Thunder's Place

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

Finding xeno: a penis tale

If anyone is unappreciated or underutilized in all of this it’s Shiver. He was commenting on and experimenting with the concepts of IPR, decon breaks, and minimalistic PE long before Xeno and I got ahold of them.

Hobby deserves some recognition too. He started, contributed to, keep going many of the original threads in which these concept were first introduced.


Started: 2/03, Finished: 5/06, Total Gains: 1.375” BPEL 1.5” EG, Details: Progress after a year or longer off?

Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible—M. C. Escher

Originally Posted by MX
If anyone is unappreciated or underutilized in all of this it’s Shiver. He was commenting on and experimenting with the concepts of IPR, decon breaks, and minimalistic PE long before Xeno and I got ahold of them.

Hobby deserves some recognition too. He started, contributed to, keep going many of the original threads in which these concept were first introduced.


Heartily agreed to on both counts.

I’m gaining an appreciation for why we don’t see Shiver around anymore. Damn shame.


originally: 6.5" BPEL x 5.0" EG (ms); currently: 9.375" BPEL x 6.75" EG (ms)

Hidden details: Finding xeno: a penis tale; Some photos: Tiger

Tell me, o monks; what cannot be achieved through efforts. - Siddhartha Gautama


Last edited by xenolith : 04-06-2006 at .

Originally Posted by xenolith
Thanks for the thoughtful eulogy MX old buddy, but I’m going to take a reprieve from BDI to some degree in order to try to help our fellow members to plot their course there.

Please continue to monitor this thread and add to it as you see fit.

A couple comments that I had shared with Xeno regarding his “tell-all” post: xenolith - Finding xeno: a penis tale

Originally Posted by MX
While your thinking on and use of some of the IPR terminology differs somewhat from mine, your process descriptions are spot-on.

Interesting and insightful use of Fibonacci numbers and fractals.

I agree that a work volume multiplier is the way to go. You and I had discussed this before but never came to a consensus.

I think your example touched on what could very well be the ultimate newbie routine: A basic jelqing progression, plus some kegels. 1 on, 1-2 off. Decon break. Repeat.

Your training 12-14 day training cycles fit very closely with my own numbers. And from what I recall Shivers too. An interesting, and potentially very valuable piece of data.

ADS use is interesting and has obviously been helpful to you (and many others). I have no issue with it other than to say that while it may be optimal for gains, it’s not necessary in the sense of necessary and sufficient conditions (as evidenced by my own gains). Please don’t take that as a slight or criticism, not intended that way, more just a comment on my own thinking and process.

Again, excellent post Xeno! You’ve done a great service in advancing the art and science of PE.

For guys interested in reading about how others have applied and gained though the application of IPR and decon break concepts, I’d recommend this thread: Progress after a year or longer off?

Additional information on the background and evolution of many of these ideas can be found buried in various threads in my favorites section.


Started: 2/03, Finished: 5/06, Total Gains: 1.375” BPEL 1.5” EG, Details: Progress after a year or longer off?

Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible—M. C. Escher

Thanks MX.

Well since I’ve been threatening for what, like a year or something now to “out” your Favorites section, I guess there’s no time like the present :) .

IMO, MX’s Favorites section represents the compilation of highest concentration of relevant PE information on the Forum. If I could “Save Link As…” only one thing from this forum, that’d be it.


originally: 6.5" BPEL x 5.0" EG (ms); currently: 9.375" BPEL x 6.75" EG (ms)

Hidden details: Finding xeno: a penis tale; Some photos: Tiger

Tell me, o monks; what cannot be achieved through efforts. - Siddhartha Gautama

Xeno,

How important do you think it is for one to graph one’s own response curves in pursuing your routine? I find that my FSL changes quite a bit over the course of a day, and I suspect I would have a hard time measuring millimeter-level changes with any precision.

Do you think one could just “wing it” with a work factor of 1.1 and a 1 day on, 2 day off schedule, or do you suspect that these numbers are likely do differ significantly from one guy to the next?


