Thunder's Place

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

Thoughts on PE from johndough

◀ 123456 27 ▶

Originally Posted by johndough123

As for the information from “gurus” I take it for what it is, a random person making claims on the Internet with no real evidence to support his claims. We barely have any photos that could be considered real evidence on any of the PE forums despite hundreds of thousands of practitioners. That alone should tell you something. I don’t buy the shy guy argument because one look at a pumping forum will show plenty of guys willing to show off their penis.
We need better evidence. Like I said science is about describing a known phenomenon and in regards to PE it appears lowered erection angles explain most length gains and swelling explains girth. I’ve read the forums for months and tracked posts to find very little evidence despite being optimistic. I’m still searching and want this to be real it’s why I still go through the threads regarding enlargement. If someone can refute what I’m saying and actually show a legit biological mechanism and explain why studies haven’t found it then I would start PE up again immediately.

johndough124; I’m guessing you are from a medical or scientific background, and as such your contributions to this forum could be extremely beneficial; but when I read the second paragraph in your last post I really do wonder if you have joined the right forum. I’m sure you don’t mean to come across as arrogant and dismissive of us non-scientific amateurs (an unfortunate trait among some in the medical profession), but many on here will be quick to take offence. No-one is asking you to blindly accept everything stated on the forum as being fact, but I think it is going a bit too far in dismissing outright gains reported by forum members on the basis that they can’t show scientific or other proof.

I am a qualified high performance track & field coach with many years experience. I work closely with exercise scientists and value their input; but much of my career has been built on disregarding sports science advice and still producing top class athletics performers. Just a modest example of how science doesn’t always have the answers.

Last edited by irishjim : 01-11-2011 at .

Originally Posted by johndough123
17 ml, according to the studies conducted on pumps are useless for permanent enlargement. The studies had similar protocols to Advocet’s pump routine, so the protocols were not the issue.

Redbear52, thank you for your input. I think we do need to talk more about studies and biology in this forum. I am going to crack open my anatomy books before I give you a more detailed response regarding the exact tissue constituents of the tunica albugenia. You are correct in that the tunica is similar to other collagenous tissues like ligaments, tendons, and fascia. However, it is not identical and the structure is unique. My understanding of fascia in other areas of the body vary in thickness and the fascia layer of the abdomen is thicker than the tunica albugenia. I believe the tunica albugenia is only .25-.5 mm thick when the penis is erect. Even if some matrix remodeling was occurring after stretching the tunica, the layer is simply too thin to permanently expand in any large capacity beyond its initial constraints. The fascia layer surrounding the abdominal muscles does stretch beyond its normal capacity during pregnancy, but is permanently deformed afterward. Subsequent pregnancies make the condition worse and is why tummy tucks are requested by some women despite high levels of abdominal fitness following pregnancy. The reason this isn’t a huge issue is that the function of the abdominal fascia does not have to the same delicate and complex function of the tunica albugenia.

The issue still stands that no pumping study ever showed permanent size gains. Pumping literally forces more blood into the CC and CS forcing expansion and once erection is achieved pressure can be adjusted to stretch the tunica beyond its normal capacity and even cause injury.

So you really are here but don’t beleve in PE?

Originally Posted by johndough123
Science seeks to explain behaviors and their mechanisms. There is no anti-penis enlargement conspiracy or bias in the medical community as some members like to suggest. In fact, there is a great need for safe and effective treatments for penile abnormalities such as peyronie’s curvature and micropenis. The fact is research has been conducted with pumps and they showed no results for permanent size increase. You can continue with a strawman argument and refuse to address that fact, but it is detracting from the discussion. If someone could show a surgical or even better a non-surgical method for penis enlargement they would be rich and be recognized within the research community. Penis enlargement is not taboo because of the subject matter, it’s taboo because of the unethical business culture and lack of evidence to support enlargement techniques. Breast enlargement was taboo for the same reasons, but safe and effective surgical options became standardized and the procedure is now widely conducted.

