The significance of Thunder's Place PE Data stats

Why don’t we only take into consideration stats from people who started PE and actually committed for at least a year? I mean, wouldn’t that be more realistic?

It’s like someone starting a diet and stops it one week later cause he didn’t lose shit, deciding that this particular diet sucks.

When I looked at gains I only used people who had 2 months or more, if I remember right.

How about asking people who PEed for a year minimum? Wouldn’t that have a value?

Personally I think that might show better numbers. If people really want to get bigger, then committing to a year isn’t a huge amount of time. I also think they should need more than 2 check-ins, which would definitely be the case if they had PE’ed for longer (I try to check in at least every 3 months or so if I’ve made gains). Things do become more believable if someone has gained consistently over many check-ins vs someone gaining 1” or more between points 1 and 2.

I would start a thread in my one year of PE anniversary, asking, but since I am only maintaining current gains, cause wife doesn’t like it bigger, it would be kind of stupid for me to ask, since I am not doing it for maximum gains any more.

Ha! This is how I learned statistics before I found TP. Researched the net and using that minimal data worked out a bell curve and ploted my self as bigger than 90% of men. But of course that wasn’t enough.

I really like this data as it ties some reality as to what to expect.

After returning the PE after 10 years I want .5 in length and .5 in girth. So very roughly looking at the data I have a 50% chance on about 7 months. This also correlated to what I have seen as I come up to three months.

If only we could corelate between growth rates and routines! I would say it would be virtually impossible. Take me, 10 years ago I used Jelq. Today I am mainly stretching, then switched to pumping, when a week of hanging with clamping throughout. No Chi squared is going to sort that out!

Great work!

It also answered another question, which was are we getting better gains as time goes on? So do newer techniques, like the ratchet clamp, mean faster gains? As BD found the data didn’t change much when he included more recent years.

Hey Shaunbaby,

If I remember correctly, back then I found that the starting sizes have not changed significantly over the years. How gains have changed over the years would be interesting indeed.

Ahhh thanks BD,

Yes, if you saw better gains in later years you could assume that what we are doing more of now is working better. Keeping in mind that Correlation doesn’t mean causation. (I remember the example of increased ice cream sales at the beach correlates with increased drownings.)

If there were better gains in some later years, then you could slip the samples into different groups and then look at the routines.

After reading the big Gainers thread followed by this it is surprising I actually remember my name!

How do you know your wife doesn’t like it bigger?

So I just pulled up my old PE database Excel spreadsheet for another post, and noticed I had a few old graphs I never posted. Here is an interesting one, and often talked about too.

Starting Girth compared to Length gained. The idea that starting with a larger girth prohibits length gains does show up in the data with guys who have a 4” started girth gaining an average of about 0.9” of length, while guys starting with 6” girth gained an average of about 0.6” of length. However, the r-squared value is so small that the effect is statistically insignificant.

Who gains more? Small guys or Big guys? Turns out they gain about the same. Small guys may gain a little bit more, but the r-squred is so low that this is very statistically insignificant.

When we factor in that the small guys are probably trying a lot harder and have greater gains in mind for their goals, while the big starter guys probably don’t care as much and have smaller gains in mind for their goals - then it’s likely that the observation in the data that small guys gain a bit more is probably unrelated to real gains potential.