Thunder's Place

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

Loading, lengthening, healing.

Things are going great thanks for asking hope things are going well for you as well.

I have never hung more then 10 lbs of weight but usually use about 6 to 8 lbs I will keep on of my jess extenders out this may help with the way I will increase the length of the stretcher in the fashion you have put down for me.

The jess does exert 1.5 to 3 lbs of tension is this ok in your view of low tension I want to get the routine down. So I can give this type of training a fair chance of success. I have to say it is killing me not to stretch my cock out it’s like I am missing something in my day lol.

Ok so jelqing once per week is enough for 10 min and slow jelqs around 3 to 5 sec in duration is ok. You due recommend manual stretches as well but only on the second month, if fire goat can let me know where or what ones are best that would be cool.

What do you think of DlD blasters and are they just a modified fulcrum stretch with strong kegels and release type stretch. Thanks for the help on the is routine hopefully it works and I gain an .25 or more. If it doesn’t work well no harm done but I can’t say something doesn’t work without testing it out right.

Oh one more thing I have the bathmate water pump due you think it would be ok to include it in to the routine 3 times per week for 10 min pump session’s.


Current stats march 2008= Nbel 6.75 Bpel 7.5 Eg 5.5

Goal by the end of next year Nbel 8.5 Eg 6.5

Originally Posted by Dick Builder
…………….
I think you have the general idea. However, I don’t think many hangers start out at their max weight - I don’t. I just returned from about a two month break and my max weight is now 10 pounds. I started my first set this morning with a 5 pound weight, 50 % of max, and slowly add weight as my tissues adapt. Once fatigue is reached I begin lowering the weight till I’m comfortable – maintaining the stretch. I try to reach fatigue on every set. So, I am adding and removing weight during each set based on comfort level.
….

On average, 1-2 lbs is enough tension to reach BPFSL; I think one should start the set with this weight or even less, then, after some minutes, he should add another pound, and so on. Ideally, at the end of the set, microfailures are produced with a weight that, if applied at the starting, could not produce microfailures, due to elastic reponse of CT.

It means that the hanging set should be long - about 1 h or more. One set should be enough : if microfailures are really created, doing multiple sets could be too much, leading to stalling results, at firsts, and injuries, if one persists.

Doing shorter, multiple sets, seems a battle to the elastic response of tissue. With manual stretches, if one is able to masterize the technique, maybe the rate of load can be augmented in a more proficient way, so maybe the process can be accomplished in less time than with hanging. Of course, only an extensive case-study could demonstrate this hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Dick Builder
………….
What is fatigue? I imagine I’ve slowly removed the elasticity of the tissues and have just touched (very lightly) into the plastic region. That’s when I reduce the weight in order to maintain that stretch, or position, for the duration of my set.
……………..

You are doing that to avoid too much microfailures? I think it requires a long learning curve; of course, if you are able to know when you are overdoing things, I can’t have objections to this approach, but it’s not a kind of work I would advice to most of PEers - too thin the line between right work and potential injury.

On the other hand, I’m not sure “fatigue” (again, speaking for most of PEers), is a good signal of right work: many PEers, using different techniques, had gains without having this “fatigue feeling”.
The nearest feeling to this “fatigue” that I had was a light burning: I had that feeling only when wearing an extender or hanging for more than 1 h straight.
But I want to collect some other things about this topic, so I’ll return on it in the future.

Originally Posted by Dick Builder
……..
I think what you are saying here is pretty close to the way I hang, which is how I’ve interpreted Bib’s approach.

Despite what appeared when I started this thread, the basic ideas we have are similar; I think the differences are on the amount of work the average PEers could benefit from, and the “audience” we are speaking to: I always think to a newbie, or even an intermediate PEers, who comes reading about advanced approaches and starts trying things that could be dangerous for a not-expert PEer.

I’m not sure that these views are analogous to Bib’ thinking, if I had to bet I’d say they aren’t. It’s not an interesting issue, however, I’m mostly interested in finding things and sharing these findings with anybody is interested on the subject.

Originally Posted by Dick Builder
Just to change the subject a bit:
I get the impression that you feel as though hanging is a more intense routine than manuals. Myself, I believe that manuals are a much more high intensity-low duration technique as compared to hanging. When I’m performing manuals I believe I am putting much, much more tension on my unit than with hanging and for a much shorter duration. A manual stretch goes from zero intensity to max within a minute, with hanging the tension ramps up much, much slower and ends with a much lower intensity than a manual stretch. What do you think?

