Full text penis length study, a bit more clinical than Lifestyles

I finally found the full text of a study that has hard, accurate data and while not providing raw data (sharing raw data underlying a study in the medical profession just doesn’t happen), it provides enough statistical information to make the data useful. Just to add data.

Since I can’t post in main forum, maybe someone could move it there.

The study is: Schneider T et al. Does penile size in younger men cause problems in condom use? A prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men. Urology 2001; 57: 314–318.

The data below is from the younger, potent cohort (111 subjects). The subjects achieved erections naturally, using visual and manual stimulation, and only those who achieved erections of 5 points on an arbitrary 5 point scale (max. Rigidity) were measured. Measuring was unambiguously done bone pressed, with maximal compression of the fat pad. Unfortunately width and not circumference was measured. The subjects were chosen by placing ads, and all measuring was done by the same clinician (for consistency of measurements) in a clinic (as opposed to a bar in Cancun.).

Here is the data, in the following format:
(Mean) +/- (standard deviation) (range) [first cm then in]

BPEL
14.48 +/- 1.99 (10-19)
5.70 +/- 0.78 (3.94-7.48)

BPFL (note: these seem short for BP, perhaps flaccid measurements were done NBP; but erect was expressly BP)
8.60 +/- 1.50 (5-14.5)
3.39 +/- 0.59 (1.97-5.71)

Erect width at base
3.95 +/- 0.38 (3.0-5.0)
1.56 +/- 0.15 (1.18-1.97)

Erect width glans
3.49 +/- 0.35 (2.6-4.5)
1.37 +/- 0.14 (1.02-1.77)

Flaccid width base
3.08 +/- 0,40 (2.2-4.2)
1.21 +/- 0.16 (0.87-1.65)

Flaccid width glans
3.02 +/- 0.34 (2.4-3.7)
1.19 +/- 0.13 (0.94-1.46)

Can you link the source of this information. I wouldn’t mind having more of a read.

These 2 papers discuss/review that study and most of the other ones but not enough details (e.g. bone pressed or NBPEL)? Pepsican if you have the full pdf (I couldn’t find it), please post it, as I’m also very interested in that full article.

http://www.natu re.com/ijir/jou … df/3900887a.pdf

Some interesting quotes (not surprising) from first paper:

"Fourty-two (62.7%) subjects could recall the problem starting in childhood, often when they felt that their penis was smaller than their friends’, while in 25 (37.3%) the problem started in the teenage years after watching erotic films or looking at magazines."

"Many young Western men seem to base their idea of normality on the images of penises seen in pornography. While we have not been able to construct a nomogram for the penis size of pornographic actors it is our anecdotal impression that men following this particular career are probably not representative of the average male in the genital area!"

Interesting. So according to that study the mean BPEL is 5.70 +/- 0.78 inches. I thought it was higher than that.

I’m assuming that the girth measurements are actually a diameter.

Erect width at base
1.56 +/- 0.15 = 4.9 +/- .47 inches circumference

Erect width glans
1.37 +/- 0.14 (1.02-1.77) = 4.3 +/- .49 inches circumference

I’d wish they gave a mid girth measurement.

So out of 143 guys who volunteered to have their penis measured, the longest was 7.5 bpel, so maybe 2-3 measured between 7.25 bpel and 7.5 bpel.

This is consistent (roughly) with the 98th percentile values of a 7.5 bpel penis that have been suggested in other threads.

Looks like a pretty thorough study to me. Thanks for bringing this to our attention!

I always thought my glans were on the small side at 4.5 inches circumference. It’s nice to see it’s more like average, based on this study at least. This suggests that mushroom heads larger than the rest of the penis, even glans the same size are on the rare side.

Something is inconsistent with these numbers…
Am I missing something?

BPEL
5.70 +/- 0.78 (3.94-7.48)

5.7 + .78 = 6.48 NOT 7.48.
5.7 - .78 = 4.92 NOT 3.94

So what is correct, the detailed numbers or the parenthesis numbers?

Boonany, the .78 is the standard deviation and the 3.94-7.48 is the range.

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

A great post. I guess I am closer to average than I thought!

This is the stuff I find hard to believe. I acknowledge I might be wrong but still, let’s look at what this means. It means that out of 143 guys who volunteered to be measured, the biggest dick was probably, at most, 7” NBPEL (almost everybody has some fat pad/skin) and can push in somewhat. The argument can also be given that since it was volunteer measurements, they may over-represent big guys. Now, I’m a bit of a skeptic but I just find it hard to believe that at most ~1/150 guys has a 7” NBPEL penis.

Does penile size in younger men cause problems in condom use? a prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men - PubMed

Where is written that they took the BPEL? It seems they meausred NBPEL.

I have read on other sites that it was BPEL (see link below). Not sure if I believe them, but at least 1 of the 3 studies referred in post below does mention it was a BPEL in the full article pdf. However, it’s not clear that they looked at the methodology of this study we are talking about, although they do claim that they did, I think?

"Penile length was measured by a caliper. While measuring penile length at the dorsal aspect, the caliper was pushed into the pubic bone in order to eliminate the
effect of the pubic fat pad. Penile length was measured dorsally from the pubo-penile angle to the meatus, and ventrally from the penoscrotal junction to the meatus side. Circumference was measured by an ordinary `tumo-meter’ at the penile base and at the corona. Penile dimensions were measured in a flaccid state and during axial stretching in which the glans was gently stretched until the patient expressed discomfort."

http://www.lpsg .org/60223-ques … ock-length.html

In this study, the measure was actaully BPEL. The average was 5.35”. Patients were people suffering of ED, and the study was done in Tel Aviv, don’t know if this can influence results in any way.

You guys will think this post is off the wall. But here goes - I have been internet shopping for a “masturbation sleeve”. Because I am perverted that way.

It surprised the hell out of me to see that the majority of them have an “insertable length” of around 5.5”. But I guess it makes sense.