Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Penis Length and Restoration Time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Penis Length and Restoration Time

    I haven't been lurking here for very long, but from my search I haven't seen a whole lot of discussion on how penis length (or probably or more relevance, skin length) effects the speed of progress in restoration. Though I have seen some little comments of people saying that since their penis is larger than average that they have more skin to grow and thus will require longer restoration time. I've also seen discussion on how one can expect 1mm or so of growth per month.

    However, my intuition would suggest to me that skin growth is proportional to the amount of skin which is under tension, so the more skin you have, the higher rate of skin growth you can expect. So instead of saying you can expect Xmm of growth per month, you should instead expect Y% of growth per month. Am I wrong in this idea?

    so if person A and person B have proportionally equivalent penises, but of different size, they should have the same expected restoration time even though the person with a larger penis has more skin to grow.

    Any thoughts?

  • #2
    Ok. Science:

    This issue has been on restoration forums for decades. The long and short of it (yes, pun) is that nobody really knows. But what we do know is that mathematical formulae have nothing directly to do with "skin growth", or even anything to do with a decent average for growth, and of course, averages are always theoretical, not real. So if we are stroking our brains for the fun of it, malzetov, but if we are trying to nudge up against the idea of "control", then we will fail.

    1.Does a longer penis mean a longer time to flaccid coverage? Probably not. Why would it? Penis length isn't the baseline. The distance from the circ scar to the glans tip is the baseline, and then that distance, doubled. That's length, of a sort, but it isn't penis length, unless your scar is way down bordering your scrotum, which it would never be.

    2. How would this length-of-a-sort (scar to tip) have anything to do with the internal, built-in process that ultimately results in additional skin cells forming, aka mitosis beyond the maintenance rate? That process is based in a whole cascade of events, and has nothing to do with "time", or "length".

    3. So this issue, which has been around for decades, confuses "length", with "time", and the overall mitotic process. These are three independent criteria.

    4. The idea that skin growth is proportional to the amount of skin under tension also confuses the effect of tension, the area of skin under tension, and the built-in mitotic response. Nobody has ever done a formal study on what we do (hence my "nobody knows), but it is generally accepted (except by a few who haven't thought it through) that only a poorly defined area, in the form of a diffuse band, perhaps running circumferentially around the penis, and proximal to the fixed point (where the device, or your fingers grip the skin) actually is....active. And by "active", I mean even "sees" the tension. The rest of the "skin" doesn't see anything. And, this is a very diffuse band, because not all cells divide, because not all cells can divide. And when they do, they do it on the built-in time frame, in "patches" of cells, not a sold band of cells. Patchy, sloppy, unscientific, and totally resistant to a slam-dunk math problem.

    5. "Skin" isn't skin. You are actually trying, via tension, to bias the deepest, living layer of "skin", called the stratum basale. Everything above that is dying, or stone dead. It is this living layer which adds to itself, a few cells at a time, when tension stimulates it to do this. But here's the thing: this layer will never do this until a number of biochemical constituents travel to the site and cause this process to accelerate (a misnomer if there ever was one).

    6. "Restoration time": ah, there we have it:

    That's the underlying concept behind so much theory, angst, and forum BS. Forget it. You should go ahead and forget it, because the time it will take you, is the time it will take you. THAT motto is on the restoration family crest. It happens to be true. We who have finished will tell you this is true. Restoration is individual, all the way down the line, and that means you and your personal body, NOT science, NOT math, NEVER 1mm per month (that's an average, and a very rough average, rough to the point of meaningless). This process, which includes you and your ability to experiment but still be consistent, is a sloppy, foot-dragging, biochemical and bio tissue conglomeration, NOT a assembly line. And, in fact, you personally, the big "you", have no control over this process; none at all, other than the on-off switch decision to tug, or not to tug. And that's it. So: It Takes As Long As It Takes, and No Control. The two truths that most forum guys refuse to accept. Which they're free to do, all the while your "skin" does what it wants to, when it wants.

    Comment


    • #3
      BbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbAaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaBbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbbbbbbbbBbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbLllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllEeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee BbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaBbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbBbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbLllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllEeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
      BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        As you can see, the real world, aka human physiology, doesn't mean anything to some of the guys here because they want to chatter about this and that, including trying to figure out how to beat the system while trying to sound knowledgeable, because that's what they're here for; internet chatter. It's never a serious discussion, it's just a way for them to belong. A guy on the old forum used to refer to it as the "circle jerks". Doesn't matter that they don't know shit about any of it. In fact a few of them actually get pissed of when they find out, after they've answered with some nonsense, that chatter wasn't enough. So, you'll get my answer, and their answers. Take your pick.

