The Penis (smooth) Muscle Theory

[Iguana]

Originally Posted by remek

Iguana: You're the bearer of great news

75 percent isn't bad at all. Let's try to make this number even more accurate by dividing the 25 percent into 2 groups:

With the adjustment you and I discussed it's now 77%

Originally Posted by remek

1. The high EQ, big BP ratio difference - guys like Xeno.
2. The fairly low/negative EQ, with a small BP ratio difference - guys like slanker.

What's the percentage of each? If most of it is group 2, then we might be able to blame some of these on other variables - such as over training, smoking, low testosterone, unhealthy lifestyle, etc.

Great idea! It's actually 50/50. Out of the 6 non-conformists 3 had a BPT-DIF greater than 3/8", 3 had a BPT-DIF of less than 3/8". We should PM these guys in the last group to get some lifestyle information. If they are the victims off over training or an unhealthy lifestyle, that would up the percentage to 89%.

[remek]

I would definitely opt to get rid of "group 2" - as so many variables can affect them. 89 percent isn't bad at all, but let's shoot for 100 users and see if we can keep the data this consistent.

Also, I wanted to note that In regards to the "veinage clue," I think this might be the least probably clue we have listed. That said, I bet it still plays a role in letting you know how your penis has been reacting to what you've been doing. What I mean by this is, if let's say one month you have poor veinage and a month later you have good veinage, then whatever exercises you've been using for the past month is probably more SM-specific. This, in itself, can help guys focus their routine more - especially if their veinage is increasing and they are trying to focus on the tunica (which would indicate they've been exercising the wrong way).

[Iguana]

Originally Posted by remek

I'm going to take this thread and post it on all the other PE forums. Before I do that, is there anything we wish we would have added that we didn't, such as more emphasis on what an "8" is on a scale of 1 to 10, or the amount of expansion when clamping and pumping?

Great idea. Yea, I think it would be good to elaborate on the EQ scale or clamp/pump expansion. Maybe a descriptive scale something like:

10 -Raging rock hard
09 -Very hard
08 -Mostly Hard
07 -Somewhat Hard
06 -...
05 -...
04 -...
03 -...
02 -...
01 - Completely Impotent

Would someone like to volunteer to start a rough draft list for us? It would also be helpful if everyone used whole numbers in rating their EQ. If we put a cut off point of 8 being negative and 9 being positive and someone puts 8.5 then we have to figure out which group to put them in.

I would also ephasize the importance of honest reporting. Guys who fudge their number to impress others will really screw up the data.
We might also add a couple of lifestyle questions? Smoking, etc? Or else, we will proabably need to follow up Group 2 with addition questions to determine cause.

Thoughts comments?

[remek]

Iguana - I'm afraid if we start asking too many questions that aren't 100 % relevant (such as smooking), a lot of non-motivated users might just say "screw it," and not answer at all because it will take up too much of their time. For right now, the I think the main focus should be getting as much data as possible and seeing how many people fall into the theory, and then we can decide about group 2 later. What do you think?

Another reason I say this is that it's only be 6 people thus far, and we can easily PM them in the future.

Great start on the scale by the way. How does the rest of it look?How are your erections currently?
10 - Raging rock hard
09 - Very hard
08 - Hard
07 - Mostly Hard
06 - Somewhat Hard
05 - Semi Hard/ Semi Soft
04 - Somewhat Impotent
03 - Mostly Impotent
02 - Impotent
01 - Completely Impotent

[slanker]

Iguana: EQ. After reading your new scale I would say 8 to 8.5. However here's the deal. morning and night woody can be an 8.5-9, sometimes a little less. When I edge and I watch porn I can get to a 10. If there's no porn and I stimulate myself the maximum I reach is between 8-9. Although they have been times where I have just had EQ's of 10 all day without any external stimulation and I have been judging all my other erections on these 10's I experienced. I am an athlete I lead a totally healthy lifestyle. I just haven't had sex for a few years.

I worry about me too thats why I came here for help, and I'm getting it. Thanks, any other advice you can give me is most welcome. I'm 4 months shy of 30.

At the end of this month I will be measuring gains so I will let you know the new figures at that time.

[Iguana]

remek, you are probably right. So, I guess we can just keep track of the guys who should (based on a low BP ratio) have great EQ but don't.
We could maybe PM a lifestyle questionnaire for them if they are will to participate.

The EQ scale looks great! That's perfect.

Slanker, thanks for the details. I think a fluctuating EQ may be the case with a lot of guys. In your case, your low BPT Ratio is probably not what's keeping you from good EQ. Sounds like it may just be a desensitizing to stimulus or fluctuating hormone levels. What do you think remek?

[remek]

What do you think remek?

About slank: I'm not sure. You might be right.

About the scale: I think we should have had it in the first place! Perhaps that's why there's a difference. But, eh... you live and you learn. Did you ever get a chance to PM a mod at TP to change the thread?

[Iguana]

Originally Posted by remek

About the scale: I think we should have had it in the first place! Perhaps that's why there's a difference. But, eh... you live and you learn. Did you ever get a chance to PM a mod at TP to change the thread?

Yea, true. But, we are still very low on participants so it could be very helpful going forward. Yes, actually we moved the chart and included it in the first post. So all new readers will see it right off the bat.

[slanker]

Remek, Iguana, I think you are right, the last time I had sex I was drunk and I was fine. Maybe its all just in my head.

[Iguana]

rem, here is a point you had mentioned earlier about the relaxation of smooth muscle affecting EQ. I remember questioning the wording in this post, thinking it may be misleading and suggested rewording it to imply SM volume was lacking and not relaxation. Here is the discussion:

Originally Posted by remek

- 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).

Originally Posted by Iguana

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..

My thinking was that SM relaxation (or lack of) was controlled biochemically and that we were probably not affecting that with PE. It turns out that I may have been way off base suggesting otherwise. I may have indeed been missing something.

sparkyx posted a really interesting article over at TPs. He initally put it in our data collection thread and I asked him to make it it's own thread. Partly because I didn't want to distract from the data collection but also because I thought it was interesting enough to warrant a thourough discussion. He did, and you can find it here: Smooth Muscle and PE - Thunder's Place Free Penis Enlargement Forums

What is really interesting is his suggestion that stress can affect smooth muscle relaxation. I wasn't able to deduce if he thought both physical AND emotional stress were triggers or just physical. The article is very clear that emotional stress affects smooth muscle relaxation. The article focused mostly on emotional stress but I can see how they could go hand in hand. Thinking about it now this should have been very apparent to me. I have high blood pressure. I'm by nature a "high strung" individual. So, it's clear that emotional stress can constrict blood vessels (smooth muscle) raising blood pressure. What I find intriguing and want to further explore is the physical aspect. When overtraining, could we (as he is suggesting) somehow be physically "stressing" our smooth muscle to the point of hindering the relaxation? And if so, could it be that our BPEL could be affected but our BPFSL not?

slankers, comment about being drunk has merit. I have read of guys stating their measurements were better under the influence of alcohol, that they were more relaxed.

If so, how would this fit in with our theory? One thing I'm thinking - if physical stress (over-training) causes SM loss of relaxation, then a decon break should remedy the problem?

I just want to share this and hopefully get your insight on this. We can discuss here or in his thread at TPs.

Let me know what you think.

Note:
Guys, many times I direct my posts to remek as he and I have spent a lot of time on this theory. But this by no means inplies you are not welcome to chime in. We would love to hear your comments, suggestion and ideas.