I agree on that; as said before, with manual stretching one can apply a level of tension on the whole shaft that is difficult to achieve with hanging-devices.

The rate of load, i.e. (variation of load)/time, can be better controlled wiht MS, and if pain is felt, one can immediately cease to apply tension. The cons is that manual stretches are really fatiguing.

Originally Posted by diesel220

The jess does exert 1.5 to 3 lbs of tension is this ok in your view of low tension I want to get the routine down.
…….

You mean : using the jess replacing the noose with the vac-cap? It’s ok. You mentioned the static-stretcher: you could use it as well, it can apply more tension then the jess. The idea is starting with a tension so low that your penis is slightly pulled, and to augment the length slowly, step by step, in a gentle manner; you should stay at every given “length-station” for a couple of minutes.

At the end of the set, your penis should be pulled at about your BPFSL, or even a bit more, without discomfort, for at least 5 minutes. I can’t explain better than that, maybe some other member could help here.

Originally Posted by diesel220
………………..
Ok so jelqing once per week is enough for 10 min and slow jelqs around 3 to 5 sec in duration is ok.
…………

You can jelq more than once a week, go with your feeling and PI’s.

Originally Posted by diesel220
………
You due recommend manual stretches as well but only on the second month, if fire goat can let me know where or what ones are best that would be cool.
………

Yes, I think the first month is better avoid stretching because you could easily overwork. That’s a “resume” of
the right way to do manual stretch:

Originally Posted by firegoat
You have to be able to relax into the stretch. Stretch with the minimum force necessary to get full elongation, then relax into it. After you have fully relaxed into it, try adding a touch more stretch and repeat the process, as necessary. If you cannot easily relax into the stretch, you are pulling too hard.

When you reach the maximum elongation (you will feel like you have come to a ‘hard stop’), change angles and repeat.

firegoat - Manual Stretching question

a little more extensive here:

firegoat - Length Gains

Originally Posted by diesel220
………..
What do you think of DlD blasters and are they just a modified fulcrum stretch with strong kegels and release type stretch.
……………

I’m not an expert of DLD’ things; by what I know, DLD blasters are just that: Kegel’s while stretching. I can’t see any specific benefit in that : what they are supposed to do? If you have to relax while stretching/hanging, Kegel’s are way counter-productive.

Originally Posted by diesel220
…………….
Oh one more thing I have the bathmate water pump due you think it would be ok to include it in to the routine 3 times per week for 10 min pump session’s.

I think the routine I suggested is enough intense, so would be better avoid adding other work. Also, the more exercises/techniques you do at the same time, the more difficult becomes to understand what is working at what is not working.

Originally Posted by marinera
It means that the hanging set should be long - about 1 h or more. One set should be enough : if microfailures are really created, doing multiple sets could be too much, leading to stalling results, at firsts, and injuries, if one persists.


I’ve not found this to be true in my personal experience nor have I read anything within the literature you have presented that supports this statement. Have I missed something? Is this from your own personal experience or an opinion?

Originally Posted by marinera
Despite what appeared when I started this thread, the basic ideas we have are similar; I think the differences are on the amount of work the average PEers could benefit from, and the “audience” we are speaking to: I always think to a newbie, or even an intermediate PEers, who comes reading about advanced approaches and starts trying things that could be dangerous for a not-expert PEer.


I agree. It seems that we differ on the amount of time, tension and frequency necessary for deformation.

I’m having a discussion with you and am definitely not censoring my thoughts in order to protect a ‘newbie’. In fact, I don’t believe that hanging is an advanced technique at all. I don’t believe that a person ‘must’ start with the newbie routine. Manual stretches do not condition the penis for hanging. The only thing that conditions your penis for hanging is hanging. If a newbie wants to begin by hanging then go for it. I don’t assume that newbies are stupid.

Originally Posted by marinera
I agree on that; as said before, with manual stretching one can apply a level of tension on the whole shaft that is difficult to achieve with hanging-devices.


