Thunder's Place

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

80 Percent of PE is internal biochemistry and 20 Percent stretching method.

Originally Posted by datdat
Paleo diet is a well-marketed fad diet, not the worst fad diet but still a fad diet. It’s got some positives to it but the “historical” premise for it and the “disease prevention” stuff is just speculative rubbish.

That link you posted is marketing crap for a book. “In the last six weeks, I have cut from about 180 lbs. to 165 lbs., while adding about 10 lbs. of muscle, which means I’ve lost about 25 lbs. of fat.” Sure thing buddy.


*points and laughs at anyone who actually believes that claim*


Start • 5.94''x4.92''

Now • 6.50''x4.96''

Goal • 7.00''x5.75''

Originally Posted by ThunderSS
Easy there james, don’t go all caveman and shit. Pissing people off isn’t a good way of convincing someone to try something. I know, I am good at doing that. :)

I wasn’t going “caveman and shit”; I should have inserted a nice winking smiley ;)

@UpTo7:

I guess we should be pointing and laughing at Ray Cronise, a former NASA scientist and founder of Zero G Corp, who produced similar results.

I’ve done it already. I lost 17 lbs of fat and gained about 6 lbs in muscle, in 4 weeks. The diet produces the fat loss; the ice baths produce the muscle.


Last edited by james456 : 01-13-2011 at .

Originally Posted by james456
It’s easy to criticize as the ignorant, stubborn observer.

Try out the methods outlined in the book and gauge results - like me, and others have already done.

So you’ve bought the book? You’ve fallen into the trap. Once you buy the product, you’re part of the fad. You’ll feel “better” from the placebo effect as you want you investment in the book to be worthwhile. You may actually be “better” because the one or two solid nutritional tactics in the fad diet are working (higher protein intake, for example) but due to ignorance, you’ll believe the WHOLE system, gimmicks and all, are what is causing the improvement.

How do you back your claims up that you “lost 17lbs of fat” and “gained 6lbs of muscle”? No scientific study I’ve ever seen has shown anything close to those kind of results.

Oh, BTW I have these pills I like to call “Penlarge” that increased by BPEL by 4” and MSEG by 2” in just 3 weeks, can I sell you some for $100 a pop? They contain hay extracts and genuine horsesweat, we all know how big horse penii are and now you can have one of your own!


Start: BPFSL/BPEL/MSEG: 158mm/143mm/109mm (6.2"/5.6"/4.3") (end Sep '10)

Now: BPFSL/BPEL/MSEG: 160mm/150mm/112mm (6.3"/5.9"/4.4") (end Oct '10)

GOAL: BPFSL/BPEL/MSEG: 190mm/190mm/130mm (7.5"/7.5"/5.1")

Nobody here will dispute proper diet and nutrition can enhance the physical work one does, the fact remains there is no factual basis for your claim - 80 percent of PE is internal biochemistry.

Its that plain and simple.

Well I’m going to stick my neck out here. It’s 100% Biochemistry, and here is why :

1) I’m a biological organism.
2) All the reactions in my body are chemical
3) Therefore life, the creation of life, molecular genetics, neuroscience, daily cellular reactions are biochemical.

So reading this website is biochemical, the reactions which enable me to stretch my unit/apply a vacuum/attach a weight are biochemical. Tissue repair is biochemical.

The biochemical organism is able to take care of itself with limited resources. What you have taken is some sort of micro diet which is designed for a specific lifestyle, and said PE will be more effective if you do this, and of that you have no proof. Remember what assumptions are?

Now here is a nice case. Two identical twins, brothers. One smoked, drank, ate fatty foods. The other lived healthily, didnt smoke, drank sensibly, in fact looked down upon his brother and his lifestyle. The “unhealthy” brother had a massive coronary. The other twin went to visit his brother in hospital, and one of the nurses insisted he got checked out immediately because nurses know about this stuff. It was discovered he was on the verge of a massive coronary, and was rushed into surgery there and then. He was shocked. He wasn’t like his brother yaddy yaddy yah.

Genetics is important, and that is biochemistry.

All the techniques invoke biochemical reactions, because we are inducing change in a biochemical organism.


Last edited by stuzilla : 01-13-2011 at .

