The Penis (smooth) Muscle Theory

[remek]

remek, very interesting information! I'm going to have to read the last post over a few times to digest.
This latest point of flaccid vs erect indicators has given me a headache. I'm finding the more I learn the less I know.

So, how do you think this relates to what we have already compiled?

Well, I think it helps further eliminate the myth that the "penis doesn't consist of any muscle."

I'm also wondering if the tunica is actually enlarged due to PE (i.e. made thicker and stronger) opposed to traditional thoughts that it might be made thinner. This quote is what leads me to that belief:

The penis skeletal muscle structures (i.e. tunica) are the tissue that determine the penile shape as well as an essential part in the establishment of a rigid penis.

What do you think?

I really wish we could just get these doctors on the forums. I'm sure they'd find our community useful as much as we would find them useful.

 

[Iguana]

remek, something I noticed from the PDF anatomy file you attached. Take a look at the illustration I attached from it (I added the red circle and line.) As you quoted from the article it says,

"In the human penis, the skeletal ischiocavernosus muscles, the bulbospongiosus muscles, and their extension as the tunica albuginea"

Notice that the skeletal muscle portion is very prominent at the base but does not extend up into the shaft. It the illustration on the right (in the original pdf file) you can see that the muscles do not extend past the pubic bone. The tunica extends from the muscle just like a ligament. So, it looks like the actual penis shaft contains very little skeletal muscle extending from the base. But the base itself most definitely does. This could very well explain why hanging is reported to increase base girth. Could it be that these two muscles are enlarging to support the added weight? What do you think?

I agree, it would be nice to get some Phd's over here.

 

[remek]

Yea, that's a good illustration. It really illustrates how the IC and BS muscles transition into the tunica. I'm not sure that these two muscles are actually enlarging (they might be), but traditional belief is that the two muscles are being slightly pulled outwards due to the ligaments being stretched. Meaning, the more the ligaments are stretched, the more inner penis becomes outer penis.

Maybe it's a combination of both? The theory that the inner penis becomes outer penis was an idea Bib proposed. It might make sense that the stress causes the muscles to actually enlarge. . . But presumably other side effects would take place as a result of hanging (i.e. greater stamina control, due to more defined BS and IC muscles).

Either way, I know not every man gets a thicker base due to hanging. Some men actually report a thinner base.

 

[remek]

It might make sense that the stress causes the muscles to actually enlarge. . . But presumably other side effects would take place as a result of hanging (i.e. greater stamina control, due to more defined BS and IC muscles).

I wanted to add some clarification here, just in case there's any confusion.

What I mean is that if hanging actually exercises these muscles - in the same way Kegels do, or the same way curls exercise the biceps - then the increased strength of these muscles would probably lead to the greater benefits that strong pelvic floor muscles provides. This may indeed happen, and no one recognized it (or just accredited it to Kegels).

I can't say from experience myself, as I haven't done a lot of hanging yet, nor have I noticed a thicker base. What about you, Iguana - Have you noticed a thicker base? If so, did you notice any side effects?

 

[Iguana]

remek, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I have never did much hanging nor have I noticed a thicker base. From all the anecdotal evidence we have base thickening seems to have a definite correlation to hanging. It could very well be the lengthen of ligaments moving muscle and penis forward. I know Wad reported good base girth gains but he didn't hang. You would have to reason some manual exercises would mimic the force generated from hanging. Whatever the stimulus the results would be similar. You make some really good points. If the BS and IC muscles are indeed strengthened and/or enlarged you would reason there would be other side effects. The contraction of the IC muscle is responsible for an erection (see quote below) and the BS muscle for ejaculation. So, one would think, as you said, these attributes would become more powerful. It would be good to include some hanging/girth based questions on the next survey.

"Activation of the autonomic nerve produces a full erection, that is, filling and trapping of blood in the cavernous bodies. After full erection is achieved, contraction of the ischiocavernosus muscle (from activation of the somatic nerves) compresses the proximal corpora and raises the pressure in the entire corpora well above the systolic blood pressure, resulting in rigid erection. This rigid phase occurs naturally during masturbation or sexual intercourse but can also occur from slight bending of the penis, without muscular action."

Tom F. Lue, MD Male Sexual Dysfunction. Chapter 37. Physiology of Penile Erection. Lange Urology. McGraw-Hill Companies.

 

[remek]

You know, this thread is starting to remind me of a quote I once read: "Everyone is puzzled, confused, and lost - even the experts. The experts are just one step ahead of the crowd, leading the masses in the dark."