Before I purchased my Bib hanger I also believed that it simply clamped on my penis and only applied tension to the shaft starting behind the hanger. I was wrong. I get the same stretch from my hanger as I do with my hands. Let me explain:

When you clamp the hanger you position it some distance behind the glans then slowly slide it down the shaft forming ‘shoulders’ on both sides of the penis, just behind the glans. It doesn’t clamp on the dorsal or bottom parts of the penis. In effect, it pulls on the shoulders that have been formed on either side of the hanger behind the glans, which is very similar to a manual stretch. Since it doesn’t clamp on the dorsal side it doesn’t place any pressure on the nerves, and I get a terrific stretch on the septum from base to glans. Since it doesn’t clamp around the bottom I get plenty of circulation to the glans. The pull is from the shoulders, on the sides, just behind the glans.

Originally Posted by marinera
The rate of load, i.e. (variation of load)/time, can be better controlled wiht MS, and if pain is felt, one can immediately cease to apply tension. The cons is that manual stretches are really fatiguing.


As I described above, the Bib hanger pulls from the same area as manual stretches and the beauty is that it doesn’t strain your arms. Plus, contrary to what you’ve stated, I often rest my hand on or near the rope between my hanger and weight. I often apply slightly more or less tension with my hands and can completely remove the weigh as fast as I can remove tension with a manual stretch. The only differences are that with the Bib I can stretch for a much longer time than I can with my hands. Because, as you have stated “manual stretches are really fatiguing”.


Then (4.5 nbpel x 4.75 mseg)

Now (5.625 nbpel, x 5.25 mseg)

Originally Posted by Dick Builder
I’ve not found this to be true in my personal experience nor have I read anything within the literature you have presented that supports this statement. Have I missed something? Is this from your own personal experience or an opinion?
……………..

If you se, in example, post #158, and the attached diagram, you can see how little is the area between microfailures region and macrofailure region. As function of load, microfailures are produced (in that example) with about 600 Newton load; macrofailures are produced at about 800 Newton load.

As a function of elongation, the difference between microfailures and macrofailures is only 0.5 mm (in that specific example).

If your first set has produced microfailures, hanging again with an high load will produce an higher amount of microfailures, easy leading to macrofailures; hanging with a medium or low weight, what is causing? You don’t know.

If your first set has not produced microfailures, you are attempting to cause only viscoelastic deformation, but, as several times noted, it is a really inefficient way to cause such kind of adaptation: in example, in post #155 we have seen that cyclic loading with 25% of max physiological load cause a plateau after only 47 seconds, and an elongation of only 2.4% (at the neat of “conditioning elongation”).

The report of members I posted here are also consistent with what studies suggest: if one is causing microfailures, few minutes of high-tension work daily are enough to cause micro-failures, and best results with this approach are obtained taking rest days.

The hanging set should be long to give most of viscoelastic deformation; the load should augment at a slow rate without taking off the weight; so, at the end of the set, microfailure region is touched.

I’m really trying to follow your reasoning. However; you seem to keep contradicting yourself - in my opinion. And, your conclusions from reading the studies you have posted make no sense to me. In other words, I’m not following you at all.

Originally Posted by marinera
If you se, in example, post #158, and the attached diagram, you can see how little is the area between microfailures region and macrofailure region. As function of load, microfailures are produced (in that example) with about 600 Newton load; macrofailures are produced at about 800 Newton load.

Earlier you suggested starting a hanging set with a 1-2lb load and ramp up the weight till you reach microfailure within an hour’s time. Now, 600N equals about 135lb, which gives some idea of just how tough CT is and how much force is necessary to remove the elasticity of the fibers and achieve plastic deformation. Where do you get the 1-2lb figure? Why is such a light weight important?

Originally Posted by marinera
As a function of elongation, the difference between microfailures and macrofailures is only 0.5 mm (in that specific example).

.5 mm equals macro-damage not micro and the difference in load is significant, between 600N and 800N on that chart in order to move the tissues that .5mm.

Originally Posted by marinera
If your first set has produced microfailures, hanging again with an high load will produce an higher amount of microfailures, easy leading to macrofailures; hanging with a medium or low weight, what is causing? You don’t know.

Earlier you had said that due to the elastic response several twenty minute sets were not as effective as one hour long set. However, here you are saying that they are so effective at creating damage that several sets are dangerous. Do you not see the contradiction in your reasoning? I’m really trying to have a discussion with you and try and understand what you are getting to.

