Which is more important for feminization? Lower T or higher E?

[Steph34]

Even if your sole concern is blocking T, you would still benefit from having more E, and here is why:
1) Exogenous E suppresses T production, and higher levels are more effective at suppression.
2) E raises levels of Sex Hormone Binding Globulin (SHBG). SHBG binds to T, greatly reducing its potency. My doctor tests levels of SHBG and was glad to see it was in the female (not male) range. On the contrary, too high an SHBG level can also make E less effective.

Ouch!  Is that for HRT alone, or for other conditions unrelated to being trans?  (No need to go into specifics - just interested because that sounds like a crazy amount if it's for HRT only.)

Now you know why I backed out of transitioning in the past: Hormonal balance carries a high price tag. I take E, a T blocker, and a DHT blocker. The DHT blocker is expensive and the T blocker costs even more. I also use a rather costly form of E for personal reasons. I hope to make some adjustments after talking to my doctor, to attain better results at a lower cost.

For instance, my first AA prescribed was finasteride but I had disgusting side effects... My DHT didn't drop much and I had body hair growth!

Since it is DHT (more so than T itself) that causes body hair growth, finasteride cannot make it worse. If you suffered from body hair growth, it was probably unrelated to the finasteride.

Yes, if I can find another one at the VA hospital. The co-pay there is a lot better than paying it at the regular cost at another hospital.

If all you can get there is a 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor such as finasteride, please go somewhere else even if it costs a lot more. 5AR inhibitors will not do much other than reduce androgenic ailments (such as hair loss, acne, urinary urgency, and facial/body hair growth). They are not feminizing agents. Nothing else in life can bring the good feeling attainable only with proper hormone levels; it is worth paying for. My biggest regret is that I did not do it sooner because I could not afford it. I was so dysphoric that I could not work, and it is hard to see in retrospect how that was financially gainful.

I think it is the presence of E, the lack of prior masculinization and the low levels of T. Genetics, ethnicity also play a part, of course in how sensitive one is.

Try eating less carbs while increasing fat intake. It works wonders for many.

Suppressing E prevents puberty in cis girls. It is hard to see how full, feminine features could develop in trans-women without plentiful E, since they won't even develop that way in girls who were never exposed to high T. Coming from a full-male T level, suppressing T will have some de-masculinizing effects that some people may find feminizing. However, suppression of T alone cannot possibly turn us into attractive women if we are not that way already, nor does a tiny amount of E work wonders (for anything other than mood) just because T is low.

Fat contains 2.25 times as many calories per gram as carbs, and is also converted to body fat more easily. Increasing fat intake is not good for weight control. It could, however, be helpful for boobs.

(Personally, I don't think I'd want faster or more dramatic changes; I was already outed to people by HRT alone, while still dressed as a guy, at about 3 months into it.

I agree; there could be serious consequences if my family finds out I am transitioning before I am ready to tell them, and I am almost at 3 months now and the results are starting to show. I even stopped wearing men's shirts, but they fortunately still do not know. I think it helps that I never really had masculine features to begin with, and even in past years I often had some feminization in the autumn due to declining temperatures and sun intensity. They also know I avoid steroids, so they would never suspect me of taking E, which technically is a steroid. I will have much more freedom to develop the right features once I am out of the closet at home. Unfortunately, some people have interpreted that as meaning I do not want feminization. While I would rather be 'outed' than suffer from the physical and emotional consequences of low E, further progress will have to wait so that I can have a peaceful and prosperous holiday season. It is such a hard line to walk.

[Randi]

Fat helps quickly satisfy your appetite and thus can lead to the consumption of less food.

Carbs covert easily to fat.  A few decades ago we all went "fat free" and people thought that would solve the problem.  In hindsight we find carbs are the real enemy.  Lots of fat people today got that way eating "fat free" carbs.

There are certain types of fat that are vital to good health.   Omega-3, Fish Oil, Olive Oil etc.

Fat contains 2.25 times as many calories per gram as carbs, and is also converted to body fat more easily. Increasing fat intake is not good for weight control.

[Steph34]

Fat helps quickly satisfy your appetite and thus can lead to the consumption of less food.

Carbs covert easily to fat.  A few decades ago we all went "fat free" and people thought that would solve the problem.  In hindsight we find carbs are the real enemy.  Lots of fat people today got that way eating "fat free" carbs.

The real problem is insufficient fiber intake. Fiber makes people full faster and longer, and therefore helps control cravings for both fats and carbs. Vegans eat tons of carbs and are rarely overweight, and I think it is at least partially because they eat a lot more fiber.

