Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Method to estimate the time it takes to restore

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

  • Method to estimate the time it takes to restore

    Assuming that skin tube growth speed is directly proportional to current skin tube length we can derive an equation for estimating the total remaining tugging time in years:

    required_time (in years) = time_to_double_length * log2(goal_skin_tube_length / current_skin_tube_length),

    where time_to_double_length (constant) is the amount of time in years it takes for you to double your current skin tube length. I'd say based on what I've seen this is something like 3-7 years on average. It took me very roughly 5. Note this is probably a gaussian curve, someone incredibly fast could have it much lower than the average like 2.

    How to use: Estimate how much outer skin you need to have to be finished restoring and divide that value by how much skin you currently have e.g.: goal: 9cm / current: 5cm. Then put that value into the above formula and use either your own time_to_double_length estimate or the estimated average value given above:

    required_time = 5 years*log2(9cm/5cm) ~ 4.2 years of active tugging.

    Someone at the end of a long road or with an incredibly good start could have:

    5 years*log2(9cm/7cm) ~ 1.8 years of active tugging.

    Someone having a CI-1 start and needing to triple the amount of outer skin could have:

    5 years*log2(9cm/3cm) ~ 7.9 years of active tugging.

    How the above formula was derived:

    The exponential growth equation satisfies the initial assumption:

    x(t) = a * b ^ (t / τ)

    where a is the initial value of x and the constant b is a positive growth factor, and τ is the time constant - the time required for x to increase by one factor of b.

    Then we apply it to the current problem.

    goal_skin_tube_length = current_length * 2^(t / time_to_double_length) =>

    t (in years) = time_to_double_length (in years) * log2(goal_skin_tube_length / current_length)

    Additionally:

    For a more complete estimate one needs to estimate the required time for both inner skin and outer skin separately.

    To get a personal estimate on the time_to_double_length, one can use the first formula if you have two measured length values, or their ratio like 2x, plus the time in years it took in between.

    The initial assumption means that if you manage to double your skin tube length you will progress twice faster at that point compared to when you started because you have double the amount of skin cells that undergo further mitosis. To have that speed increase one has to tug all of the available skin in the tube with equal dedication.

    I'd like also some other opinions or a more scientific approach to estimate how long it takes one to double one's current skin tube length.
    Last edited by Blondie9; 03-10-2019, 03:27 PM.

  • #2
    You seem to have put a lot of work into this hypothesis...unfortunately, I don't see a way to prove it, one way or the other. You'd need a lot of guys, all doing the same amount of tugging (also at exactly the same level of tension), and all keeping meticulous records. Even then, you have to account for things like tension being applied unevenly, changes in tugging routine, wrinkles in the skin (with the device in place) that can cause uneven growth, and as I mentioned, you'd need a pretty large sample size.

    In my personal opinion, it seems to me that knowing how much time one has left isn't a benefit. It just keeps you looking at the clock, counting the days or weeks, making you more anxious and disappointed by your results...because all they do is remind you what a long time you still have left to go.

    Still, interesting idea, though.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for providing a method for estimating time left to restore. I know a lot of people would like to know that.

      Unfortunately, the assumption of doubling the rate of progress with each doubling of the length of the skin tube does not seem to bear out in practice. That would seem a large enough increase that I would expect most people would comment on that in a consistent way, as most men would need to at least double their tube length, since we had about half our skin amputated. But I have not seen consistent reports by restoring men stating that. And, in my case I have at least quadrupled my inner skin, and at least tripled my outer skin. Even taking the lower amount, I am not seeing a 3 fold increase in my rate of progress. There must be other factors at work that prevent this from happening.

      Regards

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Metal One View Post
        You seem to have put a lot of work into this hypothesis...unfortunately, I don't see a way to prove it, one way or the other.
        It should be a decent crude model because the underlying assumption doesn't assume much. Basically this only needs to be true: "If you manage to double your skin tube length you will progress twice faster at that point compared to when you started because you have double the amount of skin cells that undergo further mitosis." To have that, the whole skin tube has to be tugged equally though. Probably just pulling at the front will not give that but instead something less which I believe is what must happen with most devices. Manual tugging does allow the most thorough control.