        And the real world doesn't mean anything to one guy here because he ain't livin' in it. LOL

        Comment


        • #5
          I've thought the same thing before. Can't really test that theory though.

          Comment


          • #6
            Mattsprofile - first welcome to the web site and to foreskin restoration. I promise you that you will not regret doing this. It can take a long time and it would be nice to understand the deep details of the process so that we could attempt to speed things.

            I have some interest in attempting to mathematically model the skin expansion process. I doubt that other forum members share that interest. If you want to establish contact with me by personal message I would be happy to discuss this. You should know that I do not have a background in medicine. It is in applied mathematics.

            Some relevant papers freely available on the internet which you may like to have a look at:

            https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ion_and_Growth

            Growth on demand: Reviewing the mechanobiology of stretched skin
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758413/

            This paper is mostly concerned with the biochemistry of tissue expansion:
            https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d00...61de54c7e8.pdf
            Cellular and Molecular Responses to Mechanical Expansion of Tissue.


            Tormod

            Some of you may have had occasion to run into mathematicians and to wonder therefore how they got that way - Tom Lehrer

            Comment


            • #7
              I think your theory is sound. I've heard stories here of men who say that as they restore it gets easier.

              This might be for two reasons:

              1) As more skin grows the device can stay on longer comfortably and fall off less.

              2) More skin under tension = more skin growth.

              If you'd like to try your theory yourself experiment with dual tension systems such as the DTR and TLC X, and "3D" tension systems such as air inflation when compared to simple tugging.

              One point to note is that someone having a larger penis by an inch or two in length and girth represents a HUGE increase in the skin that needs to be grown. It's also safe to assume that if one's penis grew a lot that it "filled out" the remaining skin more and you need to grow more skin to get to the starting point of another man. Plus, since circumcision is mindless mutilation we all have different starting points anyways.

              I can say with CERTAINTY that I have experienced more comfortable, fuller, larger erections, skin that can now glide all over my shaft, and am now partially covered when it's cold out. You will not regret restoring just get started and let the results be your guide!
              Started CI-0 with no movable skin and 0% FEC

              Currently at CI-4 with 64% FEC

              See my progress gallery

              Comment


              • #8
                "we

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gdom View Post
                  ... we all have different starting points anyways. ...
                  Hmm. Where have I heard this before?

                  Oh yeah, somebody here said penis length isn't the baseline, it's the distance from scar line to the tip of the glans. And of course this differs from one guy to the next because circ isn't standardized. This is the offhand point made in the quote. So now we have two guys saying it isn't penis length that matters at all. One of them, though, doesn't realize he's saying this. Let me help with that.

                  So let me understand: It's where your scar is located, then from there to the end of your glans, x2. So does this mean the OP's "theory is sound"? Well no. It doesn't. How could it. We aren't dealing with "penis length" now.

                  And what is the title of this thread? Oh yeah, Penis Length And Restoration Time. So the time it takes to double-cover the distance from the scar line to the end of your glans has nothing to do with total penis length. Well jeeze, right away we can throw that theory out because part of it doesn't work. That's Science; a demanding bitch. But there's more "theory" mentioned in this thread, so let's look at that.

                  OK, we have to go back to the basics ... skin growth begins with your skin and its response to each cycle of tension, while it deals with the amount of living cells which can respond to that tension. This we know, or we should. Hmm. There's no mention of penis length in that sentence. So does any theory with "penis length" in it sound....uh....sound? No again; we can still see it doesn't.

                  OK, got that down. So let's look at "Restoration Time", the other part of the title: we've already seen that the process has nothing to do with penis length. So what does it have to do with? How does time fit in? Oh yeah, time is how long it takes for skin to respond, cell by cell, to cycles of tension. Does more tension have anything to do with the time it takes? No, we already know this, in fact more tension slows it down. So how about "more skin" under tension? Ooo, that sounds right, and everybody on the forum says it's true.

