I was shooting a video today of my girth. Better than a picture to account for any shrinkage. On a normal day I am easily around 5.6 mid shaft. I put a ring on today for girth and the tape read just over 5.75 mid shaft. This is not from pumping or any girth work. Is my girth considered 5.6 or 5.75? I have also had my base come in at 7.25 when a ring was used.
Girth Measurment Question
The real number is the smallest number available, not an enhanced figure or a fluid-retention figure, -- but if you want .. you track both the smallest figure .. and also an average of several varied figures .. to track your progress across time, because the relation between them can change at different rates, and with different nutritional habits, and with different exercises and post-exercise behaviour.
When you have a cock ring on, you will slowly expand past your normal limits due to the ring reducing the rate at which blood leaves the penis. Any measurement taken after wearing the ring for a while will therefore be invalid but your immediate measurement of 5.75 could potentially be what you actually have, or would have if you had the best erection ever. Either way though, the 5.6 is your natural erectile size so that's what you'd be using and isn't that what's really important?
I don't see a problem with measuring with a ring on, you could wear a ring during sex and get the same size if not bigger. I don't really mess with cock rings but whatever works right?
Paraphrasing from The Princess Bride .. I'd sooner destroy a stained glass window than seem like I'm disagreeing with an artist such as yourself, this is more clarifying my own point..
I was presuming that the baseline was a 100% erection (maybe not?) and the larger figures were the result of retention, which could be kindof random from one time to the next and therefore less reliable. To make an analogy it'd be a bit like doing length measurements which are NBP one time, and BP the next, and in-between at other times. To get a reliable figure they should pick one set of conditions, .. or pick two but track them separately.
This sounds like what I said, .. 5.6 was normal and it was the ring that made it go to 5.75.
Yeah you definitely need to be at 100% erection to get your baseline figures, otherwise you have randomness back in the other direction. But also if you're at '101'% (and above) then I'd say you're measuring some retention rather than 'your size', or more particularly your current base size.
Enhanced figures are fine too, and might be more informative as to what you'd be slipping inside someone .. if you're going in pumped or ringed, but track them separately from the current baseline if you want to closely monitor your progress.
I was presuming that the baseline was a 100% erection (maybe not?) and the larger figures were the result of retention, which could be kindof random from one time to the next and therefore less reliable. To make an analogy it'd be a bit like doing length measurements which are NBP one time, and BP the next, and in-between at other times. To get a reliable figure they should pick one set of conditions, .. or pick two but track them separately.
This sounds like what I said, .. 5.6 was normal and it was the ring that made it go to 5.75.
Yeah you definitely need to be at 100% erection to get your baseline figures, otherwise you have randomness back in the other direction. But also if you're at '101'% (and above) then I'd say you're measuring some retention rather than 'your size', or more particularly your current base size.
Enhanced figures are fine too, and might be more informative as to what you'd be slipping inside someone .. if you're going in pumped or ringed, but track them separately from the current baseline if you want to closely monitor your progress.
Avg it. That's your gain.
(with a furrowed brow and kindof a question mark on my face that would be super affable in person...)
The same could be said about measuring length off to the side.
But that's usually declasse because (for no other reason really than) it gives a reading that doesn't port to other users.Agreeing, .. just saying there could be a slightly higher rigor (.15" in this case) if the person wants to objectively compare their figures with others, rather than just subjectively test for gains. Either will show gains, one makes it more relatable.
Exactly.
[..last i'll say]
Asanon;641102 said:The same could be said about measuring length off to the side.
This has been argued before too and my opinion on this is as long as you are measuring from the same place and that place is solid, gains can still tracked. Is it an actual measurement of useable size? Not at all but it still give a measurement of growth.