The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.
The problem is that you are focusing on the few who made gains who are not common in this thread, so the entries that have the highest probability to be false. The ‘good data outdraws the bad data’ isn’t of any help if you are searching something in the bad data.
I don’t want to star an arguing, but if your example is bogus than your assumption is incorrect. If Jonah Falcon isn’ta proof that 13” (working) penis really exists, than maybe so extreme sizes don’t exists, than the distribution isn’t as skewed as you think. So if you are supposing that gains can have a so wide range basing on the fact that there is analogus wide range in natural penis size, if the latter has a more narrower range what would you conclude? There isn’t a convincing proof of a working 13” penis anywhere, there isn’t any convincing proof of more than 2.25” length gains (as far as I can remember) either.
I was under the belief that Bib had gained like 4” or some such.
He’s never posted any proof as far as I can tell. I haven’t really looked around too much, but the biggest gains backed by proof that I’ve seen, is Braindrain. At least with good, clear proof.
He notoriously is.
Ah. I’ve not followed his story.
He seems like an odd fellow.
Began December 2009 at 5 7/8" length and 5" girth.
As of December 5th 2012 7 3/8" BPEL and 6 1/8" base girth.
Going for the magic 8"x6"
The problem is that you are focusing on the few who made gains who are not common in this thread, so the entries that have the highest probability to be false. The ‘good data outdraws the bad data’ isn’t of any help if you are searching something in the bad data.
I think there are some real data among the guys listed so far. We can never know for sure if they are telling the truth. It is up to each of us here to do our best job of accurately measuring and reporting our gains, and I have given the benefit of the doubt because it’s a fool’s errand to try to pick out who is telling the truth and who isn’t. I started with the biggest gainers because they do have a chance to be true, and I didn’t want to leave out any of the real accounts. So far I’ve done about the top 1%. I don’t intend to focus on them any more than the guys coming up, it’s just that they reported bigger gains so they are coming first on the list.
I did throw out several data points that were obviously false - so far I’ve listed about 18 big gainers out of the top 32 entries in the database, and thrown out 13 data points that I considered to be inaccurate entries (usually people who entered their starting size incorrectly, for example 1” x 1” starting size as their initial measurement, or people who claimed a gain that was impossible over a short period of time). Out of the 18 listed, I noted about 5 or 6 of them had some kind of compensating factor like very young or very old, surgery, highly variable measurements, or regaining lost size. Out of the 12 remaining guys, 2 of them did not make any posts or enter any routine details in the database. That leaves about 10 “clean” data points out of 32. Clean doesn’t necessarily mean true, but it also means that these data points are worth looking at, and can’t be thrown out.
There is a self reporting bias and a measurement accuracy bias in the entire TP data set, which tends to make the data set appear to have a larger starting size, and higher gains than are actually happening in the real world. I agree that the self-reporting bias is stronger at the very top sizes because of outright liars/trolls, and then probably becomes mostly uniform throughout the data set because of guys who are more accurately termed exaggerators and braggarts as opposed to liars. I think the measurement accuracy bias is fairly uniform throughout the whole data set. By measurement accuracy bias, I mean that even a well-meaning guy who is attempting to take accurate measurements will tend to unknowingly find ways to measure larger gains than are actually occurring. If everybody in the data set had their penis scientifically measured before and after PE, the gains would tend to be smaller than their personal measurements - particularly in length and not as much so in girth. This is a good topic, and it’s possible that one guy who did a perfect scientific job of measuring and self-reporting and gained 12 cubic inches actually gained the same amount as a guy who did a poor job of measuring and self-reporting but reported gaining 18 cubic inches. My solution to this problem is that I’m just going to keep listing big gainers. Overall I think girth has less bias than length, and since girth gains are the primary driver in volume gains and the biases are mostly uniform, I think the overall order of the big gainers listed is mostly intact.
We are now to the point of about 15 cubic inches gained where the good data is definitely starting to drown out the bad data.
