Scientific approaches to Girth

Personally i believe everyone needs to find what works best for himself and every penis is different and reacts to PE differently.

I use hose clamps only as i posted above but that’s just because it is what works best for me.

Yeah the hypoxia theory has the most backing, it’s even used by athletes and bodybuilders to deprive oxygen to specific muscles while training to elicit more gains.

I’ve got to ask though, why did you start a girth routine when you said just before that you’re currently aiming for length? You even have a warning saying that you shouldn’t train both at the same time since they may hinder one another.

I also did read about those midshaft girth gains from the compression hangers. I guess your theory would explain it. Compression hanger practitioners also usually hang for a lot of total time during the time. More time then one would usually clamp. Sadly compression hanging is a pain in the ass if you have foreskin. You usually will then put most of the force onto the glans, no matter how good you setup the hanger

I agree, it does have the most scientific backing. I believe we need more people in the community to aim for creating a perfect hypoxic environment in the shaft rather than going for how much blood they can fit in it. I suppose when you think about it, the idea of the penis being a balloon and filling it with blood to inflate it beyond normal seems to make sense in the brain. But in reality, the penis is much much tougher and less elastic than a balloon, its comprised of flesh and collagen and layers of tissue which does a great job at maintaining shape. When you think of the penis like this, the measly amount of pressure people build up during clamping shouldn’t be anywhere near enough to behave the way we want it to create permanent gains. This is why i believe girth is gained from growth factors which are caused by either hypoxia or the tissue being stretched where the clamp is placed.

I dont want this thread to go off topic, but my reasoning was I had gained 0.5" length in a week of hanging and clamping while using DMSO. So in order for me to try and recreate those gains i once had, I did everything the same. That is until I had an injury which physically prevented me from attaching anything to my penis. So its been a while since ive done any PE.

I like this new approach to examining girth exercises and am real big on the idea of using a NIR pad alongside the other exercises themselves. I for one use the pad when pumping and vacuum hanging atm.

I will be incorporating clamping as well, I’m of the mind that the cell proliferation from the NIR pad can prevent any sort of toughening of the penile tissue. It’s just a hunch though.

Great thread! I just recently started reading about the hypoxia theory. Most vets warn against it, but maybe there is more to it.

I just want to bump this thread and point out that this and tension/traction therapy are probably the only 2 scientifically proven methods that can work and the hypoxia theory is probably the only scientifically proven theory that can work for girth. For everyone curious as to why I say this they need to look up the terms “macrophallus” and “megalophallus” on science direct, ncbi, and or pub med and read all resulting articles and their citations by copy and pasting the DOI url into sci-hub to get around the journal paywalls using a vpn because ISPs in the US tend to not allow access. The hypoxic theory of growth IS the most supported theory of how to get massive growth in a relatively short time. It is quiet dangerous in the conditions it manifests its self in the real world, sickle cell ischemic priapism; but it is essentially undeniable that it is possible to grow tissue this way. This is the way cancer cells grow and proliferate.

My understand of this is as follows.

1. Engorgement
2. Blood stasis
3. Hypoxia
4. Angiogenesis
5. Hopefully normoxia

I’d like to issue extreme caution with this. It won’t stop me obviously, but this is a very extreme processes for cells to go through and for many people with ischemic priapisms it is a fine balance between tissue necrosis, damage, and fibrosis, and an otherwise vascular body of tissue. I’d like to remind people that although smooth muscle is important in proportion to the rest of the connective tissues in the penis, smooth muscle DOES NOT contribute to the size of the erect penis in so far as it DOES NOT add volume in its engorged state. And in fact too much smooth muscle can cause ED as can too little.

But the results here are undeniable. 17 year old with a 25cm circumference penis after 3 priapisms?? Or a man with 63 partially ischemic priapisms with a 7 inch by 6.25 inch FLACCID penis? There ARE documented cases of this happening but they are definitely the minority of patient outcomes from ischemic priapisms. I do think however, being that we are more able to control the blood flow of our penis better than someone who is unwillingly going through an ischemic priapism, that MAYBE we have a decent chance of inducing consistent, healthy, controlled, hypoxic growth.

And if you’re reading this, do everyone a favor and log your approach to inducing hypoxia. There are several studies out there indicating different time frames for different parts of the body for achieving hypoxic outcomes. One that comes to mind said 8 x 4 minute hypoxic states followed by 1 minute or so of normoxia was better at inducing endothelial cell mobility which is needed for the angiogenesis phase of hypoxia than (100? Maybe 80 or 120?) minutes of hypoxia. However, if I remember correctly they followed this by saying that even though endothelial activity was up levels of HIF (hypoxic inducible factor) which are needed for cytokines to break through the ECM barrier and migrate to other cytokines to form new connections were down. So basically cells can move but they can’t break through their connective barriers to link with other cells? Not really a science major, just highlighting this to emphasize the need for other people to look at this and for everyone to compare notes to hopefully address all the nuisances we’re dealing with here.

