LOT... a-LOT of crap? Or am I doomed to mediocrity?

[Sanjuro Member Find all posts View Profile Close Sanjuro]

Hey all,

So I've been doing some reading on the Loss of tug theory.

That being, the theory that certain ligaments can limit gains dependant upon how tight and short they are.

Continued reading states that, generally speaking, those with no tug back at 6 o'clock or straight down coupled with a big tug back at 12 o'clock or pointing upwards, will have alot of trouble gaining length.

Well, the last paragraph describes me to a T, and considering I'm currently focused on length, I'm concerned that my efforts may result in minimal, and if I'm really unlucky, no gains in length mostly due to genetics.

Don't quote me because I'm more likely wrong than not, but I'm concerned the theory has weight behind it and I'll be running an uphill battle, don't get me wrong, I'll do it either way, just... rather not have to fight my own genetics.

I'd love to hear from the experienced forum dwellers on the reality of LOT theory, if, in your opinion, the theory seems generally sound and I'll really be doing it tough, or if the theory is merely a theory with no hard data or evidence. Personally hoping for the second one.

[aidan784 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close aidan784]

While I personally feel there is some merit in LOT, in that a lowered exit point and a changed in LOT comes along with PE experience, the theory has been debunked as a means for predicting possible lig gains. Ie guys with low lot gained well while high lot's gained little.
I had a low lot and I've gained close to an inch in BPEL in less than 6 months, so I'd suggest not to pay too close attention to it. Don't say you're 'doomed', always keep positive when it comes to PE, it's one of the main factors.

[Ongekibou Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Ongekibou]

Well, I've read around, and LOT seems to have been debunked; or at least many people don't take notice of it. I don't believe it has any real effect on your gains, and heck even if it does, just more motivation to work harder, eh?

Don't believe anywhere says that it limits the gains, rather, can just make it harder to.

[isambard Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close isambard]

Good question Sanjuro. It is something I have been wanting an answer to for a good few months now-since I found PE, but after having read SO many threads/opinions there really seems to be no definitive answer-unless I am (hopefully) wrong!

I too have a low LOT (7.00) and although I dont think the LOT theory is saying you are 'limited' in terms of gains, rather than having a low LOT we need to concentrate on the harder exercises (jelqing straight-out, and upwards, rather than straight down-which is a damned-sight easier than the former), and will find our gains will take a longer time to achieve than someone who has a high LOT. I think this is simply due to the fact that tendons and ligaments are far easier to stretch and deform (lengthening) than our tunica. And seeing as our tendons and ligaments are pretty much already loose/stretched then there is no point in hanging/jelqing downwards etc..

Also, from what I have read so far (here and *************) it seems that hanging is the mother of all techniques giving you fast and large gains in length in a relatively shorter space of time, and not only that hanging (to me) is alot easier than having a hand/arm/shoulder workout trying to perform the straight-out and upwards jelqs!

That is what I have taken from 'Bibs LOT theory' (seeing as he is a hanger and manufacturer of the 'Bib hanger'), and what has been posted here. In a wierd way I hope my interpretation is incorrect.

I also hope there is someone out there that has a low LOT and is a hanger who has made tremendous gains and can debunk the theory, or at least give another account of the theory due to their hanging experiences with a low LOT, as I dont want to end up being a frustrated gainer/giver-upper!!

[redbear52 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close redbear52]

Most guys have a lot of tugback at 12 o'clock, and little if any at 6 o'clock. That doesn't tell us what your LOT is.

Loss of tugback is defined as the position at which you first notice significant decrease in tugback as you come down from 12 o'clock, not the point at which it is lost altogether. If you first notice loss of tugback at a horizontal position, your LOT is 9 o'clock, even if you continue to have some tugback as you go lower.

As the theory goes, guys who have a high LOT (loss of tugback before a horizontal position is reached) and a high "exit point", tend to have short, tight suspensory ligaments. Therefore, length gains can be achieved by targeting the ligaments by stretching and hanging at low angles, or BTC.

If the LOT and the exit point are low, the ligaments are already rather lax, or have become so, so that length gains will require stretching the tunica and the septum more than the ligaments.

The conventional "wisdom" is that it is rather easier to stretch the ligaments than it is the tunica, so guys with a higher LOT and exit point may have more potential for early gains, and perhaps more potential for greater length gains overall.

It is just a theory. What seems clear is that guys vary a great deal in their potential to gain length and girth, and I suspect many factors account for this, including the thickness and composition of the internal connective tissue of the penis. Even if the LOT theory does apply, it would only be one factor determining potential gains and others might be more important in any given individual.

[isambard Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close isambard]

While I personally feel there is some merit in LOT, in that a lowered exit point and a changed in LOT comes along with PE experience, the theory has been debunked as a means for predicting possible lig gains. Ie guys with low lot gained well while high lot's gained little.
I had a low lot and I've gained close to an inch in BPEL in less than 6 months, so I'd suggest not to pay too close attention to it. Don't say you're 'doomed', always keep positive when it comes to PE, it's one of the main factors.

I too feel there is some merit in the theory, hence my listening to it, and also the fact that Bib sells the hangers. ie there must be something in the theory as he is cutting off a large piece of his market-I am NOT suggesting he is doing it for profit, but IF he was it wouldnt make business sense...

Aidan, what routine/regimen have you followed to gain that near inch in BPEL? What are/were your stats?

