Length first, Girth Second

[blink2000 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close blink2000]

Reaching your ultimate girth goal first by using advanced techniques may be counter-productive for subsequent length gains.
Important: this article does not apply to light girth work or the newbie routine!

Length First, Girth Second

I learned the principle "Length First, Girth Second" on another forum. I was surprised to find that many people here at PEGym are unfamiliar with this theory. What I accepted as an axiomatic fundamental is apparently new territory for a lot of the members here. I learned this concept based on comments, posts, threads, & the experience of veterans such as Bib, Big Girtha, Glandmaster, Dino9X7, SparkyX, Monty, lil12big1, Invisible, Wadzilla, Regularwhiteguy (aka RWG) and others.

Let me preface this with worthwhile points:
1-i think everyone agrees that girth hardly effects ligament stretch length gains (since it only effects the tunica)
2-guys with below average girth may have less to fear from girth work than guys with above average girth

Hobby: Guys with smallish girth like Immortality and me can benefit by increasing girth before going all out on length. More girth, say 5"+ mid-shaft erect, would make hanging easier. As it stands, I don't have much leeway in adjustments on the Bib unless I use excessive wrap (which causes other problems). (source: *************.org/forum/showthread.php?p=152400#post152400)

The Consensus In the PE Community
On the forum I came from (thunders), (as well as others) length before girth is accepted as a consensus, and is considered as sound advice. While people might not agree on the reasons for doing it, it seems most of the experts agree that we should do it just in case (if for no other reason).

Wadzilla: "It's fairly accepted among the PE community that you should go after all the length you want before focusing heavily on girth. The thicker you get, the tougher it is to get longer (just ask RWG). I have the opposite problem - I gain girth easily, but length is a bitch for me. It's easier to stretch a piece of licorice than to stretch a brick. Get your length, then go for girth." Source: *************.org/forum/showthread.php?p=152271#post152271

Wadzilla: "traditional girth moves do strengthen the tunica, which is also responsible for at least 50% of your length potential - if not more. While it is true that ligs also contribute to length of course, and that girth work will not affect ligs at all, I believe the effects of girth work upon the tunica to be significant.. "
source: *************.org/forum/showthread.php?p=213410#post213410

Length First, Girth Second Concept
Theory by Bib, Aka Bigger

(this was posted way back in 2002)
Bib/ Aka Bigger:
First, let me say I do not know about the veracity of any of this. My comments on length vs. girth were simply what I perceive as common sense. To break this down in the simplest terms, there are a couple of points you have to look at.

First, does all length come strictly from lig stretch or growth, or does length also come from tunica stretch or growth. In my experience, at least half of my length came from tunica stretch or growth, going by the amount I gained to, and then past my navel. The increase in lig stretch should not have affected this measure very much.

That leads to two other questions:
If indeed length comes from tunica stretch or growth, then is there any difference in the ease or amount of gains possible from differing tunica'; the amount of collagen material to be found in differing penis of varying girths? Then, when doing girth exercises, does the tunica stretch or grow laterally?

Since the tunica is the limiting factor in girth, provided there is sufficient blood flow, it is obvious the tunica does stretch or grow. Which is it? If it only stretched, then it should become weaker. Since there are no reports of torn or ripped tunica, it would seem that it probably grows, with new material filling in as it becomes larger to handle a larger girth, and subsequently remaining at the same strength laterally or possibly stronger. That is my experience. Mine actually has more material.

So, if girth gains do provide more material, is that material as strong, or stronger than the original girth. Beats me, but I would tend to think it is stronger. Much stronger. So, would length gains be harder or easier considering this new material, attempting to stretch it lengthwise. IMO, yes.

On another related note, starting from scratch, do thin guys or thick guys have more trouble gaining length. I have no concrete data, and there is anecdotal evidence either way. But in general, over the years, it seems to me that guys who start thin have a much easier time gaining length, than guys who started thick. All I can say is it is a strong general impression.

For what it is worth,
Bigger

Source: Is it true the girth gains hinder length gains? - Thunder's Place Free Penis Enlargement Forums

More Commentary On Length First, Girth Second

lil12big1
Which is easier to stretch - a thick rubber band or a thin one?
We need to remember that growth is achieved through micro-tears. It's basic physics that a thicker rubber band is going to be able to support a greater weight before it stretches to the same extent as a thinner one. This means that if you are thicker, there is a very good possibility that you may need greater weight to achieve the same amount of micro-tear inducing stress than someone who measures less in girth. Of course, there are lots of variables in the equation, every one's physiology is unique, but the fundamental physical principle remains constant for everyone.

I have been doing some more reading on the length vs. girth issue. The quote below seems like a good explanation for why it is usually better to begin a PE program by focusing on length and going for girth gains later (Basic physics!):
source: *************.org/forum/showthread.php?p=25399#post25399

Glandmaster:
"I spent several years (unknowingly) doing some serious girth work and have found it difficult to gain length since then."
source: *************.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1195497#post1195497

Dino9X7:
"I don't know but one thing when I was doing erect stretches and squeezes I was having a real hard time getting length gains. Now that I have split my workout and only do length or girth my length gains have started again."
source: *************.org/forum/showthread.php?p=159281#post159281

Monty:
While I have gained in ways that are satisfactory in terms of length my girth gains came along for the ride. What I’m saying here is that length exercises could very well, like myself, produce girth gains as a normal result. On the other hand girth gains don't necessarily produce significant length gains and, unlike others here, Girth comes easily with diligent girth exercises. Seems that there are some consequences to girth exercises such as having more difficult time applying a hanger with more girth volume to deal with. A thought about this is interesting also. Length gains are had from static stretching whereas girth exercises using a clamp is Hydraulic internal pressure.
Source: *************.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1198687#post1198687

Invisible:
"Following this idea, if we think of the penis as a simple spring, then the amount of force required is proportional to the extent of the stretch. A thicker penis would correspond to a spring with a higher proportionality constant, thus requiring more force."
source: *************.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1143400#post1143400

SparkyX:
These difficulties may be due to a combination of factors, but in general I would say that PE should be approached with either a conditioning, girth, or length strategy, since it seems that the three goals are mutually exclusive." My latest theory is that PE for girth, like clamping, usually involves pretty serious pressure. I think that leads to tissue toughening which in turn makes length gains pretty difficult. IF however, you used moderate forces in clamping or jelqing for girth gains, I think you wouldn't find the same difficulty in gaining length. It would be interesting to ask those that had worked girth first then had difficulty with length, what method they used and see if it correlates.
source: *************.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1195525#post1195525

A Few Specific Anecdotal Examples:
Big Girtha: (7" MSEG): Read his threads, he has trouble gaining length
Regularwhiteguy: (7.5" MSEG): he ran into the same trouble as Big Girth/ he had trouble gaining any length.
Monty (6.6" MSEG): (see quote above).
Glandmaster: (6.5" MSEG): he found it very difficult to gain any length at all once reaching his girth goal
Dino9X7 (6.5" MSEG): (see quote above).

There are many other Veterans with similar experience & opinions (that girth routines or gains can hinder length gains). This is why the concept / theory eventually became a consensus (at Thunders).

More Anecdotal Evidence:
Also, as explained in Bib's original theory above, it just seems like a lot of guys with thinner girth seem to gain length easily. From all my PE research, and experience, the general trends appear to demonstrate this for me as well. Can it be proven as a hard fact? I don't know. Who wants to volunteer to reach 7" of girth first then try to reach your length goal? Very few people gain a large amount of girth, so an actual scientific study is impractical. It would be impossible to get a large enough sample to prove much of anything. Even if you had a group of self selected people, it's no longer a random sample.

Counter Examples & Anomalies;
There are definitely counter-examples out there. There are anomalies with almost any theory right? But there seem to be significantly more people who can't gain length after reaching their girth goals, than those who can. This is why it seems wise to just go for length first, even if you don't agree. Anyone is welcome to try & "buck the trend" and become an anomaly by gaining a lot of length after reaching 6.5" to 7.5" of girth. However, based on those few who have reached those fantastic girth numbers, the odds are against you gaining much length (assuming you are ever able to reach that amount of MSEG).

I don't know what the consensus is here at PEGym, but once I find more information here (or other threads on the subject), I'll post them at the bottom of this article as helpful links... and perhaps I will edit or improve this article later. Your thoughts on this subject (for or against it) are all welcome here. Let's discuss this...

Practical Hanging Advice:
Hanging 101
Blink2000's Hanging Tips
Penis Weight Hanging: Technique Tips & Turkey-neck

Hanging Theory:
Why Hanging Should be Done Before Advanced Girth Work: Length First, Girth Second
Maximizing Ligament Stretch Gains & LOT Theory
Choosing Your Angle of Attack, Target the Ligs first, then Tunica

Homemade Hanger Recipes
The Captn's Wench
Tom Hubbards AFB Hanger

Fulcrums
https://www.pegym.com/forums/penis-d...crum-rsdt.html

[Going411x7 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Going411x7]

Thanks for all the research and solid as well as anecdotal evidence that girth is easier to achieve than length. I knew many of these guys when I was at Thunders, and I do tend to find your theory right on target. My observation has been that most p e'ers find it easier to gain girth than length, whatever the approach. I gained both equally by jelqing and then stretching, but I think I was the exception. Regarding my own experience, I have thought of my dick as one of those long rubber balloons; when I am thicker, my dick is shorter. Let me give you an example. When I awake from a solid woody in the a.m. I can edge my waning dick to better than 10", measured with a tape while lying in bed--with my dick sticking straight out. But my girth is not as thick as when I have a solid woody. Then it is thicker but not as long. When I am in the penis pump, it is thicker, but not nearly as long.

I am convinced that the limiting factor for length gains is that steel like cord extending the length of our dicks. That has been my experience and that of German Stallion from MOS. Once you have practiced p.e. for many years as I have, that cord is practically impossible to lengthen, ergo, no gains to speak of in length.

I still seem to be gaining in stretched flaccid lengths. However, these gains do not translate into BPEL gains, again, because of the limiting factor I mentioned above.

Please excuse my lack of knowledge when it comes to terminology. I am not good at that.

P.S. It's so great to have you here, sharing your "treasure trove" of knowledge with us, and growing as men and as practitioners of penile enhancement.

Going411x7 aka Horsehung at Thunder's

[blink2000 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close blink2000]

Going411x7: I hope PEgym veterans like you continue to respond to this thread.

Your feedback is greatly appreciated. We should definitely at least see if PEgym veterans & experts will confirm or deny this theory based on their own experience, and get some of your thoughts on whether you agree or disagree with it. In truth its only a theory, and there are definitely counter-examples out there. However, as a whole, it seems like good advice (so this is why I have been passing it on to others).

I was challenged on the length first, girth second advice I gave on Hanging 101. I did some research and I tried to keep an open mind; or in other words, I needed to admit if I was wrong, or if I was giving people poor strategic PE advice. I think it is hard to take an assumption we have internalized, and honestly allow it to be challenged. In some ways, it's like taking a step into the dark, and wondering whether you're going to find some light or just bang into a wall...

[redbear52 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close redbear52]

The argument that a thicker penis will become harder to stretch strikes me as completely inane. This argument would apply if the penis was a homogenous structure, like a solid steel or rubber cylinder that we were trying to stretch, but it very obviously is not. Nor can it be modeled as a "simple spring" even as a gross first approximation.

The structures that are being stretched to gain length are the suspensory ligaments and the tunica albuginea which are relatively thin. Do these structures become thicker when girth is gained? We have no way of knowing. They may well get thinned out, making girth gains easier, not harder. Only if a bunch of guys volunteered to undergo serial biopsy of their penises would we have any way of getting this information, and I don't think guys are lining up for this. Bib supposed that the tunica "probably grew" rather than stretched, but this was only a supposition, not supported by any evidence whatsoever. It was just what he perceived to be "common sense".

Anyone who has spent any significant amount of time reading what there is to read on various PE forums knows that some guys gain length easily but not girth, and some gain girth easier than length. Some gain both proportionately. This makes it very hard to draw any conclusions from accounts such as Glandmaster's that gaining girth was actually a causative factor in not gaining subsequent length. The only way to answer a question like this would be to have a sizable randomized trial in which some guys did hanging first and girth exercises subsequently, while the other group did both simultaneously, and their gains were compared. This is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

I have heard BIB make two other arguments in support of his advice to defer girth exercises until length goals are met. The first is the issue of girth exercises making hanging more difficult either by causing enough soreness to make application of the hanger a problem, or causing so much girth gain as to make fitting a hanger difficult. It is possible that some guys might get sore enough from hanging to make wearing the hanger difficult, but others may well not. And the regular BIB hanger can accommodate so much girth that the idea of becoming too thick to hang strikes me as rather ludicrous.

BIB's second argument is that by pursuing both girth and length exercises simultaneously one is creating micro-tears in both layers of the tunica simultaneously (the one with primarily longitudinally-oriented fibers and the one with primarily radially-oriented fibers) and that this will somehow result in collagen cross-links between the two layers of the tunica which will limit future gains. This sound a bit more plausible to me, but it remains pure conjecture.

