Thunder's Place

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

Size's PE data analysis

Lube your heads with this while hanging.

Hers a little something to wet your minds. Its a plot of the same thing we’ve been looking at in the top half, but in the bottom half I plotted the gain rate. Basically this is a graph of how quickly we are gaining based on how long we’ve been doing PE. People new to PE gain very fast, but their quick initial gain rates quickly slow down.

For all you non math people: all I’ve done is plot what we math folk call a derivative. In the top graph you see something that hopefully I’ve already explained successfully in another post — ie a plot of your expected gains based on how long you’ve been pe’ing. In the bottom graph I plotted the derivative of the top graph. There is no new information here, but its interesting to look at it this way.

The gain rate graph has some amazing features. For one thing, the initial gain rate is infinite. What this means is that the first time a newbie does PE he will be gaining an infinite amount of inches the first time he does it. Unfortunately this amazing gain rate only lasts for an infinitely short amount of time. You are gaining at a rate of more than a billion inches per week but unfortunately it only lasts for a billionth of a second. The gain rate quickly falls. During your first week this model predicts a gain rate of 0.28 inches/week. Pretty amazing. During the second week the gain rate slows to 0.09 inches per week. Not as impressive. Thats why this game of PE is an ongoing battle. Not one you can win in a few weeks. You have to eek out your gains slowly over time.

Important Qualifying remarks: No one ever gains at an infinite rate. That calculation does indeed show up in the mathematical model but in the real world it doesn’t do anyone a whole lot of good.

-Tube

PS: Next I think I will analyze erect girth since the analysis will be so similar to the erect length analysis. Then I’ll be getting to analyzing whether or not guys who start with bigger measurements gain quicker. Eventually chas, I will be attempting some kind of analysis based on exercises, but I will likely be making some kind of big petition for newbies to keep track of the exercises they do and for how long they do them. At that time I think I may also be petitioning members to fill in some more information on a data collection website, but you will here more about that when the time comes.

The attachment:

Attached Images
gainrate.png
(5.8 KB, 680 views)

-Still bitter the y2k bug was a dud.

-My dear boy, do you ask a fish how it swims? (No.) Or a bird how it flies? (No.) Of course not. They do it because they were born to do it...

Erect Girth

The first look at erect girth data.

Attachment:

Attached Images
erectgirth1.png
(4.0 KB, 879 views)

-Still bitter the y2k bug was a dud.

-My dear boy, do you ask a fish how it swims? (No.) Or a bird how it flies? (No.) Of course not. They do it because they were born to do it...

This one is interesting

This is a plot of girth gains as a function of length gains. A linear fit of the data shows that you will gain girth about half as quick as you gain length.

The mathematical formula was girth = 0.43 * length

One very important feature of this graph is the lack of girth losses. One common misconception newbies have is that gaining length may come at expense of the girth they already have; the so-called play-doh theory.

The data simply does not show this. There are a few people who have indeed lost girth as they have gained length but the preponderance of evidence shows that this is the exception rather than the rule. This graph is a powerful piece of evidence to dispel the “play-doh theory”.

Attachment:

Attached Images
girthvslength.png
(6.9 KB, 260 views)

-Still bitter the y2k bug was a dud.

-My dear boy, do you ask a fish how it swims? (No.) Or a bird how it flies? (No.) Of course not. They do it because they were born to do it...


Last edited by Tube : 02-04-2004 at .

Comparison of Data fits

I have redone the original linear fit on this graph along with the other fits I have done. It shows the formula for all the data fits which is nice. (This graph is for the length data again).

Attached Images
comparisonfits.png
(7.8 KB, 174 views)

-Still bitter the y2k bug was a dud.

-My dear boy, do you ask a fish how it swims? (No.) Or a bird how it flies? (No.) Of course not. They do it because they were born to do it...

Smaller Guys Gain More?

Here is my first go at analyzing the PE data to see if bigger guys gain easier or smaller guys gain easier. Looks like smaller guys gain faster. If this can be believed then a couple possible explanations could be: 1. they have more motivation, 2. they have less girth. Previously it was thought bigger guys gained easier because they have more mass to work with.

Attached Images
gainrate_vs_startsize.png
(10.2 KB, 270 views)

-Still bitter the y2k bug was a dud.

-My dear boy, do you ask a fish how it swims? (No.) Or a bird how it flies? (No.) Of course not. They do it because they were born to do it...

Wow, according to the graphs there have been people who have gained 1inch (length) in less then 5 weeks. Can you make a graph that just shows the first 32 weeks? I would like to know how much I hope I have in gaining in the first two months.

Hey maxtro,
I will try to put together a look at the first couple of months. Which do you want, 32 weeks or 2 months?

-Tube


-Still bitter the y2k bug was a dud.

-My dear boy, do you ask a fish how it swims? (No.) Or a bird how it flies? (No.) Of course not. They do it because they were born to do it...

