Oh ok, yes thats true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai
Oh ok, yes thats true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai
I've been studying the human body in an artistic persepective (just a hobby), and since then it has really interested me to take a closer look at individuals; observe their body as a whole, and their isolated body parts. That to see how really different the proportions often are. Most people are concerned with the height, but most people really don't notice how 'off' the proportions are before these are very obvious. Just take a closer look at individuals who are standing straight up. First take a look at the upper body (above the crotch). Is it a bit shorter than the lower body? Well that is what is considered more proportionate than if it was the other way around. Or you can observe those who have got quite a striking shorter upper body compared to the lower body, which looks long. A ratio that is significantly off. As you continue to observe you will further notice that some persons have got really short arms, whereas other have arms like monkeys. Other people again have a long distance from the femur to the knee, and going down with your eyes you notice that the distance from the knee and down to the heal is short. Another ratio that is 'off'. Or it may be the other way around. Most people are not artistically proportionate, but it is only when the ratio is so obviously askew from our idea of 'ideal proportion' that most people realise that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivor
I have seen men who have such long torsos and so very short feet, and yet they were 6' tall, and I would think that if their feet had been more proportionate to their upper body, these guys would be 7 foot tall.
So if the length of any body part would indicate the length of the penis, which body part would it be? In the case of a very long torso and very short feet, which part would the penis relate to... the shorter legs or the long torso? And what if the arms are so long that they almost reach past the knee, and legs are very long in correlation to the upper body? Or what about having a big nose and ears or a powerful chin, which typically give some people an assosiation or imagination of the penis size, along with shoesize and the size of hands. Speaking of hands, we have the quite recent Korean study that everyone here have heard of; the one where the scientists measured unconscious men, registering their index finger vs. ring finger ratio. These Korean scientists came up with the theory that the amount of testosterone exposure before birth was shown in that ratio. If having a shorter index finger and a longer ring finger, it meant more exposure to testosterone in the womb, and allegedly it meant that men with that finger ratio were likely to have a longer penis.
Actually there are so many body parts to take into consideration if we are to think of 'height' as in the proportion of the body.
I am quite certain that the anthropometry will show that there is statistically a significantly little correlation to the length of body parts and the penis. But I would enjoy it if I proved to be wrong. So I welcome this shoe size study.
[Edit: I also have will add my own height]
Ivor, I edited my post and added my height in. If anybody who has already added their shoe size but not their height, edit it and add your height. if enough people add their height you might be able to analyze any correlation there too. Also I changed my shoe size from 9 1/2 to 10. I checked my shoes which show that I'm a UK 9 and a US 10. On your charts there is only a .5 difference, where I'm sure it's supposed to be a size 1 difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivor
BigO was right, she was and is a bitch. ;) And thanks Ivor!Quote:
Originally Posted by BigO
US 8.5"
Currently 6.2" BPEL. (Sorry do not know the real original BPEL but it was 5" NBPEL)
Thanks B.A. - is it reasonable to assume half an inch of fat pad and therefore a starting BPEL of 5.5"? Well done on your gains btw!Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Amethyst
OK, well I've had 27 sets of stats, so that's 28 including mine. Here's the results so far. Shoe size is on the x-axis (along the bottom), starting length on the y-axis (up the side).
Attachment 17898
https://www.pegym.com/forums/attachm...ribute-cor.jpg
Now I'm no statistician, but to me that looks like no correlation at all.
Edit: can some kind mod/admin tell me how to attach images so they show up in the post as an image rather than a link? Thanks.
It might not be the best way, but I right-click the image link and copy the address, and put it in IMG tags. Updated your post for you BTW
Duh, that's a pretty obvious way to do it now that I think about it for two seconds. :)
But anyway - doesn't seem to bode well for the foot-size stereotype, does it.
Nope! That's a pretty scattered chart you got there!