Originally Posted by marinera
If your first set has not produced microfailures, you are attempting to cause only viscoelastic deformation, but, as several times noted, it is a really inefficient way to cause such kind of adaptation: in example, in post #155 we have seen that cyclic loading with 25% of max physiological load cause a plateau after only 47 seconds, and an elongation of only 2.4% (at the neat of “conditioning elongation”).

I’m not trying to cause viscoelastic deformation, my quest is microfailure. If I don’t get it on my first set, I usually will on my second and third. In the example you are referring they were not seeking plastic deformation, as the load did not change, if I remember correctly. I vary the load when hanging in a attempt to achieve micro-tears, very different, correct?

Originally Posted by marinera
The report of members I posted here are also consistent with what studies suggest: if one is causing microfailures, few minutes of high-tension work daily are enough to cause micro-failures, and best results with this approach are obtained taking rest days.

For every case example you bring up for the necessity of rest days I could post just the opposite. Please, show me an example of a case in the field of physical therapy where the program of therapy, either dynamic splinting or static stretching included rest days. Somewhere, anywhere other than inferences deduced from stretching rat tails would be nice.

Originally Posted by marinera
The hanging set should be long to give most of viscoelastic deformation; the load should augment at a slow rate without taking off the weight; so, at the end of the set, microfailure region is touched.

Here we see eye to eye. I think however we differ on what constitutes a high, medium and low load and what constitutes a long or short time.

Oh yea, before I forget. The width of the clamping area of my Bib hardcore is somewhere between the width of my index and middle fingers put together. Not much different than manual stretching, right?


Then (4.5 nbpel x 4.75 mseg)

Now (5.625 nbpel, x 5.25 mseg)

Originally Posted by Dick Builder

Earlier you suggested starting a hanging set with a 1-2lb load and ramp up the weight till you reach microfailure within an hour’s time. Now, 600N equals about 135lb, which gives some idea of just how tough CT is and how much force is necessary to remove the elasticity of the fibers and achieve plastic deformation. Where do you get the 1-2lb figure? Why is such a light weight important?
…………

1 lbs is the tension required to extend penis to BPFSL, on average.
About the importance of low force/long duration, I’ve posted many references about; let’s add another:


…………….
Optimal plastic deformation of the tissue results with applications of long periods of low force stretch. The tissue slowly remodels because a biochemical response, triggered by constant force, results in a loosening and shifting of the fibers' connecting points within the tissue. By contrast, elongation of shortened connective tissue, through short periods of forceful stretching, relies upon attempt to mechanically break or tear the connecting points. Typically, with short periods of high force stretching, the result is a higher proportion of elastic response, less remodeling, and greater trauma and weakening of the tissue.
……..
“To summarize, the longest period of low force stretch produces the greatest amount of permanent elongation, with the least amount of trauma and structural weakening of the connective tissues. Consequently, permanent elongation of connective tissue results in range of motion increases for the patient.”

from : Hepburn GR. - Case Studies: Contracture and Stiff Joint Management with Dynasplint.
The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 8 (1987) 498-504

Unfortunately, as explained many times, “plastic deformation”, when speaking of CT, isn’t real permanent deformation. To reach permanent deformation, you have to touch the microfailure zone. The low load is used to reach (temporary) elastic deformation, so the CT would be easily (permanently) deformed through microfailures. I think 1 h gives an acceptable loss of elasticity; if you want to cause even more viscoelastic adaptation, you have to go with higher duration/low load, as I explained, in example, in post #151.

Originally Posted by Dick Builder
………
.5 mm equals macro-damage not micro and the difference in load is significant, between 600N and 800N on that chart in order to move the tissues that .5mm.

0.5 mm is the difference between the microfailure region and the macrofailure region.

Originally Posted by Dick Builder
………….
Earlier you had said that due to the elastic response several twenty minute sets were not as effective as one hour long set. However, here you are saying that they are so effective at creating damage that several sets are dangerous. Do you not see the contradiction in your reasoning? I’m really trying to have a discussion with you and try and understand what you are getting to.
…………..

IF you created microfailures in your first set, THEN repeating the set with high load could cause too much damage, carrying you in the macrofailure region.

IF in your first set you haven’t caused microfailures, THEN it’s unlikely that you will produce them in subsequent sets, because in the 10 minutes rest CT will recover previous length and will become even harder to deform, looking at the references already posted.

