It doesn’t sound confused. It SOUNDS like you’re an economist, haha. You wrote the entire post outlining your method of dealing with the situation under the assumption of a causality.
The method we use is logical and I’m on track regarding your post-assumption process and logic. The problem lies in the assumption of causality. Now let’s be realistic, we are not going to get enough data to regress anything or do any statistical analysis. We also can’t wait long enough to perform experiments with groups (plus, the groups would be small - and the level of observation extremely sketchy, so any mistake in 1 test subject could lead to a failure in the experiment).
What I wanted to do is find out through other members’ experiences what they have found regarding the TUC. It has been very difficult to do that. The thread failed.
But let me tell you what I DO know:
1. My experience: Moving from 10 to 18 minute sets has allowed me much greater growth over time with everything else held constant excluding set frequency - I do MUCH lower frequency and achieve higher gains.
2. Big Girtha: HIGH frequency and 10 minute sets. He gained 2 inches. BUT, NOTE that he gained the majority before he began going overboard on frequency (before his clamping marathons). I think he overdid frequency, there was HEAVY diminishing gains from what I can see… I think this implies that we could assume that the penis may be adjusting to time under clamp, instead of time clamped period. Implication, and unverifiable.
3. Kaan: Kaan is our verifiable Aristocane. He thinks he gained because of consistency and because of extreme constriction: I THINK he gained (given consistency) because of high set time. He basically did what I do, 3x18 on average at high constriction.
What this tells me is that is we let constriction be complete (rock hard head), TUC seems to be the determining factor. I REALIZE we have a VERY small sample and this is not in any way rigorous, but we have to use what we have. I simply cannot avoid this indication from the reliable sources. I assume that TUC > frequency, but I don’t know about how far we can increase TUC is we lower constriction levels (in terms of health danger), and I also don’t know if we will lose gains at lower constriction levels. Is there a constraint on complete constriction? -> we have Drilla’s experience, he did not do complete constriction, used 3x15 - but he gained slower than me and Big Girtha and Kaan. MUCH slower.
I realize this is unscientific. I am a statistician by training, we have a lot of causality problems and extremely low amounts of data, but we have to go on what we have here. I truly believe that we can figure out how to clamp effectively, and I also suspect that we are not currently doing it optimally. It took over 80 years for bodybuilders to be able to pass the 19 inch barrier on bicep measurements - yet they were discussing and working together from the start in the late 1800’s. Now we have 350 lb. bodybuilders at 12% bf - no bodybuilder in the 1920’s could have even imagined such a thing. It is hard for us as human beings to imagine and take account for knowledge that we don’t know… it is a major philosophical problem. But I am certain that there is a lot we don’t know here, and I think we can figure enough out for it to be beneficial to us personally as PE’ers.
Also, regarding pumping: there may be a MARGINAL benefit of adding pumping workouts in addition to clamping workouts that surpasses the marginal benefit of an extra clamping set. For example, I clamp currently for 4 sets per day, would a 5th set of pumping be more beneficial than a 5th set of clamping? Would it cause less fatigue for similar gains? Would my body better be able to handle its fatigue and repair quicker? Is it advisable to include it or not? These questions need to be answered if we are to create optimal routines.
LV (hope this post doesn’t sound confused - seriously, I’m thinking aloud).
P.S. Get EVO if you don’t have it and apply it daily. EXTREMELY useful - this has helped me tremendously is overall comfort and in healing. It should be mandatory for all clampers.