Gaining volume with Kyrpa

20 minutes. While sitting on the sofa relaxed. Vac stretching left and right with elastic band. Each side divided in two portions for heating while penis is laying on the top of my thigh. So +5 minutes for left and same for right. There is no need to use US for all of the 40 mins you have. Heat it for a 20 minutes. How do you stretch will determine the results you will achieve.

How do you stretch?

One thing everyone need to knowledge is the fact that your skin temperature is not going to be elevating as your internal temp does.

I think it would be very helpful to make sure that we are using similar definitions. I apologize if I’m coming late to the party and then trying to redefine the rules. This is your log Kyrpa, and maybe the discussion is better suited to a general thread. But in the interest of clarity..

I’d like to be able to reference back to previous studies with similar terminology. This brings up some discrepancy around how we define the fully elastic ‘safe recovery zone’, the elastic limit which should be very closely tied to the yield point, and the flow region where incrementally smaller load increases produce incrementally larger strains.

It seems conclusive at this point that the load strain function for collagen tissue is sigmoidal. For clarity, we should probably identify the toe region distinctly from the rest of the linear strain elastic region. Because depending on the type of pre-strain conditioning, the proportional strain attributed to the total elastic region could vary significantly. The toe region theoretically includes any remaining muscle tension, any temperature based tissue contraction, and any wave structure within the collagen matrix. You’ve previously referred to elimination of this as a conditioning stretch, so I’ll refer to the toe region as the conditioning zone.

Studies suggest that the conditioning region is about 0.75% of the ~2.5% safe recovery zone I referred to earlier. But you suggested that you spend a fairly significant amount of time in this conditioning stretch, so I would suggest it’s probable that your very effective conditioning protocol has already progressed into the proportional (elastic) zone. To answer this I would pose the following question. What’s your BPFSL after a few rest days while fully relaxed with about 1lbs load for several minutes? Then, what’s your BPFSL at the end of your conditioning stretch protocol with about 3-4lbs load? My guess would be at least a 3-4mm difference. If that’s correct, then I would argue the stress relaxation of your extensive conditioning strain has progressed you most of the way through the elastic zone. That would mean that you are actually beginning your heated strain protocol much closer to the elastic limit.

Most studies suggest that the elastic limit is about 2.5-3.0% with a yield point somewhere around 3.5-4.0%. As you suggest, with heat you are extending the elastic limit. This would be negative from the standpoint of trying to reach the flow region, but it is dramatically beneficial in terms of reducing required loads and remodelling.

If I’m reading your table correctly, you’re getting 5-7mm strain after your conditioning strain which would put you at a total strain >10mm which is well past the cold elastic limit of 3%. Additionally, with the heat you get the remolding of the collagen matrix that you referred to, so the residual elongation isn’t purely a function of strain. I suppose that to exceed the yield point with a cold strain would require an immense load and likely a high tolerance for pain. The only realistic way to reach the yield point IMO is with a series of heated cyclical strains, each accompanied by significant stress relaxation. That’s the only way to get the load down to manageable levels.

I’m trying to figure out more precise measurement that overcomes the slippage issues. I like the consistency of the pubic bone to the retroglandular sulcus when not inside a vacuum stretcher.

Tutt I think what I was getting at before is that I would love for you to have your own log and test the theoretical and report back your clinical findings. You have a great grounding in the theoretical and likely practical knowledge that is transferable to this application, so I would like for you to apply it, report what you observe, see what distinctions you can make via varied application. Basically what we have here is a lab where we are doing independent evidence based research and sharing the findings. Join us.

I plan on stretching down left right, and also straight up targeting the corpus spongius. I’ll use the vacuum stretcher with either weights or with a ADS. I also have a air pump I will utilize on days when erection quality is a 8 or above. I have a penimaster type extender I will rotate using when erection quality is lacking or just have time for extended stretching. On each of the 3 work days evenings, I plan on stretching manually for 12 minutes with the use of a LED Dual red light 660 infrared 850 ultraviolet followed by edging and possibly clamping towards the end of the cycle if everything is going well.

