- Clod,
Yea I was thinking a hair over 5, maybe 5.25. I think a 1 inch fat pad on average makes sense, with younger or leaner populations having less.
Measured porn stars??
- Thread starter _avg_
- Start date
Fat pads can fluctuate for some people too.
Im in decent shape. 6ft 170 lbs and my fat pad can be anywhere from a 1/2 inch to a full inch. Its weird.
Have been doing more cardio lately. Hopefully that helps.
Im in decent shape. 6ft 170 lbs and my fat pad can be anywhere from a 1/2 inch to a full inch. Its weird.
Have been doing more cardio lately. Hopefully that helps.
- Clod,
Yea I’m really lean and mine’s only 0.25 inches. It’s been as big as 0.75 at my highest body fat. 0.5 is what most very fit people would have. You have to be extremely lean (e.g. Johnny Sins in his prime) to cut it down to a quarter inch or so. It’s also the last place to lose that last bit of fat typically. I can go back to a 0.5 inch fat pad with even minor weight gain.
- Narz,
>There was also a Vietnamese study (also a poorer country) which showed I believe a 6.3 BPEL. Why is their data bigger than Egypt?
This one? Data from 14,597 penile measurements of vietnamese men - PubMed
Has an average of 5.7"
It's the Eastern study with the highest average, but it's still below the average in the West
>men aged 20-40 had average flaccid NBP of close to 4.5 inches
4.2" BP flaccid length is comparable to other studies. Khan for example was similar at 4" BP flaccid, but they only used gentle tension even though SFL is only valid under maximum extension and thus only got 5.6" BPSFL
- Narz,
>The huge flaccid sizeBondils is nonsense. The huge flaccid size, the huge average, & the dude with an almost 11-incher don’t add up.
& yes, contrary to popular belief, some studies show men with ED are in fact bigger on average. Ig we also have Jack, Shane, Holmes, Sly, & plenty of others in porn who can back that up
4.2" BPFL isn't that much of an outlier
>the huge average
It's not much higher than the Brazilian studies
>the dude with an almost 11-incher don’t add up
"there's no evidence that 10 inch dicks exist" - "but this study showed one" - "then it must be fake because there's no evidence that 10 inch dicks exist"
>some studies show men with ED
Really not that much, and mostly those that compare men with ED to men with other dick problems, but not those that compared them to normal men.
You’re right, I misread about the flaccid. It looks like it was BP. That seems odd though because that means the average fat pad in that study was 6cm or 2.4 inches (over 2x Wessels average fat pad of 1.1 inches). That would be quite the obese cohort they used.
In any case, the combination of a reported 10.7 inch dick plus the 6cm (2.4 inch) fat pad leaves me skeptical of that study.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Clod,
Right. Because in science, one must always baselessly accept the one outlier as truth, never the sum total of all the rest of the data.
Geez that motivates me to get ripped as my dick will “grow” an inch.
- Clod,
The only way I could possibly justify such a massive fat pad is that they WERE suffering from ED. I'd imagine men with ED would be far more likely to be obese. Then again, 2.4 inches is very extreme. I have a hard time believing the average fat pad was quite that big. Even if it was, the stretched numbers are beyond suspect, and that's not even to mention the 10.7". My guess is Bondil may have measured from the bottom or the side.
Exactly. Also, have we ever seen a guy in porn who looks very overweight (like hed have a 2+ fat pad) with an 8+ NBP cock? Cause subtracting 2.4 inch fat pad from 10.7 would be 8.3 inches. That’s fishy Bondil gets one in his 900 man cohort but don’t see in porn, at least I don’t think…So someone may say, “maybe the 10.7 guy didn’t have a big fat pad”. To which I respond, again why have we not seen a 10.7 incher or even close in porn?
- Clod,
That'd basically be the size Ron Jeremy pretended to be
Can you even imagine an obese dude with an Anton Harden-sized cock?! That'd be so fucking wild! No doubt he'd be an instant fan-favorite.
& since there have been less than 5 guys ever who have even been close to 9, it's just way too much to believe this man was 10.7 BP (or even remotely close).
Who cares about base girth? It's not even going inside a person. I care about head girth and shaft girth
- Narz,
There's no mention of fat pad at all
L1 is initial BP flaccid size, Lmax is maximally BP stretched flaccid size and L2 is another BP flaccid measurement afterwards.
- Narz,
It's only an outlier if you compare it to NBP studies.
It's not an outlier if you compare it to Western BP studies
- Narz,
First: they haven't found a 6cm average fat pad. The other user just made that up
Secondly: they measured from the top. The only thing that's different to other studies is that they were lying down and it doesn't mention it they pulled it straight up at a 90 degree angle or down
Just for add some random data
Im far from fat, but I have around 0.75-1 inch of fat pad
And my stretched soft lenght is like 0.25 longer than erect
Im far from fat, but I have around 0.75-1 inch of fat pad
And my stretched soft lenght is like 0.25 longer than erect
- Clod,
Both very normal. For a lot of men, the lower abs & pubic area is one are some of the last places to lose fat. Also while stretched an erect length are similar, it’s common to be slightly bigger or smaller in one or the other.
- Clod,
I was referring to the 10.7” as the outlier.
& the average is still bigger than the vast majority of studies I’ve seen on erect length. Most find BP erect length to be anywhere from 5.7 to 6.25. It’s anomalous enough thy other researchers in the field have pointed out their data seems fishy. The papers I read guessed that his higher numbers were due to measuring 3x, but that’s nonsense. I agree with them his numbers are fishy, but I don’t know why. This study was done in ‘92, & it hasn’t been replicated since. The only data-sets that perfectly resemble it are “self-reported”, which also tend to be inflated by a half-inch on average.
If that’s true, then that could explain the discrepancy.
But this also depends on where you live in the “west”. I live in a big multi ethnic city where half the pop isn’t white and the rest is mix of East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian, Middle East and black. So the global average is probably more accurate. If I were to go to a rural area, it’s all white and then western averages may be more accurate.
I miscalculated, my bad. The fat pad is around 1.51 inches. I took 6.59 (Lmax) - 5.0 (western NBPEL) =1.51. Still a big average fat pad (0.5 inch more than Wessels) but far less than 2.4 I quoted.
*im pretty confident NBPEL is 4.9-5.1 based on the data from Ponchietti Italian military study. It was the best study as far as sample bias. Wessels also had 4.9 NBPEL.
Speaking of Ponchietti study: It’s interesting these were 18-21 year old military guys. They must be in better average shape than average guy and thus relatively lower fat pads. So let’s say average fat pad 0.5-0.75 that means average *BPEL* should be 5.4-5.65.
Last edited:
