Thunder's Place

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

Cell Recycling and Cementing Gains

Thread Closed

bigtiny454,

That bone-breaking/extension procedure is a grueling, traumatic series of surgeries – it has absolutely nothing to do with PE.

As per scar tissue, I have plenty of scars myself. Scarring is a profound damage to the cells. The DNA itself becomes destroyed/altered/lost – that’s not from jelqing & stretching.

Plastic surgeries vary, but in many instances they inject/insert a foreign object/substance (chin implant, breast implants, silicone, collagen, etc.). I don’t know exactly what your cousin’s procedure entailed, but if they “removed tissue,” then that tissue is gone – cells, DNA & all. If they inserted/injected anything, then that’s a foreign substance. Again, I have no clue what this has to do with natural PE.

Cells can certainly be greatly damaged/lost. Look at severe/chronic sunburns causing melanoma. Those (profoundly) damaged cells do not “return to normal” – obviously. But that’s the result of UV radiation.

Furthermore, I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that cells don’t recycle “perfectly” – or else you couldn’t tell the difference between a 20-year-old and a 90-year-old (the latter exhibiting many generations of progressively-deteriorating cellular recycling).

The ONLY way that PE-altered cells could recycle that way would be IF our exercises actually altered the genetic structure of our DNA. I was really pumped up in my youth – yet none of my sons were born/grew up muscular. The same with tans. Two very tan people do NOT produce a tan baby/child. The sun causes it. If my sons want to be built, they won’t get it from me, but from the cause – i.e., weight training.

In other words, a big-dicked father could pass on a “big dick gene” (if you will) to his sons [not saying it’s one gene, could be some combo – but you get my point]. Yet, in doing PE, we’re not creating “big dick genes.” We’re not altering our DNA.

lil12big1,

I acknowledge using the term “theory” improperly – for sake of convenience. I’m well aware of the distinctions between hypothesis-theory-law, etc. Just like I use the terms growth, gains, losses in a looser sense (what I really mean is expansion, contraction or shrinkage, etc. – since the former terms are, by definition, contrary to what I believe).

In mentioning that you’ve lost 25% of your length, I was pointing out that you’re roughly in the same boat that I’m in – the difference is only by degrees. To clarify any apparent discrepancies, I have lost MOST of my gains: 50% of length & about 75% of my girth. Volumetrically, that is a SHOCKING loss of size; and, indeed, is most of my gains. I was not sniping at the fact that you’d gained only 1/8” EG, I was merely pointing out that you didn’t gain much to lose; and since girth represented the bulk of my losses (by volume) you really couldn’t draw an even comparison between us. Had you gained 1 1/8” of EG, your girth losses might well mirror mine.

Lil12big1, you mention the folks in “white coats”…well, they have spoken on this GvM model regarding PE (perhaps you haven’t heard) – they unanimously REJECT it.
…..

I'm waiting for references.

That’s a joke, right? Because you can’t possibly be claiming that you’re totally unaware that the entire medical establishment dismisses the concept of natural penis enlargement.

Mick,
You’ve lost nothing in 2 years. Great. I’d lost nothing in 3+ years. And the point is?

Marinera,

I have nothing against you personally. You might be a great guy for all I know, but when we have these exchanges in the forum, it seems like an exercise in futility. You insist on butting heads with me and ignoring your own words.

For example, in reference to plastic deformation, YOU said:

“You are mixing concepts with material entities, IMHO. 'Elasticity' and 'plasticity' aren't real things.”

then…

“And finally: what, again, means 'elasticity' and 'plasticity' in concrete?”

You were clearly stating that you regarded those as “concepts” (in contrast to) “material entities.” You then flatly stated: “’Elasticity’ and ‘plasticity’ aren’t real things.”

Then you asked again about the meaning of “’elasticity’ and ‘plasticity’ in concrete?”

Yet, that is PRECISELY what those links I posted had addressed. Precisely that – none of that other shit you rattled off. And those resources were right here in the forum. There are plenty more. Search Shiver’s thread, “Deformation: Intensity, Method and Recovery.”

Hell, here’s another: http://www.sahs.utmb.edu/programs/p…hrx/ROM2000.doc

Hobby has also posted about this.

You also stated, “if the tunica is becoming thinner while gaining from PE, we should have more injuries the more we do PE. It seems the adverse happens in the real world: most of injuries are experienced by newbies.”

