Length not girth, I want to be longer

Well, not necessarily just erections, but maximum growth.
There are a lot of hormones, growth factors and peptides and such.
Some penises haven’t grown when given regular Testosterone, but have with a different form of Testosterone called DHT.
The point is that even if growth is tapped out at regular (and maybe even extreme) doses of a particular hormone such as Testosterone, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t growth possible if you provide another hormone or growth factor the person has also been deficient in, like the hormone Vit D3!

So I have 2 theories, one is that growth might be possible when factors are combined, and the other is that we might have remaining possible growth in some of these hormones/peptides we have had insufficient exposure to.
Both of these theories could be true simultaneously, and the evidence indicates that at least one of them is.
And the solution in both cases is to try increasing, supplementing as many as possible of these factors at once, in puberty that’s how it was when penises grew.

You are right, we are all deficient in Vitamin D3, and we might not have tapped out our growth potential from this hormone and all of the other hormones it might effect.

That’s really interesting.

Do you mean this study?
https://www.res earchgate.net/p … ith_Vitamin_D_3

Or do you want to know about penis growth from HGH? (a few doctors talk about it and a few bodybuilders have claimed it)

Penis growth from PRP/P-shot?

Penis Growth from DHT when Testosterone failed (this is interesting because it makes the point that just because one hormone is tapped out apparently another stronger form of the same hormone might induce growth.

Thanks for linking the research. Yeah it was the one you wer talking about earlier. It’s an interesting study. I think my postulation for why there may have been an increase holds pretty well. We aren’t given data about how people are eating so we have to assume standard american diet and all the deficiencies that has, vitamin D being an obvious one. We aren’t given the location or the race of the participants and there’s no detail of bloodwork confirming their initial or ending vitamin D status. Cornavirus has taught us all that vitamin D status is generally poor and worse in darker skinned people living in northern climes. There are obvious (I’m sure you’ve spotted them) potential confounding factors beyond initial health:

The participants appear to have known the purpose of the research and that’s been studied at length in psychological research - people tend to conform to their expectations of the research. The fact that the participants were friends of the author would have likely heightened that.

As a corollary, placebo is highly effective and the design was not double blinded to control for that.

We don’t know how much was self measured and how much was measured by the author, there’s no breakdown.

At 14 people it’s a very small study. So it’s interesting but would need to be replicated with more people.

I think that paper could easily have been titled ‘Vitamin D deficiency prevents maximal erections’. I’d worry about people replicating this on their own without doing bloodwork at regular intervals. We don’t know if the vitamin D dose was plucked at random or whether a much smaller vitamin D dose would do the same job.

In the PE world we are used to people getting “newbie gains”. They very quickly gain length and girth in the initial phase. It’s always been my assumption that this is people reaching their maximal erection capacity. Either way vitamin D with K2 seems a safer route than surgery.

More on high dose Vitamin D3, if it were to be done (somewhat) safely..

"When we look closely at the biochemistry, we see that magnesium is required for the conversion of vitamin D to its active form (1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D). Vitamin D that is taken orally needs to go through this conversion, a process that can deplete magnesium stores. If a person begins to supplement vitamin D but does not have adequate magnesium intake, symptoms of magnesium deficiency can appear. Further investigation revealed that the patient mentioned above had also developed high blood pressure and heart palpitations since taking the vitamin D—symptoms of magnesium depletion."

As for why K2, well: Is Vitamin D Harmful Without Vitamin K?

So with high Vitamin D3, you need K2 and Magnesium and avoid Calcium, get bloods done to check levels, and limit it to 3 months, more growth happens in the first 3 months anyway (if this works as claimed).
Also don’t do it if you have any compromised organs, especially liver or kidney or heart.
See more here:

https://normshe aly.com/d3-k2-a … tation-surgery/

Also if you check out that page, you will see that the observation was made by another doctor, or more correctly by his patients who told a Dr. Prendergast.
So it’s not just 14 people in the study that had this result!

I think the results can be amplified with pumping and p-shot, if this vitamin D3 thing is valid.
Again, not recommending it, it is inherently risky.

Here is an interesting one: https://www.sci encedirect.com/ … 960076018306228

Highlights:
Daily dosing with vitamin D ranged from 5000 IU/day to 50,000 IU/day.
No cases of hypercalcemia observed using these doses of vitamin D for up to 7 years.
The highest 25OHD blood level attained on 10,000 IU/day was 202 ng/ml.
Mean 25OHD levels on 10,000 IU/day were 96 ng/ml and 116 ng/ml in 2 data sets.
A case of asthma and psoriasis were controlled with 25,000 IU/d and 50,000 IU/d.

