How the programme was built

Everything the app asks you to do comes from one of four places. This page lists all of them, including where the evidence is weak.

1. The pelvic floor protocol

The session shape — a timed contraction, a release at least as long, sets of eight to fourteen, progressing in hold length and position — comes from the pelvic floor muscle training literature for erectile dysfunction, principally the Dorey trials.

The seven sessions in the plan run from 8 rounds of a 3-second hold with a 6-second release, up to 14 rounds of a 6-second hold. Progression is by hold length first, then round count, which is the order the training literature uses because a longer hold at the same volume is a smaller jump than more volume at the same hold.

Dorey et al., Br J Gen Pract 2004; Dorey et al., BJU Int 2005. Discussed in full here.

2. The quick-flick and stop–start work

The fast contractions and the threshold-recognition exercises come from the premature ejaculation literature, principally Pastore et al.'s 12-week pelvic floor rehabilitation study. That study was uncontrolled, which we say on the page about it, and the app's copy does not promise the effect size it reported.

Pastore et al., Ther Adv Urol 2014. Discussed in full here.

3. The movement and step targets

The daily movement goal, and the optional read-only step count from Apple Health, come from the physical activity reviews for erectile function. The target the literature supports is around 160 minutes a week of moderate-to-vigorous activity sustained for six months — considerably more than a step count captures, which is why the app frames steps as a floor and not as the intervention.

Gerbild et al., Sex Med 2018. Discussed in full here.

4. The breathing and recovery work

The diaphragm and the pelvic floor move together on every breath, and the breath patterns in the app exist to make the release phase releasable — not as a stress intervention in their own right. The recovery check-ins cover sleep and alcohol because both appear consistently in the erectile function literature, though the app's version of them is a prompt, not a measurement.

This is the weakest-evidenced part of the app, and it is the part we would remove first if we had to justify every screen.

What the scores are, and are not

The app calculates baseline scores out of 100 from your assessment answers and shows a projection for day 30. Those are internal, self-report indices: they are consistent with themselves over time, which makes them useful for seeing whether your own answers are moving, and they are not a clinical measurement of anything. They are not the IIEF, they do not map onto any published scale, and a score of 41 does not mean anything outside the app.

The projection is a modelled expectation based on completing the plan, not a prediction about you. We have deliberately kept it visually distinct from the measured score for that reason.

What we left out on purpose

• Testosterone advice. Genuinely low testosterone is a blood test and a doctor's decision. There is no version of an app being useful here that is not also an app pretending to practise medicine.
• Supplement recommendations. The evidence is thin and the category is adulterated often enough to be a real safety problem.
• Any claim to treat ED. The app is a general wellness app in the App Store's Health & Fitness category. It is not a medical device, has not been through any regulatory pathway, and does not claim a therapeutic effect.
• Post-surgical rehabilitation. The largest randomised trial found formal pelvic floor training no better than standard care for incontinence after prostate surgery, and the app was not built for that population. We say so on its own page.
• Community and comparison. No leaderboards, no forum, no sharing. Partly privacy, partly that social comparison is a poor fit for this subject.

All sources on this site

• Dorey G, Speakman M, Feneley R, Swinkels A, Dunn C, Ewings P. Randomised controlled trial of pelvic floor muscle exercises and manometric biofeedback for erectile dysfunction. Br J Gen Pract 2004;54(508):819–825.
• Dorey G, Speakman MJ, Feneley RCL, Swinkels A, Dunn CDR. Pelvic floor exercises for erectile dysfunction. BJU Int 2005;96(4):595–597.
• Pastore AL, Palleschi G, Fuschi A, et al. Pelvic floor muscle rehabilitation for patients with lifelong premature ejaculation. Ther Adv Urol 2014;6(3):83–88.
• Gerbild H, Larsen CM, Graugaard C, Areskoug Josefsson K. Physical activity to improve erectile function: a systematic review of intervention studies. Sex Med 2018;6(2):75–89.
• Sahin E, Brand A, Cetindag EN, Messelink B, Yosmaoglu HB. Pelvic physical therapy for male sexual disorders: a narrative review. Int J Impot Res 2025;37:941–949.
• Montorsi F, Briganti A, Salonia A, et al. Erectile dysfunction prevalence, time of onset and association with risk factors in 300 consecutive patients with acute chest pain and angiographically documented coronary artery disease. Eur Urol 2003;44(3):360–364.