Progress... A microscopic view

[bioprof12]

These may be the most unusual progress pics posted on this forum. They are microscopic images I took of dead keratinized epithelial cells that I collected from the inside surface of my TLC pusher (the part that pushes directly against the glans). The lack of a nucleus indicates that the cells are dead and not from living tissue. I first noted clumps of "debris" collecting on the pusher at about the two week mark after restarting my restoration. I decided to verify microscopically that the debris was actually cells sloughing off my glans and surrounding inner foreskin.

The first image (40X) is a clump of cells, which appear thin, flattened and brownish (the dark circular things are air bubbles). The second image (100X) is a single keratinized cell - note the keratin layers appearing as fine brownish lines within the dead cell.

[glanscover]

i assume this is photos of the dead cells caused by the circ leaving your glans exposed to keratinization

[bioprof12]

That's the prevailing thought, GC. Body cells exposed to the outside air are either dead and keratinized (e.g. skin cells) or living and protected by mucus (e.g. epithelial cells lining the mouth cavity) or in the case of the glans, covered by a protective and moisturizing foreskin.

[Reality]

These may be the most unusual progress pics posted on this forum. They are microscopic images I took of dead keratinized epithelial cells that I collected from the inside surface of my TLC pusher (the part that pushes directly against the glans). The lack of a nucleus indicates that the cells are dead and not from living tissue. I first noted clumps of "debris" collecting on the pusher at about the two week mark after restarting my restoration. I decided to verify microscopically that the debris was actually cells sloughing off my glans and surrounding inner foreskin.

The first image (40X) is a clump of cells, which appear thin, flattened and brownish (the dark circular things are air bubbles). The second image (100X) is a single keratinized cell - note the keratin layers appearing as fine brownish lines within the dead cell.

I have to ask, why you'd want to "verify" the presence of dead epithelial cells. Isn't this one of the few-but-safe assumptions (given a basic knowledge of human skin physiology)? What else would one expect to find at the level revealed by a light microscope (with an unstained specimen)?

And I also have to ask: how is this "progress"? Certainly not for some of us; this is revisiting high school.

[bioprof12]

One, I was curious what the "debris" was; dirt or cells/tissue. Second, dekeratinization of the glans seems to be an important benchmark of progress for some. As I mentioned, I hadn't noticed anything until about the two week mark, so I decided to take a closer look, microscopically close.

[Reality]

One, I was curious what the "debris" was; dirt or cells/tissue. Second, dekeratinization of the glans seems to be an important benchmark of progress for some. As I mentioned, I hadn't noticed anything until about the two week mark, so I decided to take a closer look, microscopically close.

Your glans is always sloughing off cellular debris, as does adjacent shaft skin; not a mystery. And as far as it being a benchmark, not so much. It's really more of a restoration forum "thing" amongst newbies, almost a myth really, unless you have a seriously calloused glans and you can see that calloused tissue slowly disappearing.

And unless you can drag your dick along the floor (mazeltov, if you can), what sort of "dirt" would you be looking for? Lint? (I assume you have the basics of personal and device hygiene down).

Two weeks: not enough time to see anything unexpected, or a rate change, with cellular debris. That's how it works physiologically.

So, between the two of us, we've given the members here a short workshop on..........perspective and expectation, and the so very basic knowledge that allows both.

[bioprof12]

Your glans is always sloughing off cellular debris, as does adjacent shaft skin; not a mystery. And as far as it being a benchmark, not so much. It's really more of a restoration forum "thing" amongst newbies, almost a myth really, unless you have a seriously calloused glans and you can see that calloused tissue slowly disappearing.

And unless you can drag your dick along the floor (mazeltov, if you can), what sort of "dirt" would you be looking for? Lint? (I assume you have the basics of personal and device hygiene down).

Two weeks: not enough time to see anything unexpected, or a rate change, with cellular debris. That's how it works physiologically.

So, between the two of us, we've given the members here a short workshop on..........perspective and expectation, and the so very basic knowledge that allows both.

Well, that and a workshop on how to speak in absolutes in a universe of subtle and not so subtle variability.