As for the information from “gurus” I take it for what it is, a random person making claims on the Internet with no real evidence to support his claims. We barely have any photos that could be considered real evidence on any of the PE forums despite hundreds of thousands of practitioners. That alone should tell you something. I don’t buy the shy guy argument because one look at a pumping forum will show plenty of guys willing to show off their penis.
We need better evidence. Like I said science is about describing a known phenomenon and in regards to PE it appears lowered erection angles explain most length gains and swelling explains girth. I’ve read the forums for months and tracked posts to find very little evidence despite being optimistic. I’m still searching and want this to be real it’s why I still go through the threads regarding enlargement. If someone can refute what I’m saying and actually show a legit biological mechanism and explain why studies haven’t found it then I would start PE up again immediately.

So….why are you here? To crap on everyone else’s attempt at self improvement?

Originally Posted by irishjim
johndough124; I’m guessing you are from a medical or scientific background, and as such your contributions to this forum could be extremely beneficial; but when I read the second paragraph in your last post I really do wonder if you have joined the right forum. I’m sure you don’t mean to come across as arrogant and dismissive of us non-scientific amateurs (an unfortunate trait among some in the medical profession), but many on here will be quick to take offence. No-one is asking you to blindly accept everything stated on the forum as being fact, but I think it is going a bit too far in dismissing outright gains reported by forum members on the basis that they can’t show scientific or other proof.

I am a qualified high performance track & field coach with many years experience. I work closely with exercise scientists and value their input; but much of my career has been built on disregarding sports science advice and still producing top class athletics performers. Just a modest example of how science doesn’t always have the answers.

Yep. Scientists once claimed no animal that could fly could be larger than a pteranodon…that it would be physically impossible, due to muscle weight, to support natural flight in an animal any larger. Then they discovered the quetzalcoatlus. And you know, mathamatically, bumble bees can’t fly. And celocanths have been extinct for millions of years. And the apatosaurus ( formerly brontosaurus) had a big head. All those skeletons found with little heads had the wrong skulls. Science is great, but it often acts like the new dogmatic religion, too. They only found out that the komodo dragon really did exist because they went there, once and for all, to prove it didn’t and shut up the non-scientists who claimed to have seen them.

Originally Posted by johndough123
Why does everyone talk about tunica stretching as if it’s a fact when it makes no sense biologically and is refuted by the medical community and experiments? If the tissue of the corpora cavernosa is stretched beyond it’s normal capacity it would cease to function, see East Indian subcultures and African tribes that practice hanging; they lose the ability to get an erection. Ask a urologist, andrologist, or phd in human anatomy they will all say the same thing. Ligaments can stretch and do so in other parts of the body. Any functional length gains are most likely due to stretching of the suspensory ligament with most erect length being illusory as the erection angle deceases. Try pushing your erection below parrallel with the floor, you will notice your length will “increase” proportionally to the angle in which you push your penis down. The best way to stretch and put pressure on the tunica is pumping, no study found any length increase or girth increase with up to 6 months of regular pumping, this includes a study whose primary goal was to test for size increase. If the tunica could not permanently expand under those conditions why would it under stretching?

I’d be interested in seeing links to those pumping studies john, if you have them handy.

Penis Enlargement Forum -- How To Jelq -- Free Penis Enlargement Videos

Make a Donation This place runs on donations, help out if you can. Thanks.

Originally Posted by djrobins
The cock rides along the front face of the pubic bone held tightly there by short tight ligaments, it makes a nearly “U” shaped curve near the exit point where the suspensitory lig holds it up.

The theory is snipping the suspensitory lig doesn’t give much length gain, because the ligs which bind it to the pubic bone are now carrying the load, but I can see on some due to anatomy, they may have a significant gain, where others may have no gain…

My new penile surgery thought was snipping of these ligs which hold the penis to the pubic bone, so that section of penis is expressed OUTSIDE of the body, the suspensitory lig is repositioned so that the erection has stability at this new length.

On many of us that “inner penis” represents 2” to 4” of DICK, that sits there along the pubic bone and cannot be used.

