Several members have asked me about my PE training strategy. I’ve replied with varying degrees of specificity. Here are my thoughts on the subject with more specificity. Realize however, that nonetheless, the following represents a highly abbreviated, without references, details of my experiments and results, evolution of thought, specific training techniques, etc. version of my PE training strategy. Its based on the IPR Theory of repair (http://www.elec trotherapy.org/ … ling/tissue.htm ) for connective (i.e. contractive) tissues in (as much as possible) the non-contracted state. Much of my thinking and understanding of this material has been influenced by discussion with or posts by MX and Shiver. Much thanks guys.
There are several additional concepts that have relevance to this method that I’ll either only briefly mention or not mention at all in this discussion, among them are: Fibonacci number sequence systematics, fractal theory, calculus, Static Progressive Stretch, facial plasticity, oscillatory feedback cyclicity, collagen speciation and fibrosis that have gone into my thinking, experiment and training designs, the outcomes of which have resulted in the formulation of this multi-scale IPR PE training protocol system. I encourage the inquisitive reader seek more information on these subjects than I will present here.
IPR Theory based PE training protocol:
Inflammation, Proliferation, Remodeling. All three phases are equally important. Although in the conventional context of IPR Theory, a single injury occurs and then goes through this cycle over the course of many months, in my experience, the concept can be applied in the context of PE effectively at (at least two) different temporal scales: micro-scale (2-3 day cycle) and macro-scale (2-3 months) protocols, during which, the I and P phases are manipulated to a high degree.
Inflammation: can presumably be done with any of the conventional PE training methods: hanging, stretching, jelqing, clamping, pumping. I’ve used it successfully with hanging, jelqing and clamping. The goal is to cause tissue strain in the direction of desired growth. In my experience, which admittedly has been largely length focused, IPR concepts have appeared to be somewhat more conducive to length growth than girth growth, but I use IPR protocols irrespective of the type of gains I’m seeking and have had it work well for girth focused gains campaigns also. For the most part, I’ve employed hanging coupled with wet jelqing as my general IPR based training. In that context, I’ve focused much of my attention on how to most effectively and safely inflame my penile tissues. At this point, I think moderate weight hanging is the most effective and safest means. What constitutes “moderate” will depend on the conditioning level of your tissues.
Proliferation: is done with the aid of an ADS device in the case of length focused work or a cock ring, Thera-P wristband, etc. in the case of girth focused work. The goal of the P phase is to keep the tissues that were strained during the I phase aligned in as close as possible to the same direction that the I phase stressor was aligned. This facilitates cellular growth (mitosis) along the same vectors (of initial strain) by means of distraction histogenesis, a term which basically means preferentially directed mitosis. Therefore, in the case of ADS wearing, one should orient it in the as close to the direction of their I phase stressor as possible.
Remodeling: is rest. Simple. Leave it alone.
Micro-scale IPR: Inflame in the morning (for instance). Proliferate, micro-P phase, with ADS for support of length focused training, or with a cock ring, Thera-P wristband, etc., for support of girth focused training, for the rest of the day. Remodeling, micro-R phase begins at the end of the training day, at which point I rest my tissues for either 36 hrs (overnight + 1 full day) or 60 hrs (overnight + 2 full days). Repeat. Of course, training methods other than hanging can be used.
Macro-scale IPR: can be done in or out of the context of micro-scale IPR. When done in the context of micro-scale IPR, one considers all of their micro-scale work to be the I phase of their macro-scale IPR training, and therefore terminates their micro-scale training cycle after ~2 weeks and initiates the macro-scale P phase, which initially consists of ADS or cock ring use for as much of every day as possible and tapers down in daily usage until an additional 4 weeks of time has elapsed. At which point the macro-scale P phase is terminated and the macro-scale R phase is initiated, with rest for at least 2 months.
