Thunder's Place

The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.

# Testing LOT Theory

## Testing LOT Theory

The purpose of this thread is to test LOT Theory using the LOT Simulator.

I have always been confused by LOT theory. Gradually. I came to accept it as plausible, and I even counseled others to hang in accordance with predictions grounded in that theory.

Nevertheless, there has always been doubt. I couldn’t quite put my finger on the problem. So, when knowledgeable guys like WestLA90069 started challenging the theory in this thread, I decided to dig in and see whether I could learn something.

The result of my effort was the LOT Simulator. This program was designed to explore the physical mechanisms involved in LOT. I hoped that, by modeling the penis in relation to the structures to which it is attached, I could learn what really caused LOT. This would certainly shed some light on the validity of LOT Theory.

LIMITATIONS OF THE SIMULATOR

Before testing LOT Theory with the simulator, it is necessary first to acknowledge that the simulator is limited. Here is a list of the known limitations of the model. No doubt there are others.

1. Three-dimensional structures of the body are represented as one-dimensional lines.
2. The ligaments are represented as a single line, whereas in fact they consist of many different fibers.
3. The attachment point of the ligaments to the pubic symphysis is represented as a single point, whereas in reality it is a region covering a finite area.
4. The attachment point of the ligaments to the shaft is represented as a single point, whereas in reality it is a region covering a finite area and extending over a finite length.
5. The value of LOT displayed at the top of the graphic is the true zero tugback value. Most people would say that they lose tugback at some small number bigger than zero. Thus, the values of LOT reported are probably slightly lower than those most people would normally report.
At present, I believe that these limitations are not fatal to the model, i.e., they are not so serious as to render the model useless as an investigational tool. Others may disagree. Over time the deficiencies in the model can be corrected. For now, I’ll go ahead and draw what conclusions I think are fair. The program is open source, so anyone can take a stab at improving it. When the model is improved, the results reported below can be updated.

TESTING THE THEORY

LOT Theory is actually a collection of four different assertions, which I’ve drawn from Bib’s original post and included below. Each assertion is tested against the simulation.

ASSERTION 1: The shorter, tighter or higher the ligs, the higher the angle required to lose ‘tugback’ when stretching the penis and kegaling at the same time.

SIMULATION SUGGESTS: Not necessarily true. In particular, it appears that ASSERTION 1 is always true when the length of IP (the inner penis) is greater than the distance between the IR (ischiopubic ramus) and the attachment point on the PS (pubic symphysis). However, ASSERTION 1 is always false when the length of IP is less than the distance between IR and PS.

You can try this for yourself. With Lig attachment set to “High,” set the IP length to 105mm. Then, set the lig length to 10, 15, and 20mm. You should see LOT decrease as lig length increases. Now try setting IP to 95mm, and run through the same sequence of lig lengths. Here, you should see LOT actually INCREASING as lig length INCREASES. This is the opposite of ASSERTION 1.

It also appears that LOT does not significantly change with height of the lig attachment to the PS. You can see this by running through the different choices (Low, Middle, and High). It should be noted that, as the attachment point along the PS changes, IP length also changes to retain proper proportions. If IP length were kept fixed for different lig attachment points, larger changes in LOT would be observed. You can experiment with this, as well.

ASSERTION 2. The shorter, tighter, or higher the ligs, the more ‘inner’ penis, and the more quick, easy gains which are possible, and possibly the more total gains which are possible as the ligs are lengthened. The longer, looser, or lower the ligs, the less ‘inner’ penis, and the harder the gains and possibly less total gains which are possible.

SIMULATION SUGGESTS: Partly true, partly false. It is clear at face value that the length or tightness of the ligaments (as represented in the model) is not relevant to the amount of inner penis. It is rather the attachment point of the ligaments to the shaft which is relevant. This is by definition. The attachment point along the shaft defines which part of the shaft is inner penis and which part is outer penis.

However, the height of the attachment point of the ligaments to the PS does appear to be relevant. This is simply because higher ligs generally coincide with more distal attachment points along the shaft. Again, you can experiment with lig attachment height. Watch what happens to the inner penis and outer penis as you vary this setting between Low, Middle, and High. Set it to Low, and see that the outer penis grows. Set it to high, and see that it shrinks.

It seems reasonable that people with shafts attached high on the PS have more growth potential than those with shafts attached low. By “peeling back” the ligaments along the PS, more shaft can be expressed outside the body, i.e., more IP becomes OP (outer penis).

Whether more highly attached ligaments predict more total gains over time depends on the relative ease of stretching ligs versus tunica. Conventional wisdom is that the ligs are easier to stretch, so this is probably true.