Yes, many newbies do stupid things to their unconditioned dicks – that’s what causes the injuries. But I would argue that the most severe injuries happen to guys who’ve PE’d for a while. Look a big girtha, he did all that crazy girth stuff, proud that he’d never had an injury – then he had a thrombosis. SWM also suffered some injuries, if I recall correctly. The one PE I had happened well into my PE journey - not as a newbie.

I want to make a few things clear.

1) I believe that my view is universal, not particular, in scope. However, the retention time, degree, etc. are particulars. I’m not claiming that 3+ years of retaining all but 1/8” (if not 1/10”) of girth & length somehow represents “the wall.” Some guys might go over 4 years, 5 or 6 years, etc. On the flip side, I recall one guy in the forum claiming that he’d lost almost all of his gains after only 1 year off (I think that’s probably unusual).

2) lil12big1 exhibited a similar loss – differing only in the particulars (amount / time).

3) There’s a difference between a standard of proof & sophistry, or riddles. In arguing for my EtP theory, when I cite that no known GvM model can account for such an enormously delayed-onset of “deconditioning” (even longer in lil12big1’s case), I even enumerate a list of common examples. Yet, I’m still challenged to provide some type of clinical proof – even after appealing to commonly-understood examples (hypertrophy, sun tanning, callouses, cardio conditioning, etc.).

At that point, I realize that this becomes a game of spinning tires. It’s like being asked to “prove” that I’m going to die one day. Well, I can’t provide such proof. So, is it valid to believe that I might never die? By any “absolute” standards, I can’t even prove that I have a penis (the pics I’ve posted could be of someone else).

This is probably the same shit that went on all day long at Athens in the 5th century B.C. (I’m not asking people uncritically accept every word out of my mouth, of course, but I can’t help but get the feeling – at times – that this degenerates into nothing but a pure bullshit contest).

That’s not why I post.

One more thought: too many guys here seem to be fundamentally unable to even consider an alternative view. Some do accept my hypothesis, but I get the feeling that some of them hadn’t really considered PE on the theoretical level before; therefore, they have no hill to defend. While others, judging from some of my private messages, seem unwilling to say so openly in the forum. That’s okay, I have no problem with that.

But any PE theory – including EtP – is no “baby” to me. I’ve amended my views in the past (GvM model, true permanency of gains, optimum workout frequency/intensity, etc.), so that’s not a life-or-death issue with me (as it appears to be for others).

Originally Posted by Tossed Salad
Hmmm, debating about something that hasn’t been scientifically proven.

This is like 2 guys at a party fighting over who gets to fuck the fat chick.


The looser has to do her - I’d be fighting too!


regards, mgus

Taped onto the dashboard of a car at a junkyard, I once found the following: "Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." The car was crashed.

Primary goal: To have an EQ above average (i.e. streetsmart, compassionate about life and happy) Secondary goal: to make an anagram of my signature denoting how I feel about my gains

Originally Posted by wadzilla
bigtiny454,
…….
Lil12big1, you mention the folks in “white coats”…well, they have spoken on this GvM model regarding PE (perhaps you haven’t heard) – they unanimously REJECT it.
…..

I'm waiting for references.

That’s a joke, right? Because you can’t possibly be claiming that you’re totally unaware that the entire medical establishment dismisses the concept of natural penis enlargement.
…..

So you don’t have any references, right? A contort way to admit it, but better than nothing, I guess.

Originally Posted by wadzilla
bigtiny454,
…….
Marinera,
You insist on butting heads with me and ignoring your own words.

For example, in reference to plastic deformation, YOU said:

“You are mixing concepts with material entities, IMHO. 'Elasticity' and 'plasticity' aren't real things.”

then…

“And finally: what, again, means 'elasticity' and 'plasticity' in concrete?”

You were clearly stating that you regarded those as “concepts” (in contrast to) “material entities.” You then flatly stated: “’Elasticity’ and ‘plasticity’ aren’t real things.”

Then you asked again about the meaning of “’elasticity’ and ‘plasticity’ in concrete?”

Yet, that is PRECISELY what those links I posted had addressed. Precisely that – none of that other shit you rattled off. And those resources were right here in the forum. There are plenty more. Search Shiver’s thread, “Deformation: Intensity, Method and Recovery.”
…..

a) Yes, you are generating confusion, using concepts as those were material entities. I’ve shown your mistake using a rhetoric question, I bet you know very well this trick ;) .

b) Show me where, in those links you posted, is explained how connective tissue growth happens. You are using a study who doesn’t speak about growth of connective tissue to stand the idea that CT growth can’t happen: it’s like showing a study about cadavers to demonstrate that leaving people don’t exists.

c) explain me why you refuse to read the studies I posted, that are much more pertinent, IMO.

