Thoughts on PE from johndough

That is unfortunately only a section of the full study. I wonder if the full thing goes into the medical history of the guys with the single layer, that is if they were in the adult group. 18 adults and 10 neonatals, and only 2 with a single layer.

ED could in some cases be a biological mechanism to prevent further damage. PE shows us that too much leads to lower EQ.

I know nothing about ED studies, so I really can’t comment.

And will still have to cope with the same pressure as a double layer. Have you ever damaged a car tyre rim, it bulges. This can eventually blowout.

There is clearly enough evidence in Thunder’s that “PE: work or doesnt work?” shouldn’t even be a debatable topic.

But we’ve got some scientific experts who need p-r-o-o-f.

Was extensive and effective heating used in the pumping studies which yielded only curvature correction or statistically insignificant elongation? If not then both studies employed an inaccurate representation of currently practiced penile enhancement methods.

If one was to apply a force to cold steel, which when applied to steel nearing 1370 degrees C was just enough to cause deformation, I imagine one would see no statistically significant deformation.

JD

I agree that at a glance the tunica albuginea seems too thin to deform effectively and that: a decrease in elasticity should conform with a decrease in EQ; your working model functions solely on the basis of a static pre/post tissue composition, this I think could be the holy grail of PE.

You mentioned that the forces applied to penile tissue during pumping were “multi vectoral” and thus indicative of the most potentially effective form of penis enlargement. I’m a C++ programmer, not a scientist and could find no body of information to conclusively prove the theory either way; surely within an internally pressurised system, an externally applied negative atmosphere wouldn’t apply a multi-vectoral force to all of the internal tissues?

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.” -Stuart Chase

I assume everyday some things are true and yes I know the old adage about assumptions. I assume gravity existed before science proved it. I assume that it is still valid when I don’t wake up in the morning on my ceiling. I assume PE works when I look between my legs. It is enough for me.

Bear in mind that there are great variations in how people do their PE. We all have dicks and they all function essentially the same. That applies to all bodyparts, otherwise medicine would be a useless science. The response to essentially same thing should be, well, essentially the same.

Dr. Levine (the conducter of the fastsize study) is considered one of the best in the world. Unfortunately he has a tendency to endorse and promote products, for example Viagra.

There is an enormous variation in tissue strength from individual to individual.

It seems to me that s long as one isn’t packing the tube right away, the expansion would be longitudinal as well as latitudinal— does that not satisfy ‘multi-vectoral’?

Multivectoral sounds right. But we have to ask ourselves if the tissues complying to this pressure are actually the ones that mean penis size. What is it that enlarges in a pump - the actual erectile tissues or something else in the penis?

My sentiment is that: the forces applied through pumping are due to internal pressurisation, nothing magical and are in fact the same forces which cause expansion in a variety of more intensive exercises. Pumping is in essence only as multi-vectoral as achieving a low-state of erection, surprisingly this doesn’t achieve expansion either.

Anyone who has clamped or done squeezes will know that these forces far exceed anything you can achieve with low pressure pumping; couple this with the lack of adequate heat in the pumping studies and I see no reason why they should have any bearing in any way on anything related to PE.

JD:

The studies you presented as the basis of your disbelief have been in my opinion categorically debased by a number of members as being both deficient in statistical accuracy and methodology. You have also failed to supply studies or biological evidence which refute the notion of cellular division or reinforcement of tissues such as those of the tunica albuginea or smooth muscle whilst under stress.

You’re left with a couple of studies (megaphallus studies, extender studies) which seem on some level to support the concept of penile expansion. Even if you can discredit these with conflict of interest, you’re then left with no studies and no real understanding of the mechanisms. In the end only anecdotal evidence remains and it suggests that PE works.

No argument that pumping is very mild in comparison to clamping, and in fact the only reason that I didn’t mention clamping is that I didn’t want to muddy the waters.

But the difference between the two is IMHO a matter of degree not kind.

Nope. Pressure would be lower, since the area is greater. The problem is benting the penis, this is what causes tunica tears. A single layer could be more less able to resist to blenting force compared to two layers or three’.

ED is inabilty to fill CC; this can happen if the compressive force of TA is stronger than the blood pushed inside the penis (remote possibility) or more likely if the CC don’t relax and let the blood engorge the shaft. Can’t see any relation between ED and single layer, at first glance. A study would be interesing anyway.

Are we assuming that all the layers are the same thickness? Is a single layer actually as thick as a double layer, or even a triple layer?