Before 5.5" x 4.1" ///////// Now 7.4" x 4.9"
coop81 gained 15.1 cubic inches over 4 years between 2008 and 2012. He started at 6.1” x 5.4” and finished at 8.7” x 6.5” for length gain of 2.6” and girth gain of 1.1”. In metric terms he gained about 247 cubic centimeters. He hasn’t made any posts or listed a routine, but his profile shows he was about 30 years old and he did PE on and off over those 4 years.
Before 5.5" x 4.1" ///////// Now 7.4" x 4.9"
If I look at the distribution in your pictures, it looks quite unnatural on the positive side, doesn’t it? I’d expect a log-normal distribution (symmetric around the mean), as is believed to be valid for most physiological measurements, or not?
Also, you say “I think our sample sizes are small enough that we can’t discount seemingly impossible claims”, which confuses me. Do you mean the sample size is too small to identify outliers? In that case, how can it support the outliers (following sentence)? Just curious.
Hey maladict,
Skewness in data usually happens when there is a bound on one side of the data. So because negative penis size is impossible, or arguably even below 1 cubic inch is impossible - the whole distribution gets bunched over to the positive direction. Gains are also skewed positively partially because negative gains are nearly impossible and very rare, and also partially because larger gains are dependent on time and effort.
What I was saying about sample size has to do with standard deviations. On the positive side of a normal distribution, statistics expects that about
1 out of each 741 normally distributed data points is beyond 3 standard deviations from the mean.
1 out of each 31547 data points is beyond 4 standard deviations from the mean.
1 out of each 3.48 million data points is beyond 5 standard deviations from the mean.
1 out of each 1.01 billion data points is beyond 6 standard deviations from the mean.
So the TP data set likely contains about 3 to 3.5 standard deviations worth of “smooth” data. But planet Earth would contain about 7 guys who have a 6th standard deviation starting size. Our data set is big enough and smooth enough for us to safely say that there are at least some true entries among the big gainers listed so far. In particular, it looks like a majority of guys who gained under 18 cubic inches are true data (the graph is very smooth), and that between 18 and 22 cubic inches there is definitely some true data (the graph is not smooth, but it’s still tailing off predictably). Up to 22-23 cubic inches gained comprises the whole data set except for about 5 guys who were above that. The data set is too small for us to throw out the top 5 extreme data points as impossible, because they could conceivably be from some guys who are in the 4th or 5th or 6th standard deviation. So there’s not enough data for us to say the gainers above 22 cubic inches are outright false data, but our data also tells us that if they are real gains, that they are extremely rare.
In a positively skewed distribution, the probability function gets stretched out in the positive direction, but it can be transformed back to use the probability estimators from the standard normal distribution. I was able to estimate the shape parameters of the positive skew on our data just based on a visualizer program I found. They are location 0.5, scale 8, and shape 8. But my statistics are pretty rusty and actually transforming this into a normal distribution cumulative distribution function would be quite challenging math for me. 10 years ago maybe I could have done it easily. It would be an interesting endeavor to know what a realistic 5th or 6th standard deviation starting size or gain would be based on the TP data set.
Even without the skew factored in (i.e. assuming that these data are distributed standard normal) the 5th and 6th standard deviations above the mean for volume gained would be about 21 cubic inches gained, and 24 cubic inches gained. And for starting size the 5th and 6th standard deviations above the mean would be about 35 cubic inches starting volume, and 40 cubic inches starting volume. Factoring in the positive skew would raise these numbers.
Before 5.5" x 4.1" ///////// Now 7.4" x 4.9"
While I’m looking at all these stats, it seems like a good time to post zoomed in views of the positive tails on girth gains and length gains. I was surprised a bit by girth. Girth gains have a smooth tail all the way out to 3 inches, although there are only 3 guys who gained more than 2.4 inches, so perhaps it is only reliable up to 2.4. Length gains form a choppier tail, with spikes at 2.4, 2.8, and 3.6. So I formed another view of the data using wide bin ranges, and it shows a smoother curve up to either 3 inches or 3.4 inches.
