Susan's Place Logo

News:

Based on internal web log processing I show 3,417,511 Users made 5,324,115 Visits Accounting for 199,729,420 pageviews and 8.954.49 TB of data transfer for 2017, all on a little over $2,000 per month.

Help support this website by Donating or Subscribing! (Updated)

Main Menu

No breast development at all?

Started by lepel, August 08, 2012, 02:06:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lepel

Dear reader,

I've been on hormones since I was 19 years old, I'm 24 right now. Ever since I haven't noticed any significant breast development at all. My GP has allowed me to try different levels of estrogen, progesteron and even testosteron, but none have yielded any results. I've also tried all kinds of questionable stuff like 'Breast grow serum', estriol cream and fenugreek cream. Go figure.
I have lumpy nippels, yes, but that's about it.

Is there perhaps someone with a similar experience, I mean, at the age that I started at, I had expected at least something to grow there. Furthermore, I'm not keen on having implants placed in any case, even if money is no object.

Any thoughts are welcome ^^
  •  

Jamie D

Keep in mind there are two distinctly different types of breast tissue.

First, there is the glandular tissue, which comprises those part of the breast designed to produce and deliver milk through lactation.  This tissue developes under the influence of estradiol and progesterone, primarily.  This would be the "lumpy" tissue you feel beneath your nipples and areolea.

The second type of tissue is adipose, or fatty tissue.  The distribution of fatty tissue in the body is determined by your homones, in utero.  However, additional fatty tissue is formed during the onset of female puberty, and its distribution to the breast, butt, and thighs is regulated by your hormones.

If you have a low percentage of body fat, you may well have trouble growing female-type breasts.  Think, for instance, of cisfemale athletes. Those who are ultrafit, and who have never been pregnant, often have rather scanty breasts.
  •  

lepel

First of all, thank you for your answer. That would explain a lot, if not all. I'm very skinny and especially at the time that I started taking hormones I was way below my ideal weight.
Is it wishful thinking that my breast development could still benefit from gaining weight? I've never been able to (fast metabolism), but just hypothetically?

  •  

Jamie D

It seems to me that, if you have a "normal" level of estrogens in your system, then the body fat should distribute in the typical female pattern.

Although the use of progesterone in the transwoman is controversial, it does operate in ciswomen to develop more glandular tissue.  As I understand it, progesterone levels spike in pregnant women, as the breasts develop the ability to adequately lactate for the coming baby.

Here is an overview:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/319391-the-effects-of-progesterone-on-the-breasts/
  •  

lepel

Thanks. So I guess gaining weight will be my next objective ^^

Anyway, I've been taking progesteron for one year, already about a year ago. It made my breast go slightly more lumpy, but nothing more than that. Then I had to quit it, unfortunately, because I think it contributes to an overall sense of well-being. For that sole reason I'm even considering some herbal progesteron cream, but reading your article in relation to breast cancer makes a little hesitant.

  •  

chrishoney

You really need to read the numerous reports derived from the Women's Health Initiative and pay special attention to the forms of HRT used in the study.The WHI specifically looked at women using Premarin and Depo Provera, which are probably the two forms of HRT with poorest efficacy and the most deleterious side effects. The Livestrong article makes the erroneous assumption that since Depo Provera caused significant health risks for women participating in the WHI, all forms of progesterone are equally risky.

ALL estrogen containing drugs are not equivalent and Premarin is as nasty as they come. The same can be said of Depo Provera (it is a synthetic progestin and NOT equivalent to progesterone), only more emphatically. This form of progesterone is particularly nasty when combined with Premarin, which is why the investigators  TERMINATED the study years before it was scheduled to be completed!! If, for obvious moral and ethical reasons, the investigators could no longer ask study subjects to take medications that significantly increased the risk for cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and pulmonary events, why are these drugs still on the market and being prescribed? Alternatives do exist after all. For transgender women the risk is even higher since they routinely take higher doses!

Premarin is so much less effective than estradiol (in any form: pill, injectable or transdermal) that a MtF transperson has to take so much of it that the side effects are EXTREMELY troubling. Depo Provera has a similar track record with regard to nasty side effects and is NOT equivalent to progesterone produced by natal women, or micronized progesterone that is now available.

Think again before someone claims it wouldn't be dangerous or they wouldn't sell it to so many women. Big pharma doesn't give a rat's a__ about the health of women, let alone the health of transgendered individuals.

The long and short of it is that the correct forms of estrogen (some formulation of estradiol) and progesterone (some formulation of bioidentical progesterone such as the many USP creams available or micronized progesterone available by prescription) do NOT have the same side effects or level of risk as taking Premarin and/or Depo Provera, but especially the combination of the two. This does not mean you don't still need to consult a physician, but you will be much more likely to achieve your goals if you become an informed consumer of health care services. Insist that your physician do their homework (I found the information, so can you and so can your physician!) and DO NOT let them put you on either of those medications since MUCH SAFER, MORE EFFECTIVE and MUCH CHEAPER alternatives are available.
I believe in nothing; everything is sacred.
I believe in everything; nothing is sacred. (The Chink, in "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues")
Embrace the chaos.
  •  

lepel

You're right of course. The progesteron I was taking was called Utrogestan and/or Progestan and is I believe the 'real' progesteron. My GP said I had to quit it because of side-effects on the long run, but I really doubt that there are side-effects to real progesteron actually. I'd rather be taking it again, but I'm afraid I have to resort to herbal creams instead.

The estradiol I take is 17-ß-estradiol, marketed as Progynova in Europe. What about this one, is it bette than Premarin?
  •  

chrishoney

Yes progynova is excellent, and much much safer and more effective than Premarin.
I believe in nothing; everything is sacred.
I believe in everything; nothing is sacred. (The Chink, in "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues")
Embrace the chaos.
  •  

Naturally Blonde

Quote from: chrishoney on August 10, 2012, 04:32:09 PM
Yes progynova is excellent, and much much safer and more effective than Premarin.

Over the last 14 years or hormones I've tried both Progynova and Premarin and neither has done anything to improve my breast growth which is barely an A cup!

I also tried progesterone but that didn't work either.
Living in the real world, not a fantasy
  •  

lilacwoman

prog on telly just now about GGs who have A cups and are quite upset about it. 

they have been trying pumps and stuff but no real progress.

lots of the Olypics runners have very flat chests which we usually assume is due to the constant practice preventing them putting fat on but then some other runners have quite hour glass figures so maybe getting breasts is all down to luck?
  •  

Jamie D

Quote from: lilacwoman on August 11, 2012, 04:28:57 PM
prog on telly just now about GGs who have A cups and are quite upset about it. 

they have been trying pumps and stuff but no real progress.

lots of the Olympics runners have very flat chests which we usually assume is due to the constant practice preventing them putting fat on but then some other runners have quite hour glass figures so maybe getting breasts is all down to luck?

Well, certainly, the percentage of body fat is a factor.  Natal female athletes often have a very low percentage.
  •