Testing LOT Theory

Modesto,

I think you might be misconstruing lig-tightness. Lig tightness is relevant and a key factor in determininlig potential.

I look at the ligs as ABC gum. That is, Already Been Chewed bubble gum.

For an example, let’s say I am chewing gum. To spice it up, we will make the gum Big Red – my favorite :) . Now I chew my delicious piece of Big Red gum, and take it out of my mouth. These are our example ligaments.

Now, I take the ABC gum and tightly pack it into a ball. This is analogous to tight ligaments.

After that, I take the gum and stretch it out. Depending on the type of gum, it can stretch 12 inches or more. I have Big Red, which is good for flavor, not elasticity, so it only goes about 6 inches. This is analogous to loose ligaments.

How is this relevant?
Two reasons.
1) The looser the ligs become, the more inner penis turns into outer penis, i.e, more growth.
2) The looser the ligaments become, the closer they are to their max-point. That is, the closer they are to reaching their limit, i.e. they can’t be stretched anymore. My chewed-up piece of Big Red breaks. Or in the case of the ligs, the fibers break and/or have reached their limit.

I think you are saying:
If the ligs have to go down and around the pubic bone to grab a hold of the penis, then something is wrong. I agree, if this were the case then something is not right.

Going with this, you are suggesting that if the inner penis where to become smaller, then the ligaments would have to go backwards to reach for the junction of OP and IP. Through my eyes, I can’t understand this thinking. The ligaments reach from the pubic bone to the inner penis/outer penis. This is certain. In some instances the ligaments reach to the outer penis.

For an example, here is a link of the pic I attached earlier. It is much easier to see than the attachment. This pic is here on thunders somewhere, but I have been unable to re-find it.

See below.

By looking at the pic, you will see that the ligaments don’t reach back – at high LOT or low.

MM,
What are you proposing happens when the attachment point is lowered?

As far as my light can see, we are stretching the ligaments down, thus lowering the attachment point. In addition to this, we might actually be breaking some of the ligament fibers when lowering the attachment point.

Besides these two explanations, what else could happen? I don’t think we can lower the attachment point without stretching the ligaments.

[Additional note added later: I just noticed you agreed with this in a few posts down. I am going to leave it up the explanation, and hopefully it will help shed some light for other guys.]

I think pictures will help with the explanation. I will attempt to break out the photoshop later this week. My photoshop abilities are sub par, so be afraid – very afraid : ).

Before I bring out the pictures, I will try to explain it. To understand the inner penis’ role in LOT theory, I am going to break it down into two parts:

Inner penis 1 – the inner penis that starts at the end of the outer penis. In other words, it starts at the exit point — where the outer penis left off. Inner penis 1 ends at the bottom of the pubic bone.
Inner penis 2 – the inner penis that starts where inner penis 1 left off. This is the remaining of the inner penis and it ends at the anchor points.

So basically, if we were looking at the penis from the glans to the end of the inner penis it would go: glans, outer penis, inner penis 1 (IP1), and then inner penis 2 (IP2).

Now, when we stretch and growth occurs, inner penis 1 becomes outer penis. This doesn’t happen because the inner penis grows. It happens because the attachment point is lowered and/or the ligaments are stretched. This results in a lower exit point. Additionally, when this happens the LOT is lowered and so is IP1’s angle. Your model agrees with this. LOT theory agrees with this.

If your question is about the LOT simulator, then no. As Modesto said, the exit point isn’t represented in the simulator.

If your question is about yourself, then still no :) . Or at least according to LOT theory. If you had this combination:
High lig attachment point on the pubic bone
& long ligs,
then your exit point would probably be medium, along with your LOT.

Damn remek, getting lazy in your old age? If this is the pic you wanted people to see (yes, the mos link requires membership) all you had to do was scroll up about ten posts.

ligsandtunica2flex (2).jpg

Modesto, I think you struck gold on this one. Or copper, depending on how you look at it.

Eitherway, I haven’t thought about the pubic pones shape affecting the way we do BPEL measurements.
This right here, is something to discuss. What if half of the gains everyone has made is… well… not really gains? What if instead, the gains are really just a lower attachment point, thus allowing us to push in further. Now that I think about it, this might be the case with some of my gains… Very interesting.

Hah, no, that wasn’t the exact pic I was talking about. The pic I was referring to was much larger, and turned 90 degrees — making it easier to see.

Someone posted it here years ago (bib maybe), but I can’t find it. I actually searched for 30 minutes :) . I was hoping we would have a neat function that would allow us to search for threads with pictures attached, but that was a no go.

And you posted a link to it recently?

Remek,

I will attempt to respond to your points:

Ligaments in general are not elasticy like your chewing gum. They can be stretched only slightly before they essentially bottom out. Their cable-like characteristics is what keeps our joints from falling apart. Penile ligaments are unusual in that they do contain a fair amount of elastin, but I still think their overall elasticity is quite limited.

Also, you have not acknowledged the difference between length and tightness. For something to be “tight,” it needs to be pulled. Otherwise, it’s just short. Do you see my point? Sometimes, people confuse the terms. We might tend to say that a turn we encounter on the road is “tight.” Really, what we mean is that it has a smaller radius than most turns we encounter. It’s the same thing here. Bib might refer to someone’s ligs as tight, but really, I think, he just means short.