Originally Posted by Dick Builder

For every case example you bring up for the necessity of rest days I could post just the opposite. Please, show me an example of a case in the field of physical therapy where the program of therapy, either dynamic splinting or static stretching included rest days. Somewhere, anywhere other than inferences deduced from stretching rat tails would be nice.
………………………..

I’ve posted only one study referring to rat tail tendon; scientists were studying rat tail because it’s behavior is similar to humans CT behavior. However, I’ve posted many studies and articles referring to human CT.

The necessity of rest days, when you have produced microfailures, comes from, in example, post #69.
You aren’t obliged to have rest-days, if you think you don’t need them, why do you want me agreeing on that at any cost?

Originally Posted by Dick Builder
………
Oh yea, before I forget. The width of the clamping area of my Bib hardcore is somewhere between the width of my index and middle fingers put together. Not much different than manual stretching, right?

I don’t get your point. If you like Bib’ hanger, use it. I think that, if you want to cause microfailures, manual stretching is better for the reasons I’ve already explained.


Last edited by marinera : 07-11-2008 at .

I’m sitting here wracking my head as to why this discussion has gotten so far out of control. Then I realized that we can’t even agree on the basic fundamental differences between the different techniques. So, I’m thinking (again) why even continue? First off, you never gave an adequate answer to my question below, and then you’ve deliberately tried to avoid the issue.

Originally Posted by Dick Builder
I get the impression that you feel as though hanging is a more intense routine than manuals. Myself, I believe that manuals are a much more high intensity-low duration technique as compared to hanging. When I’m performing manuals I believe I am putting much, much more tension on my unit than with hanging and for a much shorter duration. A manual stretch goes from zero intensity to max within a minute, with hanging the tension ramps up much, much slower and ends with a much lower intensity than a manual stretch. What do you think?

Your reply:

Originally Posted by marinera
I agree on that; as said before, with manual stretching one can apply a level of tension on the whole shaft that is difficult to achieve with hanging-devices.

The rate of load, i.e. (variation of load)/time, can be better controlled wiht MS, and if pain is felt, one can immediately cease to apply tension. The cons is that manual stretches are really fatiguing.


My reply:

Originally Posted by Dick Builder
Before I purchased my Bib hanger I also believed that it simply clamped on my penis and only applied tension to the shaft starting behind the hanger. I was wrong. I get the same stretch from my hanger as I do with my hands. Let me explain:

When you clamp the hanger you position it some distance behind the glans then slowly slide it down the shaft forming ‘shoulders’ on both sides of the penis, just behind the glans. It doesn’t clamp on the dorsal or bottom parts of the penis. In effect, it pulls on the shoulders that have been formed on either side of the hanger behind the glans, which is very similar to a manual stretch. Since it doesn’t clamp on the dorsal side it doesn’t place any pressure on the nerves, and I get a terrific stretch on the septum from base to glans. Since it doesn’t clamp around the bottom I get plenty of circulation to the glans. The pull is from the shoulders, on the sides, just behind the glans.

As I described above, the Bib hanger pulls from the same area as manual stretches and the beauty is that it doesn’t strain your arms. Plus, contrary to what you’ve stated, I often rest my hand on or near the rope between my hanger and weight. I often apply slightly more or less tension with my hands and can completely remove the weigh as fast as I can remove tension with a manual stretch. The only differences are that with the Bib I can stretch for a much longer time than I can with my hands. Because, as you have stated “manual stretches are really fatiguing”.


You then made a post that completely ignored my statements. So, I made another comment.

Originally Posted by Dick Builder
Oh yea, before I forget. The width of the clamping area of my Bib hardcore is somewhere between the width of my index and middle fingers put together. Not much different than manual stretching, right?

Your reply:

Originally Posted by marinera
I don’t get your point. If you like Bib’ hanger, use it. I think that, if you want to cause microfailures, manual stretching is better for the reasons I’ve already explained.


What’s my point? Well, in all honesty my point is that I don’t believe you’ve spent any amount of time under a hanging device, for the reasons you’ve already explained. And, I just felt like reinforcing that point. Why? Because I spent valuable time explaining the similarities and differences between hanging and manuals. You, on the other hand have a tendency to ignore when someone corrects you, and tend to pull a conversation back to the advantages of strapping an expender on their dick in liew of other techniques. And, personally I wouldn’t mind that if you weren’t so deceptive and misleading in your tactics. Why don’t you just rename the title of this thread to the “low load – long time ADS approach is superior”. That’s your objective – right?

