Thunder's Place

The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.

Thoughts on PE from johndough

Uhmm…now, the big question: if pulling with an extender can lengthen the penis, why pulling with hands can’t?

I’d say it’s not a question, it’s an answer- the extender is PE.


Originally Posted by ThunderSS
Getting real close to the edge there Flash. Throttle it back please.

Yeah I will stop the rant. I get a little fuckin’ angry here n’ there. I don’t participate in to many of the threads ( im sure you know from my post count) because of my anger. But yeah, I will end my views on this thread. Later

Stock Cock: BPEL 6.187" EG 5.25"

Current: BPEL 7.00" EG 5.5"

Goal: BPEL 8 EG 6 My new goal is now 9" BPEL X 6" EG So I can blow my wife's pussy walls out!

matutinal_euphony and Flashpoint are the most recent culprits here on the past couple pages of this thread, but I see talk like this all the time: People talk as if they know everything about this stuff on here. They talk as if because something about PE worked in some way for them that their theories on it must be true and they are the experts. That if stuff isn’t working for someone else that they must be doing it wrong. And I think this is the dangerous kind of language that leads to false expectations and disappointments in others. Furthermore, even if you are being completely honest there ARE lots of people on here who lie. Who inflate their statistics. Who measure incorrectly or inconsistently. And this just adds to the hysteria.

Some PE’ers are like me: I’ve dedicated myself to this. I do the exercises correctly. I try everything that successful people have tried. But still, even after all this time, I would say with confidence that all of my small gains are due to swelling and EQ increases.

I can’t thank the Thunders community enough for the knowledge that has led to those EQ increases. It’s wonderful, but now I’m obsessed with it. I plan my evenings around it, I do 30 minute warm-ups with hour-long exercises, and I’m beginning to fear that it will just end up being a huge waste of time in the end. But I can’t stop. This website has made me even more insecure about my size than I was before, but I can’t stop reading it and posting either.

Others are the silent majority. The ones who do PE, probably correctly, but never make gains and never post in the forums. Some of them then make their routines more and more intense until they get some sort of injury (luckily has never happened to me).

What I’m saying is that it could be one out of a hundred men where jelqing, stretching, hanging, pumping, clamping, whatever has led to, or at least been temporally correlated with increases in penis size BEYOND simply an increase in EQ (I think that the scientific studies pretty much confirm that some form of PE leads to EQ increases). But for all we know, one out of a hundred men could also see such an increase (beyond EQ) if they whacked their dick with a sledge hammer as their PE exercise. We don’t know that because we’ve never done a controlled study on it.

What the OP, I, and the other skeptics on here I think are trying to get across is that nobody has done a successful study to test whether that 1/100 statistic I just made up is true. Because I can tell you right now that if that 1/100 stat were true, it would not suggest a link between PE exercises and real increase in penis size beyond EQ. But because the gainers act so sure about the truth behind their statements, it gives (possibly) false hope to newer members that if they just keep going with it, gains beyond EQ will come.

I'm a disciple of science.

To see if it is not just an increase in EQ, you can just measure BPFSL, I’d say. But I’m not an urologist, of course, so don’t mind.

Originally Posted by marinera
To see if it is not just an increase in EQ, you can just measure BPFSL, I’d say. But I’m not an urologist, of course, so don’t mind.

You know, this is a great point and one that I too often omit.

I also think this is a great reason why people should consistently measure their BPFSL along with their BPEL, NBPEL, girth, etc.

I can’t say from experience because my EQ never drops, but I would tend to think that BPFSL would not increase/decrease on the basis of EQ.

Originally Posted by redbear52
Yes that is the study.

The so-called p value or confidence interval determines the likelihood of making a type I (or alpha) statistical error which is to reject the “null hypothesis” when it is in fact true. In this case, the null hypothesis is that true average stretched flaccid penis length will be the same as the average starting length in this group of men after 6 months of pumping for 1 hour a week.

In this particular paper, the researchers only say that the applied “student’s t-test” and that p=.20. They do not say whether they applied a one-tailed t-test or a two-tailed t-test. A two-tailed t-test would have allowed for the possibility that pumping might actually have resulted in shortening of the penis, but it would have required a larger sample size to achieve equal power for any given confidence interval. My guess is they applied a one-tailed test.

Most researchers set the bar very high for type I statistical errors. That is why p values of < .05, < .01, or even < .001 are often considered “statistically significant” to “highly statistically significant”. In this case, using a p < .05 allows for a 1 in 20 chance of a Type I error, p < .01 a 1 in 100 chance of a Type I error, and p < .001 a 1 in 1000 chance of a Type I error. In other words, a Type I error would be to conclude that pumping does elongate the penis when in fact it does not.