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Well, it’s kinda jumpin’ the gun on the revised simpler post that I plan to make, but yes, I think the 1.1 work factor multiplier aught to be within the sweet spot for most guys within the 2 week long, 1 day on, 2 days off training protocol.

Now for the real reason that I’m posting…while lining up Tiger for entry this morning, mrs. x. said “hey, put some lube on, that thing’s not a toy!”

:)


originally: 6.5" BPEL x 5.0" EG (ms); currently: 9.375" BPEL x 6.75" EG (ms)

Hidden details: Finding xeno: a penis tale; Some photos: Tiger

Tell me, o monks; what cannot be achieved through efforts. - Siddhartha Gautama

Originally Posted by xenolith
I fit a trendline to my (typically length, although I’ve used girth and volume as well) gains vs. time curve and then, in accordance with concepts described by Fibonacci number sequence theory, I plot the inverse of the reciprocal of that curve, which I then scale to a 3 week time interval, the interval that I’ve empirically determined yields the greatest positive feedback/least negative feedback, and, is consistent with concepts described by IPR tissue healing systematics. By solving for the nth derivative of the nth degree polynomial that defines the work vs. time curve explicitly for the day being considered, one can determine the theoretical optimum work amount for that day.

Remarkable stuff, Xeno!
I would be very interested in seeing one of these plots. :)


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"


Last edited by mbuc : 04-09-2006 at .

sparky, I’ve gained 0.5” over three gains campaigns going back to june of last year. I’ve been iterating my approach toward the training protocol and design method that I’ve presented throughout that period, based on my assessment of my experience with each gains campaign, research into natural processes that appear to conform to the systematics of my physiological response and through discussion with some very bright guys, MX and Shiver. Only my last gains campaign conformed closely to the protocol. For the most part, my training periods have been somewhat muddied by testing homemade PE gizmos, exercises, hanging techniques and what have you, which have generally pushed my (I-phase) training period beyond the point that I should have, but thats the nature of a scientist isn’t it? Test the limits. In order to define the system. So that the system can be described to others. Thats what I’ve done. I genuinely hope my effort to define my system helps others to gain easier with theirs.

According to Fibonacci sequence systematics, it may be hard for me to gain anymore at all. So thats my next experiment. Take a good long break and apply the protocol rigorously and see what happens. Wish me luck!

mbuc, thats very kind of you to say, but really its not all that more ordered a systematic than a purel arbitrary one. And for me the training design method really only works with my length gains data. Honestly, one could probably use a straight Fibonacci sequence as a model just as effectively, but my length gains plot looks close enough to a Fibonacci decay sequence that using it as the driver function just made sense.

I’ve promised to write a follow-up post that makes more sense. I plan to include a plot or two with that. I’m going to present the graphical method rather than the computational method though, for several reasons, including the fact that the appearance of precision with the computational method is artefactual. And the graphical method will be easier to present and for guys to use.

I really don’t know when I’ll be able to get to it though. I’ve got a mountain of work to deal with in the next couple of months. I was actually planning to be on something of sabbatical from the Forum now, but the suggestion of the appearance of the long sought for goon’s age of the earth treatise lured me back in. And well, nearly another 100 posts later, one thing has led to another. So anyhoo, I will get to your request and my promise to present another version of my training design method, but it may take me some time to get to it.


originally: 6.5" BPEL x 5.0" EG (ms); currently: 9.375" BPEL x 6.75" EG (ms)

Hidden details: Finding xeno: a penis tale; Some photos: Tiger

Tell me, o monks; what cannot be achieved through efforts. - Siddhartha Gautama

Originally Posted by xenolith
sparky, I’ve gained 0.5” over three gains campaigns going back to june of last year. I’ve been iterating my approach toward the training protocol and design method that I’ve presented throughout that period, based on my assessment of my experience with each gains campaign, research into natural processes that appear to conform to the systematics of my physiological response and through discussion with some very bright guys, MX and Shiver. Only my last gains campaign conformed closely to the protocol. For the most part, my training periods have been somewhat muddied by testing homemade PE gizmos, exercises, hanging techniques and what have you, which have generally pushed my (I-phase) training period beyond the point that I should have, but thats the nature of a scientist isn’t it? Test the limits. In order to define the system. So that the system can be described to others. Thats what I’ve done. I genuinely hope my effort to define my system helps others to gain easier with theirs.

