains rate with respect to THE input variable, work rate, (δg/δt)/(δw/δt).

That’s what I did. After doing a year’s worth of experimenting over 4 training cycles, during which I varied training frequency, magnitude and duration, while recording, analyzing, iterating and modeling. My model converged on the training protocol that I’ve recommended. I then decided to share my findings with you guys. There have to be guys like me to counter-balance the takers of the world.

While I don’t expect to be thanked, I do expect to not be told that I can’t do something. Speak for yourself. In fairness to you ps, I think your comment more than anything simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of what I’ve presented. Let me try to fix that. What all four of my data sets showed was a steep gains curve up to day 12 of each training cycle, typically reaching ~0.25” EL and ~0.125” EG at that point. Measuring these magnitudes of change over a period of 12 days is easy (not to mention fun!)…I’m sure anyone, including you, could do it. That’s where the inflection point was found in all four of my experiments. MX tells me that he found the same thing. And that Shiver did too. Down to the same day, in fact. 12. How’s that for statistical significance? I wonder if babbis’ rate of gains peaked at day 12 too?

I want to convey understanding so I won’t go into the calculus that I’ve used to analyze my data, I’ll use an analogy instead…think of the process of PE like this…its a race between an armadillo and a turtle, both of which weigh the same, around a circular track…lets call the armadillo gains and the turtle conditioning. The two racers are connected to each other by an elastic rope (think of it as your dick) that becomes less elastic as it lengthens, but has the property of gaining elasticity as an unknown function of time when at rest. The goal is to get the armadillo as far around the track as possible. IOW, the further around the track the armadillo makes it, the longer the elastic rope (your dick) has grown. They both take off at the starting gate at the same time heading in opposite directions. They both take off at unknown velocities, but the velocity of both slow down at unknown and different rates which are proportional to the changing coefficient of elasticity of the rope between them. At some point, the coefficient of elasticity becomes zero and the armadillo and turtle are simply engaged in a tug of war (being of equal weight). Not good. For your dick. Unless we stop the race.

When we stop the race (take a deecon break, or employ a macro-R phase in IPR training terminology), the armadillo slows down slowly (therefore covering more track until completely stopped) and the turtle slows down quickly (therefore covering less track until completely stopped), but both rates of slowing are unknown. So the trick becomes to analyze the changes in the position of the two racers as a function of time. But it gets trickier. The turtle is invisible. So we can’t directly observe it’s position. But because the turtle is attached to the armadillo by the elastic rope, and because the elasticity of the rope is a function of both the position of the armadillo and the turtle, and because we can see the position of the armadillo, we can infer the position of the turtle. But, really, the position of the turtle is unimportant…what is important is the effect that the position of the turtle has on the position of the armadillo. And that we can measure (yes ps we can) by measuring the changes in the length of the rope relative to the starting line as the race proceeds through periods of cycles of racing and stopping. It then becomes a simple matter of iterating through various frequencies and durations of racing and stopping to converge on the optimum values for each for the purpose of lengthening the rope AS A FUNCTION OF TIME. It took me many iterations of varying training frequency, magnitude and duration to find convergence on the training protocol that I recommend.

There are some nuances relating to the rope that have bearing on the initial velocity of the armadillo (the initial work of a training cycle) and therefore on the initial velocity of the turtle (the initial conditioning condition) as well, but more important is an understanding that in my data the rate of change of elasticity (conditioning rate) was relatively insensitive to the magnitude of initial work. But you do need to make sure that your armadillo (initial work volume) is up to the task of pulling out of the gates against the turtle (initial conditioning state). What did matter with respect to the rate of change of the rope (dick) was the rate of change of work. That’s where the work multiplier coefficient (of 1.1) comes in. That multiplier only has meaning in the context of the specific training IPR training protocol that I’ve recommended. And I definitely don’t recommend any other training protocol…I tried several different training frequencies, magnitudes and durations and have recommended only what both the data converged on as what should work best AND what actually did work best. But you all do what you want to.

I’m just trying to help you silly monkeys get your armadillos further around the track.

I can’t help it if you’re too silly to be helped.

There’s only so much sharing that I’m capable of.

Don’t be a silly monkey, be a smart one. Try the protocol.

I’m now retired from PE.

Although my original goal was 9” BPEL x 6.0” EG(ms), I’m stopping here, at 8.5” BPEL x 6.0” EG(ms). I’ve never had issues with my penis’ size. I’m lucky in that and many other ways, principle among them being the tremendously joyful relationship that I have with mrs. x (that we’ve recently celebrated the 20th anniversary of…I’ve now lived half of my life with her!). I’ve always been able to satisfy her sexually and for me, a universe of pleasure is in her pussy, her smile, her embrace,… As a result, I’ve been fortunate enough to not have had penis size issues nor an interest in putting my penis in another woman’s pussy. The latter of which no doubt has contributed greatly to the former.

