Thunder's Place

The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.

Body Genes And PE Gains Relation Theory

I’d love to see if there were some kind of correlation though. I know it is a little remote, but I’d love to know one way or the other.

I’m an Ectomorph, everyone (people on the street) says I look like Edward Norton. When I get further through my PE, I’ll put in my results and see if there is some correlation. For now, I think it comes down to being lucky and tenacity.

It would be interesting to find out if those “impossible to gain” people are all the same, and a classic “one type” of build and not a mix.

I’m going to make a poll when I get more time.

People are welcome to post here anything they like, you don’t have to agree that is what discussions are all about.

I don’t think it always comes down to age, because there have been big gainers that have been young and old. It would nice if when people setup their accounts and put in their age and size they could put in their height and weight and maybe body size…then we could see if there was also some correlation. Likely not, but you never know.

If I understand correctly, 17ml wants to find out if there is a correlation between PE gaining potential and somatic types. I think any correlation study is welcome if it’s done correctly (precise, relevant, based on a sufficiently large sample), not to be misleading.
Regarding its outcome, I’m very much skeptical. Let me explain:

It’s logical assuming that a body having some kind of potential will develop that potential in a natural way. For example, if a person has genes to grow tall, its body will grow tall if not blocked somehow. A muscular type person will naturally be well built, even without exercising, provided it’s on a decent diet (not starving in a ghetto). Someone being genetically inclined to deposit fat will become overweight, if he/she doesn’t take countermeasures. That is exactly the definition of a body type, the ability to develop some traits for which it has innate potential.

In this view, if PE gaining potential would be related to body types, we should see a correlation between penis size (the already developed potential) and body types, which we don’t!

P.S. I’m a typical ectomorph (I have to work 10 times more for each ounce of muscle than others) with rather good PE gaining ability (good newbie gains, steady further gaining).


Starting BPEL: 6.9" (Dec.1st, 2008)

Current BPEL: 8.11" NBPEL: 7.63" BPFSL: 9.09"

Current MEG : 5.6"

I don’t know about body types but I was thinking earlier about my gains. I started off as a hard gainer but once I gained that first 0.25” the rest was history. As a young lad I didn’t get my growth spurt until I was about 16, I was a late bloomer and once I started growing I started stacking on the height.


I'm a big fan of 50 Cent, or as we call him in Zimbabwe, four hundred million dollars.

Originally Posted by cervixhunter
If I understand correctly, 17ml wants to find out if there is a correlation between PE gaining potential and somatic types. I think any correlation study is welcome if it’s done correctly (precise, relevant, based on a sufficiently large sample), not to be misleading.
Regarding it’s outcome, I’m very much skeptical. Let me explain:

It’s logical assuming that a body having some kind of potential will develop that potential in a natural way. For example, if a person has genes to grow tall, it’s body will grow tall if not blocked somehow. A muscular type person will naturally be well built, even without exercising, provided it’s on a decent diet (not starving in a ghetto). Someone being genetically inclined to deposit fat will become overweight, if he/she doesn’t take countermeasures. That is exactly the definition of a body type, the ability to develop some traits for which it has innate potential.

In this view, if PE gaining potential would be related to body types, we should see a correlation between penis size (the already developed potential) and body types, which we don’t!

P.S. I’m a typical ectomorph (I have to work 10 times more for each ounce of muscle than others) with rather good PE gaining ability (good newbie gains, steady further gaining).

Good point Cervix.

I totally understand what you mean there and of course the already developed body (including the penis) shows no correlation. But I don’t see the relation to the already developed body and the potential for future gains (weather muscle, fat, penis tissue)

But, I was trying to work out if the Genes of a particular morph has more potential than one of the others to make gains (either faster or more of) than the other morphs just like they do with weight (muscle or fat).

I understand the whole theory would produce a lot of doubts, but at least for myself I would appreciate if more people could explain why this would be impossible. After all, if there is the smallest possibility, then we should talk on the matter further.


Start 6.5 bpel 5.75 eg Current bpel 7.0 eg 6.75 (7.0eg base) Goal bpel 7.25 eg 7.0 mid shaft

Progress routine and pics/vids

Originally Posted by 17ml
… I was trying to work out if the Genes of a particular morph has more potential than one of the others to make gains (either faster or more of) than the other morphs just like they do with weight (muscle or fat).

I was trying to say that somatic type corellates with muscle (fat) mass and ALSO the ability to further gain muscle (fat). A mesomorph has naturally more muscle than an ecto, also is an easy gainer. An endomorph is naturally fatter and also more prone to get further overweight.
If PE gains were soma-type related, the same logic would require that a certain body type to corellate with bigger penis size and ability to further gain size. We don’t see two kind of expected corellations:

1. Penis size is not related to somatic types
2. Ability to gain in PE is not related to initial penis size (I’ve tried to make a statistical analysis: Newbie gains statistics at Thunders’ )

What that means is we cannot consider PE gains and penis size linearly depending on somatic types as, for exampe:
“easy gainer -> well built from the start = mesomorph”
It doesn’t prove that there is no correlation between PE gaining ability and body types, just makes it less likely.