I rejoined this thread because you posted some very interesting things on static stretching. But, somehow I’ve been drug back to your low–load long duration agenda. Rename the thread and divulge your agenda and I may rejoin. I’d really like to hear your explanation as to the importance of BPFSL, and why it’s necessary to get to that length with such a light weight. Personally, I just grab my fucking dick and pull it there in about a second. What the fuck.


Then (4.5 nbpel x 4.75 mseg)

Now (5.625 nbpel, x 5.25 mseg)

Originally Posted by Dick Builder
………………
What’s my point? Well, in all honesty my point is that I don’t believe you’ve spent any amount of time under a hanging device, for the reasons you’ve already explained.
……………


I’ve used hangers: if you do a search, I wrote about my experience with them in some other thread. But I’m not basing on my experience: you agreed that, even with Bib’ hanger, you can apply less tension than with manuals:

Originally Posted by Dick Builder
…………………
Myself, I believe that manuals are a much more high intensity-low duration technique as compared to hanging. When I’m performing manuals I believe I am putting much, much more tension on my unit than with hanging and for a much shorter duration. A manual stretch goes from zero intensity to max within a minute, with hanging the tension ramps up much, much slower and ends with a much lower intensity than a manual stretch. What do you think?

Permanent gains are created through microfailures; microfailures are produced through hig-tension. If manual stretches can putt more tension on your unit than hanging, you have to use manual stretching in the high-load phase. This is a consequence of your statements as well.

On the other hand, you agreed that, if one wants to apply low tension for long time, without pauses, ADS/Stretchers/extenders are better than hangers, because you can’t wear the hanger continuously for hours.

So, again I can’t get your point. It seem you are worried that this thread is an advertising for extenders -it’s not the case. Simply wrapping the FSL with a bend-gauge for many hours a daily is an economic but effective option. Gland Master used this approach with good results.

again on low load vs. hig load

Since my English is not exaclty perfect, I’m going to post the clearest explanation of CT adpation to different loads that I’ ve found:


………….
Connective tissue is made up of various densities and spatial arrangements of collagen fibers embedded in a protein-polysaccharide matrix, which is commonly called ground substance.
Collagen is a fibrous protein that has a very high tensilestrength. Collagenous tissue is organized into many different higher-order structures, including tendons, ligaments, joint capsules, aponeuroses, and fascial sheaths.
……….
All connective tissue has a combination of two qualities— elastic stretch and plastic (viscous) stretch.
…………………….
The term viscoelastic is used to describe tissue that represents both viscous and elastic properties. The viscous properties permit time-dependent plastic or permanent deformation. Elastic properties, on the other hand, result in elastic or recoverable deformation. This allows it to rebound to the previous size, shape, and length.

Different factors influence whether the plastic or elastic component of connective tissue is predominantly affected. These include the amount of applied force and the duration of the applied force.
Therefore the major factors affecting connective tissue deformation are force and time. When a force great enough to overcome joint resistance is applied over a short period of time, elastic deformation occurs.
However when the same force is applied over a long period of time, plastic deformation occurs.

When connective tissue is stretched, the relative proportionof elastic and plastic deformation can vary widely,
depending on how and under what conditions the stretching is performed. When tensile forces are continuously applied to connective tissue, the time required to stretch the tissue a specific amount varies inversely with the force used. Therefore a low-force stretching method requires more time to produce the same amount of elongation as a higher-force method. However, the proportion of tissue lengthening that remains after the tensile stress is removed is greater for the low-force, long duration method. Of course, high force and long duration will also cause stretch and possibly rupture of the connective tissue.

http://daewhamedipia.com/board/data/pds/316.pdf


Last edited by marinera : 07-14-2008 at .

That’s some good information Marinera, thanks. Some of us have these statements before, but it is nice to see the different sentences here in the same post.

Originally Posted by Kojack10
That’s some good information Marinera, thanks. Some of us have these statements before, but it is nice to see the different sentences here in the same post.

Thanks Kojack. Yes, many of references and studies posted in this thread was posted before on this forum and discussed. I’ve tried to add links to these threads, and to cite members that posted ideas about, but the information was so fragmented that I’ve forgot something for sure.