[redbear52 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close redbear52]

Bib never claimed that guys with a low LOT have nothing to gain from hanging. He suggests that guys with a low LOT will have better potential for gains by hanging straight out, or up, or by incorporating a fulcrum while hanging.

[bgstick18 PEGym Editor Find all posts View Profile Close bgstick18]

This is all true but just remember, this is not proven, like goingfor11x7 has told me, its a THEORY!!

[isambard Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close isambard]

Bib never claimed that guys with a low LOT have nothing to gain from hanging. He suggests that guys with a low LOT will have better potential for gains by hanging straight out, or up, or by incorporating a fulcrum while hanging.

Yes you are correct RB52. Like I said, it was my interpretation and I'd hoped I was wrong. I'm glad I was wrong.

I have just read Blink2000's 'hanging 101' write-up, and I'm sold. What a brilliant, extremely informative write-up. He also talks about Bibs theory and lends his own opinion on it, which is very refreshing. To the OP and anyone else who is interested I suggest you read it (fully) and I'm sure you will be just as happy as I am at the end of it.

https://www.pegym.com/forums/penis-d...ing-101-a.html

[aidan784 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close aidan784]

Isambard- I started at around 5.8 BPEL, I tried convincing myself it was upto 6 but it's not likely. I had done a couple of lax months PE'ing prior to may and finding this site.
However I have a long foreskin, that used to be tight, so that measurement included the foreskin that extended the end of the glans. Now, with glans exposed, my 11th October measurement was 6 11/16 BPEL.
While maybe not quite an inch it's at least close. My routines have been simple, I've done JP's, kingpole's beginner routine/PESG. So basically I've never done more than jelqing and stretching.
I'm currently doing a jelq only routine that steadily increases in number of reps, have been doing since september. I'm going to bring the stretches in when I have full foreskin retractibility and hopefully shock some gains, similar to going411by7.
If I'm honest though, I hate measuring, that measurement was my first since starting, and I haven't measured girth since starting. I just did my routine as consistently as I could, knowing full well that it was working. I think that mindset always helps.
I'd keep an eye on Blink for being a hanger who started with a low lot who will gain a lot. When his shoulder heals he'll get right back into things and he's one of the most consistent and thorough guys we have here at the gym. So while not necessarily an easy gainer he goes the right way about things, and I see you're familiar with his take on the theory.

PS: Maybe I should add, I'm only 18 though, since April, so possibly some natural growth thrown in there aswell.

[Sanjuro Member Find all posts View Profile Close Sanjuro]

Quality answers from all, sadly some being for and some being against LOT.

I suppose what's got me concerned is the theory is both logical and intuitive, anyone with basic knowledge of physiology and biology, and considering the nature of the site, that's basically all of us, would read the LOT theory and say "that makes sense".

Considering I'm primarily extending followed by stretching and jelqing afterwards, I've been trying to extend in different directions to give an all over stretch as opposed to just down; strangely the tension on my penis is so much higher when I'm extending horizontal:- straight up is most definately tighter than down and if I kegel, the extender is pulled back, but what's weird is the fact that I'm getting the tension from the horizontal position:- again, following conventional logic I'd assume the tightest area would be pointing up and the horizontal would be roughly half way between down and up in terms of tightness of the ligs, which isn't true.

I'm currently feeling a little lost; should I perhaps start extending primarily straight out? In hopes of loosening what's apparently my tightest area?

Also; should I start to consider hanging? As stated earlier, I'm primarily aiming for length at present so anything that could help, I'm willing to consider.

[JonPop Retired Sr. Administrator PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close JonPop]

Exercise in ALL directions. When I wrote the Newbie routine back in 04, BIB's LOT Theory was the hot ticket.
Now, it seems that it makes no difference in gains.
But, I've kept the LOT theory in my Newbie routine because it generates a lot of response and makes lurkers post. Good luck Sanjuro. (jP

[Sanjuro Member Find all posts View Profile Close Sanjuro]

Dang it JP you got me to post! Guess the plan worked! I plan to continue my program, thankfully I've found that I've reached the point where I want to extend and exercise as part of my daily routine, I'll expand the routine to include a myriad of directional exercises and stretches.

I'll admit however, you saying that LOT does nothing to limit or make any difference in gains has helped my enthusiasm stay high, crappy genetics or not.

[kingpole Retired ModeratorPEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close kingpole]

Hey all,

So I've been doing some reading on the Loss of tug theory.

That being, the theory that certain ligaments can limit gains dependant upon how tight and short they are.

Continued reading states that, generally speaking, those with no tug back at 6 o'clock or straight down coupled with a big tug back at 12 o'clock or pointing upwards, will have alot of trouble gaining length.

Well, the last paragraph describes me to a T, and considering I'm currently focused on length, I'm concerned that my efforts may result in minimal, and if I'm really unlucky, no gains in length mostly due to genetics.

Don't quote me because I'm more likely wrong than not, but I'm concerned the theory has weight behind it and I'll be running an uphill battle, don't get me wrong, I'll do it either way, just... rather not have to fight my own genetics.

I'd love to hear from the experienced forum dwellers on the reality of LOT theory, if, in your opinion, the theory seems generally sound and I'll really be doing it tough, or if the theory is merely a theory with no hard data or evidence. Personally hoping for the second one.

Ignore the lot theory.