You have all the possibilities covered then . Just make sure that you have your unit under tension while heating. And use your equipment to be prepared for the manual stretching similar fashion as I have done.

Yes, I have lurked here without any posting for about 2 years, and I do have an educational and practical background that lends to an understanding of the mechanics and chemistry involved here. I don’t want to commandeer Kyrpa’s log, but I find him, Manko, and likely yourself and a couple others to be approaching this from a more fundamentally sound foundation. I’m not sure that I have much interest in starting a personal log for a couple reasons.

First, I usually don’t have time to explain/debate “bro science” ideas that lack an understanding of the fundamentals. It’s more constructive to participate along side others whom have already demonstrated a requisite understanding. I’ve been laid up in bed sick for several days, which has allowed me some free time lately.

Secondly, I can’t really use myself as a test subject. I’m pretty confident that I could dial in a highly effective protocol within a short timeframe, but I don’t have enough runway left. I’m certain that if I was 1” longer and/or 0.5” girthier, my relationship with my wife would suffer. I already have to be gentle. Also, pics like this on a public forum are out of the question for me. I have a fairly high profile career, with extensive due diligence background checks including web scrapes at least once a month. The last thing I need is my name accidentally tied to pictures of my junk on the internet.

Never tried to eliminate the toe region as I think having no use for this value. And there is no guarantee if we are or not already past the condition zone while measuring the pre-exercise BPFSL I am referring.
Because I grab that hard on the glans and pull as hard as I could in the limits of the grip holding, and take 2-4 measurements for determining this value

I can take these measurements for sure. I agree that I am already very close when introducing the ultrasound.

Because we are talking of functioning penis made out of living tissue, everything should be done in a fashion of harming as little as possible. So I prefer to do all the conditioning and preparations before going for plastic region. In fact I have clear vision on not going for higher loads or everyday workouts ever. I have standardized these loads and prefer to stay on it through out my whole journey.

Correction here. Pre -BPFSL is taken before conditioning stretch. The 5 -7 mm you see on the table is the difference between prior the conditioning stretch and after the last stretching exercise. So that is pretty much all I can pull out of my dick at time with these tools, loads and timings.

Yield point sounds like a sprained ankle to me.
Do you really think it is desirable to even go for yield point at all. It would give you very sore unit and erection disabilities for days.

The whole structure is not in need to go through plastic deformation at all.
I am quite sure I have reached it closely enough to recognize the limit not to exceed.
It will be optimal if only a portion of the collagen bundles are stretched to plastic region at time, operating below yield point. If it ever is really reached with these moderate loads.
Already with this approach the price is poor EQ during workout days and the gain rate is excellent.

That would be the only accurate enough way of measuring.

These logs are as open forums as any other thread. So be my quest.

More accurately. Never tried to eliminate the toe region alone, but as a seamless part of the whole elastic range.

[QUOTE=Tutt]
Yes, I have lurked here without any posting for about 2 years, and I do have an educational and practical background that lends to an understanding of the mechanics and chemistry involved here. I don’t want to commandeer Kyrpa’s log, but I find him, Manko, and likely yourself and a couple others to be approaching this from a more fundamentally sound foundation. I’m not sure that I have much interest in starting a personal log for a couple reasons.

First, I usually don’t have time to explain/debate “bro science” ideas that lack an understanding of the fundamentals. It’s more constructive to participate along side others whom have already demonstrated a requisite understanding. I’ve been laid up in bed sick for several days, which has allowed me some free time lately.

Secondly, I can’t really use myself as a test subject. I’m pretty confident that I could dial in a highly effective protocol within a short timeframe, but I don’t have enough runway left. I’m certain that if I was 1” longer and/or 0.5” girthier, my relationship with my wife would suffer. I already have to be gentle. Also, pics like this on a public forum are out of the question for me. I have a fairly high profile career, with extensive due diligence background checks including web scrapes at least once a month. The last thing I need is my name accidentally tied to pictures of my junk on the internet.
[/QUOTE

Fair enough. Hopefully Kyrpa is good with you posting here as it seems very complimentary. I welcome whatever contributions you’re comfortable with.