        A even simpler model would be to assume constant growth rate which gets quite bad for example when someone has 1mm of inner skin and someone else has 3cm, clearly the latter case will grow a lot quicker (30x quicker does make sense from mitosis standpoint) when measured in mm / t.

        Of course, even if a model would be useful in predicting growth one still has unknown constants in them. In this model there is the time to double the amount of skin. If there is no measurement of that in one's own case which depends on a lot of thing like genetics, tugging strategy and commitment then pretty much the best one can do is use an average value and that is not going to be accurate estimate but still pretty much the best one can do.

        Comment


        • #5
          The current consensus is that you can't estimate how long it will take. Not to belittle your post, but I'm pretty sure people have mulled over the same thing many times over without ever coming to a useful conclusion. One of the first posts I ever made on the forums was about the concept of "proportional growth" or as some people like to call it "exponential growth." That's what your hypothesis revolves around, and that's a huge assumption.

          And then add on top of this the complexity of "optimal tugging" which nobody can agree upon. And the possibility of a "growth plateau" and alternating methods which nobody can agree upon. And on top of that just the fact that people are rarely able to maintain a program as well as such an equation would like to assume.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by greg_b View Post
            Unfortunately, the assumption of doubling the rate of progress with each doubling of the length of the skin tube does not seem to bear out in practice. That would seem a large enough increase that I would expect most people would comment on that in a consistent way, as most men would need to at least double their tube length, since we had about half our skin amputated.
            This is a valid point to raise. I added some discussion of that in my newer comment regarding thoroughness of tension that different methods can provide. There is probably also other factors. A model could also be developed that take into account less thorough tension, where the increase in growth speed would be something in between the exponential growth model and the constant growth model.

            Most people do comment that 'it gets faster' with more skin and that is certainly my experience. How much faster exactly, I don't know but for me I can't say it couldn't be roughly the 2x with 2x the skin. I've used only manual. But like most, I don't have any measured values. Even at 2x or 3x the speed it would still be a very slow process that is hard to accurately measure.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mattsprofile View Post
              The current consensus is that you can't estimate how long it will take.
              I believe that it can be estimated better than the current situation.

              I've read these kind of forums for years and I have seen discussion of what model the growth rate might follow but I don't remember running into any formula I can plug values into. That would be the next step. After that some data would be needed to compare against.

              I have the very rough estimate of 5 active years of manual tugging for 2x the (outer) skin. I'l improve upon that and say it certainly wasn't 2 years or 10 years. So let's say 5+-1 (standard error).

              Comment


              • #8
                Nice mental exercise, but there is absolutely no way to predict this. Way too many variables. Skin growth is also programmed into your DNA and that varies from person to person too.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hello Blondie, you have set yourself a task! Being able to predict potential skin-tube growth for a given and constant tugging regime would be an encouragement for some restorers. Equally it would be a big disappointment for those whose progress was way below the expected outcome/time frame. I have been a long time tugger and have achieved a covered glans (flaccid) and increasing instances of remaining covered when erect. During the early years of my 14 years tugging, I devised a method of measuring my progress. Monitored over 32 months, my growth rate was 0.5mm per month. A description of the method is here
                  https://foreskinrestoration.vbulleti...inversion-test

                  Early on, this was a very good indicator of my development and I never varied much from 0.5mm per month as annual tests would show a 5 or 6mm increase. As my skin growth progressed and I became fully covered, it was not possible to use this method any more. My covered glans has a much more puckered and wrinkled appearance, but the lack of consistency in the "ant eater" that sometimes appears at the tip of my penis makes measurement by this method impossible. I do not think my growth speeded up as I added skin, looking back I believe this was a misconception. Some tuggers post amazing results in a very short time, some are even slower than me, there will always be variation.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by parsecskin View Post
                    Nice mental exercise, but there is absolutely no way to predict this. Way too many variables. Skin growth is also programmed into your DNA and that varies from person to person too.
                    Skin expansion from the user's point of view of "apply tension - skin expands" isn't very complicated, almost anyone can make a prediction based on starting situation, goal and age. Even with large individual differences in growth rate, after some time into the process personal data will be available to make an individualized prediction. The method in the first post takes individual variables like genetics into account individually for each person in the one variable it has.
                    Last edited by Blondie9; 03-11-2019, 08:34 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks for sharing some measured data WoodyHoody. It makes me also wonder has anyone just tried to measure their progress using a fabric measurement tape.