EDIT 25Feb06: This summary is probably too narrow. Stretching the ligs without changing the attachment point does appear to allow the IP to extend farther forward at low to moderate angles, which increases the length of the penis as measured outside the body. This effect is only observable at angles below about 10:30, and is attributable to the fact that the looser ligament allows a bend in the shaft to be straightened. There is no “gain,” however, at angles of 10:30 or above. As a side note, the arcuate subpubic ligament may significantly limit the extent to which the shaft can be pulled entirely away from the pubic symphysis.

ASSERTION 3: The longer time spent PEing, the lower the angle at which tugback is lost due to a lengthening of the ligs. This assumes PE is performed at lower angles, at least somewhat, by all subjects. The less time spent PEing, the higher the angle at which tugback is lost because ligs have not been stretched.

SIMULATION SUGGESTS: Inconclusive. The simulation provides a static snapshot. It does not show how changes occur over time (except to the extent they can be represented as successions of static snapshots).

ASSERTION 4: For those with shorter, tighter, or higher ligs, a lengthening of the ligs correlates with a lowering of angle of tugback loss, and an increase in penis length.

SIMULATION SUGGESTS: Inconclusive, for the same reasons as above. The second part of this assertion is partially confirmed, however. If your shaft is attached high on your PS, stretching your ligs to lower this attachment point will reveal more inner penis, and thus will cause your (outer) penis to get longer.

DISCUSSION:

I recently exchanged some emails with Bib, in which we discussed exactly how the ligs stretch. As Bib described, stretching the ligs for most people really consists of “peeling” them back along the PS. The lig bundles closer to the top of the PS stretch, causing those lower down to bear the load from any applied stretching force. All the while, the shaft stays closely adhered to some part of the pubic bone. It is probably unusual for the shaft to pull away entirely from the pubic bone. Bearing this in mind, “stretching the ligs” really means peeling them back. “Long ligs” really means lower attachment points. Lig bundles, once stretched, just kind of hang there and cease to be functional parts of the arrangement. However, the lower ones generally stay nice and tight.

The model represents the ligs as a single line. It is important to realize that this line corresponds to the specific bundles which bear the stress when hanging down. The model does not show other bundles, which have already been stretched and are just “hanging around.”

Bib found a negative correlation between LOT and time spent PE’ing at low angles. His data were based on a small sample of experienced hangers. I would like to see more data on this before judging whether this is an actual phenomenon. Some people maintain a high LOT even after many years of PE. Looking at the simulation, I can’t immediately see why LOT would change significantly as ligs are stretched or their attachment point to the PS is lowered. Perhaps something else is going on with long-term hangers, which isn’t immediately obvious.

Many newbies, who have never stretched their ligs, are reporting some very low LOTs these days. I believe it is unlikely that these guys already have long ligs. More likely, they’re either measuring wrong or their ligs attach to their shaft more proximally (closer inside the body) than guys with higher LOTs. If this is the case, I would think that initial LOT has little or nothing to do with potential gains.

The parameter that seems to affect LOT the most is IP length. Small changes in IP length cause large changes in LOT. This suggests that LOT is primarily a function of where along the shaft the ligaments attach. If they attach further out, your LOT will be higher; if they attach closer in, it will be lower.

CONCLUSIONS:

The simulator confirms certain aspects of LOT Theory at the same time that it casts doubt on others.

The simulation confirms that people whose shafts are attached high on their pubic bones have “lig potential.” These people can possibly gain relatively quickly by stretching downwardly.

At the same time, the simulator cast doubt on whether LOT has anything to do with lig length, or even with lig attachment point along the pubic symphysis.

Therefore, the simulator casts doubt on whether one’s LOT can be used as an indicator of lig potential. Having a low LOT does not necessarily mean one has low lig potential. Having a high LOT does not necessarily mean one has high lig potential. The two things appear to have nothing to do with each other.

It is still possible that LOT Theory is correct. However, I certainly don’t believe that all of its assertions are intuitively obvious. Except where noted, LOT Theory no longer immediately strikes me as valid. If the theory is correct, it is because something subtle is going on that the model does not take into account.

Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Last edited by ModestoMan : 02-25-2006 at .

You’ve done a great job illustrating how LOT occurs, MM. The model mimics what happens to my tugback at different angles very well.

It’s interesting that you think that an individual’s LOT is not an indicator of their potential lig gains.

Since much of the LOT debate centres around potential gains from stretching the ligaments, I wonder how much potential there is in doing that? After all surgery cuts some of the ligaments but doesn’t seem to produce great length gains.