The truth is that fats and carbs can both cause weight problems when consumed to excess. Which is a bigger problem depends on the individual. For me personally, more fat = more food, although I fully understand that some people (like you) have the opposite response.

[KayXo]

Exogenous E suppresses T production

...and also reduces androgen efficacy within cells through various mechanisms (increases aromatase, reduces conversion to DHT, downregulates androgen receptors, etc).

too high an SHBG level can also make E less effective.

I'm not sure I buy that because SHBG still binds androgens more strongly than estrogens so that the net result will always be more decreased androgenization relative to estrogenization (feminization).

I take E, a T blocker, and a DHT blocker. The DHT blocker is expensive and the T blocker costs even more. I also use a rather costly form of E for personal reasons.

You mean DHT suppressor, not blocker, right? Dutasteride/finasteride reduce concentrations of DHT, do not block it, only block to a certain degree the conversion of T to DHT.

Also, injectable E can prove to be quite affordable if bought at compounding pharmacies. It's quite effective, I'm personally doing great on it.

Fat contains 2.25 times as many calories per gram as carbs, and is also converted to body fat more easily. Increasing fat intake is not good for weight control.

This is not what studies found. You should consider reading the book by Gary Taubes called "Good Calories, Bad Calories". It is filled with thousands of studies, references about that, that most are not aware of. Insulin increases in response to carbs and promotes fat storage whereas the same is not true when fat is consumed so that the body rests in a different mode, where fat in the body is used by muscles for energy and is released for energy. As long as insulin remains elevated, fat is stored and not used as energy. The assumption that it's all about calories seems pretty straightforward and obvious but when one takes a closer look, one realizes that it is not so, especially given the thousands of people that LOSE weight when reducing carbs and increasing fat intake. Other benefits include lowered risk of diabetes, reduced blood pressure, more energy, better mood, etc. Read the science behind it and make your own conclusions.

Fat helps quickly satisfy your appetite and thus can lead to the consumption of less food.

Indeed. When I mostly eat fat, I don't get hungry for HOURS and can even get by on just one meal per day sometimes. It is very satiating and opens up the channel, whereby fat is finally released for energy.

There are certain types of fat that are vital to good health.   Omega-3, Fish Oil, Olive Oil etc.

My personal stance on fats, based on everything I've read and I tend to read studies in depth, is that animal (saturated) fat is quite healthy and useful for us, even better than vegetable oils. It is also DELICIOUS! The science behind saturated fat being bad is very weak, in my opinion. And more and more people are realizing this.

The real problem is insufficient fiber intake. Fiber makes people full faster and longer, and therefore helps control cravings for both fats and carbs. Vegans eat tons of carbs and are rarely overweight, and I think it is at least partially because they eat a lot more fiber.

Fiber helps us go to the bathroom because it IRRITATES the lining of the intestines (not good!) and has no nutrional value. It only harms our intestines over time and when scientific experts made that conclusion about fiber, they forgot to mention that these people that also ate perhaps more fiber (because foods were less processed) also ate more SATURATED fat so that it could have been the fat that was responsible for their better health AS WELL and the fact that refined carbs which weren't a part of their diet contain more sugar and less nutrional value. I believe that fiber is harmful for us and not needed AT ALL. Inuits lived on a diet without fibers for thousands of years and thrived in very harsh environment, if they hadn't, they would have perished over time.

Vegans are skinny, true but most of the time, don't also look quite healthy. They also stay away from refined carbs usually and eat "healthy" which would make their diet still lower carb than the typical diet.

For me personally, more fat = more food

Lower your carbs, increase your fat. The response might be VERY different!

[Brenda E]

Indeed. When I mostly eat fat, I don't get hungry for HOURS and can even get by on just one meal per day sometimes.

Do you mind me asking, what kinds of meals are we talking about here?

[Steph34]

I'm not sure I buy that because SHBG still binds androgens more strongly than estrogens so that the net result will always be more decreased androgenization relative to estrogenization (feminization).

It likely depends on whether the primary concern is suppressing T or raising E. Your conclusion makes sense for people still struggling with elevated T levels. In people whose T is low enough already, an increased amount of active E relative to active T may be less important than maintaining a higher level of 'free' E for feminization. In that case, higher SHBG could be bad.

You mean DHT suppressor, not blocker, right? Dutasteride/finasteride reduce concentrations of DHT, do not block it, only block to a certain degree the conversion of T to DHT.

