Gaining volume with Kyrpa

It means all of the machines can provide higher intensity when used in pulsed mode than what they are capable in continuous mode.

However we need to use the continuous mode when the ultrasound is used in heating the tissues.
The 2.0w/cm^2 intensity is well enough for our purpose.
This machine has perfect beamform for effective and safe heating.

Because of the low BNR value there is almost none or very low possibility of hotspots forming where the temperature could reach unhealthy degrees.

This kind of machines are safest to use and provide uniform heating. They can be tolerated well and there is no rush to move the transducer too fast.

Those methods have worked for some and with them only to a certain point. After that they will never gain again.

“The ECM can also be remodelled in a non-reversible fashion by biochemial modification and external mechanical stresses. Examples include proteolytic ECM degradation by MMPs108 and ECM deposition and crosslinking109 to first alter and then stabilize the altered structure (Fig. 1d).
In addition, contractile cells can permanently deform, densify and align ECM networks between cells by stress-induced tension110, alter ECM porosity and nanotopology, ligand type and density, and these changes reciprocally define whether and how the cell migrates”

An exerp from my daily readings, telling in science , that it is really stupid to put more weight and hours if you are not gaining size. Really stupid.

Yes, Kyrpa and I have had much discussion and theorizing over private massage for the last several months trying to settle on the most overall efficient PE methods. I don’t intend on maintaining a full detailed journal of my tests on a public forum the way that Kyrpa has, but I told him that I would share the info with him.

This is a very difficult task because we don’t have access to a couple hundred volunteers for a controlled trial. Where we are at now is that Kyrpa and others have demonstrated the heating method so that we don’t presently need to re-invent that aspect. As mentioned before, I still think that contactless RF would be optimal, but it doesn’t really matter because it has now been well demonstrated that 1.5-2.0w/cm2 US @1Mhz is an effective means for bringing the internal tissue temps to 41-42C within an optimal timeframe and holding it there throughout treatment.

There are several things that Kyrpa and I are in full alignment. Critical tissue temp is 40<Tc<43. A maintained target of 41c is the optimal balance between safety, comfort, and efficacy. We also agree on stress relaxation being preferable to creep during the core protocol. We also agree that the tissue should not be heated above 39c in a relaxed state and that strain should be applied during cooling to finish the treatment. We agree that intentional injury is counterproductive to PE and that optimal results are obtained via viscosity within collagenous tissues rather than traditional PE methods of rapidly loading the cold TA with intense loads to the point that it stiffens and behaves more like a ductile material.

A short discussion on creep vs SR… notably, with ductile material there isn’t a whole lot of difference between creep and SR. Over time, the material experiences a substantially similar strain with regard to the total force applied. IMO, this is not true of a heated viscoelastic living tissue. The TA and ligs are predisposed to stiffening under continuous, and even more particularly under heavy loads. So in a creep protocol, you still need to very gradually increase the load to prevent this, and then keep the load relatively low under constant heat. You will notice a pulsing of tension within the tissues if your device is sensitive enough as when constant load is applied, the tissue cycles through a series of stiffening and softening phases as greater strain is achieved. The optimal rate of strain is around 0.5%/minute to maintain optimal tissue health and avoid a stiffening and micro-tearing. IMO, this is much more easily controlled in a device designed for SR.

When utilising SR, we introduce the very beneficial phenomena associated with cyclical loading. The literature consistently supports the idea that a series of load-deload cycles produces strains far in excess and at much lower loads than can be achieved through a single constant stretch.

In my protocol it seems to make sense to utilize creep during the warmup SET 1as the load is still very low and we are trying to ensure that all initial tissue contraction within the normal physiological range is exhausted to provide a good measurement baseline. With an SR approach we would risk slightly overshooting or under shooting that point during SET 1. Kyrpa seems to prefer manuals during the final cooldown that present more of a creep function (i.e. quantified load vs quantified strain). I have no problem with that. I believe there is some potential value in quantifying the behavior of the tissue during cooldown, and my SR device is well suited to log that behavior. It seems probable to me that the load elevation during cooldown will have direct correlation to how close we are to maximum allowable strain under heat. For example, if I lock the strain and remove the load and the subsequent load increase is unusually low, the tissue should still be capable of another strain cycle. If load accelerates rapidly, we are likely nearing the current biological limit and the tissue needs to disorganize.

