Proof of PE????????

[Unregistered]

I have studied smooth muscles reponse to stress to determine if we are harming our members or causing true growth. I found a few studies that indicate the latter is correct.



http://asme.pinetec.com/bio1999/data/pdfs/a0048100.pdf
http://asme.pinetec.com/bio2001/data/pdfs/a0141944.pdf


They will be a little difficult to read for most but I dont want to put "this means this". I want you guys to come to your own conclusion.

[Daz MN Support]

great post , will post again later.

[ebon00]

Interesting. I'm undecided if this is actually good or bad though. On the surface this does seem to make a case for PE (cell adaption due to imposed mechanical stress) but it's done in vitro using electrical stimulation. The authors of the second study do state right at the beginning that cells in vivo also respond to mechanical stress ("conditions" as they put it) but they don't mention whether these in vivo results showed actual increase in the number of cells that their in vitro study did. I might be behind the times here but I thought that hyperplasia under normal conditions was still a controversial subject (as in not proven either way).

These two studies also tend to point toward an increase in tensile strength of the tissues (if I read these correctly), especially with the long-term cyclical stress in the first study. That would tend to point toward a definite decrease in possible gains from PE. If you get some initial gains from PE, and the stresses of PE can be thought analogous to the clinical stresses of the studies, then the structures would then toughen up ("more dense" and "tensile strength [...] of tissues [...] were greatly increased") and put a literal blanket on further gains.

I'm torn. But, great sources.

[Unregistered]

so for dumb guys like me :) does this mean pe works yes or no ?

[Unregistered]

It means we are looking into the possibility of this being very safe, even good for you. And that it is medically provable (NO!!!!!)
But we are in the beginning stages of deciding if this has any relevance to PE at all.

If it does, then we are justified in doing this. Its very safe.

[Unregistered]

Ebon00, you seem to be a man in demand here. If you get a chance, here is another relavent link:

http://pharmacy.isu.edu/~hurley/Wagner%20update%20ED.pdf


Tell me if you think there is a correlation here. I think you could probably stretch the tunica without making the Trabecula grow as well. This, I think would be dangerous. We all need to make sure we have everything we need for growth available in our bodies.

[ebon00]

Interesting article although with little relevance to PE. I'd need to see a more accurate depiction of the trabecula (this is a stylized model that doesn't account properly for the actual erectile tissue) before I could say if your worries are warranted. Off the top of my head I'd say that the growth of the tunica without corresponding growth of the trabecula seems very unlikely. Unless the trabecula is a free-floating structure (i.e. not "properly" attached at the rear of the penis along with the other structures) it will be affected by stretches (and hyperemiation). Either way, if the tunica and corpus cavernosae move, it seems that the trabecula has to move along with them. Fulcrum stretches will affect it for sure.

[Unregistered]

I was looking at this as a much better explanation of the penile anatomy from an angle I havent seen before. I have heard the words but never put the names to the parts until now.

I was wondering if this could possibly be an explanation for the difference between everyones FSL and BPEL. BPEL being the maximum capacity of the trabecula and FSL being the capacity of the tunica. I dont know if I have ever seen a good explanation of why the FSL and BPEL differ so greatly from person to person.

For instance, my measurments are even and I have stopped growing or hit a plateau if you may. One person I know has gained 1 1/2 inch in FSL but only 1/4 inch in BPEL.

If they differ in the mechinism of growth (nero pathways during puberty) then we may indeed have a different course of action as far as what exercise to use to hit what you need to have done.

All of this is speculation on my part and all other theories are welcome. I am assuming that I will get a mixed reaction at best but I figured at the very least I would understand the FSL Vs. BPEL alittle better.

[ebon00]

Originally posted by Unregistered
I was wondering if this could possibly be an explanation for the difference between everyones FSL and BPEL. BPEL being the maximum capacity of the trabecula and FSL being the capacity of the tunica. I dont know if I have ever seen a good explanation of why the FSL and BPEL differ so greatly from person to person.

I think that FSL is more determined by ligament stretching than anything else. That would translate, but poorly, to an erect situation because of the mechanics behind an erection (the penis gets "pulled up" by the ligaments). The ligaments aren't overly hard to stretch compared to the tunica which has those two layers which work perpendicular to each other which should make stretching in either direction harder than if it had been one layer. (Of course, those two layers are necessary in order to expand both length and girth during an erection.)

But like I said, I haven't really heard much about the trabecula and the schematic in that article didn't really clear up the relevant points about it. I'll have to look around a bit and see what this is all about.