True, but a mere technicality.

Also, injectable E can prove to be quite affordable if bought at compounding pharmacies. It's quite effective, I'm personally doing great on it.

My doctor is rather conservative so would probably not give me a prescription for injectable E. I am not sure I would want to use it, anyway. Needles are creepy and painful.

The assumption that it's all about calories seems pretty straightforward and obvious but when one takes a closer look, one realizes that it is not so, especially given the thousands of people that LOSE weight when reducing carbs and increasing fat intake.

Actually, the primary reason people lose weight when they cut carbs is that they also cut calories at the same time. Studies finding weight loss on a low-carb diet unconditionally involved calorie cutting relative to previous intake. The reason why they may lose slightly more weight than people on other diets is decreased water retention, not fat loss.

Other benefits include lowered risk of diabetes, reduced blood pressure, more energy, better mood, etc. Read the science behind it and make your own conclusions.

It would be my pleasure.

Study finds high fat intake associated with higher weight and diabetes risk: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-006-0198-3
Study finds reduced fat diet decreases blood pressure: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673683915568
Study finds improved mood/reduced fatigue from lower fat meal: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666396900422

My personal stance on fats, based on everything I've read and I tend to read studies in depth, is that animal (saturated) fat is quite healthy and useful for us, even better than vegetable oils. It is also DELICIOUS! The science behind saturated fat being bad is very weak, in my opinion. And more and more people are realizing this.

The science is clearly against saturated fat when evaluated at a meaningful scale.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743585710493
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2351515/pdf/bmj00550-0026.pdf

Also, higher fat consumption is associated with higher testosterone...
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/64/6/850.short

and the relationship is stronger for saturated fat than for other types:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49

I therefore discourage excess fat consumption among those trying to feminize.

Fiber helps us go to the bathroom because it IRRITATES the lining of the intestines (not good!) and has no nutrional value. It only harms our intestines over time

I cannot find any evidence that fiber damages the lining of the intestines. Higher dietary fiber intake is actually associated with a lower risk of the most serious intestinal disease that develops over time, colon cancer.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/82/8/650.short

I believe that fiber is harmful for us and not needed AT ALL.

Sure, it can cause temporary bloating and is not an essential nutrient, but it is so filling! Way more filling than fat or protein, and unlike fat or protein, it does not add any net calories.

Vegans are skinny, true but most of the time, don't also look quite healthy.

If they look unhealthy, it is usually due to low protein intake. Beans and quinoa can address that problem without unnecessary fat.

[Clhoe G]

While a common goal of HRT is to reduce T levels and increase E levels to that of a cis-female, which has the most feminizing effects?  Low T or high E?  My endo is focusing hard on reducing my T levels to the female range (despite my level already being way low for a guy), rather than focusing on bumping up my E levels to female numbers.

After reading some of the "boob" threads, it seems that many girls here have experienced the most growth when their T levels hit rock bottom, and not necessarily when their E levels were raised; this leads me to wonder whether T blocks the effects of E in some sense.

Thoughts?  Anyone know the science behind this?

Definitely higher E because estrogen blocks some T as well but will not have much of an effect if T is to high.

But I did read somewhere that way way way back in slave days, there was a practice to control the population by cutting the genitalia off of boys before puberty which resulted in feminization, but needless to say the slave owners wernt worried about if thay lived through it or not.


Also you may have heard of Eunuch there has been many throughout the world with different roles in society from slaves to government officials, it's very barbaric n potentially sickening but a good read.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch

[steyraug96]

Prescribing antiandrogens is nowhere as straightforward as it does with E. It may take some attempts and dose adjusting before getting things right.

For instance, my first AA prescribed was finasteride but I had disgusting side effects... My DHT didn't drop much and I had body hair growth!

Late to the party here, but - I hear that!
I tried Finasteride to avoid balding. Didn't work for <censored>.
Dutasteride works moderately well.

Problem is, without estrogen to kick things into high gear - the top is still balding, and the scalp is very visible.
I'm rather sensitive to Estrogen, though. The woman wants a man, ya know?
Can't blame her for that, but...  Can't be attracted by what are essentially the feminine qualities, and force me to develop more masculine, "Take Charge" attitudes (counter to all I value, essentially), and then ... Where am I? :-P

I can see things will get interesting down the road. She's almost the type to say, "Go do your thing, just come back and be my thing when you're done!"
Yes - May you never live in interesting times....