We know quite a bit about penis anatomy from histological studies of autopsy material. We know a reasonable amount about penis physiology, although a good deal related to the veno-occlusive mechanism of erection remains poorly understood. We really know next to nothing about anatomical changes that take place with PE.

We might be able to extrapolate what we know happens with ligament and tendon stretching with physical therapy, or what happens with skin and soft tissue that is manipulated with tissue expanders (which have been used by plastic surgeons for many years) to what might occur in the suspensory ligaments and the tunica with PE, although even then there is some risk of error. Beyond that, what is accepted as "common knowledge" in the PE community is simply based on pseudo-science and anecdote. I think it is important to distinguish between advice, conjecture, hypothesis, and established fact. There is really virtually nothing regarding PE that is established as fact at this time.

[blink2000 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close blink2000]

redbear52: "This argument would apply if the penis was a homogenous structure, like a solid steel or rubber cylinder "
The penis doesn't need to be 100% homogenous for the laws of physics to apply.

redbear52: "Do these structures become thicker when girth is gained? We have no way of knowing"
You're assuming only a thicker structure can be stronger. We know it is a fact the penis literally becomes stronger with continued work. I've seen Chinese guys lift 200lbs+ with their dick, are you trying to tell me someone else's unconditioned penis is just as strong? On a lesser scale, PE does make your penis stronger. The extreme example is just to show we DO have a way of knowing

redbear52: "This makes it very hard to draw any conclusions from accounts such as Glandmaster's that gaining girth was actually a causative factor in not gaining subsequent length. "
I don't know specifically about Glandmaster (I would have to re-read his information), but you're moving from the basis of the false assumption that we cannot know whether the penis is getting stronger. Many veterans PEers noticed AFTER they gained girth it was hard to gain length, hence the whole point of this thread. It's not hard to draw that conclusion when a guy with massive girth suddenly realizes he can't gain length anymore and that most other guys with a lot of girth are having similar problems.

redbear52: "And the regular BibHanger can accommodate so much girth that the idea of becoming too thick to hang strikes me as rather ludicrous."
You complain about conjecture, but ironically that's exactly what your point here is.

redbear52: " and that this will somehow result in collagen cross-links between the two layers of the tunica which will limit future gains. This sound a bit more plausible to me, but it remains pure conjecture."
We know for a fact the penis gets stronger with PE, Bib is just theorizing on a possible reason why. You can argue his theory is conjecture, but you can't argue the penis doesn't become conditioned and stronger with PE. That is a well known fact, even outside the world of PE (one again, I'll beat this dead horse & use the example of a Chinese guy lifting 200+ lbs with his penis.

redbear52: "We really know next to nothing about anatomical changes that take place with PE. "
So why not trust the experience and advice that the veteran PEers are giving you? Why argue against this general advice (length first, girth second), but give absolutely nothing in return?

redbear52: "I think it is important to distinguish between advice, conjecture, hypothesis, and established fact."
Yes, so I am pointing out that your counter-argument is (no offense) worthless conjecture that tell us nothing worthwhile, nor offers any evidence that the established advice is wrong. You argue against the evidence and arguments provided with no data, no examples, no real evidence, and no counter theory.

In contrast, I gave you evidence, examples, basic physics, and the advice of veterans with actual experience.

What do you give us to prove this is wrong? Nothing (pure conjecture, no evidence, no examples).

In contrast, I'm showing you the advice veterans with actual experience are giving. These guys gained a lot of girth and all concluded that it was hurting their length gains to some extent or another. Who are we to say they are wrong? I don't see any guys with 6.5"+ girth disagreeing except to qualify the length first girth second statement. By qualifying it, I mean they agree with the general strategy, except in some scenarios. For example, I've seen guys say things like "length first, girth second, although girth work is ok if you have usually low girth and you're trying to get it into a normal range".

Some say it might not be true, but they still advise to follow it, because too many people have experienced the same issues: really large girth interrupts length gains. Not always, but for a lot of PEers, if not most.

You're trying to tear something down and you offer nothing in return.

You complain about conjecture but ironically that is 99% of what you're giving us.

[blink2000 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close blink2000]

I knew this would turn into a monster debate... that's why I made the new post & tried to get this off the hanging thread

[DownLow Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close DownLow]

So, where does the TGC theory fall into this? I have 7.5 BPSFL and 6.0 BPEL. I have been PEing for almost 2 years. I would assume by that theory that if I work more girth and smooth muscle, then my length may just grow as well. The problem with PE is we don't really know our penis limits. It is not like stretching a muscle and knowing that joints motion, mobility and range. I feel that after awhile something may have to give (it may not) and if the tunica or ligaments or what ever is holding one back form gaining futher length are tight, even after many years, they will eventually stretch. Not arguing, just curious on your thoughts on this.