In formulating the magnitude of “work”, where work = frequency x volume (or load), of my training within individual gains campaigns, I consider the form of my “characteristic (gains) function”, which is to say, I fit a trendline to my (typically length, although I’ve used girth and volume as well) gains vs. time curve and then, in accordance with concepts described by Fibonacci number sequence theory, I plot the inverse of the reciprocal of that curve, which I then scale to a 3 week time interval, the interval that I’ve empirically determined yields the greatest positive feedback/least negative feedback, and, is consistent with concepts described by IPR tissue healing systematics. By solving for the nth derivative of the nth degree polynomial that defines the work vs. time curve explicitly for the day being considered, one can determine the theoretical optimum work amount for that day.
Of course the scales of the characteristic gains function and the work function are different, but, as described by fractal theory, the shapes can be thought to be manifestations of each other, and therefore, in accordance with cybernetic biofeedback concepts, the use of the (scaled to IPR appropriate scale version of the) inverse of the reciprocal (or, if you prefer, inverse of the mirror image) of the characteristic curve, is well justified. Indeed, when the individual gains campaign curve is plotted on the same axes as the work curve, they almost always form a closed loop, which serves to confirm the veracity and applicability of the method.
In all of my modeling, the point of maximum inflection of the work vs. time curve is located very near the 14 day mark (actually, its almost always at day 12) as is ultimately, of course, defined by the point of maximum inflection of my characteristic gains curve. Therefore, in practice, I generally consider the ~2 week point to be the point where my body’s physiology is beginning to most significantly change from one of positive feedback (i.e. gains) to one of negative feedback (i.e. conditioning, which is really a whole other subject that demands consideration of collagen speciation and fibrosis systematics, but the characteristic gains function incorporates these). As such, its at ~ 2 weeks that I should stop my I phase work. Experience has shown that I typically achieve ~ 75% of the possible gains that I can make in any given gains campaign within the first 2 weeks. Use of a millimeter scale/ruler is a good idea). Sympathetically, it would follow that ~ 25% of the possible conditioning has occurred to that point as well. As such, 2 weeks has shown itself to be something of a break point, beyond which one’s return on investment falls precipitously. Also, as predicted by Fibonacci number theory, one can reasonably expect that the “take off point” with respect to conditioning, of each succeeding gains campaign will be incrementally greater than that of the one before. By pursuing the “expensive” last ~25% of gains, we are deflecting up in conditioning space the “landing point” of our current gains campaign as well as deflecting into higher conditioning space the “take off point” of our subsequent gains campaign. Therefore, IMO, its foolish to chase that last 25% of available gains at the expense of 75% of the available conditioning. Beyond the fact that doing so buys you less and less gains with more and more investment, it also raises the cost of your next “cheap” gains in our next gains campaign.
To do this method rigorously requires that one identify their characteristic gains function, which requires that one has kept track of their gains as a function of time and can plot them. If that can be done, one need not use calculus, one can simply superimpose the two plots graphically, and then re-label the ordinate (y-axis) in simple dimensionless integer units (1,2,3) which represent work multiplier coefficients, by which the starting value of work will be multiplied during the course of the gains campaign. In my experience of solving for work multiplier coefficients quantitatively, the 2 week point typically plots at a work multiplier coefficient of ~1.5, with the 3 week point typically correlating to a work multiplier coefficient of ~2.5.
One can multiply their PE work by increasing frequency and/or load. In the simplest case of jelqing, it makes most sense to simply increase the frequency, which in this context means # of jelq strokes, not duration of time between jelq strokes or duration of time between sessions. I’ll get to a discussion of the latter of these types of frequency in a moment. So what this means is that on day 1 of gains campaign A, one does, say X1 jelqs, then wears ADS for the rest of the day, then rests for the next 2 days and then on day 4, does X1 x (day 4 work multiplier coefficient) jelqs (call it X2), wears ADS for the rest of the day, then rests for the next 2 days and then on day 7, does X2 x (day 7 work multiplier coefficient) jelqs (call it X3), etc, until day 13, upon which (unless one can’t fight the urge to go after those “expensive” 25% gains), one transitions to macro P phase work and wears ADS for ~4weeks, transitioning (linearly) over this time from high wearing time (P-phase) to high not wearing time (R-phase), ultimately transitioning to pure rest (R-phase) after the 4th week of ADS wearing and continues with pure rest for 2 months before initiating gains campaign B. 3 months is recommended in the case of having pushed one’s I-phase work into a third week. Which in and of itself is a good reason to not push one’s gains campaigns into a third week, not to mention those that I’ve mentioned already.