[KayXo]

Do you mind me asking, what kinds of meals are we talking about here?

Fatty steak, bacon and eggs, fatty cheese, avocado, salad with lots of olive oil, fatty fish, coconut oil, peanut butter.

Needles are creepy and painful.

I too was scared of needles and got over it quite quickly. Painful, not really...Sooo worth it!

Actually, the primary reason people lose weight when they cut carbs is that they also cut calories at the same time.

When people cut carbs, they significantly increase their fat intake which is 9 calories/gram versus 4 for carbs.

Studies finding weight loss on a low-carb diet unconditionally involved calorie cutting relative to previous intake.

Not according to the studies I've read in Gary Taube's book. And there are hundreds. You can eat as much fat as you and still lose up to your ideal weight.

The reason why they may lose slightly more weight than people on other diets is decreased water retention, not fat loss.

If it was only decreased water retention, then weight loss shouldn't be more than 10-15 lbs at most. Many lose MUCH more than that. And they do notice much less body fat. 

Study finds high fat intake associated with higher weight and diabetes risk: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-006-0198-3

Upon further investigation, fat intake was quite low even in the "high fat" group, barely higher than lower fat group. High fat is 70-80% of calories.

Study finds reduced fat diet decreases blood pressure: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673683915568

http://www.thecholesteroltruth.com/heart-health-busting-the-saturated-fat-myth/

Study finds improved mood/reduced fatigue from lower fat meal: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666396900422

This was only in one instance where the body is still habituated to get energy from carbs. There is a period of adaptation where the body goes from using mostly carbs for energy to fats for energy. Afterwards, the mood, energy comes back up.

The science is clearly against saturated fat when evaluated at a meaningful scale.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743585710493

http://authoritynutrition.com/modern-nutrition-policy-lies-bad-science/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2351515/pdf/bmj00550-0026.pdf

First of all, the RR range doesn't allow for significant results as it is lower than 1 or barely above 1 in most cases. Besides, they conclude that intake of saturated fat according to this study does not appear to be associated to risk of coronary heart disease. Also, this is an epidemiological study where there is always what we call confounding biases which do not allow to conclude on any direct cause and effect association, only possible associations which must be verified by randomized controlled studies.

Also, higher fat consumption is associated with higher testosterone...
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/64/6/850.short

Two flaws with this study. First, two variables were changed which don't allow to isolate which of the two is responsible for the results. Second, fat intake is still quite low, 41% compared to the usual 70-80% in low carb, high fat lifestyle. Also, an increase of 13-15 % is VERY low and insignificant. I ate high fat for very long periods and my testosterone remained VERY low, no increased androgenization symptoms. Besides, we take anti-androgens (for those pre-op) and estrogen extraneously so that this wouldn't even apply to us if results were conclusive. 

and the relationship is stronger for saturated fat than for other types:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49

Same as above. Since we take anti-androgens that inhibit testicles or are post-op without testicles, this cannot apply to us. I've not noticed at any time an increase in androgenization from high fat and I have never heard of women on such diets complain of masculinizing effects. The percent of fat is also quite low compared to what a truly high fat diet is and we cannot just assume that T would continue to rise, we must test it to be SURE.

I cannot find any evidence that fiber damages the lining of the intestines.

To me, it's just common sense if fiber helps to move things along in the intestines by irritating them, it is harmful and has no nutritional value. I could be wrong but makes sense to me...

Higher dietary fiber intake is actually associated with a lower risk of the most serious intestinal disease that develops over time, colon cancer.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/82/8/650.short

Epidemiologic evidence is not strong evidence, it can only suggest associations, cannot allow one to make direct cause and effect relationship. This needs to be verified in controlled studies, as explained before.

Way more filling than fat

Not only is fat VERY filling and all those on high fat will tell you that they are less hungry than usual but it is also food that contains all kinds of nutrients, vitamins, minerals. Unlike fiber. Also, doesn't irritate the intestines.

and unlike fat or protein, it does not add any net calories.

I personally don't buy the notion of calories in, calories out anymore. What you eat matters more and affects how fat is utilized in the body. You can eat a high calorie, high fat diet and not gain weight and even lose weight versus be on a lower calorie moderate/high carb diet and still have trouble losing weight + you get hungry because of not enough calories.

Definitely higher E because estrogen blocks some T as well

Estrogen doesn't BLOCK androgen but tends to make it less effective through various other mechanisms.

[Clhoe G]

Estrogen doesn't BLOCK androgen but tends to make it less effective through various other mechanisms.

