Thunder's Place

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

Focus Your PE and Gain! TGC Theory

LongVehicle
“I am quite sure that we are all heavily aware of this. What is your point?”

Thank you for your reply.

I thought I was painstakingly clear: as the title of my post stated, I want a medical science of PE. That is, I want nonsurgical PE to be taken up as a legitimate field by medical researchers. And, as a PE practitioner - with a strong appreciation for the quantum gap between contemporary scientific research and anecdotalism - I am disappointed that we are operating in a kind of professional vacuum.

But there is more to be said regarding my “point” that was not stated: I had hoped that pointing to this problem might reorient discussion from specific techniques and theories to how interested researchers might be engaged by PE.

Btw - I am not sure that “we are all heavily aware of this,” since the main purpose of this forum - a legitimate purpose, as far as it goes - seems not to engage in scientific research but for men to to talk with other men about a somewhat socially proscribed interest.

Originally Posted by jack100

……

The common view of PE that uses weight training and sports medicine as a model – stress and cell regeneration – is inadequate: Does a single member of this forum know how micro-ruptures of the tunica affect the collagen-elastin balance? (This information is, perhaps, discoverable, but, to my knowledge, it has never been investigated.) How many have thought of this question as relevant to what they do? How many grasp it’s importance, what it means if tunica ‘regeneration’ favors increased collagen?

……………

More than one. Do a search for the word ‘elastin’ and you’ll get 300 posts. This is among my preferred :

firegoat - More thougths on how growth occurs

Marinera,

Thanks for your response. From my point of view, firegoat’s post supports my complaint re the lack of medical research, and, consequently, the large amount of theories vs. Scientific research on this site.

On the one hand, firegoat not only admits his reasoned but anecdotal orientation, but justifies it:

“[The PE ‘micro-tear’ question] does not have any ‘proven’ answers. So what I say is hypothetical. My belief….This is of course my experience….my thoughts….on the likely processes involved….I…do not put forward my hypotheses as points for argument, nor do I have any wish to fight for their validity.”

But on the other hand – with seemingly scientific certainty – he writes:

“Collagen is a highly adaptive tissue.Place too great a load on it, and it will get tougher….Place load/stress on it which is toward the upper end of it’s elastic range, and it will think it requires more ability to stretch, so it will increase it’s elastin component, allowing more stretch.”

“Place load…toward the upper end of it’s elastic range” and “it will increase it’s elastin component”? Is this known? Does firegoat know this? Is there a research source for it? Or is this just a “hypothesis” of firegoat’s, whose “validity” he has no “wish to fight for”?

In my view, this is important to know. Firegoat shrugs off rigorous science by comparing PE to ancient vs. Modern sports medicine, arguing the Greeks arrived at sound practices w/o modern medicine. But who knows what failed practices they had to learn the hard way – in the 20th century, deep knee bends were a standard exercise…until people began to realize it seriously damaged knee cartilage.

My point, remember, is that we PE’ers need more medical science – researchers and research - to advance beyond theories and hit or miss, potentially harmful practices.

I think firegoat’ point was also that probably we’ll never reach a ‘scientific knowledge’ of PE, if this means anything near to an exact science. :) There isn’t an exact science of training, that is a far longer studied subject than PE, so…

But, I’d say we aren’t in the complete ignorance of how (and if) PE works, analogously as many athletes or trainers know how improve performance better than any Physician. :)

You asked if someone thought about elastin and PE - I posted a related link. Hope you found it interesting and, at least just a little, useful.


Last edited by marinera : 07-31-2009 at .

Oh, just for clarity: I do agree on your point that what some enthusiast guys believe to do using their ‘scientific methods’ applied to PE is a bit naive. The basic knowledge of this stuff has to be reached walking the walk, not speaking theoretically about the best possible geometry. (If this was one of your points - hope I’vent misunderstood).

Originally Posted by jack100
LongVehicle
“I am quite sure that we are all heavily aware of this. What is your point?”

Thank you for your reply.

I thought I was painstakingly clear: as the title of my post stated, I want a medical science of PE. That is, I want nonsurgical PE to be taken up as a legitimate field by medical researchers. And, as a PE practitioner - with a strong appreciation for the quantum gap between contemporary scientific research and anecdotalism - I am disappointed that we are operating in a kind of professional vacuum.

But there is more to be said regarding my “point” that was not stated: I had hoped that pointing to this problem might reorient discussion from specific techniques and theories to how interested researchers might be engaged by PE.