I’d really hope everyone at thunders and in the PE community in general comes to think of this as the best method for growth. I agree the traction method probably does work but I’m concerned that the method of action of trying to microtear the tunica promotes the deposition of avascular collagen more than it does stretch it. It’s something I’m actually experimenting with right now so to be determined. But my opinion right now is that the method of action stretching does work by is by stimulating matrix metalloproteinase activity and smooth muscle alpha actin in a similar way HIF would stimulate MMP activity. My main issue with traction is the indeterminable balance between stimulating mmp activity and allowing fibroblasts to naturally deposit more collagen. In my opinion, from everything I’ve read, the traction method should work as more of a suggestion to your body to break down more collagen by releasing more mmp and then healing over it not by immediately stressing the fibers and forcing your body to lay down more collagen as this would only lead to a stronger tunica. And good luck trying to get collagenase into your dick if you’re thinking of trying chemical PE to soften the tunica without it going systemic and damaging the rest of your body ( I don’t think it’s possible) or simply fucking up your penis beyond belief, I’ve read some horror stories on xiaflex. Your body is made of collagen so you really don’t want collagen deteriorating elsewhere because of a science experiment on your dick.

Rebel - Do you have links to the studies mentioned above?

If anyone has any thoughts on the difference between an ischemic priapism and clamping for four hours, I’d love to hear them.

I’d also be curious to know of the longest clamping sessions anyone has read about on here, and the timeframe in which injuries have been reported.

Some more anecdotal evidence to support hypoxia inducing gains - vanloon performed a continuous glans squeeze while clamping and noticed an increase in glans size. No measurements on the glans, and only an increase in girth by 0.1 inches from regularly performing the exercise. He also didn’t specify if that was at base or midshaft, still interesting result regarding the glans though:

Extreme clamping

I would be careful with this technique. While there may* be some "science" behind the idea of employing hypoxia to improve cardio-vascularity, how it pertains to the penis is far lesser known and remarkably (and even irresponsibly) speculative as it pertains to PE. Firstly, not a knock on you Member "comptop," the point of a message board is to sometimes remind us of older (or forgotten) practices that may still in-fact be viable today. But what remains true is the name of this topic, specifically the "scientific approaches" part.

Don’t get me wrong, I look at this and think to myself, hmm, this looks interesting. However, I also know that it is best utilized by men who have very conditioned, robust, and durable penises, that can probably handle the intensities put forward by this routine, hopefully (in other words, don’t be seduced by size to the extent that you try this as performed by the original poster from over 17 years ago if you aren’t ready for it).

I just uploaded a new gallery (requires no payment/premium membership to see, not selling anything here nor gaining any commissions on this particular, or any, provider, and the link is provided at the very bottom of this comment) and these are only 7 to 8 mL’s (cc’s), with larger volumes being uploaded in the coming weeks (from a Toronto-based provider). Now THAT is science, THAT is sample size (not just his, but among the many hundreds and thousands of posts on the PhalloBoards) which have shown demonstrably the successes of certain methodologies.

100% safe and inexpensive? No and no. But reasonably and relatively safe with regards to all known alternatives, and a reasonable investment when compared to the time-sink that girth is notorious for? Yes and yes.

I would argue that the link comptop posted requires such a conditioned unit that most men would injure themselves out of desperation after having seen those photos, opting to bypass years of training to undertake this (or a similar) practices. Notice the warning that it is NOT FOR NEWBIES, and please heed those warnings. I’m impressed with the man’s engorgement and I wouldn’t be surprised if he gained some size in the end, but scientific it is not.

Lastly, I feel like any methodology that uses hypoxia as a part of its regimen ought to be supervised or cleared by a qualified medical practitioner (and by qualified, I mean someone who knows what the heck it is you are trying to achieve in the first place), because I can’t imagine how many insurance plans are going to cover self-inflicted mistakes of this nature (injectable phalloplasty is no different in this regard by the way, for impartiality’s sake).

If you choose to be brave, hats off to those who are taking one for the team. I just find girth in particular so absolutely solved via male phalloplasty that its risks-vs-rewards overwhelm any other mode of manual PE exercise, assuming of course you proceed with a qualified & experienced practitioner using medical-grade products that aren’t silicone oil or rigid silicone implants.

I will run by the "hypoxia hypothesis" (as I’ll coin for flavor) to some of the Doctors I know who are PE-exercise friendly, and see if I can provide any additional SCIENTIFIC* input beyond speculation of the benefits obtained from a 17-year+ old open-ended and decade old message board post (and again, no knock, I was visiting Thundersplace and eventually posting around the time that comptop’s link was published, and I coincidentally happen to run a message board myself if I didn’t already make it obvious in prior comments lol, with commentary from nearly 14 years ago that is equally as speculative, at least for its time).