You also discussed this matter - add links here, please; I want to add, among other members that gave interesting thoughts on this topic in the past: ModestoMan, Wadzilla, ticktickticker, pudendum, buby, mravg, jelktoid, mgus, Bib, mbuc, sparkyx and sorry for the others that I’ve forgot.

I’m going to add some other interesting studies here, that I’ve never seen discussed before. You can be sure that things are going to be even more complex.


Last edited by marinera : 07-20-2008 at .

Optimal frequency

What’s the optimal frequency of short duration stretching? Despite the capital importance of this point, I found only one study focused on that:


The effect of time and frequency of static stretching on flexibility of the hamstring muscles.
Bandy WD, Irion JM, Briggler M.
Department of Physical Therapy, University of Central Arkansas, Conway 72035, USA.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Frequency and duration of static stretching have not been extensively examined. Additionally, the effect of multiple stretches per day has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal time and frequency of static stretching to increase flexibility of the hamstring muscles, as measured by knee extension range of motion (ROM).

SUBJECTS: Ninety-three subjects (61 men, 32 women) ranging in age from 21 to 39 years and who had limited hamstring muscle flexibility were randomly assigned to one of five groups. The four stretching groups stretched 5 days per week for 6 weeks. The fifth group, which served as a control, did not stretch.

METHODS: Data were analyzed with a 5 x 2 (group x test) two-way analysis of variance for repeated measures on one variable (test).
RESULTS:
The change in flexibility appeared to be dependent on the duration and frequency of stretching. Further statistical analysis of the data indicated that the groups that stretched had more ROM than did the control group, but no differences were found among the stretching groups.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION:
The results of this study suggest that a 30-second duration is an effective amount of time to sustain a hamstring muscle stretch in order to increase ROM. No increase in flexibility occurred when the duration of stretching was increased from 30 to 60 seconds or when the frequency of stretching was increased from one to three times per day.

http://physther.net/cgi/content/abstract/77/10/1090

So, for hamstring muscle tendons, strecthing training comparable to PE manual stretching shows no difference in results when one 30 seconds session x day is performed, respect to 3 x 60 s sessions x day.

Effects of cyclic loading: fatigue

Since now we have not seen specifically what the effects of cyclical loading could be. The study in post #155 was about CT cyclical loading, but it says nothing about the “deep” effects of this approach; also, the study was about doing many little stretches with little or no rest between those stretches - nothing similar to what PEer do.

This is a first article on this topic:

Fatigue rupture of wallaby tail tendons.
Wang XT, Ker RF, Alexander RM.

Department of Pure and Applied Biology, The University, Leeds, UK.

ABSTRACT
Wallaby tail tendons fail after repeated application of stresses much lower than would be needed to break them in a single pull. We show that this a fatigue phenomenon, distinct from the creep rupture that occurs after prolonged application of a constant stress. The two phenomena are disctinguished by experiments in which tensile stress is cycled at different frequencies, ranging from 1 to 50 Hz.

Fatigue leads to failure after repeated application of stresses, which may be much lower than the ultimate tensile stress. The phenomenon is well known in metals and in man-madepolymers …….
……………….
Materials may also fail after prolonged application of a constant stress that is lower than the ultimate stress. This is known as creep rupture. Failure in creep and fatigue both result from cumulative damage.
………….
In the accompanying paper (Wang and Ker, 1995), we showed that tendon is liable to creep failure. Here we show that it is also liable to fatigue, distinguishing fatigue from creep using tests at different frequencies. Ideally, if fatigue alon occurred, cyclic tests over any given stress range should lead to failure after the same number of cycles, at all frequencies. If creep alone occurred, the same tests should lead to failure
after the same time, at all frequencies.
………………….
Since wallaby tail tendons are typical of mammalian tendonsgenerally in Young’s modulus and energy dissipation (Bennettet al. 1986; Wang and Ker, 1995), it seems reasonable to suppose that their fatigue failure properties are also typical.
………..
Lower stresses would give longer fatigue life. Fatigue damage is presumably repaired in living tendons, but not
during our experiments. We do not know the rate of repair, but cannot exclude the possibility that tail tendons suffer appreciable fatigue damage.


here the free full text:
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/conte…tract/198/3/847
I think this is interesting because is somewhat linked to the “fatigue” topic.


Last edited by marinera : 07-20-2008 at .
Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:32 AM.