Make less effective, blocks some.
now your just using a technicality to compeer apples with apples.
I was using lame man terms.

[Brenda E]

Fatty steak, bacon and eggs . . .

Yum. Can you come to my house and cook for me? I'm craving red meat and bacon now.

[KayXo]

Make less effective, blocks some.
now your just using a technicality to compeer apples with apples.
I was using lame man terms.

I think it's important to make the distinction and make things more accurate for everyone's benefit.

[Clhoe G]

I think it's important to make the distinction and make things more accurate for everyone's benefit.

[Steph34]

Fatty steak, bacon and eggs, fatty cheese, avocado, salad with lots of olive oil, fatty fish, coconut oil, peanut butter.

With such a rich diet, I am not surprised you required E levels in the thousands in order to feminize. When I eat too much fat, it totally undoes all my feminizing efforts.

I too was scared of needles and got over it quite quickly. Painful, not really...Sooo worth it!

I received a T suppressor by injection and the site hurt badly for 4 days afterwards. It was so painful that I could not sleep. Changing the site for the second injection helped, but there was still occasional pain over weeks. I myself enjoy the process of feminization as much as the results. While injections may produce a faster and stronger result, I would lose out on the pleasure of watching my body improve over time. Additionally, my endocrinologist would not prescribe injectable estradiol because it usually raises levels over 200, which that doctor disapproves of. I would also be concerned about side effects from higher and more variable E levels.. With that said, I will keep in mind that if I am unable to develop a female body shape, I might need to get a new doctor and reconsider the above.

When people cut carbs, they significantly increase their fat intake which is 9 calories/gram versus 4 for carbs.

Yes, but they eat fewer grams.

Not according to the studies I've read in Gary Taube's book. And there are hundreds. You can eat as much fat as you and still lose up to your ideal weight.

Taubes's theories about carbohydrates causing weight gain have been thoroughly discredited.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html



Even when participants in low-carb study groups are told they can eat as much fat as they like, they tend to eat fewer calories than they did previously. I cannot find any diet studies stating that significant weight loss (more than a few pounds beyond water weight) occurred with no decrease in calorie consumption, because that would defy the laws of physics.

If it was only decreased water retention, then weight loss shouldn't be more than 10-15 lbs at most. Many lose MUCH more than that. And they do notice much less body fat.

Very few studies find weight loss exceeding that amount by much. The difference in weight loss between low-fat and low-carb diets in most studies is only a few pounds, mainly attributable to water weight. Studies that do find superiority of a low-carb diet tend to attribute that to its higher protein content, since protein is often considered more satiating than either fats or carbs. A high-protein diet does not necessarily need to be high fat or low carb. Indeed, adding protein can promote weight loss even when carbohydrate intake is not low.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/6/1298.full
As such, it stands to reason that any possible benefit of low-carb diets in promoting weight loss is due to their high protein content, not the lack of carbohydrates.

Besides, they conclude that intake of saturated fat according to this study does not appear to be associated to risk of coronary heart disease.

Interestingly, the association between saturated fat and fatal heart disease fell apart only when they controlled for fiber intake. That implies a protective effect of dietary fiber. The study does support the widely held belief that a diet both high in saturated fat and low in fiber (ie. a high-fat, low-carb diet) increases the risk of fatal heart disease. Since saturated fat and fiber intake are inversely related in real life situations, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that saturated fat increases the risk of fatal heart disease in vivo.

Also, this is an epidemiological study where there is always what we call confounding biases which do not allow to conclude on any direct cause and effect association, only possible associations which must be verified by randomized controlled studies.

All studies have confounds. That one seems very well-designed to prevent them from influencing the results. It also suggests that people who eat more saturated fat tend to have less healthy lifestyles in general. Although not necessarily causative, that is certainly something to ponder. While there may be a lack of controlled studies to prove that saturated fat causes heart disease, there is also a lack of long-term, large-scale controlled studies proving it does not. Therefore, the epidemiological research is all we have to go by, and it paints an unfavorable image on saturated fat.

Plus, there has been controlled research finding that consuming polyunsaturated fat instead of saturated fat reduces the total cholesterol:HDL ratio and reduces heart disease risk, and as such, is healthier.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000252#pmed-1000252-g003

Upon further investigation, fat intake was quite low even in the "high fat" group, barely higher than lower fat group. High fat is 70-80% of calories.