Originally Posted by wadzilla
……
You also stated, “if the tunica is becoming thinner while gaining from PE, we should have more injuries the more we do PE. It seems the adverse happens in the real world: most of injuries are experienced by newbies.”

Yes, many newbies do stupid things to their unconditioned dicks – that’s what causes the injuries. But I would argue that the most severe injuries happen to guys who’ve PE’d for a while.
……..

Hey Wad, you doubled the volume of your penis, you said; if you hadn’t grown more CT tissue, and your TA was going thinner as a consequence, your tunica was broken at the first jelq, at your top-size stage: assuming that you, also, are claiming that your TA had lost most of it’s elasticity.

That’s also true for most of vets around here, agree? You should see all vets around here with broken tunica at the first attempt not only to PE, but even to sexual intercourse. That doesn’t happen : most of injuries happen to newbies - even bad injuries, I disagree with you about that.

I’d add that : if one is loosing elasticity while PEing, the more ones becomes a vet, the easier he could get gains, basing on the studies I posted earlier.

You keep repeating your theory, but you never answer to critics, Wad . Your posts are verbose, but arguments are lacking.


Last edited by marinera : 01-23-2009 at .

I agree with marinera, when i started reading about PE i remember reading “microtears is what you are looking for” not pumping your cells.

Maybe it has to do with the type of exircises you do, maybe the penis grows by all kind of gains.
What were your methods?

Wadzilla, Symmetric Extended Limb Lengthening procedure does have everything to do with p.e. It works under the same premise.

I agree with marinera.

“You keep repeating your theory, but you never answer to critics, Wad . Your posts are verbose, but arguments are lacking.”

Eman, I understood the same thing in regards to micro tears.


09-01-07= 6" Bpel & 4.5" Eg

01-2013= 8" Bpel & 5&3/8" Eg

01-2015= 8" Bpel & 5.75" Eg

Originally Posted by mgus

The looser has to do her - I’d be fighting too!

She’s waiting.


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

Mr Wadzilla, according to your own claims (in post #121 at least) you have, at present, gained 50% in overall length and 25% in overall girth. In your case, to achieve this, you actually had to initially increase by much more.
Similarly, to achieve my current gains, I had to increase by more and wait for “transient gains” to subside and length to stabilise, (which appears to have happened sometime during the last 6.5 years). (BTW, just to clarify, I haven’t lost 25% of my length - I’ve “lost” 25% of my gains - a pedantic point, yes, but worth noting nonetheless.)
What can we conclude from this? Very little given that it is only 2 cases. We most certainly can’t conclude that, as you claim in post #9, You can no more “cement” PE gains than you can “cement” a suntan, or, PE gains are NOT permanent. In fact, this very small sample would indicate quite the opposite.
After reading your posts it is clear that you are fond of/prone to baseless speculation …. well, just to show how easy it is, here is an example of some baseless speculation for you to ponder ……. The “losses” that you, and others, have experienced are in fact not losses at all - they are transient gains which subside over time and are a normal part of the PE process. Permanent gain is what is left after the transient gains subside. :) Ahhhh ….. the great thing about baseless speculation is that you don’t have to provide any supporting evidence. Although, if you fudged enough data, I’m sure you could probably make this statement almost work. :chuckle:

Originally Posted by wadzilla
Lil12big1, you mention the folks in “white coats”…well, they have spoken on this GvM model regarding PE (perhaps you haven’t heard) – they unanimously REJECT it.


You are correct, I haven’t heard. But that’s only because it’s never been done. People in “white coats” leave paper trails. They write papers which are published in refereed journals …. please cite this illusive refereed journal article that extrapolates on the “GvM model regarding PE”. But you won’t. You can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. It’s pure fiction - please don’t insult the board by making up fictitious references - it benefits no one and completely undermines what’s left of your own credibility.

Originally Posted by wadzilla
you can’t possibly be claiming that you’re totally unaware that the entire medical establishment dismisses the concept of natural penis enlargement.


Although I have been known to suffer from the not-so-occasional bouts of pomposity, I pale in awe of your own. How could anyone (apart from you it would seem) possibly be aware of what the entire medical establishment dismisses or accepts? I bow in awe of your vastly superior pomposity. :worthy: But seriously, try to avoid generalisation - it’s the enemy of valid research.