Before 5.5" x 4.1" ///////// Now 7.4" x 4.9"
kelkel gained 15.0 cubic inches in a 7 month period during 2012. He started at 8.5” x 6.1” and gained up to 10.3” x 7.0” for length gains of 1.8” and girth gains of 0.9”. In metric terms he gained about 246 cubic centimeters. He doesn’t have any posts, but listed his routine as stretching for 45 minutes a day with 6 days on / 1 day off.
Kelkel is the first guy on the list starting with an 8” x 6” or bigger (except PelleXL the very first case if it’s for real). Few guys start with a size that big, and probably fewer want to make it bigger with PE. But for the few that do, it doesn’t take much gain to add up to very large volume increases.
Before 5.5" x 4.1" ///////// Now 7.4" x 4.9"
frostyguypa gained 14.8 cubic inches between 2000 and 2007. He started with a 5.125” x 4.75” and finished with a 8.75” x 5.875” for length gains of 3.625” and girth gains of 1.125”. In metric terms he gained about 243 cubic centimeters. He started PE in 2000, and joined Thunder’s in 2006 at which point he had already gained most of his size (up to 8.5” x 5.75”). He only made a few posts and only 1 was PE related (a product review for a stretcher), but he did list his routine in the size database as 45 minutes per day of stretching and jelqing with a variable rest schedule. When he entered his routine data in 2006 or 2007, he was 25 years old, so he was either 18 or 19 at the time he began PE.
Before 5.5" x 4.1" ///////// Now 7.4" x 4.9"
xenolith gained 15.6 cubic inches from 2004 through 2013. He started with a 6.5” x 5.0” and currently is up to 8.5” x 6.5” for length gains of 2.0” and girth gains of 1.5”. In metric terms, he gained 256 cubic centimeters. He kept track of his progress and routine in this thread:
Finding xeno: a penis tale
Xenolith went all out pretty much from the beginning. For the first 4 months, his routine consisted of about 15 mins stretching, then 200-500 jelqs in a hot tub (working his way up over the months). He added in 15 mins of horse 440’s after the jelqing after a while. Throughout this period he experimented with home-made hangers, stretchers, and ADS systems. He didn’t take any rest days except an occasional unplanned day off once or twice per month. And it sounds like after a while he was using some form of stretcher or ADS through a good percentage of the day. In this newbie period, which lasted from August 2004 through December 2004, he gained 1.0” x 0.375”. Then he took a 1 month break.
In January 2005 after his 1 month break, he scrapped the home-made hanger project, bought a Bib hanger, and quickly got to work on hanging. He read every single post Bib made, so it looks like he hung in Bib style, and that would be consistent with his “always on” approach up to that point as well. So from January through late May 2005, he was in hanging mode. I can’t remember his starting weight but I know he worked his way up to 27-32 lbs by May 2005, working in the 4-8 set range per day. During this period he continued with nearly zero rest days. He continued his stretching and jelqing regimen nearly every day during this period. He also clamped 2-3 times per week, pumped 1 time per week, and wore ADS golf weights for about 8 hours per day. His hanging was 3 months BTC, then 1.5 months SO, then switched back to BTC briefly before deciding to take another 1 month break – due to “numb ass-cheeks” – a unique PE injury. During these 5 months he gained another 0.5” x 0.125” up to a size of 8.0” x 5.5”.
After his decon break, he started back up in July 2005 with a light routine of stretching, jelqing, ADS, clamping, and pumping. Not many details during this period, but by August or September 2005 he was back to BTC hanging as a primary method, with the usual mix of other stuff thrown in as supplements. He also mentioned that during brief periods when he had been focusing girth, he took more rest days, but for the most part was still going nearly every day. Mid November 2005 he took a 2 month decon break with measurement of 8.5” x 5.75”
He used Hair Tie Wraps and Beer Cooler (Coozies), and wrapped as far away from the glans as possible when hanging. He also used HTW’s for pumping. He has other good insights on how to hang heavy weight comfortably.