@Freder23: There is no factual basis for any of the claims in the PE community. It’s a bunch dudes experimenting and posting their theories and results. If you want scientific papers or “proof” on the subject, you’ll be waiting a further 5-10 (though, probably much longer) years when Stem Cells and other tech kick in.

@Stuzilla: It’s common sense that everything is the result of the interchange between particles at the subatomic level, which can be labelled as being biochemical. You get no points for being pedantic. :)

Originally Posted by james456
@Stuzilla: It’s common sense that everything is the result of the interchange between particles at the subatomic level, which can be labelled as being biochemical. You get no points for trying to be pedantic. :)


Atoms not particles, molecular not subatomic. I’m a biological organism not a nuclear reactor nor the sun.

You need to be a pedant when it comes to Biochemistry, its either right or its wrong.:)

Originally Posted by stuzilla
Atoms not particles, molecular not subatomic. I’m a biological organism not a nuclear reactor nor the sun.

You need to be pedant when it comes to Biochemistry, it’s either right or it’s wrong.

Hah, you’re fixated on topic-specific terminology. What I said still applies, and it can still be labelled as ‘biochemical’.

Originally Posted by james456
Hah, you’re fixated on topic-specific terminology. What I said still applies, and it can still be labelled as ‘biochemical’.


Yes I am. Biochemistry is a very specific science, if you do not use the language that has been allocated over the years then no one has a clue as to what each other is talking about, and no progression is made.

I could equally say that you are fixated on arguing a point that you neither have the knowledge nor the evidence to defend.


Last edited by stuzilla : 01-13-2011 at .

Originally Posted by stuzilla
Yes I am. Biochemistry is a very specific science, if you do not use the language that has been allocated over the years then no one has a clue as to what each other is talking about, and no progression is made.

I could equally say that you are fixated on arguing a point that you neither have the knowledge nor evidence to defend.

Originally Posted by james456
@Stuzilla: It’s common sense that everything is the result of the interchange between particles at the subatomic level, which can be labelled as being biochemical. You get no points for trying to be pedantic.

I see the signs of a straw man being built.

This thread sounds a lot like something bodybuilders talk about. And not without good measure. We really are “building-up” our penis’s to become larger, longer and harder than what our hard-coded genetics have given us.

I agree with stuzilla’s statement on how it is 100% “biochemistry”. More so it is our ability to adapt to external stimuli while partaking in PE which primarily determines growth. And much the same can be said with diets. Some people will do fantastic on certain diets because of their body’s “positive” reaction to the foods they ingest.

But this is not without caution. What one may view losing a large amount of body weight as a beneficial side-effect may in fact be causing serious harm to your body. The same could apply to someone who gains really fast by doing PE, but they may for example lose their EQ in the process.

Again this all relates back to how well people adapt to external stimuli. Some are faster than others.


Start (Jan 2011): FL=8.75cm(3.44") BPEL=18.35cm (7.22") EG=11.6cm(4.56")

Current: FL=10.50cm(3.94") BPEL=19.55cm (7.69") EG=13.25cm(5.21")

Goal: BPEL=19.1cm (7.5") EG=14.0cm(5.5") and reduce my fat pad!

Originally Posted by james456

I see the signs of a straw man being built.

And you are building it. Once someone starts to blindly repeat what they have said before, then it is the end. Offer me something to change my mind, not conjecture, but proof. Which you can’t, which is why you are blindly repeating yourself.

I guess james is right- cut out dairy immediately!


Recognize.

Originally Posted by stuzilla
And you are building it. Once someone starts to blindly repeat what they have said before, then it is the end. Offer me something to change my mind, not conjecture, but proof. Which you can’t, which is why you are blindly repeating yourself.

Sure, assuming the other is able to grasp the argument. If you can’t understand what I’ve written, it’s not my problem. =)

EDIT:

Did some googling, what I mentioned above may not be labelled as ‘biochemical’, but my points still hold. Regardless, thanks for pause stuzilla.


Last edited by james456 : 01-13-2011 at .

Originally Posted by Dextro
Again this all relates back to how well people adapt to external stimuli. Some are faster than others.


And we don’t all adapt in the same way, different people will adapt differently to the same stimulus.

One of the main issues with the field we are discussing is that a lot of the pathways are understood as “stand alone” elements, but very little is understood when everything starts interacting. To me the human body is amazing, a true miracle. There are so many points of failure, it is very surprising that conception works. :)

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:03 PM.