Thunder's Place

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

Thoughts on PE from johndough

Some of the pics people post as proof are clearly just a difference in angle with the camera. I can achieve similar photos if I want.

but there are also those who have made real, provable gains.

The first quality is the power to endure.

Leave an encouraging comment in my journal.

Originally Posted by VinterFrost
Some of the pics people post as proof are clearly just a difference in angle with the camera. I can achieve similar photos if I want.

But there are also those who have made real, provable gains.

I have real gains but again, it’s just the inch that everyone seems able to get right off

Originally Posted by p6inch

I have real gains but again, it’s just the inch that everyone seems able to get right off

Inch is a big gain, not something that comes fast or easy.

Originally Posted by p6inch
I have real gains but again, it’s just the inch that everyone seems able to get right off

Its taken me years to get close to that inch (not quite there yet). Also I would walk away for a bit when things werent working, and then come back months later and try something else, but it definitley wasn’t “right off”. Yes once I found something that worked for me it has been a lot easier (has taken almost 12 months including a 6 month break).

There are others who don’t seem to gain, but I don’t know whether they try different things. 2-3 months is my limit of doing something and not seeing results, I then walk away and maybe come back and try a new approach 6-9 months later. 3 months of doing something and getting nowhere can be very frustrating, and I honestly have better things to do most of the time.

But I always came back, because I was sure that it could work, but I would always try something else.

“Insanity is defined as repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result” - Einstein

Right. Experimenting can be crucial. It should be the ground for science, right? ;)

Sometimes I think all the indoctrination we undergo in schools is more an obfuscation than education. Sometimes we appear as unable to think simple. All the jargon and protocols an pompousity of the scientific language comes to hide very simple things.

The Man knows that fire burns. Knew that before than any ‘scientific’ theory or experiment had demonstrated or given a formal description.
Scientific theory about what fire is has also changed alot over the course of millennia. But one thing hasn’t changed : fire can burn the The Man.

Originally Posted by johndough123
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?

It was a .3 cm gain in observed stretched flaccid length in this group of men. Since they were rather short to begin with (< 8cm FSL) that amounted to a 4% increase. A 4% increase in penis length after 6 months of any form of PE, if real, should be considered highly significant. If I could add 4% to my girth, and 8% to my length within a year, I would be at my goal. If I thought I could do so with one hour of PE per week, I would be giddy.

So we assume that a 4% observed gain in penis length in this study is attributable to “noise”. That implies a bad study. Either there was extreme variability in their measuring technique, or the sample size was inadequate. I have measured my FSL many times and know that it does not vary by anywhere close to 4%. In fact, it doesn’t vary by as much as 1%. Decent researchers would have designed the study to make sure that the sample size was sufficient that a 4% gain would have reached statistical significance.

So either the methodology was poor, or the design was poor or both.

Originally Posted by johndough123

Insults and personal attacks are against the forum guidelines.

That’s your response? LOL!


There are other strong indications that this study was slipshod in design and slipshod in methodology. In the abstract, the authors speak of an increase in mean stretched penis length from 7.6 to 7.9 cm after 6 months of treatment. In the body of the paper they speak of a median penis length 0f 7.6 cm before treatment and a median penis length of 7.9 cm after treatment. Which is it, mean or median? It is conceivable that the means were identical to the medians both before and after treatment, but it would be extraordinarily coincidental.

Furthermore, look how they define efficacy of treatment: “The efficacy of the method was 11.1% (defined as an increase of ≥ 1 cm in stretched penile length).” An increase of 1 cm or more in length in this group would have been equivalent to an average length increase of over 13 % in 6 months. Let me repeat that. These guys designed their study such that only an increase of 13% in length or more after 6 months of one hour of PE per week would have demonstrated “efficacy”.

If these guys had done even a minimal amount of pre-investigational research they would have realized that it was preposterous to expect such a result. The fact is that they set up a study knowing that either the scatter in their measuring methodolgy or the statistical power of their study was such that a 4 % observed increase in mean (or is it median) stretched length escaped statistical significance.

What they proved is that they know nothing about what has been realistically observed with PE and that they do not know how to design a study. They wasted their time, the time of their test subjects, and the time of anyone who reads their paper.
Even if the study had been properly designed, it would only demonstrate that vacuum pumping for one hour a week for 6 months does not result in huge gains in penis length, which everyone pretty much already knows. It certainly would not have proved that the tunica albuginea of the penis is incapable of adaptively remodeling in response to repeated stress.

In their pants, I had measured girth. You don’t need to be Archimedes to get that pumping is more effective for girth than for length.

I read through all 16 pages today. This is a very refreshing and important thread IMO. I’m still soaking in everything and will come back with a more detailed post tonight. As a member of this forum for over a year and with nearly 800 posts, I hope my opinion is weighed accordingly.

Originally Posted by matutinal_euphony
You’ve been here less than a year.

No, look at my signature. I’ve been actively doing PE based on this site for nearly 2.5 years. I didn’t get the chance to sign up for membership until the date listed. Just like I’ll trust you that you made your gains, you can trust me that I’ve been doing this for years.

I'm a disciple of science.

Scienceguy, you said in your thread that :1) you always suffered of ED; 2) you worked pretty much only on girth.

This two things can explain low progress. But you should speak with an urologist before anything else, my friend. ED can be an hint of worse health issues.