Now, I don't want to go as far as calling us experts by any means. But I do believe you and I have a fair share of anatomical/PE knowledge between the two of us . . . And I'll be damned if we don't find ourselves more puzzled, confused, and lost the deeper we look

I think - and I've thought this ever since I learned about the smooth muscle in the penis - that the real problem is that for one reason or another, the community takes an idea and automatically passes it as fact (such as the penis not consisting of any muscle). It's human nature to hope for the best without any substantial evidence.

To get to the bottom, I suppose we must listen to Yoda: "we must unlearn what we have learned." That little green guy, he always seems to know the right words.

 

[Iguana]

I had to chuckle a little when I read your post. I think you hit the nail on the head. As I said earlier, "the more I learn, the less I know" and a Jedi I truly want to be. As I mentioned in my PM, TP has a couple really interesting PE theory threads going and it's almost comical to read them. They pretty much just go in circles. And, this is with 2 Dr's chiming in. I think it all boils down to testing what we think we know. Theories are just that, theories. And, if no one puts them to the test, they will always just remain theories.

I believe if we ever want to look at PE from a scientific/medical stand point, we have to do more than just formulate ideas. I know others have formed "test groups" and have had little success with it. I think probably due to lack of consistency across the board and keeping participants involved. It would be nice to be able to take a theory or idea and put it out there to "prove" or "disprove." Take heat for example. We are 99% sure heat aids in stretching. We know this from the results of other non-PE related studies. But, there are guys out there who have gained without it, so we know that is possible. But, wouldn't it be nice to be able to tell newbies, "we tested 20 volunteers with the exact same routine, 10 used heat to warm up, 10 did not. After 6 weeks, the 10 using heat had 25% greater gains than those who did not use heat."

I'm with you. I still see guys replying to newbies with ideas that have pretty much been shot down as inaccurate. Yet they continue to circulate. "Hey man, you need to check your LOT and then start clamping with a piece of jagged metal ." I wonder how many erroneous ideas we as a community are slinging around due to ignorance?

We may never "prove" or "disprove" anything without a shadow of a doubt. Of course any non-professional study we could contrive would not be perfect and maybe not as accurate as scientific clinical trials, but, at the very least the data should point us in the right direction much better than just a theory alone. It looks like it's going to be a long time before the medical community jumps in and helps us out. We're pretty much on our own.

I don't know how practical setting up studies would be. But, I think until we figure out how to accomplish it, we will continue forming theories. But, if that's all we can feasibly do a this point, I think I have a new theory

 

[remek]

I believe if we ever want to look at PE from a scientific/medical stand point, we have to do more than just formulate ideas. I know others have formed "test groups" and have had little success with it. I think probably due to lack of consistency across the board and keeping participants involved. It would be nice to be able to take a theory or idea and put it out there to "prove" or "disprove." Take heat for example. We are 99% sure heat aids in stretching. We know this from the results of other non-PE related studies. But, there are guys out there who have gained without it, so we know that is possible. But, wouldn't it be nice to be able to tell newbies, "we tested 20 volunteers with the exact same routine, 10 used heat to warm up, 10 did not. After 6 weeks, the 10 using heat had 25% greater gains than those who did not use heat."

I know exactly what you mean. Especially with the LOT theory. The last thing a new guy needs to worry about is his LOT. The first thing he needs to worry about is not going overboard. I put a lot of thought into the LOT theory, and you can check it out at Thunder's in Modesto's thread - we had quite a battle going for a few weeks (it ended in agreement).

Anyway, studies are absolutely necessary. There's no if's and's or but's about it - we need to do some studies, even if they're only via the Internet. My current plan, this thread aside, is to get my book out (I've had this bad boy sitting on my desk for way to long), as I feel it will help a lot of guys who simply don't have the time to search every piece of information.

Sometime after that, get the second PE survey going. There's a lot of unanswered questions that I'm hoping another survey can shed some light on.

Then - and this will only be able to happen with the help of others - do some studies in one form or another.

 

[Time4aChange]

Remek and Iguana,
I seen you two where both talking about the ic muscles and what not at the top of this page. Here are a few photos that actually show the ic muscles are inner penis.

Human Anatomy imageshttp://www.fleshandbones.com/imageba...957-05-f37.jpg
http://www.fleshandbones.com/imagebank/figure.cfm?ISBN=0723431957&chapter=5&figure=M31957-05-f37.jpg
Human Anatomy images
Human Anatomy images
Human Anatomy Learning Modules



T4aC

 

[Iguana]

T4aC, thanks for the links. These are really great! Very clear and detailed photos.

