A large number of LPSG members are probably familiar with the LifeStyles penis size study conducted in 2001 by the LifeStyles condom company. I know I see it quoted around here in most threads devoted to size. For those of you not familiar, here's a quick rundown. According to the page I linked, so the sample size for the study is 300. Here are the results: LENGTH http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/3712/lslength.png GIRTH http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/7262/lsgirth.png Pretty simple, right? Here's my issue: with a sample size of 300, each participant should have accounted for 1/300th of the total pool of data, or 0.333...%. In that case, how are these following intervals, taken from the charts above, possible: LENGTH: 3.5" to 3.75" - 0.2% 4.00" to 4.25" - 0.2% 8.50" to 8.75" - 0.1% 8.75" to 9.00" - 0.1% GIRTH: 6.50" to 6.75" - 0.1% when those percentages would represent less than one participant? Furthermore, there are intervals that contain values of 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0%. Assuming a consistent rounding method was used, this shouldn't be possible when each data point represents 0.333...% of the sample group. The only possibility I thought of was that the charts were supposed to represent the normal distribution for the entire male population, calculated from the results of the study. But if that's the case, how could the "bell" shape become so distorted around the reported mean for the girth (4.972")? The 4.75" to 5.00" interval has the highest percentage, as you'd expect, but then the distribution dips VERY low for the two adjacent intervals before rising again for the 4.25" to 4.50" and 5.25" to 5.50" intervals. There's no way a normal distribution could take that form. The page I linked to elaborates on this point a little, also. I see these numbers used quite often on these forums, and I believe I've even seen them quoted in actual published research (albeit with a disclaimer stating that the study wasn't particularly scientific). But regardless of how scientific the study itself was, these results just shouldn't be possible unless individual participants were somehow split up into multiple intervals on the graph. And that doesn't make sense, right? Does anyone have an explanation?