Why the controversy over LOT?
Lately, the LOT theory seems to be misunderstood, because it’s either being questioned heavily or downright assaulted.
What’s the controversy?
We all have different ligament lengths/attachments. To see this clearly, look at pro bodybuilders. Some have very low bicep attachments (near the elbow), others are attached a little higher up.
And some people have supple, stretched ligs while others have shorter, tighter ligs.
If you have a high lot (above 9:00), you still have considerable ligament to stretch. If you have a medium lot (between 8-9), you still have a good amount. If you’re below 8, you already have fairly stretched-out ligs, and/or long ligaments. Also, I believe that angle of erection should be looked at as well. I would think a high angle to be above 10:00, medium would be 9-10, and I think below 9 would be considered low. It’s likely that your LOT & AOE are probably in the same category (high, med, or low).
My LOT is actually kinda low (7:30 or so), and my AOE is about 9:00 - sometimes slightly higher. According to Bib’s theories, I should mostly focus on tunica stretching. And when I begun this, I in fact saw new gains.
I don’t see what the controversy is. These theories can help you work smarter, not just harder. If you have a very low LOT & low AOE, but decide on downward stretching, that’s your choice. You might pull for the next year and get only 1/2 inch. Or you can focus on tunica stretching and get that 1/2” in a month or two. I haven’t completely eliminated BTC stretching - nor will I until my LOT is 6:00 - but I definitely stress angles above 9:00 (probably 85% of my stretching is now above this angle).
I have a low LOT, big deal….that doesn’t make me want to bash Bib’s theory. The only aspect of that which I’m unsure about is that regarding the changing of your LOT (which, to be fair, I think someone other than Bib appended to his theory). This may or may not be true; it may or may not even be significant.