What proportion of a big length gain of say 2” do you think would come from stretching the ligs (or moving their attachment points) and what proportion from enlarging the shaft/tunica?

Feb 2004 BPEL 6.7" NBPEL ???? BPFSL ???? EG 5.65" Feb 2005 BPEL 7.1" NBPEL 5.8" BPFSL 6.9" EG 5.8" Feb 2006 BPEL 7.3" NBPEL 5.8" BPFSL 7.6" EG 5.85" Feb 2007 BPEL 7.3" NBPEL 5.8" BPFSL 7.5" EG 5.9"

Thanks Mbuc.

I think 2” is probably about the maximum anybody could gain from lig stretching alone. This is because the face of the pubic symphysis is only about 2” tall, so you can gain up to this amount if you move the attachment point from High to Low.

How much of anybody’s gain is ligs versus tunica depends on the exercises they do and their tissues’ response. It’s really anybody’s guess.

EDIT 25FEB06: I no longer believe a 2” gain is possible from lig stretching alone. It's more like 0.2”. See around page 5 for an explanation.

Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Last edited by ModestoMan : 02-25-2006 at .

Here is a another thought Modesto that I have eluded to, sorry not trying to be a know it all ass by the way. But is it possible also that the lig attachment could separate directly on the penis and not the bone. This might be why we can gain erect where surgery does not allow you to gain immensely in the erect state. This then would allow you to actually make the inner penis the outer penis literally. Which would allow further gains, then you could stretch straight up to lengthen the BC muscle and start all over again? Just a possible thought on areas of possible gains, and why this stuff works. If you could I would like to hear your thoughts on this Modesto, and anyone else interested possibly in my putting a finger thread in the newbie section thanks. Peace out

Good point, Jm. I never meant to imply that all the action was happening at the pubic symphysis. When I say that the shaft is “peeled back,” what I mean is that the fibers close to the top of the pubic symphysis stretch, whereas those further inside don’t, or at least not as much. It’s not that the fibers necessarily separate. Some might, but most will probably just stretch.

I don’t think lig stretching is all that different from lig cutting. I guess stretching is preferable, since it keeps the ligaments doing their job. As far as gains go, there’s not much difference between the two. It could be that hangers gain more than people who receive the surgery, but I think it’s because hanging, in addition to stretching the ligs, also causes the shaft to grow. Surgery doesn’t provide this benefit.

I don’t think stretching up will get you back to where you started. Once the ligs are stretched, there’s no unstretching them.

Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

I don’t think stretching up will get you back to where you started. Once the ligs are stretched, there’s no unstretching them.

Actually MM that’s not true. If you subjected yourself to Prolotherapy they can actually cause the ligs to return to their original length by inducing a pseudo injury causing the healing process to restart. In the third phase of that healing process the ligs will shorten to their previous lenght. If you do a SU exercise and cause enough damage in the surounding area it could cause nearby structures to reset. But I doubt it.

09-2003 BPEL:6.0x5.5

11-2004 BPEL:8.25x6.25 . . 9+ by Spring is the goal AIR CLAMP

Now BPEL:8 5/8 x 6 5/8 PE Weights

That would be depressing. You don’t want to lose all your lig gains by stretching up.

What I meant by my comment above is that you can’t really reset your ligs to an initial normal arrangement by stretching up. The ligs will stay stretched (barring prolotherapy or some other medical technique for shortening them).

Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Modesto,

I received an email from Bigger saying that you have misconstrued what his email replies to you were saying/stating, when you two fine gentlemen were discussing LOT theory. Do you think you could post the complete exchange? After asking for Bigger’s permission to post them, of course.

I have invited Bigger to return to the forum, but he has declined. Censorship being the reason given.

This place runs on donations, help out if you can. Thanks.

Sure thing. I can probably do it later today.

Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Bib disagrees with my conclusions here, and has provided me with some additional information. I will study up and report back. Stay tuned …

Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Bib sent me the attached picture in an effort to explain where he thinks I have gone wrong.

He has asked that I not quote him directly, so I will do my best to paraphrase his ideas, to the extent that I understand them.

Bib’s drawing was taken from Grey’s anatomy. He’s added the red lines. The first thing you may notice is that the shape of the pubic symphysis is different from what I’ve drawn in the model. The picture I used was from Netter (an equally reliable source, IMO; page down to Support of the Penis). You might also notice that the PS is bigger in the Grey drawing than in what I drew. This may actually be an error on my part. I may not have scaled the parts correctly. If so, this is easily fixed.