Fat intake was also quite high even in the "low fat" group. Low fat is 10-20% of calories. That study, with its smaller differences between diet types, is more predictive of health outcomes because it is based on what people actually consumed, rather than extreme diets that most people cannot adhere to over the long-term. The finding that eating less fat is beneficial for both body weight and diabetes risk in more realistic scenarios is not contradictory to other studies showing no such effect when more 'extreme' diets were compared.

This was only in one instance where the body is still habituated to get energy from carbs. There is a period of adaptation where the body goes from using mostly carbs for energy to fats for energy. Afterwards, the mood, energy comes back up.

There are many other side effects of a low carb diet, some of them very unpleasant. Constipation, diarrhea, muscle cramps, headache, and general weakness are all very common on a low carb diet, but uncommon otherwise.
http://thewarper.com.au/Downloads/A%20Low-Carbohydrate,%20Ketogenic%20Diet%20versus%20a%20Low-Fat%20Diet%20To%20Treat%20Obesity%20and%20Hyperlipidemia.pdf
Furthermore, the human body evolved to rely on carbohydrates. That is evident in the fact that saliva contains enzymes to digest starch, but not fat or protein, and there is no evidence that weight problems are any more common in populations that consume more carbs.

Also, this is an epidemiological study where there is always what we call confounding biases which do not allow to conclude on any direct cause and effect association, only possible associations which must be verified by randomized controlled studies.

The benefit of epidemiological studies is that they preclude the possibility that results may be affected by rare, undocumented individual differences. They also occur at a larger scale, increasing statistical confidence.

First, two variables were changed which don't allow to isolate which of the two is responsible for the results.

Since fat and fiber intake tend to be inversely related in real-life situations, such a design makes sense. Regardless of which factor influenced the results, a real person is likely to see the result when altering intake of either macronutrient. Therefore, I stand by my conclusion that more fat = more T.

Second, fat intake is still quite low, 41% compared to the usual 70-80% in low carb, high fat lifestyle.

If adding a little extra fat raises T, one can only imagine what a lot of extra fat would do. There is a reason why low carb diets are so popular among bodybuilders who are trying to raise T.

Also, an increase of 13-15 % is VERY low and insignificant.

A change in T levels, where the change itself is greater than the amount most cisfemales would typically have, is not very low. The result is significant for the larger fraction of blood T.
Also, when my T would increase by that percentage pre-transition, I noticed it and was not too pleased. That amount of additional T can have significant masculinizing effects over time.

I ate high fat for very long periods and my testosterone remained VERY low, no increased androgenization symptoms.

When I eat a lot of fat, I do have masculinizing symptoms. I also feel increased warmth and tingling in the pre-op genitals. Perhaps the reason why you did not is that you had higher E levels, so that your E was more effective at suppression and/or better able to overcome the effects of a small amount of additional T.

Besides, we take anti-androgens (for those pre-op) and estrogen extraneously so that this wouldn't even apply to us if results were conclusive.

That is assuming the medications are working. The T suppressor I was given is so weak, that I do still suffer masculinizing effects from things that raise T levels. If I can convince my doctor to prescribe a real anti-androgen on Monday, then maybe I will not need to worry so much about fat. Then again, most pre-op transwomen do still produce some T in the unwanted organs. At low levels of T, even a few extra points can make a big difference. We see that all the time with cis women.

To me, it's just common sense if fiber helps to move things along in the intestines by irritating them, it is harmful and has no nutritional value.

The primary mechanism by which fiber increases bathroom use is bulk formation, not irritation. The two are not directly related. It is possible to have one without the other. Animal species that are adapted to a high fiber diet have long intestines; humans meet the criteria for that.

Not only is fat VERY filling and all those on high fat will tell you that they are less hungry than usual but it is also food that contains all kinds of nutrients, vitamins, minerals. Unlike fiber.

Foods that contain fiber (like fruits, whole grains, and beans) also tend to be very nutritious, containing high levels of antioxidants, nutrients, vitamins, and/or minerals. By contrast, the high fat foods most common in America, like full-fat dairy products and fried dishes, provide no nutritional benefits relative to low-fat alternatives.
High-fiber products are so effective at suppressing appetite that some are even advertised for that purpose. While I am less hungry when I eat more fat, I still consume more calories and gain weight. Therefore, the relationship between hunger and eating is not as simple as one might think.

Also, doesn't irritate the intestines.

No, but fat does increase asymptomatic esophageal acid exposure, which could be damaging over time.
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/2741888

I personally don't buy the notion of calories in, calories out anymore.