Many of us are able to see that Mandigo and some other porn stars have 1” or less of “inner penis”, so that amount of penis IS OUTSIDE of the body. Some of the porn stars have a penis that droops straight downward upon erection ( IE: appears to be absolutely zero inner penis ).

The guys who understand know what I’m saying.

Wanted to make a clarification: “My new penile surgery thought was snipping of these ligs which hold the penis to the pubic bone, so that section of penis is expressed OUTSIDE of the body, the suspensitory lig is repositioned so that the erection has stability at this new length.”

We would snip a length of these ligs which bind it to the pubic bone, but not ALL of that length.

Two study links easy to find:

A vacuum device for penile elongation: fact or fiction? - PubMed

"RESULTS: After 6 months, the mean penile length had increased from 7.6 cm to 7.9 cm (no significant difference)."

Ah well, here’s a study conducted by someone to whom it never occurred to measure the ERECT penis. Disqualified for sheer stupidity, not to mention sample size (37).

http://onlineli brary.wiley.com … 9365.x/abstract

"RESULTS: There was a clinically and statistically significant improvement in penile length, angle of curvature and pain after 12 weeks of using the vacuum pump."

Jeezle, I might like to know the actual length dimensions! But one has to pay for the study to get that, I suppose. Again, very small sample size (31). Another disqualification from me.

Conclusion: clinical resolution of this issue is still wide open because even a single REAL statistical study has yet to be reported. Lack of evidence is lack of support for the persuasions and disuasions from either side. Anecdotal and/or empirical evidence is all there really is. Take it or leave it.

“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.” Yogi Berra

Last edited by groovetube : 01-12-2011 at .

Originally Posted by johndough123
I believe the tunica albugenia is only .25-.5 mm thick when the penis is erect. Even if some matrix remodeling was occurring after stretching the tunica, the layer is simply too thin to permanently expand in any large capacity beyond its initial constraints…The issue still stands that no pumping study ever showed permanent size gains. Pumping literally forces more blood into the CC and CS forcing expansion and once erection is achieved pressure can be adjusted to stretch the tunica beyond its normal capacity and even cause injury.

hi johndough123,

I came across similar values for tunica thickness during erections as the one you posted above. For instance this quote:

"Tunica albuginea is one of the strongest fasciae in the human body. In a flaccid state it is up to 2.4 mm thick and during erection it becomes as thin as 0.25 to 0.5 mm, thus becoming vulnerable to fracture."

http://www.ayub med.edu.pk/JAMC … /21-3/Badar.pdf

So I’m guessing you disagree with pumping study above showing some size gains and also the extender studies showing maximal stretch length gains (I’m not sure if actual erect length gains were shown)? Or are you saying that there are gains but not permanent or even if it is shown to be permanent, you think there’s a risk?

Thanks

Starting Size: April, 28, 2010: NBPEL-7" Girth-6" (base, MSG, glans)

Currently: BPEL-8" NBPEL-7.25" Girth-6.25" (base)/6.125" (MSG)/6.125" (glans)

Originally Posted by johndough123
If someone can refute what I’m saying and actually show a legit biological mechanism and explain why studies haven’t found it then I would start PE up again immediately.


For that to happen they would have to use human’s with identical cellular structure as experiments. These humans would be dissected and compared at certain stages of PE development ie. Pre PE, mid Pe and Post PE.

The dissections could then show differences and then the people responsible for testing could come up with an accurate idea why it works the way it does.

This sort of experiment or study will never happen due to ethical reasons.

I'm a big fan of 50 Cent, or as we call him in Zimbabwe, four hundred million dollars.

Thunder, Groovetube posted the two studies I was referring to, thank you groovetube for posting those. I have access to the full version of the second study; however, I apologize but I cannot post it for copyright reasons as I only have access to it through my universities database subscription. Anyone else who has access to a journal database should be able to view it as well.