[blink2000 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close blink2000]

I have never considered how this relates or doesn't relate to TGC theory.
TGC Theory

You could look at it this way: for some people (not all) girth itself could potentially act as a limiting factor for length.

We don't know the exact reasons why girth seems to often act as a limiting factor. Maybe its the toughness and scarring, or maybe its just that it takes more force to stretch a bigger girthier penis, and your skin/blood vessels can't necessarily grow thicker or stronger along with your thicker and stronger tunica. So to some extent the reasons behind the phenomena are conjecture as redbear52 pointed out. The phenomena appears to be very real though (in contrast to the theories used to explain it), for a number of PEers. At least enough to create concern, which eventually resulted in the theory.

Here's something interesting Bib said about his Tunica:
"That is my experience. Mine actually has more material."

I believe a lot of other veterans agreed or had similar experiences, which is what resulted in the quotes above.

[Waylander Retired ModeratorPEGym EditorPEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Waylander]

Another information gathering grand slam Blink I'm interested in how other long time PEer's (like Sir Going) feel about the this.

[blink2000 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close blink2000]

Thank you Waylander

I tried, but couldn't find a single thread that really summarized what I had learned about length first, girth second. And I realized after some of redbear52's comments that it wasn't enough to just give him a general idea of where I got the information.

I searched around various threads & tried to put together some of the more useful comments, and I tried to mostly get them from the more reputable well known veterans. As going411by7, I think most people on that forum will recognize at least some (if not all) of those names. Some of those guys PE'd several years, and some like Bib & SparkyX (and others) are well known for their knowledge, whether practical or more scientific (sparkyX posted a thread on thunders ages ago about PIs, correct me if I'm wrong, but he is the one that came up with that theory). (source *************.org/forum/showthread.php?t=43790)

Even if people disagree with the idea, I thought they should at least know my opinions are based on the collective wisdom of a lot of veterans & not my own ideas at all. (and I hope I don't seem to unforgiving with my counter-arguments!)

[blink2000 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close blink2000]

On second though, Bib's initial post on the on "Length first, Girth second" theory back in 2002, sums up the original basis of the theory.

But at that time, it was a new (maybe?) idea & now it is generally accepted (well mostly accepted, I suppose some will always reject some theories!). People have challenged it, but I think that mostly ended a long time ago. Now it's accepted generally (at least on in most places I have seen) just as a good practice / strategy to maximize gains. It is not without flaws and there are some exceptions to the rule, but it still seems like a good practice...

Some just say (for example) not to overdo the girth work & don't go crazy with advanced stuff & that is enough not to hinder length gains (that seems reasonable enough to me). As an example, I don't think the newbie routine hinders length gains whatsoever, if done as suggested (no 100% jelqs). Some people gain a good amount of girth from the newbie routine. I don't think it delivers the scarring or toughness that the Veterans are concerned about when they say "length first, girth second"

At least based on how I understand things, I think they are just advising against advanced girth work too early in a PE career, simply because of the anecdotal evidence that many veterans couldn't gain length after reaching their ultimate girth goals (6.5" to 7.5").

In fact, I'm going to add a new note at the top of the article

(the note is that light girth work, light the newbie routine wont hurt your length potential)

[Zulu Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Zulu]

This theory applies to me 100% and I implemented it over a year ago. I tend to gain length very easily and have found my combination of deconditioning breaks and modest girth to be the keys.

It stands to reason that something with more substance is more difficult to stretch. Thanks for posting this blink!

[blink2000 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close blink2000]

I hope more veterans will reply & let us know whether this theory matches their experience. Some of the veterans on thunders didn't agree actually; and some had a lot of reservations about the theory. I realize I posted a lot of quotes in favor of the theory, but of course it wasn't blindly accepted. There was a lot of debate on the subject, and in the end I think people appear to have decided just to go along with the theory "just in case".

As you can see, I came from a place where length first, girth second is almost axiomatic; it was one of the first fundamental principles of PE that I was taught. I never questioned it until I came to PEgym, and it is only even more recently that I found out this theory (among several others) appears to be originated by Bib.

[EQKing Banned Find all posts View Profile Close EQKing]

My theory .... a more girth based routine will give bursts in length ....

[blink2000 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close blink2000]

Can you speak from personal experience; is this something that worked for you, or a theory only?