Originally Posted by 17ml
I understand the whole theory would produce a lot of doubts, but at least for myself I would appreciate if more people could explain why this would be impossible. After all, if there is the smallest possibility, then we should talk on the matter further.

I agree, things should be clarified. A poll relating hard PE gains with body type (as already suggested by others) would be fine!


Starting BPEL: 6.9" (Dec.1st, 2008)

Current BPEL: 8.11" NBPEL: 7.63" BPFSL: 9.09"

Current MEG : 5.6"

With all due respect,

You may be skipping the whole point, I understand what you mean, and it makes sense but I think your missing the following.

Yes mesomorphs are well built from the start, but it’s not just their frame (bone structure) that makes them gain weight (muscle or fat) easier.

From what I understand (and have studied) it’s the genes of the mesomorph that can gain mass faster than an ectomorph, and not just the frame, I have studied about the theory and the genetic metabolism for each group.

You mention that penis size is not related to somatic types, which is correct, but the fact still remains that tissue gaining potential does relate to soma types.

So who’s to say that gaining penis tissue isn’t the same as gaining muscle tissue (after all the penis is made from 50% muscle)

An insight on muscle (tissue):

Muscle is the contractile tissue of the body and is derived from the mesodermal layer of embryonic germ cells. Muscle cells contain contractile filaments that move past each other and change the size of the cell. They are classified as skeletal, cardiac, or smooth muscles.

I have also studied a lot from Remek at the PE gym, who has in turn studied a lot about the penis being 50% muscle. If this is the case and the penis being 50% muscle and the mesomorph being able to gain muscle easier than lets say any other genetic body type, then shouldn’t we at least entertain the chance that they could hold the gene to easy PE gains?

Penis tissue:

I have put some interesting facts below about the smooth muscles of the penis, maybe this will explain to anyone who didn’t realise that the penis is 50% muscle:

The important role of corpora cavernosal smooth muscle in potency has been known since Goldstein et al reported the first examination of erectile tissue. 8 Normal smooth muscle content and function are necessary for the initiation and maintenance of erection. 6 Published reports suggest that the average intracorporeal smooth muscle percent is between 40% and 50%. 9 Our unpublished data confirm this rate with the finding of an incidence of smooth muscle of about 49% in normal potent males in the general population. In contrast, patients with veno-occlusive dysfunction show a much lower percent on microscopic examination. A prior study suggested that these patients have a smooth muscle percent of 10% to 36%. 9 Concomitant intracorporeal fibrosis results in abnormal smooth muscle function, increased venous leakage and eventually impotence.

* Because the penis is compromised of 50 percent smooth muscle, and smooth muscle has a lot of the basic properties of skeletal muscle (the biceps, triceps, and all the other commonly known muscles), we can presume that it might react to stress the same way normal muscle does. Which is a no brainer for us all! What are we doing here? Exercising! Moreover, nearly every single guideline we have is based off body-building/exercising/weightlifting concepts in one way or another! Think about it — Bib, presumably one of the biggest gainers (if we accept his claims as facts), used a weightlifting concept known as “progressive overload.” Peter Dick, another big gainer uses a common weightlifting program known as “muscle confusion” (in which he keeps the muscles guessing). And now, more recently (thanks to guys like you [xeno], Shiver, MX, Modesto, Wadzilla, and many more) we are now realizing cyclic training using deconditioning breaks helps us keep the penis in a responsive state. And cycylic training is a very popular weightlifting principle (if not the biggest).

* Albeit, this doesn’t particularly mean we can attribute the growth to smooth muscle growth — but regardless, if the penis grows, the smooth muscle must grow too. The article I quoted above stated: less smooth muscle = higher chance of ED. Obviously this isn’t the case for us PEers. Most of us report harder erections.

* Also, It is well documented that smooth muscle can grow due to stress. I have a whole book on the subject, in fact. It is called [you]
Hypertrophic Response in Smooth Muscle[you], by Charles L. Seidel and Normal W. Weisbrodt. It appears this book has numerous scholarly articles on the growth of smooth muscle. Link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/084.Fencoding=UTF8

* I also think this can explain why PE gains are permanent (for the most part), opposed to traditional muscular growth gains. Think about it like this: the smooth muscle in the penis is exercised when we jelq, stretch, and incorporate other exercises. These exercises take the penis (and the smooth muscle) beyond it’s normal threshold. But what is the normal threshold? An erection. Masturbation, sex, anything that involves an erection is exercise too! It’s typically just not enough to cause growth. Therefore, after the gains are cemented, and we retire all we need to do to keep the gains is have frequent erections — in which the erections are enough exercise to keep the gains. It is also well documented that as men get older, and they use their penis less, the smaller it becomes. Note: I don’t have a reference for this off-hand.

In an essence, this article went over (in detail, down to the chemistry) the smooth muscle’s role in the penis. The bottom line: smooth muscle is very, very important. Or, at least that is what I perceived it to be. The smooth muscle causes an erection (which is set off through chemical reactions) by completely relaxing. “Compression of the relaxed trabecular smooth muscle against the fibroelastic tunica albuginea causes the closure of the emissary veins,” and thus results in an erection. If this smooth muscle is unable to completely relax, then an erection can’t take place… . .