                  Well, let's look at that. How do I put "more skin" under the same amount of tension that my fingers or my device applies? Hmm (don't bother me, I'm thinkin'). Wait. I can't. I can't place more skin under tension, even if I have more skin, because I can only put approximately the same amount of tension on the same amount of skin griped by my fingers, or my device. OK, we have more skin to pull on, yay, but what does that mean? We know we can't put more tension on it, our fingers or device can only put tension on PART of that skin, and anyhow we wouldn't want to put more tension on that area, if we could. Well gee, there goes that part of the theory. Damn, this "science" is hard, especially if you can't think it through.

                  But hey, we're a buncha scientists here so we're confident that whatever we say, is right. 'Cause that's science .............well, maybe not, but it's our "science".

                  And I should say: "thanks for the confirmation", even though you didn't know you were giving it.
                  Last edited by Reality; 07-20-2017, 03:16 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Info View Post

                    So how about "more skin" under tension? Ooo, that sounds right, and everybody on the forum says it's true.

                    Well, let's look at that. How do I put "more skin" under the same amount of tension that my fingers or my device applies? Hmm (don't bother me, I'm thinkin'). Wait. I can't. I can't place more skin under tension, even if I have more skin, because I can only put approximately the same amount of tension on the same amount of skin griped by my fingers, or my device. OK, we have more skin to pull on, yay, but what does that mean? We know we can't put more tension on it, our fingers or device can only put tension on PART of that skin, and anyhow we wouldn't want to put more tension on that area, if we could. Well gee, there goes that part of the theory. Damn, this "science" is hard, especially if you can't think it through.
                    I don't understand this portion of your explanation.

                    Let's just, as an analog, look at a rope under tension. If you have a 1 foot rope and grab it at both ends and pull with 1 pound of force, the whole rope is under 1 pound of tension. If we have a 10 foot rope and pull both ends with 1 pound of force, the whole rope is under 1 pound of tension. We grabbed both ropes the exact same way and applied the same force, so both are under the same tension, but in the case of the 10 foot rope we have 9 extra feet of rope under tension when compared to the 1 foot rope.

                    I'd imagine the penis works at least somewhat similarly. I can accept that there may be some redistribution of tension to, perhaps, other tissue within the penis. But the skin that we are stretching glides over the other penis tissue, so it would seem that not much tension is redistributed that way.

                    If you are manually tugging on a penis whose size is not large enough to space your grip, the only skin under tension is that skin which you are gripping. But if you've got a massive schlong and your gripping points are 5 inches away from each other along the shaft, all of those 5 inches are going to be under tension.

                    It sounds like, from your statements, that not all 5 inches would be under tension, only those gripping points would be under tension. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your explanation. If this is the explanation you are providing, and you have solid experimental or theoretical evidence to justify it, then I can accept my intuition to be wrong (after all, it's just intuition of someone who is not an expert.)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      LOL Are you the admin under a pseudonym? This was a discussion years ago between two members of the old forum. So I will try to recreate one member's knowledge.

                      1. First and foremost, you can't mix media, ie skin, and rope. Rope is not a model for skin. That's where your argument fails, and for more than one reason. You've tried to do that support your theory, but you can't. So bear with me:

                      2. Rope: it's made from a number of fibers woven into a whole. Any tension applied to a rope puts force on those fibers. Not as some theoretical "whole rope", but as a medium which gives somewhat along it's long axis. Not much, but a little. Those fibers may or may not stretch, but they do in fact compress together as a result of that tension. This immediately attenuates that 1 lb of force. In other words, tension has already decreased. You're assuming "measuring" in your theoretical construct is a slam-dunk. Not quite. And there is more to consider;

                      3. If you think about it, you're in the theoretical world. We don't live there. We live in the real world. We have to grip at one end, and then apply some hoped for value of tension at that end. To do this, we move that fixed point distally. In your theory the other end is fixed. But not in our world. In our world that "other end" is a continuation of the medium, ie skin. It goes from your shaft, to your scrotum, up your belly, etc. So your attempt at comparing rope to skin continues to fail in this regard. We only have one fixed end, unlike your rope.

                      4. With rope, even as it stretches a bit because of those fibers compressing, there is still an ongoing differential of tension at the application/"moving" end, until there is 1 lb of force along the entire long axis. Anybody who's done material lab sessions will tell you that. So: that end sees whatever it sees as the attenuated value at the beginning of force application; this means the rest of the rope sees a decreasing value along it's long axis, unless you over crank tension so that the whole rope sees a measured 1 lb of force. Otherwise it will sag in the middle, a lot, or almost an unseen amount. You can do that with rope. It doesn't scream. But does that sound like tugging on your penis? It shouldn't, because it isn't.