Now to the question of why my approach around volume and frequency differs from Kyrpa. He has well demonstrated what to expect in terms of timeline and effort required to exhaust the current strain potential in a single phase. Other than substantiating his claims, it wouldn’t provide much value to repeat his process. There are too few test subjects on here capable of running a controlled trial to waste my efforts on substantiating something that he has already documented. I simply must take his word for it and trust that he is competent because my goal is to build upon his research. My approach might achieve better or worse results than his, but either way it adds value.

Kyrpa’s results already suggest that there is little reason to pursue greater loads, frequency, or volume. I’m then left with lesser loads, frequency, or volume. And within that realm, one hypothesis remains debatable. Is there a way to prevent the seemingly inevitable plateau. My hypothesis is that the plateau might be a function of the tissue becoming conditioned to the loads and that this might be avoided by somewhat lesser intensity. Lower frequency and not necessarily pushing each cycle and each phase all the way to the biological limit. IOW, giving up short term results in favor of a more steady and hopefully less limited long term. I suspect that in pushing for those last couple millimeters during a phase, we inevitably push over into the physiological response of toughening the tissue. My protocol intends to discover if that is the case.

Admittedly, there is a high probability that it is those last few millimeters that are most valuable in straining the tissue into an inelastic state that results in maximum lengthening over time. We shall see.

Yep, the point being that it isn’t just stupid because it’s a waste of time. It’s stupid because it is counterproductive. The harder you push, the more the tissue remodels itself to resist.

Couldn’t this take too long though? I mean, what if it takes 10 years to gain an inch, and tissues don’t become conditioned as you mentioned, because of the low intensity. But does that mean you can do the same thing for another 10 years and gain another inch? Probably not, it would be under 1 inch. What I am trying to say is, could conditioning be totally avoided? I think not, and I know Kyrpa is having great results, but how productive is using only low intensity? How do we control intensity when jelqing? One answer could be erec. level, but doesn’t it get difficult maintaining just one level of erec. during a jelq/clamp session? So doesn’t that mean we are applying heavy pressure anyway, every now and then?
Sorry if I sound so doubtful, I recently came across heavy intensity gainer threads and wanted to go for that myself again. Of course this thread makes me think otherwise, my final question is actually, how bad is this conditioning overall? I seem to view it as bad because it takes me out of the PE game for too much time, supposedly, but judging by the conditioning in my biceps/any other muscle part, it can’t be the end of things, ever. I read on quite a few threads about guys gaining continuosly throughout the years with dedication and heavy intensity stretching/clamping. They all took breaks as well of course, but from what I’ve read, they all used SUPER HEAVY intensities. Longerstretch’s routines over the years, and he’s still gaining.
The ultimate question, sorry for the long post, is it wise not to use heavy intensity?

What is this based on? I can find at least a couple of guys who have gained again after using a lot of stress..

Well, I have been decades in these forums and PE, I have witnessed the same things you point out, however, you have to look at the big picture.

You will probably be able to name me a few guys who gained with that method of heavy weights. Perfect. Now take statistically how many guys have used the same approach and did not get results or they stopped after a certain point. That will bring the success rate of that approach to extremely very low numbers rendering that protocol useless, and agreeing with Kyrpa’s words, stupid. Even more, it is barbaric and savage. I mean, those few guys who have achieved those big gains are traditionally worshipped across the board, but under them we have hundreds if not thousands of other men claiming they cannot gain, they do not see results, or the gains stopped, etc.

On the other hand, these guys here are bringing it down to a science, with an approach and protocol that will be suitable for the vast majority of humans and will eventually guarantee gains when following the specific detailed criteria.

There is lot of question marks in your post ,I can tell.