I just saw that Kyrpa is good with it.

Additional commentary on this:

I can confirm that I have supposedly come close with the yield point in perfect situations, after meticulous stress relaxation stretching with loads of 1-2 kg , followed by US heated stretches for 20 minutes with 2- 4kg load.

Starting manual stretching which I have tested to form loads inside 8-12kg bracket, penile tissues have become very soft and easily stretched.
This condition lasts only for 5-10 stretching strokes cycled in 30sec pulls and 20-30sec pauses . The tissue then rapidly loses all elasticity felt by hands.

What I am suggesting is that the toe region has excessive variability because there are many contributing factors. It is part of the load strain curve elastic region, but with relaxed muscles and light weight over a short period, one should be able to transition through it relatively easily. The only reason that I’m separating it is because of the difficulty and confusion it introduces in trying to determine where the other critical strain thresholds are. For example, imagine someone here with a 180mm BPFSL after a 3 day rest under a 0.5kg load and with no conditioning strain. He then tries to reach the elastic limit by doing a series of strains progressing up to a 6mm strain because that is supposedly a 3.3% strain. But because he didn’t get through the toe region, he could do this for months and probably never realize gains. OTOH, imagine someone who uses an extensive conditioning strain protocol like you do, and then he starts the heated strain procedure attempting a 6mm strain from the already conditioned point. This person risks considerable pain and damage to the tissues. IMO, it is necessary to eliminate the toe region when discussing where various strain thresholds are. I believe that the toe region will typically be eliminated by recording the BPFSL in a relaxed state with about 0.5kg load for several minutes. From that BPFSL baseline, the critical thresholds begin to appear at a consistent point about 1.8-2.3% strain.

Completely agree, anything that triggers a scar response or abnormally high cell apoptosis is counterproductive. In the long term, increased length and girth should not be primarily caused by TA extension. Rather, the strain protocols being employed here are simply removing the limiter. Ideally what you are doing is creating space for a healthy proliferation process to fill. And also because it is living tissue we are benefited by the biochemical processes that are triggered by these mechanical strains. That is, in vitro testing relies completely on mechanical strain to achieve residual elongation. In vivo, the mechanical strain simply creates a small structural change in the tissue that the biochemical processes respond to and the tissue is brought back into a repaired state that becomes a new baseline. I believe that your vision of not ever needing to progress to greater loads or more intense workouts is absolutely correct, but only with the base assumption that you are using a heated cyclical strain procedure with a well defined stress relaxation protocol. This creates an environment where residual elongation of tissue is possible at significantly lower loads. That’s my inherent problem with people here insisting that workouts need to progress to higher intensity indefinitely. I fundamentally disagree with that notion.

Thanks for the clarification. In creating this response, I revisited my notes and realized that I had failed to make a critical distinction. First, I should address the concept of a ligament sprain. You are correct in that taking a ligament past the yield point is what we would typically call a Stage 1 Sprain (ligament is stretched but not torn). But keep in mind that the ankle sprain is a combination of strain rate and magnitude. Typically a painful sprain is the result of an incredibly high 1st strain rate. That is why my protocol prescribes a cyclical strain with a very slow rate of 0.5%/minute. We are trying to remodel the collagen, not create an injury.

Anyway, as I revisited the yield point concept I realized that as we are dealing with collagenous tissues (as opposed to some other ductile material) we have to be very careful not to make the common mistake of confusing the proportionality limit and elastic limit. Especially in the context of using US heat, we actually aren’t all that concerned with the yield point. It is in fact the proportionality limit that defines a structural change in the collagen. On the sigmoidal load strain curve, the proportionality limit defines the end of the linear slope. If this strain point is never crossed, one would be able to repeat the cycle indefinitely with the same loads and the same strain. However, once the proportionality limit is crossed, each subsequent cycle will require less load to accomplish the same or greater strain.