Groovetube, I agree that the sample sizes are small; however, the sample size in both studies is over 30, which means the findings can be significant and are representative of the population according to the central limit theorem. So, the studies’ findings are still valid in despite their small sample size. In regards to their measuring methodology, I’m not a big fan of stretched flaccid penis measurements, but according to what I have read from others the Wessells penis size study determined that it was an appropriate proxy. I have not read the full study myself, but recall someone stating that they measured erect and stretched flaccid to determine the validity of using stretched flaccid as a proxy, I cannot personally verify this claim just passing on what I have read elsewhere. On the other hand, there was a french study that also measured stretched flaccid, but allowed the volunteers to stretch 3 times before measuring. Controversially the researchers in this study found longer fsl measurements than the other studies. My understanding is the fsl has been used because of fluctuations in erect measures, the fsl was intended to be more consistent.
As for the second study you posted, the quote “There was a clinically and statistically significant improvement in penile length, angle of curvature and pain after 12 weeks of using the vacuum pump,” is taken from the abstract and is not representative of the findings of the study. Its the researchers fault for writing this in an unclear manner. After reading the full study, one will see that the researchers state that the length gains were directly associated with the correction in curvature. This means that no real length gains occurred, it was simply like measuring a bent rod with a ruler from base to its furthest displacement, then straightening the rod to measure the new displacement. The rod would not be any longer as no new material formed, but its displacement would measure longer simply because it was it was straightened… Disappointed? Me too, ironically that quote you listed from the abstract was the reason I bought a pump as it was posted on Wikipedia, then reading the full paper of the same study was the reason I gave it away.

Bohm, in regards to the second pumping study listed by Groovetube showing gains, you would have to get your hands on the full study to be able to read what they were saying. Check out the above paragraph I wrote to Groovetube and you will see what the researchers said and to what they attributed the length increase. The gains were not real gains, only straightening of the curve that causes an illusory “length gain”. Basically, if your penis is not bent, you won’t make it look longer after months of pumping according to these studies.

The extender studies are questionable. I disregard those conducted by Andromedical. The others such as the one conducted at the University of Turin have been questioned by other members. I believe Thunder said take it with a large grain of salt. If I am misquoting you on that study Thunder I apologize, I recall you making that comment in a thread regarding extender studies and believe the University of Turin study to be specifically the one(s) you were referring to. After reading Thunders comment, I decided not to read the full methodology of the study for myself as I find his opinion to be generally rather grounded. Even if the extender studies were legit, is fsl still a valid proxy for erection length after the penis has been regularly stretched? I am not sure for the reasons I listed in the above post.

As for potential for injury, I think there is certainly potential for injury. However, it appears no one was permanently injured in the studies using those protocols. There were minor complications/injuries in 3 patients in total out of both pumping studies I believe and those complications resolved when pumping was stopped. So, if one decides to pump, I would think it would be wise not to venture outside of the protocols used in those studies if safety is a priority as anymore is uncharted ground in terms of empirical evidence.

Here’s one full pdf extender study:

"RESULTS: After 6 months the mean gain in length was significant, meeting the goals of the effect size, at 2.3 and 1.7 cm for the flaccid and stretched penis, respectively. No significant changes in penile girth were detected. The EF domain scores improved significantly at the end of study. Treatment satisfaction scores were consistent with acceptable to good improvement in all items, except for penile girth, where the score was either ‘no change’ or ‘mild improvement’.

CONCLUSIONS: Penile extenders should be regarded as a minimally invasive and effective treatment option to elongate the penile shaft in patients seeking treatment for a short penis."

Penis lengthening Studies and Researches by Andromedical

And here’s another (just abstract):

"Conclusion. Our findings supported the efficacy of the device in increasing penile length. Our result also suggested the possibility of glans penis girth enhancement using penile extender. Performing more studies is recommended."

Effect of penile-extender device in increasing penile size in men with shortened penis: preliminary results - PubMed

Edit: Damn, I just seen your post. I won’t delete this post just in case, for reference.