This won´t take ten years.

I think it has been noticed several times in few recent posts alone that breaks are inevitable in these methods as well.
Either the plateau comes because of the cumulative stress of the workouts or the tissue elongation, or the combination.

I would not define these exercises as a low intensity. I would like to suggest that there are other ways to define the intensity than loading weights and piling up hours to manipulate the tissue. Also making more damages into tissue for the given elongation does not say anything about the intensity. It is more of a consequence of the uneffective methods.

There is time and place for the different levels of loading of course. But never the mentality of the maximal stress by any means.
Only the threshold load for the displacement , for the threshold strain , not anything more.

Jelqing fits poorly in this environment in general.

Yes I understand you have been scanning the forums for the gainers, props for that.
But what I suspect you have done is you have ignored the plethora of the non-gainers logs though?

The unneccesary ECM stiffening and remodelling and collagen turnover because of it takes the time, and guys waste decades of time on their cocks. It is just unacceptable for me.

Most people gain initially with heavy stress, but to continue gaining they are using super heavy loads by necessity not choice. Those protocols require convexity. IOW, non-linear intensity. To gain at first requires a load that is a certain level beyond that experienced via normal erection. Otherwise everyone would keep getting longer with each erection. Hypothetically, let’s say it is 3kg load over 30-60 minutes. This will likely work for some short period before the tissue conditions to the new load. Then it will require 4kg… then 6kg… then 9kg… then 13kg… then 18kg… and so on. That is convexity; the required load increase to gain 1 unit of additional length is not linear, but accelerating. This is highly problematic. The outer tissues of the penis are purposefully the most delicate and are the only reasonable attachment point. With convexity, you literally end up strangling/blistering the glans, or bruising, chafing, or tearing the shaft skin before reaching high enough loads. So those who pursue that course have an exponentially increasing probability of serious injury accompanied by an exponentially decrease return curve.

To be clear, my protocol would not be considered low intensity compared to Kyrpa, but rather lower frequency. Indeed, with the levels of heat that we achieve, if someone were to try to apply loads of 4-6kg, they would be flirting with disaster. You need to understand what prolonged 41-42C does to a collagenous tissue. If applied in a controlled manner it allows us to progress to strains in a single session that are well outside of any traditional PE methods. But get too ambitious and you could weaken the TA to the point of spontaneous rupture.

I don’t wish to offend anyone who has taken the heavy load approach, but it simply is not at all supported by the literature. In fact, Kyrpa and I can post dozens of studies showing that high volume heavy loads on collagenous structures makes them thicker and stronger and disproportionately more resistant to future strain.

Personally, I think that jelqs are only useful as a cooldown excercise after a properly executed heated stretch. Other than that I think they are incredibly counterproductive. Also, I think your example of only gaining an inch per 10 years with my protocol is extremely pessimistic. I estimate something around 1.0-2.0 inches during the first year. But we’ll see.

I came across this article many years ago and Im glad I found it again. Basically it was an experiment done in cadavers to determine how much pressure the tunica can sustain before basically ruptures and explode.

A normal average erection has an internal pressure of around 100mmhg. It takes around 1500mmhg to cause deformation (herniation and rupture) of the tunica.

The elasticity and the tensile strength of tunica albuginea of the corpora cavernosa - PubMed

"Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the tensile strength and the elasticity of the tunica albuginea (TA), and describe morphological structures in the tissue before and after mechanical deformities. Twenty cadavers of men aged between 33 and 83 were examined. Cavernosometry was performed in all specimens. Afterwards in five cadavers the flow rate was increased until a herniation of the TA appeared. A strength about 1500 mm. Hg was found. Similar results were found in four who had an inflatable prosthesis (AMS 700) inserted, and the intraprosthetic pressure increased until a deformity was noted. Slices of TA (thickness 1.3 to 3.3 mm.) from 11 specimens were tested in a tensiometer. The elasticity coefficient was found to be around 10(8) N/m2, and the tensile strength to be 600 to 750 mm. Hg (10(4) to 10(5) N/m2). The difference between the tensile strength achieved in the tensiometer and during saline infusion is possibly caused by the intracavernous framework. Microscopy showed that TA is mainly composed of collagen fibres which are situated in an undulating arrangement, with a few elastic fibres arranged longitudinally which connect the undulating bundles of collagen fibres. When the tissue is overstretched, the elastic fibres are destroyed and the undulating arrangement disappears."