                      Comparing data "5mm or 6mm growth per year during 32 month period or about 1.5cm growth total" to what is predicted by the method presented in the first post, in the three given examples above with the model's variable set to the 5 years, the one starting from 3cm added 4mm in the first year or 1.3cm total in 32 months, the one starting from 5cm added 7mm in the first year or 2.2cm total in 32 months and the one starting at 7cm added 10mm in the first year or 3.1cm total in 32 months. Predicted growth compared to measured growth is in similar range but starting length estimate is required for measured data to make a better comparison.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Blondie9 View Post
                        Thanks for sharing some measured data WoodyHoody. It makes me also wonder has anyone just tried to measure their progress using a fabric measurement tape.
                        There is no way I could have measured a monthly growth rate of 0.5mm or even my annual rate of 5mm on a fabric tape measure. I trusted my method because it was "hands off" and I tried to match the variables each time I took a measurement. I never trusted forced erect coverage as an indicator of growth. Using my method, it was only at one year intervals (at the very least) that there was any discernible, measurable increase in coverage. I was actually measuring the foreshortening of my flaccid penis which is a phenomenon that almost everyone on this forum has noticed. A developing skin tube in the forward position covering the glans tends to push back and shorten your flaccid penis. For me, as my tube developed it gradually allowed my flaccid penis to hang at its normal length. While this was happening, I could measure the change. When enough skin growth for a normal "hang" had been achieved, this method of measuring was of no more use as there was no further change in my flaccid length. Now, if I measure my flaccid penis it is the same covered and uncovered although I am still slowly, but surely adding skin.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Here are some points in favor of growth proportional to available skin vs constant growth:

                          + Those starting with very little inner skin can double, triple, quadruple or even add more to what they have over the years but still end up having very small amount in absolute terms while during the same time period having finishing restoring due to outer skin growth. Based on constant growth theory they could be adding a lot more each year (like even a centimeter or more) like some have whereas growth proportional to available skin would explain their inner skin growth very well.

                          + Many starting with very little skin overall like CI-1 find restoration to be very frustrating because they aren't progressing at the speed they were hoping for. I've seen many stories and skeptical questions on is it possible to restore from CI-1 at all in any reasonable amount of time while those fast to restore usually start at CI-3/CI-4 or even more. According to the constant growth theory, those starting at CI-1 could be (in theory) adding like an inch (2.54cm) each year if they are totally committed whereas growth proportional to available skin would explain their less than stellar progress despite all the effort.

                          And here is the point greg_b made in disfavor of growth proportional to available skin:

                          - "Unfortunately, the assumption of doubling the rate of progress with each doubling of the length of the skin tube does not seem to bear out in practice. That would seem a large enough increase that I would expect most people would comment on that in a consistent way, as most men would need to at least double their tube length, since we had about half our skin amputated. But I have not seen consistent reports by restoring men stating that."

                          Personally, I think it likely that evenly applied tension would give growth proportional to available skin but that is hard to achieve in practice especially combined with constant or high frequency intermittent tension.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What makes you think that growth proportional to available skin is hard to achieve in practice ? What makes you think that it is especially difficult to achieve with either constant or intermittent tension? That sounds like you are simply saying you think it is always hard to achieve, not matter the frequency of tensioning.... The theory we are working under is that tension triggers the skin cells to respond. Their response is a series of physiological reactions, that result in more daughter cells staying in the basal layer than would have without the tension. My experience, and that of many others, is that the time under tension is not the important factor, though there is continued debate. Regards

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I was taught (from this forum) that the amount of skin under tension makes no difference as the cell division we bring about by tugging occurs in a linear fashion, not over a wide area. Although having more skin to work with might make the tugging process easier and therefore more effective, the bigger surface area does not increase the scope for more cells to divide (mitosis). My basic diagram is an attempt to illustrate the process as I understand it.
                              Attached Files

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X