[Reality]

The established scientific fact of human epidermal physiology is an absolute, by definition; a group of absolutes actually. You can't begin to refer to a specific variability without a comparison to the absolute. Something can't be a variable without a comparative variance from the absolute: basic logic, and that's how Science, with it's particular method (and language) works. So knowing what the absolutes are (physiological rules, in other words), is the touchstone for any reference to.......anything that relies on, or pretends to, the Scientific realm. Gotta know 'em.

That's how I proceed here. That's why I'm able to take some reference trying to live in the Scientific realm, and rub it against that touchstone, and find it established, or wanting. Follows the rules (aka "absolutes") or not.

There: "absolute" and variability explained, just in case someone tries to ink up the water and wave all 8 (well....6 arms and two legs).

Zoology, or biology: both are absolutes, with their established rules and variations, but neither are the human anatomy and physiology that we deal with here on this forum. See how clear it all becomes (when there's no ink in the water)?

And again, 2 weeks is not enough to prove squat.

[bioprof12]

I wasn't arguing contrary to the science of epidermal anatomy or physiology (I teach the stuff as my username may suggest). As I'm sure you're aware, scientific inquiry works to establish principles and facts (e.g. theories), and then advances by applying these principles to novel situations (hypotheses), sometimes uncovering exceptions or variables that may lead to fine tuning of what was thought to be an absolute. All I was suggesting here, is that variables, such as how long the glans was kept covered prior to restarting a tugging routine, may have some affect on when dekeratinization would occur. Hell, at the very least folks got a close up of what the cells look like that are coming off their body.

I think we can move on.

[Phoenix]

I thought the images where interesting. Thanks boiprof12 for sharing.

[Reality]

I wasn't arguing contrary to the science of epidermal anatomy or physiology (I teach the stuff as my username may suggest). As I'm sure you're aware, scientific inquiry works to establish principles and facts (e.g. theories), and then advances by applying these principles to novel situations (hypotheses), sometimes uncovering exceptions or variables that may lead to fine tuning of what was thought to be an absolute. All I was suggesting here, is that variables, such as how long the glans was kept covered prior to restarting a tugging routine, may have some affect on when dekeratinization would occur. Hell, at the very least folks got a close up of what the cells look like that are coming off their body.

I think we can move on.

Yeah, overall I was just having a little fun. And I'll move on when I feel like it's been discussed, not evaded.

The fact remains that, with reference to anything that even remotely resembles "scientific" effort, the time frame described (2 weeks), and the number of samples (1) fall short of anything meaningful. You must know that, if you teach. But you weren't trying for anything scientific?

Thing is, you are implying a hypothesis and an implied short term "proof" via a close-up view. Very internet forum-ish. You just can't do that, without ending up just another internet forum warrior, ignorant of what scientific proof requires, let alone what it reveals.

Of course, chances are excellent you never will be able to prove anything specific. There are too many variables in place to make anything other than ... a graph, perhaps, ie "got this much gunk today". That, sir, is Science, not my opinion. My profession is science based, I use it clinically every day, so I have a good idea of what it requires, and what it's revealed thus far in the arena ("arena" because some of it's contested) of human physiology, and, an ability to decipher and translate a bit of the experimental effort done in trying to end-run the "absolutes" of physiology. That's why I link to more-or-less associated research abstracts (when I can find them).

And just to keep us all up to date with the broader view, the reason that so-called "de-keratinization" gets mentioned so often on restoration forums, is the assumed increase in sensation with less keratinized surface, as a result of coverage. Was that your purpose? You left it open-ended. Of course, some guys think that detritus itself is almost holy, as though it's proof of something, or protection against something, but they're missing even the short term point. We've all seen that over the years. I'm sure that's not you?

And need I say, sensation, a mystery which Science continues to chase after, encompasses even more variables and additional organs. Waste product on your dick falls short of ... all of that, really. Perhaps you knew that. But if you're just happy with gunk and open-ended implication..........go for it.

So: gunk. Meaningful? Nope, not really. In fact it's a forum myth, close-up view or no.

[Menthol]

Hehehe, not sure how much those "progress pics" really can tell us, but I gotta say great idea as far as evaluating all possible data goes. If I had a microscope I'd probably done this, too, because why not.
Thanks for sharing!