Btw - I am not sure that “we are all heavily aware of this,” since the main purpose of this forum - a legitimate purpose, as far as it goes - seems not to engage in scientific research but for men to to talk with other men about a somewhat socially proscribed interest.

I agree, but it’s just not currently feasible. If you are involved in the sciences, you should realize we would need funding for such a level of rigor in testing.

Regarding your interest in medical researchers, I don’t think we absolutely need this at our stage. We need some analytically minded people to run rigorous empirical tests on studies. We need DATA to evaluate the methods, and from that we can draw short-term conclusion. The reliable data is the problem here, IMO.

Originally Posted by marinera
analogously as many athletes or trainers know how improve performance better than any Physician. :)

Another good point. This is why I don’t feel medical backgrounds are (completely) necessary to perform some useful research. People like marinera here can get good research done. I think we need reliable candidates which we can pool data from.

Originally Posted by jack100

Marinera,

Thanks for your response. From my point of view, firegoat’s post supports my complaint re the lack of medical research, and, consequently, the large amount of theories vs. Scientific research on this site.

On the one hand, firegoat not only admits his reasoned but anecdotal orientation, but justifies it:

“[The PE ‘micro-tear’ question] does not have any ‘proven’ answers. So what I say is hypothetical. My belief….This is of course my experience….my thoughts….on the likely processes involved….I…do not put forward my hypotheses as points for argument, nor do I have any wish to fight for their validity.”

But on the other hand – with seemingly scientific certainty – he writes:

“Collagen is a highly adaptive tissue.Place too great a load on it, and it will get tougher….Place load/stress on it which is toward the upper end of it’s elastic range, and it will think it requires more ability to stretch, so it will increase it’s elastin component, allowing more stretch.”

“Place load…toward the upper end of it’s elastic range” and “it will increase it’s elastin component”? Is this known? Does firegoat know this? Is there a research source for it? Or is this just a “hypothesis” of firegoat’s, whose “validity” he has no “wish to fight for”?

In my view, this is important to know. Firegoat shrugs off rigorous science by comparing PE to ancient vs. Modern sports medicine, arguing the Greeks arrived at sound practices w/o modern medicine. But who knows what failed practices they had to learn the hard way – in the 20th century, deep knee bends were a standard exercise…until people began to realize it seriously damaged knee cartilage.

My point, remember, is that we PE’ers need more medical science – researchers and research - to advance beyond theories and hit or miss, potentially harmful practices.

The physiology of connective tissue has been extensively studied. It just hasn’t been specifically researched in relation to PE. So although we can draw assumptions of how the penile tissues will behave based on how deep fascia and visceral fascia behave, and the typical behavior of all the many other tissues primarily composed of collagen, elastin and fibroblasts, we cannot say with absolute certainty that if you apply stimulus X, your penis will react with Y.

We can make a very educated guess though.

Most guys when starting PE think we need more medical science. I found this site originally in 2003 while researching post-operative fascial remodelling of the abdominal aponeurosis. I wanted to see if research done on Buck’s facsia could be applied to the abdominal aponeurosis. So you can imagine I was one of the early “we must have more science” proponents.

I thought I should perhaps write a series of articles for the forum on the nature of connective tissue, the structure and composition of the most similar tissues, their properties and functions, the standard medical view of injury process and resultant tissue changes, the role of inflammation in the injury process, the typical remodeling process of connective tissue, the roles of contractile capacity and cellular locomotion in remodeling, the influences on healing of electricity and magnetism, etc.

Then I thought that before I wrote what would end up being a very time consuming book, I’d better experiment for (and on) myself and see if PE actually works. It did. And I found out something else too; the science isn’t important.

I give my patients and clients the concise and accurate advice they need to get the results they came to me for. I don’t give them lots of scientific reasons why they should do something. I will often deviate from what might be considered ‘standard clinical practice’ - if I get good results using certain methodologies on a knee, I will happily try the same things (adapted) on an elbow, even if they are not ‘standard practice’. If I get good results, I’ll use the same methods in the future, whether they have scientific backing or not. It’s why I have a reputation as a ‘last resort guy’ - people come to me when no one else has been able to sort them out.