According to Fibonacci sequence systematics, it may be hard for me to gain anymore at all. So thats my next experiment. Take a good long break and apply the protocol rigorously and see what happens. Wish me luck!

I tend to do the same thing…except I am so sensitive to overtraining that I usually immediately get into trouble and then have to take a couple days off…screws everything up.

For example, yesterday was a rest day…but I had the bright idea that if I decreased my force and increased the time on hanging…then use 2 thera-p wraps…and sleep with it on…maybe I could develope a micro-micro cycle to do daily.

So I did 15 min X 2 with about 3 lbs with a vacuum hanger…then wrapped for the nite.

I hardly had any nite wood, and normally after my day off I should have had a lot.

I thought that decreasing force would allow for less tissue stress, and I was counting on the natural tendency of nite wood to allow for partial expansion all nite…didn’t work.

I think that article of Shivers about Band A-D, with force ranges and times was interesting…I think the time frame of 20-30 minutes with <18 lbs sounds about right for me…I’ll be experimenting with that.

I steered BrianRex in this direction, I thought you might be able to help him out…I think cycling would be real beneficial for him.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
How important do you think it is for one to graph one’s own response curves in pursuing your routine? I find that my FSL changes quite a bit over the course of a day, and I suspect I would have a hard time measuring millimeter-level changes with any precision.

Do you think one could just “wing it” with a work factor of 1.1 and a 1 day on, 2 day off schedule, or do you suspect that these numbers are likely do differ significantly from one guy to the next?

Some related commentary. MX - The Holy Grail of PE is found!!!


Started: 2/03, Finished: 5/06, Total Gains: 1.375” BPEL 1.5” EG, Details: Progress after a year or longer off?

Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible—M. C. Escher

This is really good stuff Xeno. Thanks.

The watch in my timezone reads 00:58 AM. I’ve been scrutinizing the infos written down in this thread for about 3 hours now.

First of all, let me speak out the highest of my respect to Xeno, the very person making this forum - which is already special per se - a place far outstanding from others. (I used to be a member of mensnetwork, btw, where the generally ackknowledged approach to PE was (and might still be) broken down to “take the supps, do your exercises, and you will see your gains. Full stop”). I haven’t gone into the very detail of your systematic understanding of PE yet, but a faint hunch just tells me that from a strongly physical orientation some biochemical key elements are not taken into account. I’m afraid I cannot say which since I am not a scientist. All in all a highly interesting view on PE - and a good reason to stop “letting go”. Don’t stop sharing your insights with this community. You will be heard!


Sssnrgd..

.Clickdiclack.Rrndhgzzirp..

."Wow!"*

OK Xeno - you sold me. Great work.

If you are willing to provide some review and guidance, I’ll adopt your paradigm of workout - another test subject.

I’m fairly new at PE - have never used hanging or clamping so may not have huge conditioning issues yet.

I’ll attach my progress graphs and look forward to your return to this thread.

FYI - after reading your thread - moved into a condition period a week ago. Just using the PM as a casual stretcher through the day - 6 hrs per day. Will stop that after another week and move into the no action mode for a month if I don’t hear back from you.

Thanks and keep that mind working .. I have significant mathematical and engineering experience so I maybe able to help you advance some of your logic - would like to see some of your graphical analysis - if you get a chance to post it.

Attached Files
Growth curve 5-3-06.pdf
(11.6 KB, 111 views)
Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:02 PM.