Gaining at Higher Angles

Another one:

“Division of the penile suspensory ligament with or
without the additional procedures of suprapubic fat
pad excision and inverted VY plasty is a simple and a
commonly used penile lengthening technique.
Although this has been related to serious morbidity
[9,10], in this series, the complication rate was low as
shown by others [5]. The procedure is simple to
perform and gives similar results to more complex
types of penile lengthening surgery [2,3].
The operation does lengthen the flaccid penis but
usually only by 1 cm. In some patients who
persevere with postoperative stretching exercises,
as much as 3 cm gain can be achieved, but patients
must also be warned that a small degree of penile
shortening may also occur.

http://www.prof natali.it/uploa … 7alas91m498.pdf

The Roos study:

In that article you posted this is the part actually taken from the Roos study:

“Penile elongation was performed in more than 260 cases in less than one year by Drs. Roos and Lissoos in South Africa. The surgical procedure includes an extensive dissection of the suspensory ligament by the urologist while the plastic surgeon designs a skin flap. They believe that “the suspensory ligament of the penis is of the utmost importance in penis lengthening surgery” (Roos & Lissoos, 1994)”

This part is a statement by the author that comes in the next paragraph after he references another study on surgical technique:

“Severing of the suspensory ligament enables the penis to extend closer to its erect length while flaccid.”

This second point is not referenced and is the author’s opinion only. It is NOT pulled from the Roos study.

The Roos study used BPFSL.

In that first artile I referenced, Klein notes an increase of .75 cm in erect length, the rest are BPFSL measurements.

The other study you reference in this post is the third study I posted where I indicated I knew it was conducted by plastic surgeons in the same post. I know this brings its validity into question, but I included it because they did not make ridiculous claims and were honest about satisfaction and complications, as I stated when I initially posted it.

I’m sorry, you said “The controlled penis lengthening studies I posted…” My point in saying how they were not “controlled clinical studies” was is reference to this. Neither of them was controlled as neither had a control group or even an experiment, I was showing that, I should have left out the word “clinical.”

I definitely was not saying literature reviews are meaningless, just that the papers you posted were literature reviews or questionnaires and not “controlled penis lengthening studies.” Two of the papers I posted were literature reviews, and it would be very difficult to perform a clinical study on this subject as you would have to find a random sampling of men willing to have their nether regions chopped apart in the interest of science. :) So I think, for the moment, literature reviews are the best we can do.

But the thing is, both the literature reviews posted (yours and mine) both showed an erect length increase after lig snipping.

Did you read that pdf? it is BPFSL they are measuring, not flaccid hang. They refer to it as SPL (stretched flaccid length) in the paper. And it doesn’t mention erect length one way or the other.

Root, keep believing if you like, what else I can say at this point? It looks to me that you want to fool yourself with all your forces.

I don’t think that is accurate. I have proposed a likely mechanism, and provided support that it seems like you are trying very hard to refute with all your forces. But the evidence you have provided has not provided any evidence that erect or BPFSL gains are impossible. In fact, it actually demonstrates that they do actually happen, if only modestly.

I’m just happy to be here! (:

I think it is. ‘Demonstration’ is something that properly doesn’t exist in medical science. Demonstration is something that you can find in formal science, like Maths or Logic. That tells us enough.

cantlook, me too! Great place to be :)

marinera, what do you mean? Do you mean that you can’t truly demonstrate something in medical science but can in other fields? Because, perhaps, there are too many variables when studying the human body as opposed to something like a single chemical reaction?

Maybe it is the language barrier thing. Most times I actually forget English is not your first language because you write it well.

Truly demonstrating something, mean demonstrating the truth. Truth can’t be attained by empirical ways, truth is a value that you assign to something. So you can’t have ‘truth’ demonstration in medical science.

Now, more to our day-by-day use of what is ‘true’, you need many, and I mean ten or more, studies showing that something is correlated to something else and not many conflicting studies and no conflict of interests; if all the preceeding conditions are satisfied, than yet you have to check if, basing on the known, the hypothesis at the base can make any sense basing in what is more easily known. Verbous, but pretty simple in fatcs: it is pretty much a protocol.