If you read many of my posts here over the years, that is the approach you will see. PE is simple. What works, works. So in my old posts you will see me say the same things time and again. I have nothing else to say, and have no desire to spend vast tracts of time discussing the ‘science’ in any depth; hence my position of not wishing to ‘fight for the validity’ of my simply stated thoughts.

The pursuit of the ‘science of PE’ is an intellectual pursuit (and valid as that), not a practical one. Just as the electro-muscle stim gadgets have ‘science’ to back them up, even to the point of saying a few minutes of use is the equivalent of a thousand sit-ups :eek: etc., the science doesn’t translate so readily into real world results.

People waiting for all the research on PE to be done so that they can grow their penis in 2.75 years instead of 3 years, need to add that 2.75 years to the X years it will take before the research is done. Assuming they are willing to base their efforts on research that has only been verified on a monkey’s penis by that time. :chuckle:


Heat makes the difference between gaining quickly or slowly for some guys, or between gaining slowly instead of not at all for others. And the ideal penis size is 7.6" BPEL x 5.6" Mid Girth.

Basics.... firegoat roll How to use the Search button for best results

REPLY TO MARINERA, LONG VEHICLE, AND FIREGOAT:

Thanks for all your links and responses.

Marinera – thanks for calling my attention to how much the elastin question is already a part of PE’ers thinking.

Long Vehicle – yes, of course funding is an obstacle, particularly where nonsurgical interventions are involved, since the research is not geared towards validating a costly medical procedure.

I would imagine the most relevant existing research would involve the tunica following operations for Peyronie’s disease, but even that would be inexact, involving only post-operative traction. The matter of how the tunica responds over a period of time to sustained stress – essentially, stretching and the whole micro-rupture thing – is the key PE question, IMO. This question has an answer, and it is discoverable, although it is possible to feel squeamish about the method of discovery: recall that much of what is known about the specific physiology of the tunica – points that are repeatedly made on this website – are based on research on cadavers…

Firegoat – Thanks for your reply.

One response and one question:
1) Response: I propose the above point to you too – isn’t the research-based understanding of tunica structure a “practical” basis for PE? Hasn’t it assisted PE thinking and practices? Doesn’t this make the science more than a purely “intellectual” pursuit?

2) Question. You write: “The physiology of connective tissue has been extensively studied.. So…we can draw assumptions of how the penile tissues will behave based on how deep fascia and visceral fascia behave, and the typical behavior of all the many other tissues primarily composed of collagen, elastin and fibroblasts.”

Could you provide some basic texts – books, article titles, and/or links that support this; in particular, that support your statement, “Place load…toward the upper end of it’s elastic range” and “it will increase it’s elastin component.” Again, this is not about the behavior of the tunica – which, as I am complaining and you point out, has not been specifically studied in this regard – but for similar tissues.

My BPFSL and BPEL are pretty much the same in length but my EQ is probably about 7-8 so I got both tunica and smooth. What should I do? Thanks.


Starting Stats (2006): BPEL: 5.2" EG: 4.6" GOAL: 6"+/5"+

As of 7/20/08: BPEL: 5.7" EG: 4.3" Not sure what happened to my EG. Measured differently perhaps?

1/12/2010: BPEL 5.9" EG 4.4" Stretching, V-jelqs, Regular Jelqs and Clamping

Remek & Iguana, thank you very much for your phenomenal work and presentation of the TGC theory. Everything I read made amazing sense and I’ve gone ahead and changed my routine accordingly.

Ever since joining these boards, I’ve had a focus of doing girth related routines but I had no idea that a little bit of stretching could also help expand the smooth muscle tissue. Once again, this is a job very well done and I look forward to more. Take care.

Peace.

Alright so I’ve been reading through as much as I can and I’m willing to take a punt on this and adjust my routine accordingly as I have not seen any gains and been PE ing for a couple of months at least now. My BPFSL is 0.7 in less than my BPEL but I’m 22 and have great erections when fully hard. Where does this put me? Is it a ligament problem possibly? I know this thread is about the theory, but from your recommendations I seem to straddle both sides so I guess this applies to the theory too? A reply from any of the experts on this theory would be very appreciated. :D

I seem to be on the same boat as bullay06. My BPFSL is 7.0 and my BPEL is 7.5. How can my BPFSL be half an inch shorter then my BPEL?


Whats up Ymerej Esouhtaerg!

Hello? Gurus?

If I’m not mistaken, then you should go for length. Stretch the tunica.

Read Remek’s original post one more time, you will find the answers there.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:28 PM.