Theory: (a and b)

A: A mesomorph has greater ability’s (genetically) to gain tissue overall than the other groups of morphs.

B: The Penis consists of tissues.

Are there any points of view on this post.


Start 6.5 bpel 5.75 eg Current bpel 7.0 eg 6.75 (7.0eg base) Goal bpel 7.25 eg 7.0 mid shaft

Progress routine and pics/vids

Smooth muscle and striatus muscle are two very different kind of tissues. I think supposing that those who can gain easier (striatus) muscle can also gain easier smooth muscle is hazardous.

Smooth muscle is, for example, intestine; if anything, those who could gain easier smooth muscle should be the endomorphic people:

“Sheldon proposed that the human physique be classed according to the relative contribution of three fundamental elements, somatotypes, named after the three germ layers of embryonic development: the endoderm, (develops into the digestive tract), the mesoderm, (becomes muscle, heart and blood vessels), and the ectoderm (forms the skin and nervous system).”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesomorphic

Also, are you sure you can find a backup about the fact that mesomorphics are “programmed” to gain more muscle by their genes? I think it is more a matter of “Since they have a greater % of muscle, they can gain easier”, as CH was saying. People seems able to change from a bodytype to another through their life, this seems to support this hypothesis.

Quote
* I also think this can explain why PE gains are permanent (for the most part), opposed to traditional muscular growth gains. Think about it like this: the smooth muscle in the penis is exercised when we jelq, stretch, and incorporate other exercises. These exercises take the penis (and the smooth muscle) beyond it’s normal threshold. But what is the normal threshold? An erection. Masturbation, sex, anything that involves an erection is exercise too! It’s typically just not enough to cause growth. Therefore, after the gains are cemented, and we retire all we need to do to keep the gains is have frequent erections — in which the erections are enough exercise to keep the gains.

Actually, the smooth muscle is not exercised while having an erection, because it relax so should become thinner, not thicker. Hypertrophy of smooth muscle tissue is probably the last thing you should aim for - this, said from my layman point of view. I don’t see a close analogy to smooth muscle/weight training here.


Last edited by marinera : 09-03-2009 at .

I can’t believe that anybody really believes strongly in somatotypes. From what I’ve read it’s clear that human genetics are much more complicated than that.

I’m an an ectomorph with some mesomorph. I am pretty frail with very thin bones but I eat like a fucking horse and after 2 months at the gym look about twice the size, which is weird, but awesome! And I don’t work particuarlly hard either.

So far I’ve been gaining well with PE, but I’m not even two months in, though I have this sneaking suspicion/confidence that it’s going to come easily for me. My flacid has changed dramatically…Anyway.

As far as this discussion goes, I think there is something that isn’t being considered (or I may have missed it as I was just skim reading). That is somatotyping is based on the body’s naturally inherent genetic abilities in how it looks, grows and functions. With me so far? Okay. Now Penis Enlargment is a completely UNATURAL phenomonon. If anyone has any evidence to suggest otherwise I’d be surprised to see it. The things we do to our body’s to make our dicks grow and not normal. Personally, I’m constantly amazed that it works at all.

That’s not to say different people don’t have different natural PE abilities, obviously that’s not the case. However, I do suggest that the natural genetic variation that is inherent in every individual is more likely to be a far more deciding factor in PE ability than an overall somatotype relationship.

It’s a good idea though, and I definately think you should go ahead with the poll, but I doubt you’ll get good results, there’s too many factors like how long someone’s been doing it for and how consistantly to be able to make any clear conclusions about body type.

So, 17ml you have had some remarkably fast gains, especially in the girth department. Would you consider yourself a mix between a Meso and endomorph? That woud be my guess off of your few pictures. Does this correlate with your findings? Is this also your experience with fitness?

Would a hybrid of ect and meso be the best? My reason for asking that is quite often the scrawny, bony, long skinny fingered, non athletic nerd guys are the ones with a large penis. I think genes is really it in all cases. I for one have very thick large legs and calfs regardless of exercise, always have. Yet my torso and arms are relatively slim (aside from a couple careless fat years I had), with skinny wrists and long, boney fingers. Truely a near 50/50 split physically.

Originally Posted by LongVehicle
The somatypes have nothing to do with the sort of tissue found in the penis. I mean not nothing, but I doubt you’d find a major correlation. The somatypes themselves aren’t that clear anyhow, just a way for people to make more sense of how we look. That’s why you end up having people saying I’m an “endo/meso” and breaking it down further, its really just an easy way to describe the physique in my opinion.

You sound very secure stating that somatypes have nothing to do with the sort of tissue found in penis.

Do you have the scientific study proving that?


Present: 8.75" BPEL, 9.25" BPSFL, 5.3" EG

Goal: 1' BPEL, 6.5" EG

I’d say the burden of proof is on the other side, djufo.

We should pool about penis size and body types. Everyone classifies themselves and then states original length. It should be interesting.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:22 AM.