It is notable that studies have found the proportionality limit to be right about 2.25% beyond the conditioning strain, and your practical observations have also been that you notice a change at about that same point. I should note that the reason this is not the elastic limit is that clinical studies consistently show the tendon reverting back to it’s initial conditioned length. When a material resumes it’s original shape and length, but future strains are greater with lighter loads, we say that the proportional limit has been breached, but the elastic limit has not. I’ll also note that clinical studies of cyclical strain procedures show the tendons continually reverting back to their conditioned length and shape, even after as much as 30% strain. After reviewing your tables, I believe that you are effectively passing the proportionality limit which is allowing you to remodel the collagen and maintain low loads without requiring you to actually enter the dangerous environment of reaching or passing the yield point. Once you have done this, the focus should be on creating an environment in which the healing response rapidly fills the voids with healthy normal tissue cells.

I think this is very interesting. Because the entire protocol is to just get to stimulus of elongation, while staying the hell away for triggering a scar like contracture. Which while maybe not so well understood, we do know:

"Wound contraction is an important component of the cutaneous wound healing process1,2,3. Failure to contract can result in a variety of pathologic skin conditions, such as chronic ulceration. However, excessive wound contraction can result in scar contracture with fibrosis. Pathologic scarring is the result of an exaggerated wound healing response characterized by scar contracture and over-deposition of extracellular matrix (ECM)1,4. Hypertrophic contractile fibrosis tends to occur in areas undergoing repetitive mechanical stretch stimulations, such as at the joints and mouth5,6,7. However, the link between mechanical stretching and cutaneous scar formation/contracture is still largely unknown."1

So part of the issue with the tugback response that we observe, from my perspective is, is that contracture just part of the normal healing process that we’ve stimulated or is it beyond into "scar" type of contracture or fibrosis type of reaction. Now forgetting completely about the scar threshold, this side of it, I suspect(I mean why not, I have no idea) that there is a continuum from which contracture does not impede progress to a point at which the protective mechanism(release of fibronectin?) limits the progress, similar to what Tutt suggests in terms of not getting through enough of the elastic range to be able to effect progress.

And I know there will be those that will say that will likely require almost abusive levels of force approximating injury, but the fact is, injuries related to this effort occur and anecdotally, there are a plethora of examples of robust efforts yielding no gains.

Even if we knew the actual mechanisms of action, which we certainly don’t on such a complex structure, it still will come down to evidence based parsing of a protocol. Called here: cracking the code. LOL

It’s funny too what Tutt said because given the complexity and how finely it seems to need to be parsed for progress, we’re going to wind up with way to much tool, well before there are enough distinctions to be able to parse the nuance definitively.

1:https://www.nat … icles/srep11620

I’m also interested in your thoughts on the various types of growth: lig stretching, TA stretching, and systemic cell proliferation.

Fundamentally, I understand and can mostly support the concept of sustained low-load cell proliferation driven growth. This is essentially the process involved in earlobe and lip stretching. The problem with that comes with the introduction of collagen dense tissues. Basically, when structures like the TA are involved, the process starts to resemble something more on the timelines of leg lengthening; brutally slow.

Lig stretching from my perspective is the obvious driver of newbie gains, and a likely easy source of 10-25mm of length increase initially. Beyond that I do think that there are some considerations before someone targets the ligs for further gains. Lig stretching gains are more likely accompanied by aesthetic effects like turkey neck and hair creeping up the shaft. There are also functional considerations like whether someone wants to maintain a high erection angle, presuming it was initially present. Obviously, these characteristics are subjective, and may be considered a non-issue by many.

TA stretching to me is highly differentiated in that it fundamentally results in cell proliferation, but allows for progression on a much faster timescale, or at least with a significantly lower time commitment. That’s why I’m so keenly focused on targeted US heating of the TA while utilizing a device like the PMP that braces off the pubic bone. I’d like to prove out the concept of volume increases in the exterior shaft within deliberately weakening the supporting ligament structure.

That was meant to say “without” weakening supporting ligament structure.