The primary factor in predicting weight loss on a diet is its calorie content, not the source of those calories.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2001.113/full

[Clhoe G]

Mmm fatty food, this makes me think of Lamb, it's got one of the best fat nutrition ratings over most meats, I even found this neat little site that gives the nutrition values of food http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/lamb-veal-and-game-products/4669/2
I also read somewhere that something in the Lamb meat virtually nullifies the bad stuff in the fat, but I can't find it now.
But Yeah I'm pretty shore that to much of it is bad or really any fat, no make that to much of anything is a bad thing.

[KayXo]

With such a rich diet, I am not surprised you required E levels in the thousands in order to feminize. When I eat too much fat, it totally undoes all my feminizing efforts.

When I ate normally, in other words higher carb and lower fat, I still did not get much feminization from lower levels of E although you might have a point that going higher FAT and lower CARB will thin you out, give one a more angular face and body so that it might reveal the more masculine bone structure under the skin. Indeed, you might have a point. So while I eat plenty of fat, I also eat carbs to avoid this.

I received a T suppressor by injection and the site hurt badly for 4 days afterwards. It was so painful that I could not sleep.

This injection is subcutaneous and might contain something that causes pain. If estradiol injection contains no preservative, alcohol that you are allergic to, is injected intramuscularly into butt where plenty of fat, done well, then there shouldn't be pain. 

I myself enjoy the process of feminization as much as the results. While injections may produce a faster and stronger result, I would lose out on the pleasure of watching my body improve over time.

LOL. The same happens with injections. I didn't see results over night!

Taubes's theories about carbohydrates causing weight gain have been thoroughly discredited.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

Thanks. I will read it. Critical examination of any assumptions, research is always a good thing. I'm always for that.

I cannot find any diet studies stating that significant weight loss (more than a few pounds beyond water weight) occurred with no decrease in calorie consumption, because that would defy the laws of physics.

If indeed people eat less on high fat and tend to eat excessively on carbs, then we should question that. Why aren't carbs filling? Empty calories? Putting the body into fat storage mode so that sugar is nature's way of safeguarding against later periods of lower available amounts of food? And suddenly when fat is available and freely eaten, there is no fat storage anymore because the body's signal is plenty of food right now. It is true that when one eats more fat and less carbs, hunger goes down, we eat less but also fats contain much more calories per gram, more than twice as much as carbs.

The difference in weight loss between low-fat and low-carb diets in most studies is only a few pounds, mainly attributable to water weight.

I question this. I'll have to reread Taube's book also and really take a note of studies, etc. Have you personally read the book?

Studies that do find superiority of a low-carb diet tend to attribute that to its higher protein content, since protein is often considered more satiating than either fats or carbs.

How can protein be more satiating than fat? Protein is mostly for rebuilding muscle, not used for energy. Energy sources are either fats, carbs or ketones. Take rabbit starvation for instance, where high amounts of proteins are eaten with low fat...people will GORGE themselves on the food and die hungry, bloated, etc within days to weeks if this continues. Well known amongst the Inuits and American Indians. If protein were satiating and an effective source of energy, this would clearly not happen.

A high-protein diet does not necessarily need to be high fat or low carb. Indeed, adding protein can promote weight loss even when carbohydrate intake is not low.

A high protein diet is DANGEROUS. People have died or had major health complications from such a diet. They will start craving fat/carbs after awhile and for a very good reason.

As such, it stands to reason that any possible benefit of low-carb diets in promoting weight loss is due to their high protein content, not the lack of carbohydrates.

I'm talking about a high fat/low protein diet so your argument doesn't hold. Up to 85% of calories from fat and the rest from protein. You go lower than 65% of calories of fat and you start getting into a dangerous zone. This is just common knowledge amongst the people that ate that way like the Inuits. Low carb should not be high protein but VERY high fat and the same amount of protein as usual than before.

Interestingly, the association between saturated fat and fatal heart disease fell apart only when they controlled for fiber intake.

Take the Inuit population from the past and the doctors/explorers that observed their health and wrote reports or books....they ate no (or barely any) fiber and plenty of fat, some saturared, some mono and some poly. But, mostly fat. The incidence of heart disease was inexistent. 

There are many other side effects of a low carb diet, some of them very unpleasant. Constipation, diarrhea, muscle cramps, headache, and general weakness are all very common on a low carb diet

Only in the short-term. Stick with it, give your body time to adapt and things improve. People also often don't understand and realize the importance of eating VERY high fat and keeping protein low which gets them into trouble.