                      5. Ok, next fact....Skin, isn't rope. It doesn't stretch like rope. It is designed to almost immediately give, to stretch, and then to tear if enough tension is applied. Skin beyond that point just sits here, barely affected, doesn't see any tension because it's been protected from force. And, you don't over crank skin to get a steady value along the long axis. Your theory tries to, but we don't Skin is a biological, living combination of tissues, mostly water contained by very stretchy material. Rope is inert. Skin, our shaft skin, will attenuate that force in a local area, because of that immediate give. The adjacent area is JUST adjacent to the fixed point. Add to that the fact that skin is a continuation of medium, from shaft, to scrotum, to belly, etc., so even if you over cranked, that attenuation is still most pronounced locally, because it is attenuated by....here it comes......all that other skin which also has that built in ability to locally give. So does "more skin" allow "a given value of tension", which allows "more growth"? No. It just does not. That isn't the way skin responds to tension, so this theory becomes failed logic if skin's response is understood. "More skin" means exactly nada, nothing, diddly, in the way of "more growth". In fact it can get in the way of applying tension until you take it out of the picture. Guys who are down the road in tugging do that every day.

                      6. Those of us with non-rope penises don't have two fixed ends, we have one fixed end, where skin is gripped (fingers or device), which results in a local area that sees some amount of a tension value, which is quickly attenuated by the rest of the local skin proximal to that local area. So we don't, and never will have 1lb of force along the shaft. It just doesn't happen that way. Unless we over crank. And.....

                      7. Rope doesn't have pain receptors. We do though. Part of the real world. Your skin is about to tear (which is the hard way of attenuating force) if you feel significant pain from over cranking. Add to that, increasing the tension value enough, and this is before skin tears, not only hurts, it stops mitosis. No more growth. So, more skin doesn't help you there, either. Of course you don't have this problem with rope; it doesn't replicate itself, it isn't biological. So again, it doesn't serve as a model for skin.

                      The idea that there are two fixed points on our genitalia is wrong; perhaps you can see why. The idea that we can measure an actual value between two points which don't exist is wrong, because those two points don't exist, and because we grassroots guys don't have a way of measuring anything accurately. And the idea that skin is an inert substance, like rope, is especially wrong. It isn't, so there's no comparison. The only model you can compare skin to, is skin. You can't compare two very different media, in the way that you tried. So for the future, the only advice I would suggest is this: any true theory has to include those facts which have been revealed and demonstrated repeatedly to be true. If a theory doesn't include the facts of the issue, then it isn't a theory at all, it's a fantasy. The idea of "more skin" is a longstanding myth, and it will never die because there are guys who want it to be true. But it's still a myth.

                      What seems "real" in theory, is only in theory. You have to step outside of theory to describe the real world with any accuracy. "Real in theory" is already a contradiction in terms. Stuff in the real world is always complex (even rope), with known basic facts, and a lot of variables included. So as restorers, we have to frown, say a four letter word, and keep on tugging. You will too, when all is said and done. But you can believe anything you want in the meantime, because "believe" is "believe", It has nothing to do with "know". Believe and know, they're as different as skin and rope.

                      And I'm done with this.
                      Last edited by Reality; 07-20-2017, 08:44 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Almost done: just to head off the "exponential growth" guys:

                        So-called exponential growth is where the "more skin, more growth" idea comes from. If you think about it, that's really what's being talked about here. It's been around on forums for decades. We never experience exponential growth with tension. And that's a good thing; you don't want exponential growth. This would mean that the rules built in to healthy tissue maintenance have been overridden. Know what does that? Cancer. Cancer is exponential growth. If cancer only grew exponentially without destroying the tissues it grows in, we would all look like 6 foot, 500 pound potatoes with tentacles. And we would definitely be unhappy with "more skin, more growth", also know as: exponential growth.
                        Last edited by Reality; 07-20-2017, 08:20 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The point is - get started, keep a good attitude, know it will take time and patience, and above all, learn to listen to your body. Take a break once in a while, and then get back into it. It will be well worth the effort.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That's not the point in this thread. So greeting-card platitudes aren't really helpful. But if that's all ya got.................
                            Last edited by Reality; 07-22-2017, 05:54 PM.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X