And for the sake of sanity, both hypoxia and priapism aren’t regarded as GOOD THINGS independent of any supervised motive or goal, so that’s what makes their (very uncommon) results deceptively attractive. If all that did was make your dick bigger with little-to-no-consequence, this would have been figured out by now given the lifespan of PE on the Internet (who knew of this ThundersPlace since inception? What about Matters of Size? And the [Defunct]MyNewSize, the [Defunct]Yahoo Phalloplasty Group, PEGym/Biohacker, FrankTalk, the GettingBigger subReddit, and PhalloBoards 1.0/2.0/3.0?). Point being, penis enlargement has been a commercialized endeavor since the 60s/70s with the advent of vacuum pumps, and surgical experimentation as early as the 90s (perhaps even earlier but I can only confirm real patients in that era since the Internet, much less PE Internet, was limited or unavailable prior), with the mid 2000’s being the time the topic really took off, a good solid two decades ago! I think many conclusions can be safely made in that time, both in terms of duration and sample size of authentic testimonials.

That’s why I’ve been a fan of P-Long’s Exercise + Supplemental Protocol, as well as PhalBack’s super high-tech pump, because neither require injectables or surgery and have some scientific merit. If we want to get to the bottom of maximizing size for the the vast majority of normal penises, we ought to stop speculating and make an initiative of it. Well, at least that’s what current male cosmetic medicine is doing, and it’s doing so remarkably well. I’m always confused about how one person insists wet jelqs are pointless or ineffective but at the same time were critical for my own length gains. Some think pumps are a hoax, others swear by it. Where is the standardization? There surely is a universal denominator for most penises if the right minds and money were thrown at a project (keyword "most" since not 100% of people are going to respond to something physiologically the same way 100% of the time).

I’ll happily support any coherent plan through my own platform with enough minds & investors (of which I will take zero pennies from as it pertains to Research & Development a.k.a. R&D) to utilize my connections to a number of Doctors and Researchers familiar with the field — I’ve even had recruits undergo free procedures for studies on the PhalloBoards, leading me to believe that there are no reasons why methodologies like hypoxia and priapism can’t be observed in a controlled setting with a knowledgeable physician (or group of physicians) to see if it may enhance and/or replace what is already in practice today.

That all said, while I believe length and glans augmentation remain elusive (but not impossible), girth is pretty much solved. Could RebelRebel’s approach/theory be a workable alternative? Sure, but it isn’t science until it meets a very clear cut criteria, and by the way, I’m all for it. My concern is that this particular method is truly advanced, requiring men to undergo stages of conditioning (potentially taking many months, if not years) while avoiding any setbacks or injuries before hitting their shaft with this level of intensity. What RebelRebel proposes may be plausible, but for a small portion of lifetime engorgers (apparently Google Spellcheck says "engorgers" isn’t a real word, like hell it isn’t!). I could be wrong, and I’m open to hearing differing views, I just wanted to be sure this topic stayed true to its name: "Scientific approaches to Girth."
As for the link I mentioned above:

https://phalloboards.info/forum/galleryleonardo/10155853-before-and-after-gallery-7-to-8-cc-s-ml-s.html

All fair points. I recently completed a PhD in the biomedical sciences, so I’m quite aware of how much we should collectively value "anecdotal evidence" and the needs to more effectively systematize PE, but I get why you might feel the need to write an essay about these topics.

Well a PhD in Biomedical Sciences would be one of a few ideal educational backgrounds you’d want in a Researcher investigating any number of experimental topics as it pertains to penis enlargement. Have you ever considered approaching this area of research (i.e. PE) ? I’m sure there may be some stigma associated with the topic given the abundance of lifesaving research available versus something that is elective and cosmetic (increasing the penis size of a normally endowed man has no benefits to his overall physical health).

If any such routes were available, it might be through stem-cell type research that one day could pave the way to universal applications, like real replacement dicks (akin to building real tissue in a lab), and would probably start on micro-penises and those with severe physical trauma (soldiers from war, motorcycle accidents, etc), with the hopes of becoming approved for general use further down the road. In our lifetimes, hard to say, but that would be where I see the future of penis enlargement.

And pardon the long replies, the last one in particular was longer than usual. I Moderate a Penis Enlargement site that is focused more on the nuances of science and medicine because of its theme(s), and I type there a lot daily (forum posts, private messages, emails). So if I get on a roll, sometimes I end up going full essay lol. I’ll try and be more aware of this in future posts, I know how quickly it can feel like a wall of text, especially for those accessing this site via mobile phones.

I have considered going into PE research, but there are a variety of reasons why I’d rather not make it my life’s work.

I think your intuition is generally correct in that long term non-surgical options will rely on initiating developmental cascades to encourage growth. Basically like a resetting of the biological clock to puberty, but isolated to the pubic area. This could rely on stem cells, but I would bet it’s going to be more about inducing these cascades in the cells already present through some form of external stimulus that epigenetically reprograms the tissue in the area.

This would be the holy grail for treating individuals wishing to go through female to male transitions, so I do believe this will be feasible at some point, but my optimistic prediction would be ~20 years. That said, advances in biomedicine are accelerating, and there is an increasing amount of work that could trigger similar breakthroughs that could be repurposed for PE in much shorter timeframes.