Your mechanism of supposed gains is based on wrong anatomical suppositions and even in that case numbers don’t adds up and the idea that the penis is more straigh withouth ligs t is supposed to be proven by itself, like an axiom. You are rejecting what is obviously stated in the sources, even when our sources are the same. You want to believe that ligs gains are true so there is an easy fix for that, this is the sole ‘scientific’ conclusion that I can come up from this exchange.

Now, let me tell you something Root; if stretching the ligs or not can lead to gains, makes no real difference as lon natural penis enlargement is concerned, because there is no way to stretch the ligs without stretching the dorsal tunica. The problem is that some members could think: ‘Hey, if lengthening the ligs is the way, why don’t cut down the ligs and save time?’. We have some horror stories around here, you should read them; you could have an idea of what people involved in that field (not approved by any reliable medical association and called ‘experimental’ at the best) are. Because, you are taking as granted (and even filling some blank space here and there) to what these kind of people gets to get published buying this or this other guy.

I’ve been here a while and I agree but I’ll give some of my personal history. I think everyone should try to find what works for them. I made most of my hanging gains mainly in the SO position while I studied (1 inch) when I first switched to hanging after 2 years of no gains with consistent and heavy manuals. This was back at the end of 2006 I believe when I started hanging. I gained an inch in 1 year, compared to 1/2 inch for 3 years before that, again the last 2 years of consistent manual stretches produced no new gains. Of course then I was in college and was also doing jelqs, manual piss stretches and Uli’s/Supra Slammers. I have restarted PE sometime late last year and started hanging again back in April I believe. It took a few months to get up to a weight that produced results for me but I did make a 1/4 inch gain in 1-2 months of SD and BTC hanging which is both a huge and fast gain for me. I’ve been PEing for 10 years though the last 2 have been on and off. Its common sense and has been backed by research that lengthening of the ligs will produce gains. Bib’s theory of lengthening the ligs first makes alot of sense to me. Tunica gains can be harder to achieve than ligs and this has been anecdotally proven and accepted on the forums. If the ligs, which stretch easier and can give fast gains, are lengthened completely first, then they won’t be bearing as much of a load when you “attack” the tunica. The result is the tunica will then take more of the stress if the ligs aren’t intercepting the load as much.

But as others have said even in the lower angles the tunica is supporting some of the stress and could grow from that alone. The reason to switch to higher angles once the lig gains have been “exhausted” is to take them out of the equation (though a small portion of the weight will still distributed to the ligs) and focus the majority of the stress on the tunica.

I see. Yes, it is nearly impossible to prove anything is true with a capital “T.” That’s why there are so few Laws.

In terms of incorrect anatomical suppositions though, I could only see that being the case if in all cases the penis exits the body in a straight line from the inferior pubic rami to the penile exit point on the surface of the body. Are you saying that is the case?

If you are saying that while the penis might not be exiting in a straight line, lengthening the ligs will not straighten this line out then I will construct a 3D model to show why I think that is an incorrect assumption.

I agree, and you are right, even at low angles, a portion of the elongation will be due to tunica elongation as it is impossible to completely remove the tension from that structure. In fact, as Serenity stated above, the tension is equal in the two structures, though stress is not due to the differing cross-sectional areas of the structures.

Rootsnatty, it is pretty simple: ligs have nothing to do with how the penis curves inside the body. You can see from the attached pic that realisinge the ligs can’t straighten anything. I really can’t understand where you got this idea.

In that picture do you see how the suspensory ligament holds the penis to the pubic bone causing the internal penis to take a slightly upward curve as it moves from the pelvic floor to the front of the pubic bone?

It is even more pronounced in other anatomical diagrams.

It’s not the ligs, it is how your body is shaped. Beside that, when you have an erection the suspensory lig isn’t holding much, The pressure of the corpora cavernosa against the body and the elasticity of tunica albuginea are the foremost factors of erect penis angle; you can read in some of the same studies we both referred to, that it is claimed that changes in erection angles were reported as minimal.