FOCUS YOUR PE & GAIN! TGC Theory Explained!

[Big Al]

An erection occurs when penile smooth muscle relaxes. The goal of PE is to stretch the tunicae and ligaments. That allows the spongy bodies (corpora) to expand further when you get erections.

That's not to say the smooth muscle can't be strengthened, but when it comes to training it's being targeted in a passive capacity. It's the tunica which governs the limits of expansion (length and girth), and suspensory ligament length.

 

[MojoRisin]

Thanks for the reply Al, that makes sense.

So is it fair to say that the tunica is the limiting factor for everyone, regardless of whether its length or girth they are seeking?

Also if I may pose another question, for length gains, clearly stretching/extending have been well proven to work (by slowly lengthening the tunica i guess), what would be the most comparable slow extending technique for stretching the tunica outwards in order to grow girth?

 

[Big Al]

Thanks for the reply Al, that makes sense.

So is it fair to say that the tunica is the limiting factor for everyone, regardless of whether its length or girth they are seeking?

Also if I may pose another question, for length gains, clearly stretching/extending have been well proven to work (by slowly lengthening the tunica i guess), what would be the most comparable slow extending technique for stretching the tunica outwards in order to grow girth?

Glad to help!

The suspensory ligaments affect length more than the tunica, but the tunica does have some involvement.

Everyone's a bit different, and their training needs to address these differences.

There's a spectrum of intensity for training. From my observations, a greater number tend to make better gains with the higher intensity/lower volume methods.

For girth, lower intensity methods can include light pumping and light jelqs- or any girth movement where force can be reduced. In the latter cases, the limitation will often be the endurance of the hands for performing long sessions.

 

[MojoRisin]

Brilliant, thanks again big Al.

Its interesting how you mention the ligs play the bigger factor, but the tunica plays it part too. I think it was in the clinical study for phallosan, they mentioned something similar, whereby they believe that although the traction devices pulled some of the internal penis outside, there was also new cell growth.

Do you know of any studies or concerted efforts of guys doing something similar to the penis extenders but for girth, and applying a soft steady force for many hours a day? Like a quite low-vacuum pump worn for multiple hours a day? I could be well off the mark, but im just spitballing, that if a slow steady force can stretch the tunica on the x-axis for length, perhaps a slow steady force could stretch the tunica on the y-axis for width/girth.

 

[Big Al]

Thanks!

Extender work may add a slight bit of girth even when it's not the focus. As for studies in this area regarding pumps and size, I'm not aware of any formal ones at this time aside from the Chartham Study- which used a number of different techniques.

I stay away from the smooth muscle "cell growth" theory for extenders, etc. as it's speculation and has yet to be proven under an electron scanning microscope- at least from what we know so far. If there are any new studies supporting this theory then we'll be sure to add it to the body of knowledge.

A good example of how smooth muscle hyperplasia is NOT necessary to penis enlargement can be seen here: Megalophallus

Note that the above permanent enlargement occurred over the space of just hours! This also alludes strongly to the smooth muscle as being a passive agent in enlargement- with the tunica being the governing factor.

 

[MojoRisin]

Thanks heaps big Al, very informative.

You wouldn't happen to have a link to the Chartham study by any chance would you? I found a bunch of articles mentioning it, but not the study itself.

Its clearly that jelqing was a big part of the study, but its unclear to me what else was incorporated.

Also, what's your thoughts on the synexus and harrison study? Seems to be a bit of a ghost, with possibly dubious results?

Cheers again,
Mojo.

 

[Queronto]

hello friends, I have been following the forum for a while and I am trying to benefit from the knowledge and experience here. I read the article in the post today, it is a very useful article, first of all, thank you. my english is very bad and i usually follow the forum using google translate. I have a request from experienced friends. Can you inform me by giving examples of the tunica and smooth muscle exercises mentioned in the article? I mean, which exercise makes the tunic bigger? Which exercise makes smooth muscle bigger? Which exercise makes my tunic and smooth muscle grow almost the same?

 

[Big Al]

Thanks heaps big Al, very informative.

You wouldn't happen to have a link to the Chartham study by any chance would you? I found a bunch of articles mentioning it, but not the study itself.

Its clearly that jelqing was a big part of the study, but its unclear to me what else was incorporated.

Also, what's your thoughts on the synexus and harrison study? Seems to be a bit of a ghost, with possibly dubious results?

Cheers again,
Mojo.

Apologies on the delay; I'm just seeing this now!

You can read more about the Chartham Study here: Chartham Penis Enlargement Study

Unless they're under another name, I'm unfamiliar with the other studies you mentioned.

 

[djvybz]

Part 4: Case Studies

Part 4: Case Studies

PART 4: Case Studies

No doubt this is not the first PE theory you have encountered in your career and it probably won't be the last. The problem with PE theories is they most often just remain that - theories. Most are debated endlessly only to die a slow death and very few ever enter any kind of application phase. This is where we hope this one will be different.