In the context of a LOT test, it is hard to say what difference it would make if ligs were highly elastic, like chewing gum. I think it would effectively just change the lig length, from shorter, unstretched values to longer, stretched values. The harder one would pull while performing a LOT test, the longer the lig length one would have to program to account for the additional elongation. At any rate, I hope you see that elasticity can be modeled as length, as long as one knows what the pulling force is and how the lig responds to the force (its modulus of elasticity). Elasticity might have additional effects, like making the transition from tugback to loss-of-tugback very squishy and gradual. Elongation would change as a function of pulling angle and other factors, since the force transmitted to the ligs would vary with the geometry.

I do think your chewing gum analogy is off base, however.

Do you understand what is meant by inner penis (IP) and outer penis (OP) in the model?

The model represents the ligs as a single line. This is possibly problemmatic, but it’s not altogether rediculous. The attachment point of the lig line along the shaft divides the shaft into an IP and an OP. THat’s all there is to it. It does not matter what is inside or outside the body. When talking about the simulator, it is important to maintain the formality of what’s IP and what’s OP. It would help me a great deal if you could use the terms as they are defined here, rather than using Bib’s definitions or somebody else’s.

This is exactly the point that I was trying to make. The ligs don’t generally reach back. This came up, however, because you defending LOT Theory Assertion #2 by showing that lig length was relevant to the amount of IP. You gave as a reason the fact that the simulator throws an error when the ligs and/or IP are too short. I countered that the model supports your point in this certain case, but that it was a strange case in which the ligs were reaching back.

Now, you say you find this case to be unlikely and strange, and I agree. But this all brings us pretty far from the initial point, which was, is Assertion #2 correct. As I think I’ve explained above, I think that lig tightness and length are either somewhat or totally irrelevant to the amount of IP, and that attachment point on the PS is relevant to IP (although not much is to be gained by lowering attachment point, so why worry about it).

Is this clearer? This is getting complicated, so please think this through before you respond.

I think we’re speaking different languages, because I don’t see where we disagree. The problem arises with the fact that the model is very limited in its representation of the ligs. When the discussion gets to this level of detail, the single-line model really limits understanding.

I think that Bib’s picture probably does a decent job showing what happens when you stretch the ligs. The uppermost fibers lengthen more than the lower ones. This tends to shift tension to the lower ones, as if the higher ones weren’t there at all. The simulator attempts to represent this change as a lowering of the attachment point along the PS.

The one problem I see with Bib’s drawing is that he’s shown the pubic symphysis as a vertically oriented structure. This is wrong. The PS is angled at about 45-degrees. Bib’s picture suggests that one could achieve decent gains by stretching the ligs alone. But this is wrong because the PS angles back. As I wrote above, stretching the ligs back a full inch along the face of the PS only buys you 0.3” of insertable length. Bib’s picture suggests that it buys you 1”.

The model does not currently support two different inner penis values. I discussed doing this with Bib at one point, but it has not been implemented.

The junction of IP with OP has nothing to do with exit point, as I think you know. Exit point refers to where the penis exits from the abdomen and is not part of the model.

I believe growth occurs for a number of reasons, most significantly actual tissue generation that has nothing to do with the ligs. The ligs are a bit player in this system. By stretching the ligs, one can expect to gain only a couple of tenths of an inch. The rest is shaft growth.

I don’t think LOT has a whole “lot” to do with it. LOT does not change significantly with lig length or lig attachment to the PS. Try it and see.

I strive to keep an open mind on the subject, but I really think at this point that LOT Theory is a red herring. I welcome contrary points of view, but that’s where I’m coming from at this moment.

How do I know that somebody has long ligs?

Another question.What does exit point has to do with the potential of lig gains? Some people are saying, that if you have a high exit point, you have great lig potential.

This would mean, that almost all the gains who are reported here were and are no real gains! This would also mean, that you can not gain by lig gains, at least not much. This would also mean , that all the reports you can find in the Internet about penis enlargement surgery are right, saying that you can not gain by ligament cutting or stretching.
This would also mean, that all the people here at Thunders were lying about their gains or they attributed their gains wrongly to ligament gains.

SimonClass,

I think that some people might have overstated their gains by measuring “wrong.” Some might have misattributed their gains to lig stretching, when it was really their shafts that grew. Some are probably lying, but I know that not everybody is.

My 7/8” BPEL gains over a 20 month period are real. I know this because I measure consistently from the most forward part of my pubic bone. And I know that my girth gains are sure as hell real. I’m up a full inch in girth since I started PE’ing.

The fact that some people misunderstand things, make mistakes, or lie doesn’t diminish the real progress that many people make. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Did you gain by downward hanging or stretching?

It’s all very irritating, I do not know who I should listen to and I also do not know if I should follow the LOT theory.

Personally, no. I gained from manual exercises and a bit of SO hanging.

I agree, and I don’t mean to be the cause of your irritation. PE is a very young “science,” and we are still in the early stages of learning what’s really going on.

Of course, in my opinion, you should believe me.

Thank you Thunder,

That was the picture I was looking for. Much larger, and in the right direction. :up:

Modesto,

I started working backwards on this thread. I have to go now, so I won’t be able to reply to your reply tonight. I will however, be back tomorrow.

- rem