 

[remek]

Iguana: Did you ever make anything of this point?

But where I've been hitting dead end for some time now is this: What about the extreme of option 3 - Same flaccid hang, but dramatic increase in erect size (and increase in hardness)? According to your post (and what I was originally thinking): " #3 means an increase in tunica length but no SM growth (or relaxation.)"

Avocet8 reported he had experienced the same flaccid hang, but a dramatic increase in erect size (and an increase in hardness). He had to exclusively focus on flaccid gains to change the size of his flaccid penis. I find it hard to believe that he both increased hardness and added several inches to his penis size just by increasing the tunica .

 

[remek]

Thank you for the links, T4aC!

 

[Time4aChange]

No problem fellas, I'm glad I could help or at least answer some questions.

 

[Iguana]

Iguana: Did you ever make anything of this point?

But where I've been hitting dead end for some time now is this: What about the extreme of option 3 - Same flaccid hang, but dramatic increase in erect size (and increase in hardness)? According to your post (and what I was originally thinking):
Avocet8 reported he had experienced the same flaccid hang, but a dramatic increase in erect size (and an increase in hardness). He had to exclusively focus on flaccid gains to change the size of his flaccid penis. I find it hard to believe that he both increased hardness and added several inches to his penis size just by increasing the tunica.

remek, I read back through this entire thread hoping to find a clue on this. The only thing that might make sense (other than Avocet8 being some kind of anomaly) might be related to elastic composition. Is it possible he had an unusually high elastic threshold in both the tunica and smooth muscle? Maybe he was only scratching his elastic potential which might explain why he kept snapping back to the same flaccid size? A comment from him might support this

"I had a nice dick in those days. 6 x 5.75, not real long but thick and I was pleased with it, except when I was flaccid. I’ve never been a shower. 2 inches was par and I’ve been extremely self-conscious about that since junior high."

I know it's been hypothesized many times that growers have greater elastic potential. I think wad had a good thread on this.

When I get a few minutes I will go back and read Avocet's story in greater detail to look for more clues. I know he was a huge advocate of pumping and made most of his gains with it.

I notice you made some great additions to the summary. I added another paragraph myself. It is looking good.

 

[remek]

We only have a few points left.

We're still kind of stuck on this point, unless you have some new ideas: Girth is greater when semi-erect than when erect.

Here's where we left off:

If the length is smaller, I would presume that the tunica is the same size in both states . . . meaning the tunica may still be the limiting factor. If the length is the same as the erect size, and the girth is bigger, then you're most likely right - the tunic can "take" another .25 inches

Great question! I don't think I have ever done a comparison. It was just something I have observed and noted others talking about. This one may be nothing more than a reshaping of the tunica. Measuing both ways should clear this one up.

Any insight on the length size during this phenomenom would take care this point and solidify our reasoning. Do you remember if it was the same, or do you know of anyone who measured in this instance?

 

[remek]

I notice you made some great additions to the summary. I added another paragraph myself. It is looking good.

Yea, I have a little free time so I'm trying to finish what we started last year. We almost have a good first draft going.

About the flaccid size point (one of the last ones), let's get down to the nitty gritty again. In this post, you go over what might happen to the flaccid size/erect size comparison due to PE. I think this is where we got side tracked. Let's forget about how the flaccid penis reacts due to PE for a second and consider the difference between growers and showers.

What do you think makes a shower a shower? Clearly his tunica isn't as flexible as a grower's tunica. But I'm thinking that might not be the only thing going on. From what we know, the more relaxed the smooth muscle, the bigger the penis is. If we think of it in terms of erection levels, a man at a 0 percent erection level is a clear grower. As his erection level rises, the smooth muscle relaxes more, and the penis gets bigger and bigger until he is semi-erect. Then it starts getting harder.

And a shower's corporal smooth muscle is relaxed much more than a grower's.

Or at least this is the way I'm seeing it. What about you? Why's a grower a grower and a shower a shower?

 

[remek]

New point.

- Loss of gains when combined with weaker erections, especially loss of girth.
The theory: Let's go through the motions here. If the erection is hard, then that means the smooth muscle is relaxed enough to press against the tunica (and essentially create a suction so blood can't leave the penis). If the erection is weak, a few things could be happening . . . but it most often means the smooth muscle isn't relaxed enough to press against the tunica and cause an erection or there isn't enough smooth muscle to do so (The Penis as a Vascular Organ).