For this (low erection, i.e. length targeting) jelqing example we’ll start with, say 200 jelqs and a work multiplier coefficient of 1.1, which when coupled with a 1 day, 2 days off session frequency to approximate what looks like the “sweetspot” of work progression for the first 2 weeks. So, the first 2 weeks of our example would look like this:
Day 1: 200 jelqs, Day 4: 200 x 1.1 = 220 jelqs, Day 7: 220 jelqs x 1.1 = 242 jelqs, Day 10: 242 jelqs x 1.1 = 266 jelqs, Day 13: 266 jelqs x 1.1 = 293 jelqs.
Notice that at the ~2 week point, our work has increased relative to our starting point, by a factor of ~ 1.5. Because this corresponds well with the work multiplier coefficients that I’ve calculated for and solved for graphically, I think a work multiplier coefficient of 1.1 in the context of a 1 day on/2 days off session frequency is about the sweetspot for the IPR protocol (as based on MY physiological response systematics). So, on Day 14, we would begin our macro-P phase work, using, for this case of a length targeting gains campaign, our ADS for as much time per day as we can muster (at the start of the phase, tapering off usage a little each day until we reach zero usage 4 weeks later). There are two very important aspects of P-phase work. The first applies to all P-phase work: The P-phase work, whether it’s length supporting, as in ADS or girth supporting, as in cock ring, should be done at a relatively low level. The one thing we don’t want to do is have the P-phase work appear to our body as I phase work. That is an extremely counterproductive occurrence. So keep the ADS tension low and the cock ring not too tight. With respect to macro-P phase work, it’s very important that we taper the usage from high-P phase/low R phase at the beginning of the macro-P phase to low-P phase/high-R phase at the end of the macro-P phase. The idea is to have a smooth handoff to the macro-R phase.
If we are to continue to chase gains during this gains campaign (which I don’t recommend) we will have to accelerate the velocity of our work, which means that we’ll have to increase the rate of our increase in work. Again, the magnitude of this increase can be solved for explicitly by means of calculus or graphically, but it requires that one has plotted their gains vs. time. For those that haven’t, using a work multiplier coefficient of 1.15 and increasing the frequency of sessions to every other day will approximate the indicated rate increase that I’ve computed in most of my analyses. So, in this example, the 3rd week’s training would consist of:
Day 15: 293 jelqs x 1.15 = 337 jelqs, Day 17: 337 jelqs x 1.15 = 387 jelqs, Day 19: 387 jelqs x 1.15 = 445 jelqs, Day 21: 445 jelqs x 1.15 = 512 jelqs.
Notice that at the ~3 week point, our work has increased relative to our starting point, by a factor of ~ 2.5. So this regimen corresponds well with the regimens that I’ve calculated (again, based on MY physiological response systematics).
The most fundamental difference that this PE training philosophy has with that of many others that one may find on the Forum is that its truly cybernetic, as the form of one’s training is prescribed by the form of one’s physiological response to one’s training. Another important aspect of this training protocol that is in sharp contrast to many others is the importance of tissue healing. It’s the most important part of the protocol.
I’ll be on Big Dick Island. I wish you all good luck in your efforts to navigate to it. If you’d like to have more than luck on your side, I suggest that you find, formulate or adopt a strategy. Feel free to adopt mine.
I’ll keep an eye out for sails on the horizon. There’s almost always an offshore wind, but if you’re an able sailor with a sound strategy, you’ll find the lee shore.
Godspeed.