We reason that if this theory is correct, real world application will bear that out. If not, then it's sure to earn a spot in the the acclaimed PE theory graveyard. Even if the theory turns out to be incorrect, we hope that it persuades people to start thinking about the clues the penis might give off, and possibly this thinking will lead to future discoveries.

So to test a portion of the theory, we conducted a survey on this site as well as several others. We asked guys to contribute their BPFSL & BPEL measurements, as well as EQ (erection quality) on a scale of 1 to 10. The assumption was, if the BPFSL measurement (a good indicator of tunica length)was significantly greater (over 1/2") than the BPEL measurement, erection quality would suffer.

We currently only have around 80 participants. Given the memberships of all the sites surveyed is well over 100,000 we were hoping for a better response. At this time we still have results trickling in and have decided to keep the poll up for a little longer to see if the posting of the theory generates more support. As of this writing, 60 to 90 percent of the results you guys posted support this theory (depending on the which way you look at it). We thank all the guys who took part in the survey. After more data is posted in this thread, we'll post a detail explanation of the results.

Case Studies
In addition to the data collection, we looked at a few cases, in addition to our own, for real world application. Would this theory work when put to the test? Better yet, were others unknowingly applying this strategy and getting good result? In other words, how many vets had gained from training this way and were totally unaware of the significance?

Timesbechangin - Tunica Case
Times had very hard, consistent erections (an EQ of 9.5 on a scale of 1 to 10). His BPFSL was roughly .15" longer than his BPEL at it's absolute maximum point. He had been at a plateau for several months. His routines we're mostly girth-focused, which using TGC theory suggested to that the reason he wasn't gaining was that he was focusing on the wrong tissue. He was advised to switch it up and focus on his tunica with length exercises. After roughly two months of focusing on the tunica, he's gained nearly .5" in length and .15" in girth. His EQ has decreased to roughly 8.5 and his BPFSL is now over .25" greater than his BPEL.

Iguana - SM Case
Iguana was suffering from poor EQ (around 7) for several months and gains had slowed to almost nothing. He elected to take a 3 month decon break thinking his EQ would improve. After 3 months he lost 1/4" EL and his EQ had not improved. He had a BPFSL/BPEL difference of 1/2". After realizing his routine was very tunica oriented (lots of stretching/extender use) he switched his routine. The results? After two and a half months of a smooth muscle based routine his BPFSL/BPEL difference had dropped to 1/4", he regained the 1/4" loss and added another 1/8" El and his EQ was at 10.

remek - Tunica Case
Prior to TGC theory, remek's erections were a solid 10. He would consistently maintain an erection after he came. His BPFSL was exactly the same as his BPEL (and in some cases shorter if he didn't warm up prior to measuring his BPFSL). His latest routine was girth-focused, which improved his EQ even more but not his gains. When he realized that his tunica was his limit, he switched to length-focused exercises and gained .2" in length and a little bit of girth in roughly two weeks. His BPFSL increased slightly further than his BPEL and his EQ dropped to a 9/9.5.


Hope this theory helps!
- remek & Iguana

This is very interesting. I've been curious as to why I see some guys have the same BPFSL as me, around 7.75" but achieve a longer NPBEL, of say 7.25, when I only achieve 6.75" as it would seem as though we both have the same length capacity. So based on this theory, the smooth muscle is most likely my limiting factor and I should do more girth work? I would like to gain about. 5 girth, but I've mainly only been doing extension work as it seemed to be the consensus to do length before girth, but this theory seems to suggest I'm going about it backward. Is that my understanding?

 

[Pegasus]

Fat pad and thus body fat is a large factor in nbpel .

 

[djvybz]

Fat pad and thus body fat is a large factor in nbpel .

Fat pads not really a major factor for me, I work out daily and maintain low body fat percentage, around 12-13% which is why its still curious to me.

 

[Pegasus]

Fat pads not really a major factor for me, I work out daily and maintain low body fat percentage, around 12-13% which is why its still curious to me.

You appear from what you have said to have a inch fat pad or do I have this wrong ? An inch fat pad is fairly normal the variables are fat % and bf distribution . When I had single digit bf% my fat pad was negiblle but it has been an inch plus for me also for many years . If you want it less you may also have to get to single figures which is hard to maintain . So the variables are bf%, heridity (some guys naturally don't hold fat in that spot) ,insulin , testosterone and cortosiol .

 

[djvybz]

You appear from what you have said to have a inch fat pad or do I have this wrong ? An inch fat pad is fairly normal the variables are fat % and bf distribution . When I had single digit bf% my fat pad was negiblle but it has been an inch plus for me also for many years . If you want it less you may also have to get to single figures which is hard to maintain . So the variables are bf%, heridity (some guys naturally don't hold fat in that spot) ,insulin , testosterone and cortosiol .

