The significance of Thunder's Place PE Data stats

El or bpel??

Bpel

I’m skipping over the “exclusive” starting length data. I started to assemble it, and it’s basically right in between the inclusive data, and the TP -0.375 set, confirming that about half of the bias is related to starting measurements from members with prior PE experience.

End length data is taken from a subset of the previous data set, this time limited to members who entered two or more data points, 2865 data points in total. This data probably contains a self-measurement bias of about 0.125” or 0.25”. On the other hand it also contains a bias from members who would go on to make more gains, but never enter them in the data base. So they could cancel each other out to some degree, and this data could be right on with respect to the real lengths.

Some highlights for post-PE percentiles.
10.0” —— 99.8%
9.0” ——- 98%
8.0” ——- 95%
7.5” ——- 74%
7.0” ——- 49%
6.5” ——- 27%
6.0” ——- 10%
5.5” ——- 3%
5.0” ——- 1%

So only 10% of guys end their PE career with below average length (compared to non-PE’ers).
50% of PE’ers end up with a 7 incher, and 25% get the 7.5 incher, but only 5% get the 8 incher.

Using the same data set of 2865 members who made at least 2 data entries, there’s an average length gain of 0.69”, and a median gain of 0.52”. The average gain has remained the same since 2008, but the median is lower by about 0.07”

Some highlights from the data, with a +/- 1% courtesy taken in a couple instances, for nice round numbers:

90% of guys gained length, 8% had no gains, and 2% lost length.
80% of guys gained 0.25” or more of length.
60% of guys gained 0.50” or more.
40% of guys gained 0.75” or more.
25% of guys gained 1.00” or more.
15% of guys gained 1.25” or more.
10% of guys gained 1.50” or more.
5% of guys gained 1.75” or more.
3% of guys gained 2.00” or more.
1% of guys gained 2.50” or more.

Ok, I had to veer off track a bit for an interesting, yet dubious one. I wanted to attempt to get a look at the effect of consistency on gains. So I sorted the data based on number of entries in the database, hoping that it would approximate consistency. For example I have made 15 size entries, tracking my gains over the last 1.5 years. Whereas another guy made 4 entries over 1.5 years. The assumption is that number of entries in the database is correlated with consistency in PE routine. That is to say, the guy with 15 entries was more likely to have PE’d for that entire 1.5 years, whereas the guy with 4 entries was more likely to have PE’d for 3 months, then taken a year off, then picked it back up for 3 months. And I think that’s a valid, although weak, correlation.

The problem is that the number of entries is also probably correlated with effectiveness of training. Meaning there could be two guys, who both make 6 entries during their first year, and both continue to PE with the same consistency and effort during their second year. One of the guys goes on to make more gains, and continues to make 6 more entries during the next year, tracking his gains over that time. The other guy hits a brick wall and makes no more gains, and makes no more entries despite being consistent for the entire second year. The database has no data point for that second guy. I think this is both a valid and strong correlation.

So the two correlations cooperate with each other, and my guess is that the latter, the attrition factor, has a greater influence on the results. This is certainly a poor attempt to approximate consistency. Nevertheless, this is interesting (we know at least part of the correlation is from consistency) and definitely motivational.

Measurements: the number of data entries the users made in the TP database
N: the number of guys who entered that number of measurements. The vast majority of guys only enter 1 or 2 measurements. Higher numbers of measurements are increasingly rarer to the point where I had to group them together to get sufficient sample sizes.
V10, V20, V30, etc: The percentile of volume gained. V10 is top ten percent of volume gainers in that group, and so on.
Days between: The average number of days between each measurement for the group as a whole.
Total days: The average total days of the PE career recorded in the database for the group.

Very interesting BD; all data (except that rascal ‘5 measurements’…but it’s only slightly off trend) is internally consistent with the conclusion that total time (days) practicing PE is positive correlated with volume gain. As you know, in my case, much of that time is spent growing while remodeling (i.e. resting); but clearly, how ever one does it, the longer one does it, the larger the total gain…quite reassuring for us all I would think.

Thanks for doing this.

xeno

It’s a lifelong practice, which means I will see 8x6 before I’m sixty!

