Gaining volume with Kyrpa

We’d be getting into semantics if discussing microtrauma. If “microtrauma” is anything outside the normal laxity range of penile tissues, then yes growth depends on it. If you mean something more like micro tears or broken fibers, then no I can’t get behind that, and tendon studies don’t support it.

I should clarify.. If you wanted to take the approach that you didn’t have any regard for broken fibrils and potentially painful trauma that causes an actual inflammation response, then yes you would still get gains. Conversely, you could use heat and realize the same or greater extension without the broken fibers and much less or even no inflammation.

IOW, studies suggest that tendons and ligaments strained to their limit under heat realize significantly greater mobility without the typical visible trauma under microscopic examination. That is, you are changing the state of the tissues, not simple severing them and asking your body to build new ones.

Okay but you’re not stopping there, you’re going past it into micro trauma. Your premise is that the micro trauma that occurs there after maxing out the mobility with heat, is different than the micro trauma that would occur in the absence of heat. Yes?

To me there is no fundamental genetic limit within Kyrpa’s approach. The anecdotal limits that you’ve seen on these boards are likely the result of less than optimal protocols. The most critical characteristics of Kyrpa’s approach are the conditioning stretch, the US heat to ~42C, and the cyclical strain beyond the proportionality limit. These factors dramatically reduce the required load. Then it is critical that once those loads aren’t producing any appreciable extension, he must take an extended rest period (at least 3 weeks but I think 6-8 weeks would be better). This is very important and cannot be understated.

The reason all of those aspects are so critical is that although I don’t think there is a genetic limiter, there likely is a friction limiter. IOW, as the cross sectional area increases the required load must increase. Looking through these boards you see reference to the big gainers hanging insane weights and trying to invent ways to attach that much load to the glans. At a certain point there isn’t a realistic way to make that attachment without strangling the glans, stripping the skin off, or blistering the surface. It is thus critical to dramatically reduce the required load. This outcome is actually the main objective within Kypra’s protocol, which means he should be able to theoretically more than double the cross sectional area before running into friction issues.

As practical support for my claims look at a person who gains fat in excess of 40-50% body fat. While the might have organ failure, there is incredible capacity for skin and connective tissue expansion. There doesn’t appear to be a genetic limit until they have a heart attack or develop diabetes. Once they lose the fat, their tissues begin to contract and the body naturally tries to tighten. But at this extreme scale of tissue expansion they will likely never return to the original genetic baseline. I believe the same is true in PE. The largest gainers, if they were to completely stop, would realize some losses within the body’s natural ability and tendency to contract toward the genetic baseline. But once the volume expansion is realized, it shouldn’t take much to keep it.

Yes, it is completely different with some heat, and completely different again with heat above 40C.

Ligaments within your knee or ankle, for example, have the capacity to stretch about 6% beyond their functional range before they tear. If heat about 37-39C is present and the ligament is stretched to 105%, there will be significantly less damage under a microscope than the same strain to a cold ligament. I’m suggesting that the proportionality limit is about 2.5-3% total strain, which is where the ligament “weakens” without losing elasticity. Additionally, once you exceed 40C, there is another “weakening” of the ligament. That is, it’s ability to resist stress has significantly decreased.

In combination you’ve created a environment wherein the ligament deforms at much lower loads, and realizes far less trauma in doing so.

You are not harsh to theory. You are pragmatic. And the current state of PE needs pragmatists more than theorists, precisely because of the statement above.

However, my counter to that statement is that YOU don’t have time enough, but WE collectively do have time enough. I don’t have time to re-discover and test all that Steven Hawking knew about physics, but I can use his end point as my starting point, provided his theories were sound and well documented. IOW, I have to be able to trust the precedent because I’m going to build on it. Currently in PE, I cannot trust the precedent because so much of it cannot withstand even modest scrutiny.

And “resources enough” is a relative concept. Some of us have access to resources enough, but only if there is enough money to be made. That’s the cold hard truth of modern science. And I wouldn’t be talking about the kind of money one could make as a PE coach. I’d be talking about the kind of money that one could make by accidentally inventing Viagra.

Yes.

There are same old data presented in better interpreted from.
All figures typed bold red are affected by US heated exercises, or experiments when it comes to other than stretching.
Figures not bold but still red are heat pad warmed exercises.

There are these 3+2 days cycles produced with only one US heated workout day included.

No more than one US heat cycle produced a day.

I am looking for trends more than single performances.

2-3 weeks off completely. 6 weeks off from US heated cyclic manual stretching. And because the BPFSL gains diminish at the 4-5 weeks point, where the manual US cyclic stretching is abandoned, the whole circulation turn out to be about 3 months. Taking this approach would mean user to be able to perform these Periods 4 times per year. It would mean n+n+n+n miilimeters for the first year.

0.5n+0.5n+0.5n+0.5n millimeters for second. 1/3 n+1/3 n+1/3 n+1/3 n millimeters for third . Maybe it would stabilize at the level 1/5 n…. for few years.
Genetic potential should determine the n value.

They are encountered but not as so surprisingly as some would expect.

Most of the previous high gainers have made significant gains till the one to two years region.
Somewhere on the that curve the steep upward trend starts to bend smoothly to be stabilized for the conservative linear fashion.

This logarithmic charts can be seen everywhere in nature of human body from children early years growth charts to bodybuilders gain charts.
There is something very interesting genetically coded in the human growth in general.

Fat gains should be excluded as the fat cells seemingly have no limits, as seen with really obese people.

Maybe the truth lies somewhere between as I assume that the physical adaptation and the finding the genetic limits are inevitable at some point.
What I like to think that these limits are postponed and moved further with these kind of approaches would be the best scenario.

To keeping this the gain rate more than two years or lets say 7-9 periods would be phenomenal already

The long term studies where living ligaments have been systemically stretched with this approach are lacking.
I have only seen some where they had reversible lenghtening of the joint unless the procedure was repeated enough times in some time frame.

Depending on my memories and loosely referring , suggesting that 0,5 % above the proportionality limit repeated 10 times would be enough to provide irreversible outcome seen as a permanent gains?

Then the nature of the healing processes of the collagen matrix remodeling prevent the continuous practice of this concept. Periodization is mandatory for long term gains to continue.

And when I am referring to long term gains I am talking of 3 to 5 years maximum.
Which should be the time frame for all the gains available to be reached.
Then all what is needed should be some form of maintenance 1-2 times a week, which is beneficial for the wellness of the penis and takes very little efforts and time. Nothing more.

I find the whole concept of heroism around lifetime approach to very false. Counter productive, both mentally and physically negative.

I really appreciate the response, that maps out your position very clearly.

Or should we assume that +- 0.5% of the proportionality limit would be the “sweet spot”

“As practical support for my claims look at a person who gains fat in excess of 40-50% body fat. While the might have organ failure, there is incredible capacity for skin and connective tissue expansion.”

Well these are not structural tissues, and so by design there wouldn’t be a need for a genetically evolved limiter.

Small “n” but it does support the idea.