I’ve done PE out of curiosity. For mental stimulation. When I simultaneously discovered Thunder’s Place and PE, my scientific curiosity was piqued…about what was possible…can I really make it bigger?…if so, how big? My curiosity is now sated. I can make it plenty big. I’m now much more curious about many other things about life.

The best advice that I could ever give to my fellow TP members is this: learn SKF. SKF skills trump size in terms of quality of sex by a huge margin. Unfortunately I’ve observed that the better my advise, the more it is ridiculed. Which saddens me but makes my retirement all the more easy to do.

I’ll continue to practice SKF…for the rest of my life in fact, and some of my SKF training may result in penis growth, but that will be ancillary to what I’ll really be working on. If that happens, I’ll update my stats. Maybe post too. In any case, I’ll keep tabs on you monkeys from time to time, if only for a good chuckle.

I wish you all the best in all your endeavors, PE and otherwise.

Particularly otherwise, after all, “Life is elsewhere”. - Rimbaud (and Milan Kundera)

xeno

Thanks for all your contributions.

What happens if turtle runs faster than the armadillo?

Oh, why do I bother. Oh yea, because I did find this interesting

This is what I actually said:

Now xeno, you are a very intelligent person, so why do you wast my time with the following nonsense:

You are smart enough to know that I questioned the likely-hood of the taking of the necessary measurements. I didn’t state that they could not be taken. Why take my words out of context like that? Do you want drama? I already have three arguments going in different threads. Do you want to give me hemorrhoids? Arg! :D

In all seriousness xeno, what you have presented is not that complex. The concept is not rocket science and despite your demonstrated facility with mathematical verbosity in your original description, anyone with college math can understand the principle.

Now back to my original concern. It still holds. The penis fluctuates greatly throughout the day. I don’t know if the necessary measurements can be done and neither the turtle nor the armadillo address that. And when I asked them about it, they said, “Jeg ikke taler menneske.” And I don’t know what the heck that means.

Now having said that, it is possible that you have done all that you claimed. I have not found any flaws in your logic and I am seriously considering giving your protocol a try.

Alright, that was kind of mean. I am sorry xeno, I had a long day. You can be kind of insulting but I really don’t take it seriously. You track analogy is interesting and I really might try your routine.

Best,
penismith

Well I can see that due to my ignorance about things biological my analogy may mislead people. I didn’t mean to connote that the turtle is slower than the armadillo. Because the process of PE is slow, I chose what I thought were two slow animals…turns out armadillos aren’t really slow. But the fact of the matter is it doesn’t matter which is faster. What does matter is that the turtle slows down faster than does the armadillo upon stopping. The key to the problem is the differential deceleration of the turtle and the armadillo that my aanalogy described. Plainly put, when one stops a PE training cycle, one’s tissue conditioning level recovers faster than one’s penis shrinks.

I don’t know what “the likely-hood of the taking of the necessary measurements” means, but I understand that

means that you question that the measurements can be taken with the precision that would be necessary to accurately find the inflection points in my analyses.

Which is exactly what I addressed here

Yep. It’s a classic dynamics problem. You know, the old two trains leave a station problem. With a few nuances thrown in. One just needs their own data to analyze by this classic method. Thats what I did. I certainly recommend that others do the same thing. But in the absence of their own data and/or the ability to analyze their own data, I recommend adopting the training protocol that my analyses converged on as most efficient.

Measuring a change requires that a change is present. Which I realize is a problem for a lot of guys. What I’m saying is that with this protocol, that problem goes away. Changes happen. And they’re measurable. For me, with my upward curve it may be easier to measure a change, I don’t know…I bend my shaft to make it straight against the ruler and measure. I find it very easy to measure changes. I would suggest using an in-pump length at a consistent vacuum as means of assisting precision in measuring. But the bottom line is, with the magnitude of changes that typically occur, they’re very easy to measure.

I presume “they” are some of the Scandi crew? babbis? kristian? I don’t know what the heck “Jeg ikke taler menneske.” means either. You certainly never asked me whatever it is you asked “them”.

I’m delighted that you think it’s possible that I’ve done what I’ve done :) . I hope you and many more try the protocol. The more dick growing that happens as a result of my efforts, the more worthwhile an exercise it will have been.

I apologize to you ps and anyone else for a perception of insult that my posts have presented. I phrase my posts in accordance with what I deem appropriate given previous receptions to my posts. The downward spiral of negative reciprocity between my giving more in my posts and members accepting the gifts in my posts less is a big reason that I’m now gone.