My comments: Ok, that’s interesting so 7 years of doses up to 50,000IU a day and there were no serious problems,
While there are people who show up sick from excess vitamin D3, they might be a small percentage of people
If this is anything to go by..

Continued:
Vitamin D3 is a secosteroid hormone produced in the skin in amounts estimated up to 25,000 international units (IUs) a day by the action of UVB radiation on 7-dehydrocholesterol.

My comment: Ok, so you can get half that dose from sun exposure alone!

Continued:
During this time, we have admitted over 4700 patients, the vast majority of whom agreed to supplementation with either 5000 or 10,000 IUs/day. Due to disease concerns, a few agreed to larger amounts, ranging from 20,000 to 50,000 IUs/day. There have been no cases of vitamin D3 induced hypercalcemia or any adverse events attributable to vitamin D3 supplementation in any patient.

My comment: This shows rather clearly that vitamin D3 isn’t as dangerous as it is often made out to be, there IS risk yes, but also risk in not having enough!

It finishes up saying "In summary, long-term supplementation with vitamin D3 in doses ranging from 5000 to 50,000 IUs/day appears to be safe."

Yes, I can find things saying otherwise, but those seem to be isolated cases of people who have trouble for whatever reason, people that might absorb Vitamin D3 more than most, people that might have some mineral imbalance.

Here is a study giving people 60,000IU of D3 for a week, a lot shorter but an even higher dose, it was safe enough to give to them despite having COVID, and it helped them recover: Short term, high-dose vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 disease: a randomised, placebo-controlled, study (SHADE study) | Postgraduate Medical Journal

Here is another study that had even higher levels of Vitamin D3 and everything was good: Results of daily oral dosing with up to 60,000 international units (iu) of vitamin D3 for 2 to 6 years in 3 adult males - PubMed

Note that these studies were not including K2 or Magnesium which I would STRONGLY recommend for safety.

Here is another, interesting reading: https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(15)00244-X/fulltext

It goes on to mention that when 20,000 people supplemented with D, "Dudenkov et al also found that only 1 person with a serum 25(OH)D level of 364 ng/mL had evidence of clinical toxicity, that is, hypercalcemia."

So one person in 20,000, that’s not bad odds.

More: Physicians are now routinely treating patients with 50,000 IU of vitamin D2 as recommended by the Endocrine Society’s practice guidelines.
It’s routine and a guideline!

I think there is still a risk, but that risk is looking manageable.
Some people WILL become toxic taking just D3 at 50,000IU a day for 3 months, maybe not with the K2 and Magnesium and avoiding calcium somewhat, but some might still.
But it is clear that the risk isn’t so high, after 3 months there is just the chance of a slightly high reading of high Vitamin D, but probably nothing actually detrimental for most.

It looks like a potentially manageable risk, not something out of the question, but not something to be done lightly either.

F*ck yeah! Who wants to have their penis cut up like that.
I might be willing to stick a few needles into it (in theory, when the moment comes we’ll see if I try and pay someone to do the actual injecting, ugh).

I don’t know how likely the girth increases could have been as large as some had, 1.5 inches for the 28yo and 1.1 for the 65yo.

That’s not just a harder erection IMO, that’s growth.
Also a number gained almost a whole inch in length which again makes that seem a little unlikely to just be a harder erection to me.

Since penis growth can happen to adults when they are given a hormone they have been deficient in and D3 is a hormone everyone is deficient in, I think this is much more likely to be just what it seems, the same thing we see with studies giving Testosterone to people deficient in it.

Exactly. Surgery is not a high standard to beat.

.5-.75” in length gains is common for newbie gains. It all depends on erection quality. Some people have atrocious quality. But now you’re whittling your 14 test subjects down to 2.

Those results look like harder erections to me. I’m making assumptions, sure. But my assumptions are in line with a lot of research. You’re going to get results when you bring people closer to good health and you’re going to get results when you tell people what the research is about and what you’re hoping to find.

I’ll bet that study couldn’t be replicated with a healthy population who get a good amount of sun exposure and aren’t told why they are being examined.

Sure, but do you think that 1.5” in girth can be explain by a stronger erection? Because I don’t.
The first example couldn’t be a low quality erection, it would be a semi and even then I don’t know.

Let’s just say there are two possibilities, one that it is induced growth and the other that it’s just a stronger erection.
Both theories could be true or have some truth the only way to answer that is to try it, and I’m willing to, albeit I will be doing other things as well that I am just starting so it won’t be a very good test for isolating one component.