Once again, Mr Wadzilla, you have ably demonstrated why your “theory” falls flat on its face even after only cursory scrutiny … which is more than it’s worth. Your references are sloppy (and it appears some are even completely fictitious), your conclusions are illogical, it’s myopic, subjective, unscientific and lacks even the most basic (first year university) adherence to acceptable theoretic conventions. And while there may be some miniscule glimmers of hope there, they are buried in such a quagmire of misinformation and unfettered baseless speculation as to be virtually completely obscured and are ultimately useless.

Inarticulate “theories” like Mr Wadzilla’s, do nothing to further the knowledge base of PE. They simply spread FUD and ensure that PE remains a fringe dweller ….. which may, or may not, be a bad thing …..

lil1 :lep:


BPEL (5") | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | *20cm* (8")

MTSL (5") | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | *25cm* (10") MTSL = Maximum Traction Stretched Length

"Pertinaciously pursuing a penis of preposterously prodigious proportions." What a mouthful!

Originally Posted by ThunderSS
Damn, there for a minute I thought someone hacked into wad’s account. He did manage to sneak in a few “identifiers” though, so all is well.

That was pretty good - not great, but pretty good.

Originally Posted by lil12big1
The “losses” that you, and others, have experienced are in fact not losses at all - they are transient gains which subside over time and are a normal part of the PE process. Permanent gain is what is left after the transient gains subside. :)

Wow. That is, by far, the most “sense” that I’ve read from your pen - er, keyboard.
Seriously. Let’s go with that. You probably won’t be able to outdo it.

I could live with that statement.

tinybig, marinera,

You guys are classic examples of the subtlety with which some may glide from genuine debate to abject polemic. I’m not going to stoop to the level of name-calling and complex compound sentences full of insults (I could never outdo lil12big1), but you’ve never addressed the issue of why my F:E narrowed as my gains maxed out, then steepened again (I’m now back to about 2:1 F:E - i.e., my flaccid doubles at erection, as in my pre-PE days).

If gains have “nothing” to do with elasticity, then why did my elasticity diminish (disproportionately to my erect gains), as I reached my maximal size, then increase as I lost that size? (at my peak size, my flaccid was 60% of my erect length - now its back to 50%).

Before you repeat the canard that it’s only my experience, I drew a random sampling from the dB - and it was everybody, with the exception of memento. This was regardless of starting size, regarding of gains, or regardless of time doing PE. [I’ll look for the link - its somewhere in my threads].

tinybig, you’re right - you just simply love to argue, even when much of what you say is irrelevant or circuitous in nature. By the way - in case you’re not aware - doctors don’t repeatedly break bones in our penis, place us in grueling traction for months, then repeat the surgery…again & again.

Oh wait, we don’t even have a bone in our penis. So……yeah, that reference was utterly irrelevant.

Let’s all be honest. What you take for “scientific evidence” is nothing but disjointed extracts taken pell mell from all over the place….

(1) They often involve non-human subjects

(2) When they do involve human subjects, they virtually never deal with the penis - but usually tendons or ligaments, or even skin graftings, etc.

(3) When they do deal with a human penis, its usually in the setting of some pathology: peyronie’s disease, chordee, megalophallus, impotence, etc.

(4) Or they focus on ill men suffering impotence due to various ailments: diabetes, MS, hypertension, etc.

So, lets all do a gut check. Nothing in this forum even raises to the level of “theory.” Forget the various schools of thought (GvM, EtP, Composite, etc.) - not even the controversial practice of natural penis enlargement itself would invite such respect from most academics or medical professions.

Many would regard this as an “internet hoax” (indeed I’ve read those very words in WebMD, GQ Magazine - by an M.D., of course). Or, a bunch of guys who sit on an internet forum discussing their cocks and sharing dick pics with one another would probably be regarded as so many lonely weirdos.

You guys are taking yourselves way too seriously. And when you can’t answer something I’ve asked, you change directions & launch baseless attacks at me from other angles.

Marinera, you are still dodging the fact that I TOTALLY DISCREDITED your dismissal of the reality of tissue deformation. After several exchanges already, you are still talking about “connective tissue” when that was NOT the nature of your earlier (false) claims.

One more question: if these structures are not thinning, but keep “building & building & building,” then why are most guys’ gains so paltry? Why don’t we have any guys who’ve gone from 5 x 4 to 11 x 7.5? Why don’t we have a dearth of 10-inchers here?

Answer: because these structures can only be thinned so much; and, we all start out with only so much elasticity.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings Mr Wadzilla, but it’s no more than a simple logic trick designed to demonstrate how easy it is to manipulate a small set of data to address your own agenda. It’s an illusion of truth …. nothing more.

Sorry.

lil1 :lep:


BPEL (5") | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | *20cm* (8")

MTSL (5") | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | *25cm* (10") MTSL = Maximum Traction Stretched Length

"Pertinaciously pursuing a penis of preposterously prodigious proportions." What a mouthful!

Of course! If it doesn’t fit with your agenda, or discredits your “theory” in any way, it must be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Keep dismissing everything.


09-01-07= 6" Bpel & 4.5" Eg

01-2013= 8" Bpel & 5&3/8" Eg

01-2015= 8" Bpel & 5.75" Eg

Originally Posted by wadzilla
tinybig, marinera,

You guys are classic examples of the subtlety with which some may glide from genuine debate to abject polemic. ….

And you yet don’t know the worse: I smell like a pig, I don’t wash my hands after pissing…I could go further, but this doesn’t changes this point: your ‘theory’ can’t stand.

Originally Posted by wadzilla
………….
If gains have “nothing” to do with elasticity, then why did my elasticity diminish (disproportionately to my erect gains), as I reached my maximal size, then increase as I lost that size? (at my peak size, my flaccid was 60% of my erect length - now its back to 50%).
…….


How you know that your elasticity diminished proportionally to your gains? It seem an axiom of yours.

Originally Posted by wadzilla
………
Before you repeat the canard that it’s only my experience, I drew a random sampling from the dB - and it was everybody, with the exception of memento. This was regardless of starting size, regarding of gains, or regardless of time doing PE. [I’ll look for the link - its somewhere in my threads].
………

Well, I’ve never said ‘It’s just your experience.’. Just to say.

Originally Posted by wadzilla
……..
Let’s all be honest. What you take for “scientific evidence” is nothing but disjointed extracts taken pell mell from all over the place….

(1) They often involve non-human subjects

(2) When they do involve human subjects, they virtually never deal with the penis - but usually tendons or ligaments, or even skin graftings, etc.

(3) When they do deal with a human penis, its usually in the setting of some pathology: peyronie’s disease, chordee, megalophallus, impotence, etc.

(4) Or they focus on ill men suffering impotence due to various ailments: diabetes, MS, hypertension, etc.
….


We are using these studies because we have nothing better. Show me if you have anything better. I always point out that this studies can’t be transferred mechanically in the PE reign; but tendons and ligaments are better than private Wad’ PMs.

Originally Posted by wadzilla
……..
You guys are taking yourselves way too seriously. And when you can’t answer something I’ve asked, you change directions & launch baseless attacks at me from other angles.


You are speaking of yourself, right?

Originally Posted by wadzilla
…………
Marinera, you are still dodging the fact that I TOTALLY DISCREDITED your dismissal of the reality of tissue deformation. After several exchanges already, you are still talking about “connective tissue” when that was NOT the nature of your earlier (false) claims.


Seriously, I don’t have a clue of what you are speaking of. Maybe you’d like to post a link? What I can remember is that you always reacted that way when your ‘theory’ was questioned: repeating your mantra and right after starting speaking of something else. Anyway, which are those (fals) claims? What those claims were referring? Post at least one link, please

Quote
………
One more question: if these structures are not thinning, but keep “building & building & building,” then why are most guys’ gains so paltry? Why don’t we have any guys who’ve gone from 5 x 4 to 11 x 7.5? Why don’t we have a dearth of 10-inchers here?

Answer: because these structures can only be thinned so much; and, we all start out with only so much elasticity.


So, the more a thing is thinner, the harder it becomes to deform. Are you going to change the Physics laws to defend your ideas, now?

How about: the more this structure is thicker, the harder it becomes to stretch? It makes more sense to me. That’s why a decon-break create conditions of new growth: the connective tissue no more stretched goes back to it’s original thickness, so it can be stretched again. We are speaking of living tissues: if you are pushing for too much time/with too much intensity, you are surpassing the adaptive ability of your body(part).

I’ve never said, also, ‘elasticity has nothing to do with gains’ or such.

About the F:L ratio, it’s the weaker of basis, IMO. Flaccid length and erected (or stretched) length aren’t homogeneous entity: flaccid length is influenced by many factors; I think FL means near nothing. When I drink a lot of coffee or alchool, in example, my fl is shorter than average: so coffee is augmenting elasticity of my penis? So coffe drinkers should have prodigious gains, in your model. Forget FL is my advice.

Now that I’ve answered to your questions, would you mind answering to mine questions? You know, somebody could think you have no answers.


Last edited by marinera : 01-24-2009 at .
Top
Thread Closed

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:38 AM.