Furthermore, the human body evolved to rely on carbohydrates. That is evident in the fact that saliva contains enzymes to digest starch

The human body is omnivorous because fat wasn't always available so that if starches were available, it would be useful to avoid starvation. Also, they might be traces from a past when we ate more vegetables, similar to some our primate cousins.

there is no evidence that weight problems are any more common in populations that consume more carbs.

As far as I'm concerned, there is PLENTY. Read Gary Taube's book. Americans eat much more carbs than most Europeans and also much less fat...since the low fat propaganda, weight problems have continued to increase in N. America. In poor populations that don't have much to eat but eat mostly carbs including starches, you will notice plenty of fat people, especially women while their richer counterparts who have access to meat, and more fat are in a better predicament. Poor people are also usually more active and yet more obese. This has been observed again and again in certain populations.

If adding a little extra fat raises T, one can only imagine what a lot of extra fat would do.

At one time, 80% of my calories came from fat and my T remained low. I had no signs of androgenization. I ate this way for at least 1 year and a half. At that time, my E levels were VERY low too.

The primary mechanism by which fiber increases bathroom use is bulk formation, not irritation.

How would creating more bulk decrease constipation, it might actually make things worse by creating some sort of congestion where intestines are overwhelmed. It is a well-known fact that fiber irritates the lining of intestines, ask biologists and that's why it helps to move things along.

Animal species that are adapted to a high fiber diet have long intestines; humans meet the criteria for that.

Wrong. Animals like herbivores which eat plenty of fiber have a digestive system very much UNLIKE ours. Ours resemble more what the pigs (omnivores) and even carnivores have like the lions or wolves.

Foods that contain fiber (like fruits, whole grains, and beans) also tend to be very nutritious, containing high levels of antioxidants, nutrients, vitamins, and/or minerals.

Which our species have not had time to adapt to and I'm talking about grains here, not fruits. Their drawbacks exceed their benefits, in my opinion and on a healthy diet of high fat, low protein, you won't need antioxidants as cancer is much less likely, it appears.

By contrast, the high fat foods most common in America, like full-fat dairy products and fried dishes, provide no nutritional benefits relative to low-fat alternatives.

Low fat stuff where they take away the fat and replace it with chemicals to still make it taste good, has been stripped away from its nutrients and becomes unhealthy because of all those chemicals. It's quite untasty as well, if you ask me.

I believe fried foods are unhealthy and these have no relation to saturated fatty acids which are present in nature. Trans fatty acids are transformed fats, man made fats, unnatural and I wouldn't be surprised to see a negative direct association between them and health complications. But they are not the same as saturated.

High-fiber products are so effective at suppressing appetite that some are even advertised for that purpose.

Fat achieves the same and delivers nutrients, without irritating bowel.

While I am less hungry when I eat more fat, I still consume more calories and gain weight.

This contradicts what you said earlier, about how the reason why people lose weight on higher fat is because they eat LESS calories because now you are actually asserting that you eat MORE calories when you eat MORE fat. (?)

But Yeah I'm pretty shore that to much of it is bad or really any fat, no make that to much of anything is a bad thing.

You should really consider reading the book Fat of the Land (Not By Bread Alone) by Stefansson available for free as pdf. You might reconsider your assumptions.

[LShipley]

Both are equally important I believe.

In my experience when i started with just an anti-A I felt extremely out of whack and moody. Adding E I noticed a big difference in feeling more normal but for a while I was still really lazy and tired. In my personal experience I felt the most leveland balanced after I was on an Anti-A, E, and progesterone. For me adding P made me feel far more "normal" while still experiencing the symptoms of growth. Much more more energy and more balanced. I never really agreed with people saying they had this "calming" effect or rather their interpretation of it. To me it was more that there were less things that set me off into a rage. I don't notice feeling more calm, just less sensitive to things that pissed me off before. I thought it was an important distinction.

Is it even possible to have high E AND high T?

[Brenda E]

TSLexiknight, stop interrupting an argument about food () with an actual answer to the original question!

[LShipley]

   just tried to evade the argument! I just try to avoid that topic... I mean, is milk even good for you? Didn't they say fats are good for you now? Oh just a type of fat. Maybe. Arugula! Seriously?

[Wynternight]

Yes, if I can find another one at the VA hospital. The co-pay there is a lot better than paying it at the regular cost at another hospital.

Put in a change of provider request, Stephanie.