Thoughts on PE from johndough

Right what I was thinking. All the above is based on the answer: ‘Yes’ to the first question, so thickness of layer is the same in all subjects, despite the number of layers they have (which is just a guess, per se).

I mean: 1 layer - 2 mm of tunica, 2 layers 4 mm of tunica etc..

Strange they haven’t measured thickness, or maybe I’m missing.

Usually there is a reason for these things. 2 layers seems to be what most of us have. There must be a reason for it. Lowers the risk of damage in some way?

This number of layers thing bothers me. I can’t see the purpose in someone having 1 versus 2 versus 3. It doesn’t make sense to me (but a lot of things don’t lately so I guess).

I’m only assuming that I have 3 layers because I can’t seem to make any gains and I routinely achieve erections of steel (and require very little stimulation to maintain them). Or maybe what ThunderSS was talking about - maybe I have only 1 or 2 but they are extremely thick? It is too bad that they didn’t bother to measure the individual layers.

Are we prepared to say that people who have 3 layers or thicker than normal layers are, to put it bluntly, “fucked” when it comes to trying to gain via PE?

Not to take this thread off tract with my own personal PE dilemmas, but I have never been able to find this so-called “cord” in my unit that supposedly hinders gains.

Agree on both things. I think two layers, one axially and the other circumferentially oriented, give better protection against the ‘peak of forces’ in some points of the penis when it is bent whilst erect.

At this point I can’t see any reason for three layers.

Two aside notes:

1) I never heard of any other study that confirmed this one. More precisely, no other study I have heard of, that explore this topic. I mean, let’s say I discover that we all don’t have the arm build in the same way; I would predict many studies on this : “Statistic study on arm length in human population…” or kinda.

2) authors have not been able to hazard any guesss on the reasons of this differences and which can be better. They look way more confused than people on here who has posted about : a flood of hypotesis and guesses.

No. We also should know composition of layers. One layer could be thick, but more rich of elastin (just to say a thing) so it is more elastic than a slimer tunica with less elastin.

Even assuming these layers have same structure, finally, what it only could mean, is that you need more work to lengthen your tunica, not that it is impossibile to gain.

This also stands for those who are concerned with the chord, IMHO.

More work meaning more intensity or more duration? Perhaps that’s an important distinction?

The most obvious answer seems to be ‘both of them’ to me.

Read through a portion of the extender studies, all I have read so far had a conflict of interest. Any extender studies that are independent?

1/2/3 layers of tunica.

What tends to happen is nature throws things out there and sees which one floats.

All sorts of things happen during meiosis (gametogenesis). DNA is recombined, chromosome sections are switched between chromosome pairs, and other things. This sort of thing leads to the variations in tunica layers. Darwin observed long and short beak variations in finches, its the same thing really. So, in the area that the study was conducted, 2 layers was the most successfully reproducing strategy. Now it could be that 2 is not the most successful in other regions of the planet. It might vary according to diet/temperature/altitude etc.

We don’t really know, but there must be a reason for 2 layers being the most dominant strategy overall or in the region that the study was conducted.

Hotshot, the tunica is only an extensible tissue that envelope’s the corpora cavernosa. Even if you were to stretch the collagen, you would not limit the ability to maintain an erection, or inhibit your ability to do so. Unlike tendons and ligaments.. Which contain collagen fibrils (Type I), you should see no significant adverse events associated with a plasticity event. Ligaments and tendons exhibit both nonlinear and viscoelastic behavior under physiologic loading. Viscoelasticity indicates time dependent mechanical loading. The relationship between stress applied is not constant and depends on time of displacement or load.

Corresponding to the reduction in mechanical properties, there is a reduction in the ligament structure. Woo et al studied the affect of exercise on swine digital tendons and the FMTC. Animals were run on a track at speeds of 6 to 8 km/hr for an average of 40km/week for 3 months and 12 months.. A sedentary group was used as a control. The short term group showed no significant changes in mechanical properties for either the tendons or the FMTC. There was an increase in cross-sectional area of the tendon as well as a 22% increase in tensile strength. For the FMTC, however, there was little change in most mechanical properties, although there was a significant increase in maximum load to failure when normalized by animal weight. Another study in dogs also found higher ultimate load to body strength ratios for the FMTC. Woo put the findings on immobilization and exercise together in a graph showing how changes in mechanical load may alter ligament/tendon structure, in a statement he characterized as Wolff’s law for ligaments/tendons. Similar to Frosts theory on adult bone adaptation, where he believed it was difficult to achieve substantial increase in bone structure through mechanical loading unless damaged was caused, but that losses in bone mass were realized quite readily when loads were significantly reduced as in immobilization.

Important issues in ligament and tendon repair are how the ligament should be repaired, if applying mechanical load hinders or helps repair, and when repair has progressed to the point where complete load bearing is possible. In the case of tendons, which glide within a sheath, the introduction of passive motion for healing and repaired tendons is believed to be important because it prevents adhesion between the sheath and tendons that restricts motion. The relationship between mobilization following repair and alterations of ligament structure and function is complex, depending on how long the ligament is immobilized following repair. In a study of Medial Collateral Ligament (MCL) repair, MCL were lacerated and then repaired. In one group, the MCL was not repaired, but it was immobilized. In the second group, the MCL was repaired and immobilized for three weeks while in the third group immoblization lasted for 6 weeks. Suprisingly, the group without repair that was immobilized early showed the best gain in strength over time. This reflected changes in the structural makeup of the ligament. The amount of type I vs. Type III collagen (type III collagen is a type of collagen associated with wound healing) was closer to normal for the early mobilized ligament without repair. These results demonstrate two basic concepts: 1) in a confirmation of tissue structure function relationships, the stiffness and strength of healing ligaments correlates with the type and amount of collagen fibrils present, and 2) that mechanical stimulus has a significant affect on ligament structure.

Take home message.. You would not see the same effect.

I’m not understanding what point you are trying to make. You listed effects of mechanical loads on ligaments, the medical community has known the structure of ligaments can be somewhat altered by exercise for a long time. How do those changes tie into changes in the tunica albuginea that are claimed in PE?

“Dr. Levine (the conducter of the fastsize study) is considered one of the best in the world. Unfortunately he has a tendency to endorse and promote products, for example Viagra.” He is also a consultant for fastsize, which is why I disregard their studies.

Have enjoyed this thread and sympathized with your points however I am Still waiting for you to answer my question though, which I’ve re-stated 3 times so I’m not doing it again

Because tunica albuginea has pretty much the same structure of a tendon.