No, I have an inch between BPEL and BPSFL, yes, but it's not fat pad that makes the big difference. At about 12% body fat, my fat pad is about .25 in. Man, you had single digit bf? Most guys never get that low unless they're hard cutting for a fitness competition. At 12% body fat my abs and obliques are clearly visible, just to bring some perspective.

 

[Big Al]

Even with moderate BF levels, distribution can change over time. Not a few men find themselves putting on more fat in the abdominal area as they age.

 

[djvybz]

Even with moderate BF levels, distribution can change over time. Not a few men find themselves putting on more fat in the abdominal area as they age.

Sure, I certainly understand that. I was just trying to clarify that the difference between my BPEL and BPSFL is about an inch of which only .25" is fat pad. So it's not the major factor at play. So for the sake of simplicity, if we take variables like fat pad out if the equation and make all things the equal, it's curious to me that some guys can stretch the same length which would indicate we have same erectile length capacity yet they still have a larger BPEL. Based on this TCG theory, it would suggest that my smooth muscle may possibly be the difference. Does that make sense, if I'm interpreting that correctly?

 

[Big Al]

Sure, I certainly understand that. I was just trying to clarify that the difference between my BPEL and BPSFL is about an inch of which only .25" is fat pad. So it's not the major factor at play. So for the sake of simplicity, if we take variables like fat pad out if the equation and make all things the equal, it's curious to me that some guys can stretch the same length which would indicate we have same erectile length capacity yet they still have a larger BPEL. Based on this TCG theory, it would suggest that my smooth muscle may possibly be the difference. Does that make sense, if I'm interpreting that correctly?

I'm careful with theories like this as there are many variables involved- many of which are made via educated conjecture.

The corpora/corpus of the penis can be made more efficient via exercises like Kegels, but the enlargement process is considered to be a passive one as a result of stretching the basal ligaments and tunica. That being said, typically of there's a large positive differential between BPFSL and BPEL it usually means you're close to potential erect length gains.

 

[Peacehappy]

Good morning .
Last Night I read this theory.
I’m little bit confused

,,Main Clue 2: Your BPFSL .5" or less than that of your BPEL. The tunica is most likely the part of the penis that determines how far the penis can be stretched (assuming all the tissues in your penis are relaxed enough for you to measure your maximum BPFSL). If the length of the stretched penis measures close the same as the erect penis, then that would suggest the tunica is at its limit when erect.,,

So when I measure my BPFSL and compare it to BPEL it’s pretty much the same so clearly need to improve smooth muscle erection lvl is fairly maximum 6-7. Witch is little bit confusing because I really remember back in days when I was really in fitness shape a younger by 6 years . My erection was 9-10 and I don’t have longer P..

And my question is. I try to use extender much as possible because I dream daily 350000x about at least 6 inch… and noticed that extenders tention then is my length longer about 2-3cm when i measure normally BPFSL. So is that now signalise that I must improve tunica ? Or is that because my fat pad is much more pulled back on when I use extender , or I just simply have gaps in both tunica /smooth muscle.

My routine is now 60% length 40% girth

 

[closed489xyq40]

So how valid is this now? It’s been a good 15 years since this theory was hatched. All these guys have posted that they would try to test the theory, anyone still vouching for this?

 

[PEispossible]

So how valid is this now? It’s been a good 15 years since this theory was hatched. All these guys have posted that they would try to test the theory, anyone still vouching for this?

From the research I've done, no.

Tunica has the most potential for enlargement. Much more than lig stretch.

 

[MisterGeo]

So how valid is this now? It’s been a good 15 years since this theory was hatched. All these guys have posted that they would try to test the theory, anyone still vouching for this?

I think TGC failed the collective test. Believe it or not, I was lurking when this was launched. At the time it was new so I went with it for a while. BPSFL is such a variable measurement and there are so many factors involved in getting accurate measurements; I don't think this theory has a reliable basis for determining what our limiting factors are. And I don't think the stuff about smooth muscle tissue growth is sound.

I'm pretty sure the tunica is always going to be the "limiting factor" for girth especially. But limiting factor might not be the best way to think of this function of the tunica. The tunica is what defines the shape and size of the penis. Without it you wouldn't have a penis at all It's called "tunica dispensability" in the medical journals. Increasing tunica dispensability for girth gains can be an elusive endeavor. I'm not sure it's possible for everyone.

As for length, unfolding or uncrimping ligaments or perhaps their point of insertion into the penile fascia, probably have some role in providing length gains.

These are just my thoughts on the matter. I haven't seen a theory yet that could explain the variability in gains reports. We just don't know for sure what's causing gains or who's making mistakes and who's lying There's a lot of inconsistency in what guys are doing to produce their gains. But I know some of us have gained something.

I believe everyone has a limit as to what they can gain. It's more of a potential in the tissue that is expressed and then gains are just going to stop. I could be wrong, but I don't have much else to go on.