Discussion on Lifestyle Size Study: is bp or nbp

I read many discussion about this, but in the site mraverage is clearly write how do you measure for livestyle survey, and this measure is not NBP and not BP, is an average . In the forum of mraverage , the person who amministrate the site explain that we need to press LIGHTLY on the pubic bone, so is a LIGHTLY BP measurement. discussion close forever LOL.

Just because the moderator of the site said to measure that way, does not mean that the Ansell Corporation researchers who did the study measured that way.

Ansell never published the results of the LifeStyles survey in any journal so they never spelled out their methodology. There has been considerable debate as to whether they used NPEL measurements, BPEL measurements, or something in between. For the purposes of condom design, it would seem to me the important length measurement would be how far the condom can be unrolled, which would be a NBPEL measurement.

However, when you compare the girth and length percentiles obtained in that study, and compare them to other data sets, like the PE Data Site here, or length and girth surveys on other PE forums, the ratios between length and girth percentiles for the Ansell study seem to conform to the other data sets better if you interpret the length data as something between NBPEL and BPEL. For all we know, they may have measured NBPEL from the side of the penis.

measure NBPEL from the side is exacly the same that measure LIGHTLY BPEL from the top.

I’m thinking that it is quite likely that no group of studies is working form the same page in re measurement— we here at TP use a very stringent standard as we are interested in changes from PE and are trying to control for variance— condom companies are researching for purposes of fit & comfort.

Getting lost in the weeds regarding size ‘studies’ will make you nutty.

To append what androNYC has said. I’m starting to think that the Lifestyle’s study never actually happened. I mean does anybody know anyone who participated in that study?

I’ve tried contacting the place a few years ago with a ghost response (ie. no response). Maybe it was a publicity stunt.

And look at this:

Oh yeah, 101 (young) volunteers couldn’t perform. There’s two problems with that number that seems made up.

1. That’s a lot. Do 1 in 4 have erectile difficulties (25%)? 18 million is said to have erectile dysfunction in the united states (out of 300 million) of men over 20. That’s 6%. Performance anxiety to that extreme?
2. 300… That’s a nice convenient number to end up with.

The biggest qualifier in my eyes regarding the survey is whether or not the participants were fully hard. I think not thereby leading to “smaller” measurements. I’m far from college age so maybe at that age one can get a rock hard boner and not be effected by the stage fright conditions that had to be present. Think about how many guys here say the can’t even stay hard to take a measurement picture.

The survey was done on spring break. Everyone was drunk, making it difficult to get completely hard.

What the study said though was “achieve an erection”, nothing about being completely hard. So yeah, the results would be less than stellar. Why someone would think doing a study about erections in a place with less than stellar erections is beyond me - which in itself makes the results pretty much nullified in my books. Anecdotal I know, but when I used to drink, the first few drinks of mine would always help me achieve an erection and I’d have to get seriously drunk for it to actually inhibit one. That said I doubt my erections while intoxicated were very good - I think they were rather poor (erect but probably an inch shorter sort of deal).

The 300 of 401 thing really does seem made up though. It’s not as easy as saying 400 of 526 because well, it’s harder to derive common fractions from - which happen to be easier to mention in conversation. I can sort of see a ceiling of 400 (or 300 or 500 etc) though.

Well, it is certainly possible that alcohol could have influenced the results. And a 25 % rate of ED is notable in that age group. But compared with other surveys in which a second party did the measuring objectively (as in the LifeStyles study) the results they obtained are not “small”.

There is another interpretation. The methodology has only been described in a sketchy fashion, but we know that guys were approached in a nightclub (The Dady Rock in Cancun) and asked to participate. Presumably guys were approached in groups, because guys on spring break do not go to nightclubs alone typically. They then went into a partitioned tent and were given access to erotic material and allowed to become aroused without an audience watching. They announced when they were ready and were measured by two nurses independently, with a physician observing.

For those guys who had volunteered to participate under peer pressure but were embarrassed about their size, would not it be a perfect way to opt out of the measuring process by claiming they could not become erect?

I think this seems to be the best reasonable explanation for the 25% dropout.

My point on 300 and 400 was that the numbers are really, well, even… which makes them seem made up.

If the study is real it’s horribly done.

401 of 6,500,000,000 people is amazingly small = 6.15384615 × 10-6 %. So maybe it makes sense that there doesn’t seem to be any self confessed person that was there.

it is one of the most scientific studies out there, as far as I can tell. (The notion that it “never happened” is absurd - that’s right up there with “the moon landing never happened”)

Like every study it is going to have some self-selection bias.

In other words, guys who think they have a big dick are more likely to let a hot nurse measure them than guys who think their dicks are small.

For that reason some sex researches think the numbers are skewed upwards. I have seen one sex-therapist suggest that the “average” in size studies may be an inch too high because of self-selection.

As to the length measurement methodology.

The few contemporaneous articles I have seen that quote Lifestyle representative and actually talk about the methodology say - ruler touching pubic bone, length from base to tip.

Most of the other reporters were apparently too dumb to ask the lifestyles rep about the methodology. I know I’ve linked to those articles before, if I can find them I will post links here.

I read that they were hoping to get 1000 measurements over the three days of the study, but couldn’t get as many guys to volunteer as they had hoped for. I suspect that they probably just decided to stop recruiting after obtaining 300 measurements.

Good theory. As far as sample size questions go, from what I remember of Para-Goomba’s long size study thread, it seems like the scientific ones (i.e. not self-reported) all come up with very similar figures on average size and length.

For what it’s worth:
Jawbone - Raw Dataset of Lifestyles research: Cancun, Mexico

Though I’d be interested in finding those who were there, or those articles you mentioned. With sources… because it really seems like people are fabricating evidence.

WTF, Jawbone?

“This time, measurements were taken by nurses from the point where the penis meets the body (at the pubic bone).”

====

It annoys me that Lifestyles never released raw data, but honestly how many private corporations do scientific research for product development and release their raw data? I can’t really think of any.