My pleasure. I’m hoping to be doing some growing while remodeling myself soon. I’m in the 8 hours/day of macro-P phase fowfers right now. And after 4-6 weeks of this, I’ll have earned every day of that 2 months rest. :)

While we all know it to be true (time and consistency bring gains) it is reassuring to see data backing it up. Somehow that tiny kernel of PE skepticism keeps occasionally popping its head up during plateaus, and I always wonder if the next gains will really come. You think I’d have learned my lesson by now and know that it’s not a matter of if, but when. And for the most part I do know that. But sometimes, it’s nice to have graphics.

Sometimes I also wonder, if we had an exact proven science of PE, and we knew exactly how the biology worked, and an exact formula for what guys had to do to get success and gain 10 cubic inches or whatever - but it still took 5000 hours of actual “time in the field” would any higher % of guys actually get their big dicks? I think maybe a few extra percent of guys would, but most would still drop out early.

By the way, xeno, thanks for the bromelain tip. Walking around on this foot has been a constant battle against swelling.

Right on a-unit. See you in the top right corner of the graphic in 10 years. Wait, how about 5 years.

Inclusive and Exclusive starting girth stats using 2014 data.

The distribution is very close to what it was back in 2008. Exclusive data is less extreme at both tails.

I think girth data contains significantly less self-measurement bias than length data, because girth measurements cannot benefit from any ruler angle or pelvic orientation tricks of self-deception. The tailor’s tape simply cannot lie to the eye. It is still likely that this girth data contains a small upward bias from previous PE experience and an inevitable exaggeration factor. I also think rounding up to the nearest 1/2” is much more prevalent with girth when guys are close to those figures, as evidenced by an overabundance of measurements at 4.5”, 5.0”, 5.5”, and 6.0”. That being said, both data sets agree that the median is 5.0” girth. It’s easier to get a more precise measurement on length, and it’s natural to do a little rounding on girth.

Nearly all average size PE studies put median and average girth in the 4.8” - 5.0” range, so I’ve added a third column which is an average of the two data sets, minus 0.1”, to bring the median to 4.9”. This third column could be considered an approximate distribution of girth for comparison to the non-PE world.

Are you saying what a researcher would get if he measured me using a hard Thunder’s bone-pressed measurement? Or what a researcher would get if he measured my BPEL without pushing in all the way?

Hey Equire, the first mostly.

There’s several sources of length measurement error, and how hard we press is one of them. It’s possible that some research doesn’t get a full hard bone-pressed measurement, but I think a good researcher would control for this by getting a hard yet comfortable bone press. At least I’d hope so. At some point you’re pressing flush against the pubic bone, and the marginal increase in BPEL measurement from additional pressing force decreases to nearly zero.

If anyone is able to get a significant measurement difference by pressing beyond the point of “comfortably hard against the pubic bone” and into the zone of “painfully jamming it into the pubic bone” then the ruler is probably too “sharp”. Try measuring with a blunter object so you can get a maximum length press while still being comfortable.

If we assume that most researchers do get a full press, I was mostly referring to errors introduced by the visual and body angles. Since in a self measurement we must look down 2-3 feet from above, the angle of the ruler, angle of the penis, pelvic tilt, and position of the eye in vertical relation to the penis tip can all introduce error. All these subtle changes in the geometry of the measurement can quite easily affect the measurement in the range of 1/8 to 3/8 of an inch. Then there’s the guys that intentionally exaggerate themselves in self reporting. My assertion is that all these various sources of error add up to about a 0.375” positive bias.

If everything about those angles makes sense to you, and you understand how you can manipulate them to alter the measurement - and you control them to minimize the error - then it’s a fairly accurate measurement.

A source of girth error is to measure with less than a full erection. I can gain 1/2” that way. If people are looking for maximal measurements, that would be the easiest source of girth measurement errors.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I think I am OCD, so I have measured enough that I know that I’m getting an accurate measurement. I just wanted to see how I compared to the average. If 6” BPEL is about the median BPEL, then that’s the number that I will use as the median from now on.

Maybe I’ve been extremely lucky, but in 1 years time I’ve managed to gain 1” BPEL through stretching. I’m still crossing my fingers that I have another 1-1.5” left in me, even if it takes me 5+ years to get there. Guessing if that did happen, I’d be in the 1%, but I have high hopes.

Great work here… really,.. just beautiful Well done to all the stats boys :)