According to this new theory, when gains are made, two things can happen:

1. Both the tunica and the smooth muscle have to be pushed to a new limit
2. Either the tunica or the smooth muscle was already pushed to a new limit, and the other one "catches up" causing the gain

Similarly, when gains are lost, either both fall from their previous limit or just one does (either the tunica or the smooth muscle). If a loss of gains occurs in conjunction with weaker erections, then hypothetically the smooth muscle has decreased while the tunica has stayed the same - and thus the smooth muscle can't relax enough to press against the tunica. A loss of gains can occur in either short-term or long-term.

1. A short term loss of gains is a negative PI. It's caused by overtraining. We can assume that similar to skeletal muscle, when the smooth muscle is overtrained, it experiences fatigue and can't be pushed to the fullest - and thus can't sustain maximum erections.
2. Long term lost of gains due to taking a break or not cementing gains. If erections are weak, then presumably more tunica gains were cemented than smooth muscle gains (thus causing a gap and weaker erections).

Note: According to this theory, weak erections can get tricky real quick. If the tunica enlarges and the smooth muscle doesn't, this creates a "gap" that needs to be filled. This is where the theory gets tricky - are you experiencing weak erection because of muscle fatigue or because you need to catch your smooth muscle limit up to your tunica limit?

Further note: Perhaps a way to test this would be that if your penis is the same size when it's at its peak, then your smooth muscle didn't decrease (or become fatigued) and thus the tunica just enlarged. This might be hard to test, as if the smooth muscle can't relax enough to cut off blood from leaving the penis, then there is no way to reach the "peak."

 

[Iguana]

If the erection is hard, then that means the smooth muscle is relaxed enough to press against the tunica (and essentially create a suction so blood can't leave the penis).

and thus the smooth muscle can't relax enough to press against the tunica

remek, would it be clearer to say the smooth muscle volume isn't sufficent to press firmly against the tunica?
If we say relaxed, it may imply there could be a biochemical problem imparing SM relaxation, like lack of nitric oxide.

Isn't it more of a SM volume issue than a lack of relaxation. I ask because I haven't had a chance to read your resource links. I may be missing something.

 

[remek]

Here's just a random thought. One thing that's been bothering me is that although this theory - if proven accurate - has great applicable promises to it, it still leaves the PEer stuck in many instances. . . particularly the men who are at a plateau because they are focusing on one goal (i.e. just girth or just length).

For example, there's one guy who I've worked with over the past year who can't break a plaeau if his life depended on it. He's 9 X 5.5. He only wants girth at this point, as he's trying to make his penis more proportional. . . So he's only used girth exercises for a long time now (AKA smooth muscle exercises in this theory). In align with the theory, his erection strength is amazing - probably a 10 in a scale of 1 to 10. My guess is that he has to work on his tunica. I asked him to measure his BPFSL to BPEL ratio to provide more insight.

In any instance, If his BPFSL is close to his BPEL, then the theory would suggest that he needs to work on his tunica. . . or focus on length (the opposite of what he's been doing). This is great as it explains why he hasn't been gaining (he's been focusing on the wrong thing), but now what? He doesn't want anymore length. Will the focus on length help him with girth too, or will it only take him further away from his proportional-focused girth goal?

I'm not sure if there's a way to overcome this, but some current ideas might be:

• Spend 60 to 70 percent of efforts focusing on the limit (in this case the tunica) and 30 to 40 percent of the efforts focusing on the goal (in this case smooth muscle AKA girth)
• Focus on the tunica with some girth exercises as well. This is just an intuitive guess, but I think some girth exercises might focus on the tunica too. A big one is the O-bend/flaccid bend. It's a lot like the A-stretch, but it's known for acquiring girth. When I do the exercise, it feels as if it's hitting the tunica just as much if not more than the smooth muscle.

As an ending note, I'm going to talk to some other hard gainers over the next week and see if maybe they've been focusing on the wrong area as well.

 

[Iguana]

remek, if this theory holds water, I think it's going to create tons of questions. Like you had mentioned earlier, we will probably have to "unlearn" half of what we know. We are probably going to have to rethink almost everything. It may even require the creation of some new exercises.

In this guy's case, I think your second point is the key. He will need to stretch his tunica laterally somehow without stretching it longitudinally. I used to do these exercises I called "Hammerheads" which were basically a compression squeeze done at about a 70%-80% erection. They seemed to give great lateral expansion. Like the O-Bend, you feel these in the tunica much more than in the SM. His choice of exercises may be very slim but I think your last recommendation makes the most sense.