But a p value equal to .20 would be equivalent to accepting a 1 in 5 chance of a type I error. But conversely it implies that there is still up to a 4 out of 5 chance that pumping did in fact, result in elongation.

To calculate the statistical power of this study would require not only to establish what confidence interval was appropriate and whether a one or two-tailed t-test was used, but also an estimate of standard deviation of measured flaccid stretched penis length for repeated measurements for this group of men. The study indicates that the average stretched flaccid penis length was in fact 7.9 cm at the conclusion of the study compared to 7.6 cm at the start which is about a 4 % increase. The conclusion that this difference was “not statistically significant” implies that the researchers attributed the difference as being accounted for by measuring error, or within the expected range of variability for repeated measurements. We have no way of knowing whether the researchers actually did any type of analysis on variability of repeated measurements of flaccid stretched length in this, or any other group of men. If they did not, they have no way of estimating the power of the study. The power of a study determines the probability that an incorrect null hypothesis is appropriately rejected.

What we are interested in here is the probability of a type II (beta) statistical error. That is accepting the null hypothesis when it is in fact false, or in this case, incorrectly concluding that pumping for one hour per week for 6 months does not result in an increase in stretched, flaccid penis length. If we could calculate the power for this study, the likelihood of a type II error would be known since: power = 1 - probability(Type II error).

So the researchers conclude that a pretty lame pumping regimen (1 hour total per week without any other form of PE) conducted for 6 months with an observed increase in stretched flaccid length of 4% is not an effective treatment for penile elongation because of a p=.20. My conclusion would be that a p=.20 suggests that a larger sample size in a study of longer duration with a more rigorous regimen may very well have yielded “statistically significant” results.

One can argue that if in fact a type II statistical error was made here due to limited sample size, that pumping is still “ineffective” because it resulted in only a 4% increase in penis length after 6 months. My counter argument would be that a lot of guys here would be happy to find a PE regimen that would consume only one hour a week which resulted in a 4% increase in penis length in 6 months time.

Redbear, thanks again for another detailed and thoughtful response. I agree with you that the analysis was probably a single tailed t-test as opposed to a two tailed despite the researchers omission of that detail. The probability value was .20 and I am assuming the researchers set their limit on Type I error by p<.01 or p<.05. As you stated, there is a 20% chance that this event spontaneously occurred regardless of the treatment. That is an unacceptable rate of random incidence in all fields of science. As for the statistical power, with p=.20 what indication would we have that their is a hidden effect? The p-value was not close to being significant, if it was closer I think we would have had more of a right to assume that a higher power could provide results more representative of the population. If you can get the raw data we could run a power analysis in a typical stats program, but I don’t see the point as the p value was not close to being significant. I am not saying that their isn’t a possible correlation as you noted above and it is impossible for me to statistically prove that there is zero effect, rather what is a more appropriate declaration is that the results are not significant and the results have a high probability to be due to chance. Furthermore, even if we look at the effect and assume that it is both in part and its entirety not due to noise, what are we left with? We are left with a possible effect that only gave approximately .1 inches increase in length and 0 increase in girth over a six month period. The other pump study confirms 0 increase in girth using a more PE minded protocol. Furthermore, would this .1 length increase, if its a real effect, even be consistent every 6 months?

Originally Posted by bohm
Go to this ESSM link below and read the section on “Non-invasive methods of penile lengthening by Paolo Gontero, Marco oderda, Juan I. Martinez-Salamanca” in the ESSM publication. It kinda summarizes the research in this area to date.

ESSM: European Society for Sexual Medicine-The European Society for Sexual Medicine (ESSM) is a not-for-profit, multidisciplinary, academic and scientific organisation dedicated to male and female sexual health and dysfunction. Here’s some interesting quotes:

“Vacuum devices are used as a treatment for erectile dysfunction. A recent study assessed the long-term effect of repeated vacuum treatment for penile elongation, concluding that there is no significant physical change after 6 months of therapy: vacuum treatment of the penis was not found to be effective for penile elongation, although it provided some sort of psychological satisfaction for some men.”

“Recently, great visibility has been given to penile extenders, nonsurgical devices which generate progressive mechanical traction to the penis. Although there are only a few well-conducted studies to assess their efficacy, it seems that these devices can produce an effective and durable lengthening of the penis, both in the
flaccid and in the stretched state.”

