The shorter, tighter or higher the ligs, the higher the angle required to lose ‘tugback’ when stretching the penis and kegaling at the same time.
The shorter, tighter, or higher the ligs, the more ‘inner’ penis, and the more quick, easy gains which are possible, and possibly the more total gains which are possible as the ligs are lengthened.
The longer, looser, or lower the ligs, the less ‘inner’ penis, and the harder the gains and possibly less total gains which are possible.
The longer time spent PEing, the lower the angle at which tugback is lost due to a lengthening of the ligs. This assumes PE is performed at lower angles, at least somewhat, by all subjects.
The less time spent PEing, the higher the angle at which tugback is lost because ligs have not been stretched.
For those with shorter, tighter, or higher ligs, a lengthening of the ligs correlates with a lowering of angle of tugback loss, and an increase in penis length.
Assumption: Those with more length gains started with shorter, tighter, or higher ligs and their ligs have been lengthened through PE. It would be nice to have starting measures for tugback loss and erection angle, but I think the stats speak to this problem. I know that for myself, before PE, my tugback loss angle HAD to be extremely high. If you started with high ligs, and you have made good gains, you will probably recognize that your entire package is now lower, indicating an increase in the length of your ligs.
As concerns erection angle vs. tugback angle loss, it must be realized that other factors affect erection angle other than lig tightness such as erection strength and tunica shape.
I used Excel to create a table of data. Then, I correlated the variables in pairs. The only calculation made from the data was gains per month. The variable, “loss of tugback” is abbreviated as LOT. It is measured from 12:00 or straight up, to 6:00 or straight down.
The following is a rough analysis of the data given by the above 24 guys. With only 24 subjects, the results cannot be deemed to be conclusive, but I think it points to some definite tendencies and some rough guidelines can be produced. Hopefully, we can get some more participants to improve the reliability of the theories.
I will look at the data in three groupings and discuss the relevant correlations: Total participants, guys over and under 1.5 inches of total gains, and guys over and under 0.083 inches gained per month.
Only minor correlations can be found when looking at all participants. Apart from things that are obvious, such as total length being highly correlated with gains (0.875), there is only one relevant correlation. That is as time goes on, gains per month goes down, correlation= -0.605.
There are minor negative correlations between LOT and total length (-0.27), and LOT and gains (-0.24). This is a result of big gainers lowering the LOT as gains and therefore total length increase.
There is also a slight correlation between LOT and erect angle (0.22). The lower the angle of LOT the more lig stretch and gains. The looser ligs result is a slightly lower erection angle. This shows up in the amount of time spent PEing and erection angle with a (-0.356) correlation.
It has been obvious to me for a long time that physiology has a lot to do with gains. I think this can be examined by everyone, and especially new guys by testing the LOT and comparing to others. So, in this context, I wanted to look at two groups, high gainers and low gainers. For this analysis, I divided the two groups by the median total gain which is 1.325 inches. This gave two equal groups. The high gain group contains RB, DLD, Avocet, Dino, SWM, Goingdeep, toid, dasheming, Hobby, luv, Pinocchio, and me. The low group contains restnom, Growingup, WestLA, Long2Blong, Realpuffus, Phat, Johan, SS4, Sappy, j384, Penismith, and mike2002.
Things become somewhat clearer when looking at the data in this manner. It becomes obvious that for the high group, as LOT goes down, gains (-0.768) and total length (-0.712) go up. For the low group, there was NO correlation.
Truly interesting is the correlation between erection angle and LOT. For the high group, as LOT goes down, erection angle goes up (-.044). For the low group, as LOT goes up, erection angle goes up (.053)!!
Also, the relation to time and gains per month is clear; (-0.73) for the high group, and (-0.63) for the low group.
Gains per month:
The next step was to further group the data by dividing into two groups according to gains per month. This gives the ability to see the problem with hard gainers.
The median of the 24 subjects is 0.083inches per month. Those in the higher group are; RB, DLD, avocet, Growingup, WestLA, Long2Blong, goingdeep, toid, dasheming, Hobby, luv, and me. Those in the lower group are; retsnom, Realpuffus, Dino, SWM, Phat, Johan, SS4, Sappy, Pinocchio, j384, Penismith, and mike2002.
These groupings revealed some interesting results.
For the high group, as total length is increased, LOT is decreased (-0.75). For the low group, there is a small POSITIVE correlation (0.19). Also, for the high group, as gains go up, LOT goes down (-0.756). For the low group, as gains go up, LOT also goes UP (0.433)!
For the high group, as time goes up, LOT goes down ((-0.72). For the low group, there is again a small POSITIVE correlation (0.25).
So what does all this mean? I think the best way to examine it is to look at individuals. First, as I said before, the assumption is that big gainers started with high tight ligs. That was my situation. Looking at the big gainers, the more gains, the lower the LOT. This seems to firmly indicate a lengthening of the ligs allowing a significant portion of penis to be revealed. The biggest gainer, DLD has the lowest LOT, 6:00. RB, avocet, toid, and I are tied for 2nd at 7:00. While some of us could profit from more lig work, the majority of future gains will come from tunica stretch. We have some long ligs.
The other members of the high group, while getting good gains, probably mostly from lig stretch, still have good potential for gains in the ligs, either hanging or stretching at lower angles. Dasheming has already gained 1.75”, but has a LOT of 9. He might be a big’un some day.
Gains problems in the lower group are evident. The problems of Johan, Sappy, SS4, j384, Penismith, and mike2002 are fairly plain. They all have very low LOTs, but not much gain to show for it. Their LOTs are as low as the big gainers. To me, this indicates that they ALWAYS had a low exit point and therefore little inner penis. They did not have the opportunity to get any easy gains. Through hard work, several of them have made gains over time, probably mainly through tunica stretch. They should concentrate on working the upper angles of hang or stretch. Also, DLD twists and upward lateral stretches might be the ticket. With consistent dedicated stress, at the upper angle, they should make progress.
Retsnom, Realpuffas, Dino, SWM, Phat, and Pinocchio are a little different. They do have potential in their ligs to gain more length from lig stretch, even though some of them have already gained pretty well. But they have had to put in a tremendous amount of time and effort to get those gains, probably because of some really genetically tough collagenous tissues. Sometimes, that is just the way it is. The only thing to do is try to find ways to increase the stress, still working lower angles, and they should be able to get plenty more gains.
I had a lot of other crap I wanted to write about, but damned if I can remember what they were. Questions would be appreciated.
How to determine LOT
>For working out my LOT, am I looking for a complete loss of tugback, or just heavily reduced / weak? I would be happy to have a high LOT, and I´d say that mine must be at about 8:00 currently, but there is still a minor amount of tugback at that level. It´s small, but there. In fact, there´s a tiny amount till very far down. <
It could be two things. First, you could have a range of angles where the ligs and tunica are taking various amount of the stress. This would cause a gradual loss of tugback. Or second, you might be going by feel instead of seeing the loss of tugback. Do not judge by the flex of the PC, but rather by seeing the actual tugback.
>I´ve not done much stretching, and I´m only two weeks into my routine, so I wouldn´t expect to have a very low LOT.<
This is not correct. Some guys start out with low LOTs and some start out with high LOTs. The guys that have gained a lot and are low, probably had high LOTs to begin with. That is the theory. An LOT of 8:00 is medium.
>What´s the verdict? Does the tugback have to be gone completely?<
When the actual, visual tugback is gone completely, the ligs are taking all the stress.