Originally Posted by p6inch

The first one, a words origin really has no bearing on the current meaning, language lives and evolves, and words sometimes evolve so much the meaning can even be the polar opposite from the original, case in point, “shit” could mean feces or a terrible product or even a great product depending on the context

Second, 123 is not demonstrating that he’s a scientist, he’s demonstrating that he’s either a student or a scholar, both could be relying on science instead of satisfying it, it’s true, students and scholars can resort to science for their “education” but that’s certainly not a requirement

I happen to enjoy the discussion, and as I’ve said, it seems like almost nobody grows more then about an inch which is indicative of my theory which I stated before on this thread

I do believe 123 in the end will become the hybrid student /scientist whence because of anecdotal evidence decides the existing science might be flawed and goes about his own experiment to find out

Thanks for clearly illustrating the points I made in my first post by your reply. It saves me a lot of time.

Most people are under the mistaken impression that just because a language changes ( and you’re incorrect in assuming that this is evolution, instead of devolution, life instead of death), that the original etymology is invalid. It’s like saying the roots of a tree are irrelevant. Things that last are built on a solid structure. The originators of various languages kept structures tight. There weren’t any dictionaries back then, so this was a necessity. In addition, there are many meanings, both exoteric and esoteric, in word structures of various languages that “modern” man has been made ignorant of. As a quick example, people think that the words “human”, “mankind”, and “man” are talking about the same being, when they’re actually talking about three different types of man.

Words have power, especially prime words. To say otherwise indicates a certain naivete. Incorrect usage of words for which there is no objective reality is the greatest source of illusion and delusion in the world, to paraphrase Patanjali. The current state of the world bears this out. But I digress.

Obviously 123 is not a scientist or doctor yet. That what I said and reinforced in my original post. He’s clumsily attempting to use the scientific method to prop up his belief system to allay doubts and fears about the efficacy of PE. He’s a new acolyte to the scientific seminary, so that’s to be expected. But he should have enough humility to understand that, and not come into a discussion as a newcomer displaying more than a little arrogance by presuming that because he’s premed he knows more than people who are actually DOING PE, and have the results, database, and photos to prove it. It’s like someone coming straight out of officer training into the middle of a firefight thinking he’s going to know what to do because of some strategy he read in a book. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. But the guys in the trenches aren’t going to depend on him to make that call. He doesn’t have the experience. He doesn’t know. He’s got beliefs and opinions. And that just doesn’t cut it in many things in life. If you don’t know, then you’d better humble yourself enough to learn from someone who’s walked the path you’re trying to walk, and might be able to tell you a thing or two.

Your theory is just that. A theory. An opinion. A hypothesis. Until you do the studies across a large enough sampling ( thousands and above ), and provide the proof, it’s just another opinion. Which is fine, that’s part of what this place is about. But don’t attempt to wield your opinion as if it’s knowledge.

You can believe 123 will become a hybrid.student/scientist, but you don’t know. The truth of that is still to be seen.

Current society constantly confuses having information with having knowledge. Reading about sex, information. Having sex, knowledge. Understanding this will go a long way in ensuring success in all areas of life, including getting a big dick.

To answer UpTo7 and M_E questions to me:

Originally Posted by UpTo7
Have you done any PE before joining the forum?

My signature is accurate for the amount of time I’ve actually done PE based on ThundersPlace compared to the amount of time I’ve actually been a forum member (long time lurker, always missed the membership openings).

Originally Posted by UpTo7
How do you explain gains if someone started with 10/10 EQ? You don’t get an inch out of nowhere if your starting EQ was excellent. That’s why I make sure to have the best possible erection whenever I’m measuring for official results.

BPFSL increase is also a very valid argument. I’m sorry I didn’t measure my starting BPFSL, would be cool to track it with all the stretching I do.

I can’t explain this, nor can I explain any of the gains that happen in some men with PE. I think we could make some very interesting polls on these concepts. I’m currently trying to come up with some such as whether BPSFL increases correlate with larger girth, and whether men starting with high EQ really gain all that much. My current theory (not my original idea) is that the only way to gain real girth beyond EQ is through intense length exercises such as hanging and ADS. It’s extremely difficult to even do a survey on this let alone test the hypothesis in a controlled way, since you’ll be hard pressed to find any man on here who has done only length exercises.

Originally Posted by UpTo7
Also, you’re talking about people who’ve done proper PE, never gained and never posted about it. Well, that goes the other way as well. What about people who’ve gained a lot and never posted about it? ;)

Yes you’re exactly right. Which is why just like there is no scientific evidence to confirm that PE works beyond increasing EQ, there is certainly no scientific evidence to confirm that PE DOESN’T work either.

That’s just the way hypothesis testing works. I will NEVER be able to prove to you that PE doesn’t work. There is no way to disprove it according to the scientific method. And everyone on here yelling at guys like JD are simply saying that we haven’t disproved PE. And they are exactly right. But we haven’t proven it yet either, and a handful of loud gainers saying something worked for them does not mean that anything will work for most people.

I'm a disciple of science.

Originally Posted by marinera
Scienceguy, you said in your thread that :1) you always suffered of ED; 2) you worked pretty much only on girth.
This two things can explain low progress. But you should speak with an urologist before anything else, my friend. ED can be an hint of worse health issues.

I know this, but I’m in tip top shape otherwise. I’ve discussed it with many doctors and they either prescribe viagra or dismiss it as psychological. Like I said, PE has helped my EQ immensely, and I can’t fully express my gratitude for this website for this.

I'm a disciple of science.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:12 AM.