Hi,

Kyrpa , do you advise me to buy ito us-751, or wait a little, or look for a density higher than 2w / cm2, what do you advise me that it costs $ 1300 japanese industry what do you advise me they are on my list:
1- ito us-751
2- sonopulse special ultrasound
3- soundcare plus

What do you advise me that I am confused in three devices and that you are an expert in information technology and accounts and thank you for your efforts this is my last research on the devices and classifies those devices in the best market what do you say or what do you add to the advice and thank you

This is all true until you spend 30 minutes heating the structure to 41-42C. The heat radically alters the strength of the tissue. At these temps the TA is dramatically weaker.

Hello again,

COMPARISONS:

POWEROUTPUT:
US751 is the only one honestly saying the max.output intensity in the continuous mode being 2w / cm^2
Other two are telling their maximal output not telling it is in the pulsed mode which it is.

Soundcare provide 2.0 w /cm^2 in duty cycle > 80% which means in the continuous mode also. (You need to have a manual for finding this out).
3.0 w/cm^2 only in pulsed mode with < 70% duty cycle which means pulse ratio of 7:3 ,which means 70ms on 30ms off.

Sonopulse leaves all of this not to be mentioned
Some other machine from the same manufacturer had the info though, saying having 15w output in continuous mode.
Which would mean 2,1 w/cm^2 intensity.

In conclusion we can assume all of these provide max. intensity of 2.0/ cm^2 when used in continuous mode. We use the continuous mode.

BNR (Beam Uniformity Ratio)
This tells a lot of the quality of the transducer. The ratio tells excatly how uniform the waveform is , and how high intensity peaks there will be on the wavefrom.
5:1 means there will be 5 times the 2 w/cm^2 (10w/cm^2 ) intensity hotspots on the radiating area. In the quality product located focused on the middle, and not so quality transducer anywhere on the radiating area.

US-751 is has hands down the best transducer,if it is what they claim is true.

ERA(Effective Radiating Area)

Sonopuls has 7 cm^2 ERA. Which is a 4,4cm circle. Is your penis wide enough to keep this large circle in firm contact with your shaft?
I am calling trouble with the ERA this large , the machine has the over heating guarding feature monitoring the transducer head temperature.
If the temperature exceed 41 C the output is cut down. I don´t know for how long , propably until it gets below 40 or less.

This will affect the therapy as if the transducer head is exposed into air,not being in seamless contact with the shaft ,it will get overheated.^
This machine would be perferct for underwater treatments.

Other ones have the 5.0 cm^2 ERA which wil fit better against the shaft.

CONCLUSION:
I will not recommend anyone to buy anything. I have put the facts on the table for you to decide.

I trust on Manko007 reporting the Soundcare plus being a good call.

If you are willing to spend the $ 1000 budget , then If I was you I would pick the Soundcare Plus and combine it with the US PRO 2000 2nd edition as a dual setup.

Hopefully we got this matter sorted out by now. I wish you get to use the ultrasound in safe manner.

Thank you for this information. It turns out that all devices with a density of 2.0 W / cm2 tell me that the wave is the best in terms of uniformly distributed BNR radiation. I decided to buy us-751 to get a better BNR, which means an increase in heating and a better spread of cm2 radiation. I don’t want to use more than one device enough to focus on one device and distribute it to the column. I don’t know that more than one irregular device. Thank you.

I now think you will have one of the best machines upon us, on paper at least. Many ask the same questions all the time so hopefully this helped them too.
I am sure with moving transducer at the pace of the widht of the transducer in one second, you can tolerate it well ,at the same time having effective heating.

Excellent, thank you