Sorry Tube , I meant two months. I was racking my head so hard trying to figure out how many weeks were in a year, month and in two months. It never occurred to me until now that each month has 4 weeks and therefore two months is 8 weeks. So please, 8 weeks would be fine.

Thanks Tube

Maxtro, I haven’t forgot about your request. I will be extremely busy for the next 1 week. I will definitely have it done within a week and a half though. :)

-Tube


-Still bitter the y2k bug was a dud.

-My dear boy, do you ask a fish how it swims? (No.) Or a bird how it flies? (No.) Of course not. They do it because they were born to do it...

Thanks Tube, I almost forgot about my request. I just remembered this thread when you linked to it from somewhere else. When you are free to do it I’d like to see just the first 16 weeks instead of 8.

Wowza, I finally got around to it Max, sorry about the laziness, vacations from school will do that to you sometimes ;) .

Its kinda interesting because you can see all the people who report their data at the first month (4-5 weeks) then no longer keep reporting.

Edit: sorry I forgot to label the axes. The horizontal axis is weeks and the vertical axis is cumulative gains.

Attached Images
first16.jpg
(18.8 KB, 145 views)

-Still bitter the y2k bug was a dud.

-My dear boy, do you ask a fish how it swims? (No.) Or a bird how it flies? (No.) Of course not. They do it because they were born to do it...


Last edited by Tube : 03-29-2004 at .

Confirming Old Suppositions

The old tale that dudes with smaller starting girths gain more is confirmed by Size’s data. See attachment.

Why is this? Maybe they try harder. Maybe its easier for them to stretch the tissue because there is less of it.

I find it very interesting that starting girths less than 4.5 always gained more than a quarter inch - bar none. Also, starting girths less than 4 always gained more than half an inch. I find these absolute trends very provocative.

Attached Images
st_gir_vs_end_gain.jpg
(16.7 KB, 193 views)

-Still bitter the y2k bug was a dud.

-My dear boy, do you ask a fish how it swims? (No.) Or a bird how it flies? (No.) Of course not. They do it because they were born to do it...

That trend line is way deceptive. What’s the slope of that line -.25? and the R squared?

Some suggestions:

Try a corellation using the inter quartile ranges. Then try it for different bands of starting LENGTH. My first guess is that the ultimate corellation while negative as you suggest is far less negative than that trend line. Also try it for guys who stuck with it the same amount of time (a bivariate corallation of gains against length of career and starting girth) Maybe guys with big girth are less motivated because they have “big dicks” to start. So if you if you look at guys who gave it the same amount of time and effort as PE’ers that the gains in length will be smaller for thicker girth but much less than that line indicates, and your statement is a partially a psychological fact rather than a purely anatomical one. The true anatomical one would be more interesting. If the anatomical corellation is very negative it would be a firm statement to focus exclusively on length before doing any girth work, or it would refute that stance.

Rakish,

I appreciate your suggestions. R^2 is 0.04. Slope is -0.23. You seem to know a lot about statistics, I hope you can continue to look at this thread every once in a while and give your thoughts. I will look over your other suggestions which all seem reasonable.


-Still bitter the y2k bug was a dud.

-My dear boy, do you ask a fish how it swims? (No.) Or a bird how it flies? (No.) Of course not. They do it because they were born to do it...

Tube,

Sure. I’ve been following along. Seems ok so far, but my visual take on that scatter was that it was a “non proof” or proof of the converse. Actually a .04 R^2 confirms that. And if you showed a (0,0) origin graph the line would look a lot less ominous. Right now the strongest confirming statement you could make would be:

“At an extremely weak level of confirmation, there is some indication that a man with one inch more girth than another at the outset of their PE career could be expected to gain 1/4” less during his PE career”

After the adjustments I suggested your R^2 should go up but the trend line will come down a lot. The statement then becomes “There is a weak indication that” …..”expected to gain 1/8” inch less” That’s a much different statement. And it suggests more accurately that the conventional wisdom is WRONG. We discount the statement that finger, nose and shoe length are correlated with penis size to be FALSE, allthough they have positive corellations, but because the R^2 of predictive models is only around .25 for those hypotheses. Therefore we can also state that “there is no corellation (or miniscule corellation) between starting girth and ultimate gains.” with the same strength. I wonder if the same is true for GAIN RATE. I expect it probably is.

So the subject line of your next ; ) post will be:

Girth does not hamper length gains.

There is minimal to no statistical proof at any significant level.

In fact since it will bolster or bust an important piece of conventional wisdom that announcement should get its own thread announcing it. I’ll leave the math to you since you have the data pre-massaged. A while ago I imported it into a spreadsheet, but there’s more data and it required too much massaging since Excel is a crude tool for the purpose. Crunch away I’m interested in this result, having been a 6.2 starting girth guy who gains well when he’s not lazy.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:18 AM.