“Treatment with penile extenders is generally reported to be well-tolerated, although longer daily use would probably reduce patients’ compliance, and the patients seem to be happy with the outcome. In conclusion, it seems that penile extenders are an effective treatment for patients who complain of “short penis”. The application of such devices can be recommended in all patients regardless of the penile length, because of the low risk of complications.”

“Conclusion: Among the non invasive methods of penile lengthening, penile traction devices are those whose efficacy is supported by some scientific evidence. This is mainly generated by pilot studies with a prospective non comparative design and further studies are needed. While the penis can effectively be elongated by an average of 1.5-2.5 cm based on the underlying condition, there is no evidence that the girth can be increased by applying traction forces. Taking into
account that surgical methods do not rely on higher scientific background nor have shown better results, penile traction devices should be proposed as a first-line treatment option for patients seeking a penile lengthening procedure.”…ue_20_final.pdf

Thanks Bohm, I will check this out.

Thunderss, when you stated that the results from the extender study(ies) should be taken with a large grain of salt, what about those studies caused you to develop such an opinion?

I don’t see any sites with the medical documentation of any of your falsifying accusations this is just a fool trying to discourage people there is plenty of results look at member pics they do the same angle as their beginning pictures as they do in their gain pics so please don’t come here and try to sell us discouragement

May 2010 el 6.5 eg 5.9

Jan 2011 el 7.2 eg 6 GOAL:JUN 2011 8x6.5 LONG TERM GOAL:9X7.5

April 2012 el 7.5 eg 6 going to be huge ;) wish I had before and after pics.. Newbies do it for your own sake!

And to be fair the Pe that takes place here can not be compared to the primitive vine hanging done in Africa were are a little smarter than tieing vines attached to boulders to our peni for Christ sake we have all kinds of educated people with degrees at this site

May 2010 el 6.5 eg 5.9

Jan 2011 el 7.2 eg 6 GOAL:JUN 2011 8x6.5 LONG TERM GOAL:9X7.5

April 2012 el 7.5 eg 6 going to be huge ;) wish I had before and after pics.. Newbies do it for your own sake!

Originally Posted by boomboom1234
And to be fair the Pe that takes place here can not be compared to the primitive vine hanging done in Africa were are a little smarter than tieing vines attached to boulders to our peni for Christ sake we have all kinds of educated people with degrees at this site

Calling me a fool in your above post is against forum guidelines and your second post is bordering on racist and I take offense to it.



Originally Posted by scienceguy106

I try everything that successful people have tried.

You’ve been here less than a year.


I venture to say the main difference between most gainers versus non-gainers is that gainers believe in PE.


We are a brotherhood here, united by our passion to have, not only a bigger, but a healthier and better functioning penis. Thousands of us have reaped the rewards of our hard work, have overcame our insecurities, and gained massive confidence in not only our beds, but in our lives as well. And you JD, have walked in here and called everyone of us liars and delusional. For this reason I can sympathise with the anger demonstrated at you by some of the guys.

What you have demonstrated is beyond skepticism, you are going out of your way to discredit PE, and the reasons for your vendetta we might never understand. You keep referring to a lousy study, based on an hour of pumping a week, on 37 guys as your back up. I really would have thought that someone from a medical background as you claim to be of, would have had a more unbiased perspective. You are so quick to swear by the results of an abstract study, which we know very little about how effectively the participants took part in, but yet you are willing to disregard the words, testimonies and experiences of thousands of individuals who have been involved in Natural-PE for the last decade. Without the backing of the medical field, we are the pioneers, we only have each others experiences to learn from, and we’ve come pretty far. If one of our vets were to throw a study on PE, he’d surely would’ve made one that would’ve combined pumping with either clamping or something else, as we so far have learned that pumping is best when combined with other/s techniques. Don’t get me wrong, I would love it if the scientific community joined us in researching PE, but we will keep doing and believing in what we love, even without them.

Even when presented with photo evidence, you’ve simply rejected it and claimed either inaccuracy in measuring or in Braindrains case, as a late puberty growth spurt. Tendons, ligs, cartilage, ear-lobes, muscles, human necks, skin, nails, veins and even bones for crying our loud have all been demonstrated to be able to be enlarged with some type of prolonged force, but yet the Penis is somehow immune to this process according to you.

Wake up JD, take your head out of your you-know-what, being in premed does not make you as smart as you think are. You don’t even have the balls to stick to a routine for a good period of time to see or experience first hand what the rest of us have experienced, you gave up after the first sign of a minor injury, so what does this say about your character? What gives you the right to spit in our faces the way that you have?

Now: NBPEL = 6.4 MSEG = 5.3 BEG = 5.75

Goals: NBPEL = 7.0 MSEG = 6.0


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:44 PM.