Thoughts on PE from johndough

Back to Penile Torque and the Tunica Albuginea for Increasing Penis Size - Basic Jelqing Principles

Let’s face it! Not much is perfectly known about penis growth—scientifically that is. Perhaps a small percent of cells not subscribing dht during penile growth during puberty are finally engaged by PE stimulation…explaining extra growth. Recent studies about general consistent, bodily exercise has demonstrated an increase in telomeres which have to do with, not necessarily cell growth in numbers, but by the lack of cell death in the case of a penis which would explain years of entumnescense while exercised but why dicks tend to shrink back to original size if not maintained with PE exercise.

So, Johndough I would not subscribe 123 to current medical science such a worshipful faith. Scientific method can be a drag, perhaps, when behind the times.. If you do not believe it you have not studied the history of medicine which ultimately has to be grounded in demonstration. There are also flip-flops in practical medical knowledge. We have abhorred 18th century bleeding for two centuries. Now we have found that bleeding (about every 8 weeks) may not be such a bad thing because it eliminates the percentile of copper in platelet development—a negative for males. Also we all know the story of leeches.

et demonstratum, there are lots of guys that HAVE demonstrated growth. If you do not believe them, that’s your choice.

Okay, I hope it’s this pump study:

"A vacuum device for penile elongation: fact or fiction?"

"Of the 31 men, 27 returned for follow-up at a mean (SD) of 8 (2.5) months. The mean (range) age was 24 (18–35) years. The median stretched penile length was 7.6 (6.9–9.4) cm before treatment and 7.9 (7–9.7) cm after 6 months of vacuum therapy; there was no significant difference between the length before and after treatment (P=0.2). The efficacy of the method was 11.1% (defined as an increase of ≥ 1 cm in stretched penile length)."

http://onlineli brary.wiley.com … 006.05992.x/pdf

maybe urologist and doctors can explain this?

2-inch Growth Comparative Pictures

Notice that, in this study, the men were under vacuum for less than thirty minutes for only three days a week. Also, the study does not denote what the hg was, —only that it continued after full erection which I take to mean continued after whatever hg it took to achieve erection. Am I reading this correctly? Serious pumpers pump every day at (I will bet) higher hg than what is described. Bohm: How did you read this?

To be fair to john, I don’t think he is necessarily arguing the fact that one can elongate your penis through constant stretching (and that’s all bennet’s pictures prove) Hell, even MY doctor told me, and I quote him (to the best of my memory), "if you stretch something not consistent with bone long enough using the right amount of force, it will probably lengthen."

John’s main contention is the ability to thicken one’s penis and maintain that thickness over time without continuing efforts. It’s a contention that I tend to agree with as well, especially since I too have yet to find someone that has maintained all of his girth gains without doing some sort of maintenance. And, if that is the case, can we ever really call it a gain in the first place?

I know this is off topic but I’m glad that medical science doesn’t view non-surgical PE as a possibility and I hope it continues to stay that way. The less people who know about PE the better.

That’s right, hoard the knowledge. Makes it easier to be in the 99th percentile.

Everything about erection is synergistic. Why blame plastic deformation of the tunica alb. as the reason East Indian and Western African religious fanatics have lost their ability for the same. Those males, for religious reasons, ignored the principles of biologic “adaption” and have hung outrageous weights in curtailed time frames to purposely, for those religeous reasons, lose their ability to use their penises for evermore. The real cause may be enervation (nerve process anihlation), or possibly veinous return valve oclusion as a result of such extreme stress.

I believe everything in PE is best related to the “Principle of Adaption”. Pressure over Time. The fibrous architecture of the tunica alb., being vector neutral, resists pressure in all directions equally.(Neumann, above) I believe the architecture can be changed from neutral bias to somewhat more axis biased by applied pressure over time. When this happens (if indeed it does, as exemplified by the many big dick guys in thunders), the configuration takes on more the character of other axial bodies having axial tensil strength and such characteristics are not those of weakness but are of those of strength…that of erection strength, providing there is sufficient hydraulic pressure to effect etumnisense. I therefore reject the idea that stretching the tunica is responsible for loss of erection potential.

Most people arent willing to dedicate themselves to the effort, you could shout this out to the world and most would shrug and walk on by. A large number would try, but never put in the time. Some will never find the method that works for them. And then there is the small group that gets it right.

If I have to choose between 6”x5” with 0 hours of PE a day and 7.5”x5.75” with 1 hour of PE a day for the rest of my life, I choose the latter. :)

Actually, you might not even need an hour. Maybe just 5-10 minutes of jelqing per day would be enough to keep the girth gains. I’m inclined to believe that the length gains could be permanent. I’m not really well versed on how connective tissue works, but I’m not sure that it has the capacity to retract but maybe it does. But yeah, would it be worth it to maintain the size? Absolutely! Also remember, however, that in 10 years time, you might have a completely nagging wife and 3 small children running around destroying the house. Finding some time out of each and every day to yank away on your penis might be harder than you think ;)

I don’t believe PE is 100% permanent, but then again, if you do it for 10-15 years, does penis even remember its original size? Why would tissue that had been enlarged via (plastic) deformation try to return back to normal after not being normal for 10-15 years? Who knows. :) I can see why muscles don’t remain big if you don’t use them, but that’s completely different mechanism. I agree with you that length gains seem less volatile than girth gains, they seem to stay easier from my experience.

Good point with never knowing what future brings, but I hope I’ll be able to have at least 30 minutes of “me time” a day. :D

First off, the reason I believe in PE is because for the first time in my life my penis is clearly over 7 inches. I have measured countless ways over many years of my life and never measured a stretched length more than 6.5. And believe me I pulled super hard and many times repeatedly in the past. No matter how much I checked and pulled with force it was never over 6.5. Now I can stretch to 7.5 and get 7.25 on my most engorged erections.

Now, as far as a study to prove PE there are none and probably never will be apart from some anecdotal case reports. As mentioned there are case reports of priapism causing megallophallus. I doubt this is limited to that 1 guy. In fact it is probably more common than you think but the reason to continue to write case reports is no longer there after there are case reports. Plus there are, I’m sure, many patients with sickle cell, history of priapism and megallophallus that no one bothered to say hey just wondering if your big penis was from some major priapism event. Can you enlighten me on how big your boner was in the past compared to now?

So, the only study that would satisfy you would be one with over 30, preferably 50 patients. They would need accurate erect measurements. Not stretched measurements of 7.5 cm that don’t even make sense because that’s less than 3 inches. This in itself is extremely difficult to get all these guys to be able to get erections of reproducible quality. That can only be done with caverjet injections but alas these injections are not straightforward because they take many injections just to titrate to the appropriate dose.

So my point is that the study to prove PE will not be done. You clearly have a scientific background and a quest for discovering knowledge. So I think it would be a shame for you not to take high quality pics with mesurements right now and embark on a detailed PE program. Maybe even with the guidance of some vets along the way. This may take well over a year but I’m sure you would have clear evidence that PE works and you could be the example that everyone cites in the future.

Or you could conclude that no study proves it so you won’t even bother studying it yourself and miss out on having a bigger dick.

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.

Good post redbear. :up: