D
Deleted member 23218
Fire
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2022
- Posts
- 15,567
- Reputation
- 16,604
Don't take CalcSD as gospel
tl;dr: actual average of medically-measured studies is significantly higher than CalcSD suggests (its 6.2)
So we hopefully all know that the Veale 5.2" average is incredibly flawed and that the CalcSD Western 5.7" average is more accurate.
But even CalcSD is reporting a lowered average by including some faulty studies. If you exclude those the actual Western average is about 6.2"
The most significant flaw is that a quarter of the studies were done *exclusively* on men with ED, even though it's known to significantly decrease size.
Ideally we should only use studies that were done on random samples of men, and obviously not studies that were done exclusively on people with issues that significantly affect size. That's like doing a study on average height but only measuring people with dwarfism.
Studies that measured both men with and without ED found that they are significantly smaller, irregardless if they achieve erection via injection of prostaglandin E1 or if they measure stretched flaccid length. For example [Kamel et al 2009](https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095\(15\)32622-9/fulltext) found an average decline in length for men with ED of 0.67" and [Awwad et al 2005](https://www.nature.com/articles/3901272) of 0.75"
CalcSD is also inconsistent as for example for [Vasconcelos et al 2012](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090429512009442) they only took the non-ED subgroup (which had an average of 6.54"), yet they included several studies that were done exclusively on men with ED, like:
[Acuña et al. 1999](https://encolombia.com/medicina/revistas-medicas/urologia/vol-8299/urologia8299-estudio) reported an average of 5.4" but was done on men with ED exclusively and counted it as an erection if it was 70% hard.
[Chen et al. 2000](https://www.nature.com/articles/3900627) which reported an average of 5.3" but was done on men with ED exclusively.
The CalcSD Western average is 5.7", but if you exclude studies done exclusively on men with ED the lowest result that is left is 5.7" and all others are significantly higher
The studies that were done on more random samples of men have significantly higher averages, like for example:
Salama 2015: 5.9"
Pereira et al 2004: 6"
Wessels et al 1996: 6.2"
Barboza et al 2018: 6.32"
Bondil et al 1992: 6.59"
Even more blackpilling is that women self select for penis size so the
tl;dr: actual average of medically-measured studies is significantly higher than CalcSD suggests (its 6.2)
So we hopefully all know that the Veale 5.2" average is incredibly flawed and that the CalcSD Western 5.7" average is more accurate.
But even CalcSD is reporting a lowered average by including some faulty studies. If you exclude those the actual Western average is about 6.2"
The most significant flaw is that a quarter of the studies were done *exclusively* on men with ED, even though it's known to significantly decrease size.
Ideally we should only use studies that were done on random samples of men, and obviously not studies that were done exclusively on people with issues that significantly affect size. That's like doing a study on average height but only measuring people with dwarfism.
Studies that measured both men with and without ED found that they are significantly smaller, irregardless if they achieve erection via injection of prostaglandin E1 or if they measure stretched flaccid length. For example [Kamel et al 2009](https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095\(15\)32622-9/fulltext) found an average decline in length for men with ED of 0.67" and [Awwad et al 2005](https://www.nature.com/articles/3901272) of 0.75"
CalcSD is also inconsistent as for example for [Vasconcelos et al 2012](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090429512009442) they only took the non-ED subgroup (which had an average of 6.54"), yet they included several studies that were done exclusively on men with ED, like:
[Acuña et al. 1999](https://encolombia.com/medicina/revistas-medicas/urologia/vol-8299/urologia8299-estudio) reported an average of 5.4" but was done on men with ED exclusively and counted it as an erection if it was 70% hard.
[Chen et al. 2000](https://www.nature.com/articles/3900627) which reported an average of 5.3" but was done on men with ED exclusively.
The CalcSD Western average is 5.7", but if you exclude studies done exclusively on men with ED the lowest result that is left is 5.7" and all others are significantly higher
The studies that were done on more random samples of men have significantly higher averages, like for example:
Salama 2015: 5.9"
Pereira et al 2004: 6"
Wessels et al 1996: 6.2"
Barboza et al 2018: 6.32"
Bondil et al 1992: 6.59"
Even more blackpilling is that women self select for penis size so the
Last edited:
