Thunder's Place

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

Girth theory: Pumping vs. clamping

Originally Posted by pudendum
Ttt - Now who’s being too academic? :)

Well - I AM an academic person. I’m just trying to be not TOO academic.

I thought the formalism was what mrvag was asking for, anyhow, you put it in layman’s terms a few posts after mine :) .


Later - ttt

Anyhow - I think that we are having a pretty good time in this thread.

I have tons of work to do these works but I am always trying to get a few minutes to chime in.


Later - ttt

Originally Posted by pudendum
I agree.

It looks as though the tunica structure is not woven like a seat belt. The post I just made regarding the tunica orientation with undulating collagen fibers suggests otherwise. BUT, this does not in anyway dilute your premise.

Nice post.

These fibers can’t just be running longitudinally, there must be fibers that run circumferentially…or else there would be no structural support against girth expansion.

Do these fibers then alternate in layers, or are they mixed within each layer?

Originally Posted by pudendum

I’ll stick my neck out to say that very high intensity PE against a loaded tunica (peak erection) may have short term successes but I believe that unloaded tensions (meaning at a lower erection level) are far more beneficial and have a higher chance of yielding success.

I agree.

I think it is a reasonable generalization to say that high intensity PE against a loaded tunica can have short term success…BUT WILL REQUIRE MORE FREQUENT DECON BREAKS to compensate for the toughening adaptation response.

PE with an unloaded tunica allows for a longer period of gains before or if a decon break will be needed…not to mention is usually safer.

I tend to believe that PE with an unloaded tunica will allow greater overall gains, but thats just my guess.

Originally Posted by pudendum
The tunicas they studied were fixed in formalin (stretched or unstressed) and then sectioned into viewable thicknesses. There are definitely two layers in the tunica; an inner layer with circumstantially directed fibers and an outer with longitudinal directed fibers. They do not identify which layer their microscopic sections were taken from. I would believe that the collagen and elastic fiber orientation would be no different in either layer since the tunica expands in two directions with engorgement.

I believe the effects of lower erection PE would be to increase the collagen and elastic fiber length and that the undulations would be wider to fold these longer collagen fibers when the tunica is at rest. I don’t think that ‘breaking” elastic fibers should be a goal. This folded orientation appears to be important and when the elastic fibers are destroyed, tunica fiber “folding” is disrupted. That can’t be a good thing. This new information reinforces my concern regarding the risk of high intensity “loaded” tunica tension PE.

Thanks for clarifying your neoprene example.

Oopps! Ignore post 379, sorry.

Originally Posted by SteadyGains
This is very interesting.

Do you think that “Showers” we subject to higher pressures at some point?

Does it also explain growth in flaccid length from PE?

More likely its a genetic structural difference of either less wavey structure, less elastic fibers or a combination of both.

Growth of flaccid size may be cumulative damage of the elastic fibers, but thats just a guess.

Originally Posted by sparkyx

Growth of flaccid size may be cumulative damage of the elastic fibers, but thats just a guess.

I wouldn’t mind doing some damage some times.

Originally Posted by sparkyx
I agree.

I think it is a reasonable generalization to say that high intensity PE against a loaded tunica can have short term success…BUT WILL REQUIRE MORE FREQUENT DECON BREAKS to compensate for the toughening adaptation response.

PE with an unloaded tunica allows for a longer period of gains before or if a decon break will be needed…not to mention is usually safer.

I tend to believe that PE with an unloaded tunica will allow greater overall gains, but thats just my guess.

(1) And the “type” of guys who would submit themselves to the most extreme forms of PE are also the guys least likely to take any type of break….unless they break their dicks.

(2) I agree that it is safer.

(3) I also agree.

And…(not to sparkyx)…….regarding the comment that “academics” were debating whether or not steroids “worked” as late as the 1970’s…….????????????

Academics in what? Horticulture? By the Olympics in 1972, people around the world were crying in protest about the ferocious, manly East German “female” swimmers………tall, with rippling muscles, they destroyed the competition from non-Soviet Bloc nations.

Indeed, since Paul Anderson last won the Olympic gold in ‘52 or ‘56, the Soviets and/or satellite countries were winning all of the gold medals in weight lifting…for decades.

Arnold & Sergio (& others) were complete freaks in the 1960’s. Steroids were always known to have “worked” - for decades. Only the long-term health consequences were not as well understood early on.

Originally Posted by wadzilla

And.(not to sparkyx).regarding the comment that “academics” were debating whether or not steroids “worked” as late as the 1970’s.?

Academics in what? Horticulture? By the Olympics in 1972, people around the world were crying in protest about the ferocious, manly East German “female” swimmers.tall, with rippling muscles, they destroyed the competition from non-Soviet Bloc nations.

Indeed, since Paul Anderson last won the Olympic gold in ‘52 or ‘56, the Soviets and/or satellite countries were winning all of the gold medals in weight lifting.for decades.

Arnold & Sergio (& others) were complete freaks in the 1960’s. Steroids were always known to have “worked” - for decades. Only the long-term health consequences were not as well understood early on.

I was very young at the time, but I read everything I could about Bodybuilding (magazines, Arnold’s book, Franco’s book etc). My recollection was that it was still being debated and it was certainly hidden from the public at large. Athletes were using steroids for decades while tests were conducted disproving the effectiveness. I see a parallels, but if you want to argue the dates, I am sure I could have them wrong. I was reading Joe Weider magazines and as far as I know I think they still do not admit there is steroid use in bodybuilding.

I don’t want to lead this thread further off track, but I remember in the 70’s where it was common for gym teachers and doctors to say that steroids didn’t work. I think there was even a frequently sited study that showed that athletes who took dianabol didn’t gain any more than the control group.

But the doses were far too small to be effective, and obviously, there were many athletes and people in sports who knew very well that steroids worked despite the denials of some of the mainstream organizations.


Horny Bastard

Originally Posted by mravg
I don’t want to lead this thread further off track, but I remember in the 70’s where it was common for gym teachers and doctors to say that steroids didn’t work. I think there was even a frequently sited study that showed that athletes who took dianabol didn’t gain any more than the control group.
But the doses were far too small to be effective, and obviously, there were many athletes and people in sports who knew very well that steroids worked despite the denials of some of the mainstream organizations.

Thanks man. Also, you have to remember that all the mainstream publications out there were very limp as compaired to the real information you can find today.

Originally Posted by xenolith
Strain ellipse mechanics adjacent to clamps

Excellent link. Thank you. Come join the discussion if you like - read the first post and give it a try to answer. I would be glad if we had you here.


Later - ttt

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:36 AM.