|Community Conversation > Hormone replacement therapy|
|do any of the M2Fs here try to replicate the cyclical hormonal levels?|
|<< < (6/6)|
I'm intregued by the idea that cycling might help breast development? Is it theoretical or observational?
The times when a biological female's breasts grow most are when she is NOT cycling. Though of course co-incidence doesn't equal causation, so i'm not saying cycling stops normal breast growth, just it doesn't co-incide with it.
Naturally breast tissue grows most before the start of menstruation (about 9 to 14 years of age) then growing trails off during the first few years of mestruation (~12 to 16 years, and the first few years of menstruation are usually not a regular cycle, more erratic). Then the hormonal cycle becomes regular as breast growth slows (15 to 18 years).
While a woman is cycling, only the fatty tissue of breasts can grow, and it only grows proportional to over-all weight gain, no faster than belly or thighs. Then, if a woman gets pregnant her breats begin to grow again and her cycle also stops.
The only other time an adult woman would grow extra non-fatty breast tissue is if she is on certain hormonal contraceptives so, again, not typical cycling.
Womens breasts do fluctuate in size durring the menstrual cycle, but they alwayse return to their normal size again. I think it's more of a swelling than a growing. Maybe they get more fluid in them rather than actual cell growth.
So, to the best of my knowledge, cycling hormonal levels are associated with breast growth stopping. Are you sure you are getting a real increase not just a fluctuation?
However a fertile woman's breast tissue is maintained, whereas at menapause (when cycling stops) breast tissue deteriorates a bit i think? Maybe cycling your hormones would help with breast tissue maintence. But i think a menapausal woman's overall eostrogen and progesterone levels drop, hence huge market in HRT.
But generally, a sustained surge of female hormones (like in puperty and pregnancy) would lead to more breast growth than cycling?
Also, you should make sure to take good care of your breasts. It is possible (but rare) for men to get breast cancer, but that's only lack of tissue volume to get sick. So, if you have the ammount of tissue matches a bio-woman, i assume the risk would. The risk may even be greater for a transwoman, because breast-feeding is one of the best things to lower breast-cancer risk, and few (if any) transwomen would get the opportunity to do that. So you should make sure you self-examine and/or just have good "breast awareness" and notice anything that looks odd. Try to find some public health websites from your government on breast awareness, one of the responsibilities of taking good care of yourself as a woman. Take good care of your new wommanly attributes, gals.
Sorry if i'm ranting, i'm just rather facinated by biology.
--- Quote from: metal angel on August 26, 2009, 02:41:47 am ---But generally, a sustained surge of female hormones (like in puperty and pregnancy) would lead to more breast growth than cycling?
--- End quote ---
My theory is that, since most breast growth occurrs during adolesence, when hormone levels are fluctuating the most, that it is the surges of hormones that stimulate growth. You can't have a sustained surge, because that is just an overdose. I think that a monthly surge, that doesn't go beyond the surge level of a normal cycle, is the closest to the adolescent state that it is safe to do.
Yeah sustained over-dose not good, but maybe the effect of injections every comple of months would be fluctuations on a sdimilar time scale to adolecence and pregrnancy.
Actually replicating the hormonal environment of a natural pregnancy would be the best you could do... but definately not a good idea... that kind of major up-heaval is something even some XX bodies don't react to well. Implants definately safer if you're keen on that llevel of maximisation.
You might be right about fluctuating levels working better, most things tend to loose their effect on the body (smells, pain killers, all sorts of things) after a while. And the menstrual cuycle probably is a good guide to the safe llimits to that. I don't think a regular cycle matches peak breast growth though, girls breasts are often nearly finnished growing before their cycle starts, and completely finished by the time it's regular.
But if you want genuine experience of being female, cycling is closer to it, and there's maybe some reason it would help with bustline.
--- Quote from: metal angel on August 26, 2009, 01:39:29 am ---i think i see the difference in what Gina and Jessica are trying to do here, i guess it depends on what you are tyring to acheive by your use of female hormones...
If you want to fit into the female role, then on a steady level of hormones you probably match a lot of women who are on contraceptives, or menapausal, or naturally infertile.
--- End quote ---
Something like that, yes. My mother had a full hysterectomy when I was really young, so she's been on premarin as long as I can remember. I figure if a more or less steady level was good enough for her, it's good enough for me. I'm intrigued by the idea of cycling, but if my levels are where my doc wants them to be, I'm also less interested in messing with something that doesn't need fixing.
I'm not saying cycling is bad, or anything like that, though. It's a really interesting idea, but just not really the kind of thing I personally consider worth the risk. I'm not disparaging anyone's else's opinion or anything else like that, just stating my own personal preference.
I don't feel that replicating the cycle is so important in regard to the hoped for end-result of HRT.
I think that the occasional hormone level instability is enough, with the associated mood swings...
Personally I'm trying to maintain constant hormone level balance, as to maintain mental stability as well as to promote steady physical feminization.
| Message Index|