If I interpret Bib’s objections correctly, he believes that the shape of the PS is essential in determining LOT. He also believes (again, my interpretation) that the “lig line,” which corresponds to the blue line in the model, should essentially be tangent to the surface of the pubic symphysis, as are the red lines that he drew. As one stretches and “peel’s back” the ligs, ones ligaments descend along the curve of the pubic symphysis, roughly describing the hours of a clock. He thus believes that LOT essentially follows the curvature of the PS. As the ligs stretch, they extend from the PS at lower and lower angles, thus causing LOT to decrease.

I have two problems with this explanation (assuming I’ve understood it correctly). First, not everyone’s pubic symphysis apparently resembles the face of a clock. The one in the Netter drawing does not, for example. Yours and mine may not. So, if LOT depends on the shape of the PS and different guys have differently shaped PS’s, then LOT will change differently for different guys.

Second, I’m not sure I buy the idea that the shape of the PS is really important. I don’t know why the lig line should follow the tangent lines Bib has drawn. I actually tried at one point to model the PS as it is shown in the Grey drawing, but it frankly got complicated really fast and I was too busy at the time to recode the model. This might become clearer if I ever get around to changing it.

OK, thinking a little more, if the ligs are very short and uniform over the length of the PS (unlike the pictures), then the shaft would follow the curve of the PS as it arcs up and out of the body. As the ligs are stretched and peeled back, the “natural angle” of the shaft would tend to drop, just as Bib’s tangent lines do. I can see right away that the tangent lines probably come close to describing erection angle, since the penis would “take off” from the PS at an angle tangent to its surface. But I’m still having trouble seeing how they would affect LOT.

OK, here’s an idea. In cases where the ligs are very tight, the curve of the pubic symphysis actually redirects the kegeling force from the ischiopubic ramus. The pubic symphysis acts essentially as a pulley. In that case, the “effective position” of the IR would move forward. It would essentially line up with Bib’s tangent line, only from behind. This would certainly have a strong bearing on LOT. I believe it would cause LOT to decrease (as traditional LOT Theory states) as ligs lengthen.

Thinking a little more, it is important to keep this in perspective. Neither Grey nor Netter shows a configuration of the pubic symphysis and the ligaments that would make the shape of the PS so important, i.e., none of them shows the penis actually “pinned” close to the pubic bone. In both cases, the shaft hangs down considerably. Therefore, even if shape of the PS is important for guys with really short ligs, this condition probably is the exception to the rule. I say this because neither anatomy drawing shows it.

Well, this has been a good debate I’ve had with myself.

If I’m right in interpreting Bib’s comments, you can certainly see that, for a person with very short, high ligs AND a pubic bone shaped like a clock, LOT would very likely progress as traditional LOT Theory suggests (due to the shift in the effective position of the ischiopubic ramus). However, I don’t think most people are built that way. So, I guess I’m sticking with my original statements above.

Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Last edited by ModestoMan : 03-27-2005 at .

>Bib sent me…He has asked that I not quote him directly….

Bib has an active account here and is free to log in and use it if he agrees to abide by the same rules of decorum applying to everyone else.

ModestoMan, you have expended more effort, time and energy than anyone else examining Bib’s LOT theory in detail. Thank you. It’s interesting. Perhaps the originator can muster the courtesy to acknowledge your effort by addressing the issues here in this thread.

I have invited Bigger to return to the forum, but he has declined.

Originally Posted by hobby
Perhaps the originator can muster the courtesy to acknowledge your effort by addressing the issues here in this thread.

We should respect Bigger’s decisions. It is disrespectful of his decision to leave this forum to suggest that he is discourteous because he stands by his decision to not participate here at Thunder’s Place.

Bigger has contributed more to PE practice than anyone.

The above are opinions that I believe to be true…they may not be for you.

xeno

Hey xeno,

I didn’t say a damn thing about Bigger being discourteous so why the hell did you quote me? Hmmm…

This place runs on donations, help out if you can. Thanks.

Post of the Year! (in combination with the Simulator post, of course)

MM, :up: :up: :up: !!! Keep up the exchanges with Bib. Our fledgling knowledge of PE’s relationships to anatomy will advance only through the adversarial-collaborative approach of science.

Please :donatecar to Thunder's Place to keep it running.

 Similar Threads Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Double LOT - is it possible? bilbobaggins Penis Enlargement Basics 21 08-18-2005 04:01 PM LOT Theory not right tet Penis Enlargement Basics 40 02-25-2005 11:14 PM My LOT is increasing? WTF 789 Penis Enlargement 7 07-28-2004 02:54 PM Newbie accidental gains +theory? mr_luc Penis Enlargement 4 08-31-2002 06:12 AM

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27 PM.