Starting Size: April, 28, 2010: NBPEL-7" Girth-6" (base, MSG, glans)

Currently: BPEL-8" NBPEL-7.25" Girth-6.25" (base)/6.125" (MSG)/6.125" (glans)

Originally Posted by johndough123
Science seeks to explain behaviors and their mechanisms. There is no anti-penis enlargement conspiracy or bias in the medical community as some members like to suggest. In fact, there is a great need for safe and effective treatments for penile abnormalities such as peyronie’s curvature and micropenis. The fact is research has been conducted with pumps and they showed no results for permanent size increase. You can continue with a strawman argument and refuse to address that fact, but it is detracting from the discussion. If someone could show a surgical or even better a non-surgical method for penis enlargement they would be rich and be recognized within the research community. Penis enlargement is not taboo because of the subject matter, it’s taboo because of the unethical business culture and lack of evidence to support enlargement techniques. Breast enlargement was taboo for the same reasons, but safe and effective surgical options became standardized and the procedure is now widely conducted.

As for the information from “gurus” I take it for what it is, a random person making claims on the Internet with no real evidence to support his claims. We barely have any photos that could be considered real evidence on any of the PE forums despite hundreds of thousands of practitioners. That alone should tell you something. I don’t buy the shy guy argument because one look at a pumping forum will show plenty of guys willing to show off their penis.
We need better evidence. Like I said science is about describing a known phenomenon and in regards to PE it appears lowered erection angles explain most length gains and swelling explains girth. I’ve read the forums for months and tracked posts to find very little evidence despite being optimistic. I’m still searching and want this to be real it’s why I still go through the threads regarding enlargement. If someone can refute what I’m saying and actually show a legit biological mechanism and explain why studies haven’t found it then I would start PE up again immediately.


Have you not seen any before and after pics here? There are are some great ones!

Recognize.

John, what are the chances that someone with your particular biological makeup would even come into existence here on planet earth? Prove that you are real, and then I will debate with you about whether PE is real. You think we’re all delusional? Dude, my dick has grown so much it isn’t even funny. You think I’d waste a huge chunk of my life yanking my dick with no results? You don’t have a clue what type of people are involved in this (ie. educated, cultured, intelligent). You are buying into the medical opinion that PE is unsafe and ineffective. Why? Maybe science is your God. You think it’s something solid to grasp onto, it’s your little reality- life makes sense for you if you have science? Science has its place, but it’s not the end all be all my friend. School serves the purpose of gearing you up to contribute to capitalism. It could care less about the size of your dick, and you’re probably a better consumer if you go ahead and feel sorry for yourself for being ‘inadequate’. But if science says PE is illegitimate, on top of the fact that you’ve been frustrated with your attempts at it, you’ll dismiss the whole activity as something that some pitiful idiots out there in another world are wasting their time with? Wasting time- that’s what you’re doing arguing about whether PE works. I’m telling you it works, and I’m telling you I’ve been doing it for about 7 years. You think I’m crazy? Go ahead and miss out on growing your dick. It won’t hurt my feelings! You want people to bend over backwards to PROVE to you that PE works so that you can enjoy the benefit of it? Nobody is going to hand-feed you anything in life, and nobody’s going to do that here. What do I have to gain by proving to you PE works? If you want to find out how it works, get some discipline together and jump on the program.

Seriously man, I want to get through to you right now: many people feel that we have a very advanced understanding of the human body and the world around us and beyond, but imagine what they will think looking back on this time in only one hundred years from now. This “science” is archaic. You need to realize that many of the things that are of great value in life will not fit into your scientific paradigm, and you’re going to lose out because of that. At this point, PE is relatively unknown which I am glad about. Now, what do you expect a urologist to say about PE? They have no training dealing with PE. They have no information to suggest that PE would work because that is not what they were taught because that activity is not a widespread thing. About the sample size of 30 being legit, that’s stupid. Statistics can be pretty stupid. How is 30 going to represent the population at large? Screw the central limit theorem!

Recognize.

Top
◀ 123456 27 ▶

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:44 AM.