Debunking the LOT Theory

Rocket · Mar 31, 2007

I feel that the LOT Theory is really discouraging to people. I definatly think it has way too many holes and has no real proof to back it up. I know that modern Penis Enlargement is still in its early stages and underground, but this theory just doesn't make much sense and should be disregarded entirely.

I just have one simple argument against it. I for instance would have a low LOT according to this theory. However, if I have a low LOT then I'm suppose to have a low exit point right? After shaving my pubic area and actually looking at my penis and its exit point from the lateral view using a mirror I determined that I have a very high exit point. Also, I measured how much internal penis I have running along the front of my pubic bone (from top of exit point to where it begins to curve under) and it's at least an inch and a half. That seems like a lot of internal penis being held in by ligaments.

The fact that someone with a low LOT has a high exit point is enough physical evidence to disprove this theory. Maybe I'm just not understanding the theory correctly.

Discuss.

Pandora · Apr 1, 2007

I don't know. But what I do know is with techniques like this http://www.mattersofsize.com/forumnew/hanging-around/21406-great-technique-rice-sock-duct-tape.html

I believe that it is pretty possible that everybody can make some form of gains now.

sikdogg · Apr 1, 2007

Maybe the LOT theory is fine but you just neasured yours incorrectly... it seems that every newbie seems to have a very low LOT. I don't believe this to be true as it's more likely that newbies don't understand the LOT theory nor do they kow how to correctly measure it on themselves... just my opinion.

stridge · Apr 1, 2007

I personally have never really thought that there was a ton of merit to it. A lot of the 'scientific' aspects to Penis Enlargement that guys take as gospel can be a little dubious.

jqsderrida · Apr 1, 2007

Rocket said:
I feel that the LOT Theory is really discouraging to people. I definatly think it has way too many holes and has no real proof to back it up. I know that modern Penis Enlargement is still in its early stages and underground, but this theory just doesn't make much sense and should be disregarded entirely.

I just have one simple argument against it. I for instance would have a low LOT according to this theory. However, if I have a low LOT then I'm suppose to have a low exit point right? After shaving my pubic area and actually looking at my penis and its exit point from the lateral view using a mirror I determined that I have a very high exit point. Also, I measured how much internal penis I have running along the front of my pubic bone (from top of exit point to where it begins to curve under) and it's at least an inch and a half. That seems like a lot of internal penis being held in by ligaments.

The fact that someone with a low LOT has a high exit point is enough physical evidence to disprove this theory. Maybe I'm just not understanding the theory correctly.

Discuss.

Perhaps you would profit from reading the more recent threads in the hanging forum about the dubious value of the theoretical aspects of LOT. Additionally, I am running a poll, both here and at Thunder's, where I am attempting to survey the practicability of the application of LOT theory. When I recieve 30 responses at either forum I will use chi-square statistical analysis techniques to evaluate the theory in terms of utility.

Cheers,

bigcharlie · Apr 1, 2007

jqsderrida said:
Perhaps you would profit from reading the more recent threads in the hanging forum about the dubious value of the theoretical aspects of LOT. Additionally, I am running a poll, both here and at Thunder's, where I am attempting to survey the practicability of the application of LOT theory. When I recieve 30 responses at either forum I will use chi-square statistical analysis techniques to evaluate the theory in terms of utility.

Cheers,

jqsderrida · Apr 1, 2007

Is that you, bigcharlie?

sikdogg · Apr 1, 2007

Actually, minor size decreases are relatively common with overtraining. Check out 10inchadvantage's thread on overtraining length. Also, at Thunder's, the thread about physiologic indicators.

jqsderrida · Apr 1, 2007

sikdogg said:
Can you post a link to your survey??

Statistical analysis on 30 responses is pretty meaningless don't you think??

An analysis of the practicability of LOT theory. - �other forum� Free Penis Enlargement Forums

A normal distribution with minimal ME can be assumed at n=30. Worry not, small sample size comes into play when determining statistical significance and statistical effect size. I will be using a significance level of p<.05 or chi-square > 3.84. Also the phi-square statistical technique is used to analyze the chi-square findings to ensure that the determined significant relationship isnt trivial.

bigcharlie · Apr 1, 2007

It was a joke. You sound like you're programming a NASA launch.

jqsderrida · Apr 1, 2007

bigcharlie said:
It was a joke. You sound like you're programming a NASA launch.

I know. Youll have to excuse me though, Im a mathematician.

millionman · Apr 2, 2007

Hmmm....I have no problem with the LOT theory. Some people would say that it is dicouraging, but in and of itself it is not. The idea that a low lot means or even equals no gains is entirely ridiculous. I've used the LOT theory since I got into hanging more than 2 years ago and I have seen my LOT go from 6 back up to 9, while at the same time I broke through a 2 year plateau. There is a good deal of merit to the theory and how it can be applied. Taking anything as gospel truth is always a bad idea, but utilizing an idea to help you reach your goals is a very intelligent thing to do. There's honestly nothing I've seen that really jumps out at me about the LOT theory, and I do think a lot of guys have misread the theory threads and have some how gone about the test incorrectly. The first time I read through a LOT thread I was extremely confused and performed the test and revealed that I had a LOT that was less than 6 o'clock. Once I talked with BIB and found out that I was performing the test incorrectly I found that my LOT was a bit more than 9.

I hope the data you gather proves to be useful. I'd love to read more about the current ideas regarding this particular topic. If anyone has any links to some solid information that would be awesome.

herb herbinson · Apr 2, 2007

one thing LOT did for me was make me aware of stretching in all directions.
i learned that with a low LOT that stretching downward may not maximize lig stretch, but i can surely feel the tension in my tunica and thats all good

it was educational in the sense that i got a better feel for how each exercise was working or failing in a specific way. thats opposed to how i was just pulling on my wanker and hoping for the best

dex · Apr 2, 2007

Most guys think that LOT is where you dont see any tug back, but this is not true. LOT is where you see a decrease in tug back. You will always see some tugback, this is because the base is flexing.
LOT is where you see an decrease!

"The "light tug backs" mean that the ligs are taking away some of the force of the kegals from the tunica. That is exactly what you are looking for. The angle at which the ligs are engaged. Where the tug backs begin to decrease is your LOT.

Bigger"

http://www.mattersofsize.com/forumnew/penis-enlargement-forum/323-how-determine-your-lot.html

stridge · Apr 2, 2007

jqsderrida said:
Perhaps you would profit from reading the more recent threads in the hanging forum about the dubious value of the theoretical aspects of LOT. Additionally, I am running a poll, both here and at Thunder's, where I am attempting to survey the practicability of the application of LOT theory. When I recieve 30 responses at either forum I will use chi-square statistical analysis techniques to evaluate the theory in terms of utility.

Cheers,

Looking forward to this, although the self-bias and accuracy of the respondents hopefully won't compromise anything too much. It will it at least be a very strong indicator of its actual usefullness.

jqsderrida · Apr 2, 2007

stridge said:
Looking forward to this, although the self-bias and accuracy of the respondents hopefully won't compromise anything too much. It will it at least be a very strong indicator of its actual usefullness.

Yeah, that is my genuine fear -- many people might respond to the survey via what they think LOT has done for them; that is, so many are convinced, a priori, that LOT is valid or invalid, that they will respond in a manner consistent with their beliefs.

DLD · Apr 2, 2007

Rocket said:
I feel that the LOT Theory is really discouraging to people.

I agree. I thought that a long time ago. I feel as though it sets guys up for failure before they begin. As some know, my LOT was always very low but that never kept me from making awesome gains stretching downward.

Pandora · Apr 2, 2007

Even if you want to debunk it I don't feel it matters any more.

Its a good idea to just do everything and try everything. Cause their is just so many beautiful exercises.

I'm Kinda just saying this because I don't think it matters what your LOT is now. Well should I say you should not be worried if you have a LOW LOT. We have come so far in the last year or so with: DLD sock stretches, The power assist, traction stretches, The Max vac, Bib's new rice sock technique.

I kinda would like to believe in the LOT theory being right. but I am glad it was wrote because otherwise I may not have focus so much on trying to make gains from my tunica, above my LOT which happens to be LOW.

I have noticed the ligs can come into play somewhat.

DLD · Apr 2, 2007

Pandora said:
Its a good idea to just do everything and try everything. Cause their is just so many beautiful exercises.

Very true! I would rather cover all my bases then possibly miss out on gains do to a theory (an unproven ideology)

Debunking the LOT Theory

0

0

1

0

0

0

Attachments

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

doublelongdaddy

0

doublelongdaddy

Similar threads