On page 8 and 12 of his progress report, Xeno details his theory about workload and gains. He was in engineering, and he tracked his workload versus his gains, and found inflection points – i.e. points at which the rate of gains maxed out. There’s the IPR (Inflammation Proliferation Remodeling) training and helping the Armadillo beat the Turtle using decon breaks. There’s some partial derivatives involved too, you’ve really gotta read the thread. It’s a lot to digest, with a lot of links and reference to other great posts on PE theory. If I had to sum it up in one sentence: Xeno advocated ramping up training volume over a period of 3 weeks to 3 months, using an ADS or wrap to maintain an extended / engorged state after workouts (depending on whether you were training for length or girth), and then taking a 1 month decon break before repeating the cycle. The intermittent decon breaks allowed the penis to regain elasticity, and opened up the possibility for additional gains.
In May 2006 he declared his retirement from PE (but it didn’t last). Details on his routine from January 2006 through May 2006 are sparse, but he had gained another 0.25” of girth during this period, so it’s possible that he was focusing on girth. It looks like he was back for a while in 2008, and has actually been around the forum just recently in June 2013. If you check this thread Xeno, feel free to update or revise anything I’ve written, hopefully I did your story justice. He’s continued to occasionally do training cycles and has gained now up to 6.5” girth. He says he will continue to go for a 9” x 7” as time allows.
Hot Tub Jelqing
Hot Tub Jelqs
HTW – Hair Tie Wraps for hanging
HTW: its a wrap
Cable Clamp Cock Coffin (8 cable clamps up the shaft – alternating sets between even and odd clamps to work the entire shaft).
Strain ellipse mechanics adjacent to clamps
Seminal Kung Fu (semen retention / withholding ejaculation). Xeno believed that this helped him during the Inflammation (stretching/expanding) phase of his training. He also found SKF practice to be an overall more rewarding practice than PE at improving his sex life with his wife.
Seminal Kung Fu and Crown Chakra Orgasms
The “Omega Clamp” – Xeno’s ADS system
Did Xenolith ever post about the Omega Clamp
With over 1900 posts, I only got to read a small fraction of Xeno’s writings. It was a real pleasure to read what I was able to (and a real challenge to condense it into one summary post). He went his own way in PE from the very beginning, and as such there is a lot to learn from him. He put an incredible amount of effort into PE, in terms of time, research, and force thresholds. It stands out to me, even among this list of others with big routines. He wrote extensively about his practices and theory, and was always willing to answer a question and help a guy figure out how he gained like he did. Reading through his posts, it doesn’t take long to go off onto a tangent thread about a strange technique, theory or discussion, and to digest it all would really take weeks or months. I hope I did justice to the routine and theory here, but if you’re interested I highly recommend reading at least his progress report update thread linked at the top of this page. It describes everything in greater detail and serves as a gateway with links to many of his other writings and ideas. If you have more time, dig into his other posts and threads - they are chock full of help for would-be-gainers to realize their goals.
Before 5.5" x 4.1" ///////// Now 7.4" x 4.9"
Has anyone posting here made any real gains at all? 1(+) inches? Just thought I would ask.
Has anyone posting here made any real gains at all? 1(+) inches? Just thought I would ask.
No.
Began December 2009 at 5 7/8" length and 5" girth.
As of December 5th 2012 7 3/8" BPEL and 6 1/8" base girth.
Going for the magic 8"x6"
Has anyone posting here made any real gains at all? 1(+) inches? Just thought I would ask.
I am pretty close to 1” cemented gains in length since i started a couple months back. Mine have come almost exclusively from ligament adhesions being released due to hanging.
*(I had a surgery to repair “torsion” **(a testicle got twisted and tied a knot in one of the vas when i was approx 21yrs old.) and i believe during the healing process the suspensitory ligs were shortened)
Anyway my gains have come quickly and i and my spouse are very happy with the results. i am now ~1” from my final goal of 8” ebpl my girth was and is fine *(~6.6” base and 6.125~.250 midshaft)
and she is over the moon with the drastic increase in EQ.