Susan's Place Transgender Resources

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?

I'm sorry I can't answer anything, but thank you for asking the question. I am curious to this as well. :)

I am surely one who is interested in an answer to that, also. Right now I am doing both. Trying to raise the E and reduce the T, but if it can be accomplished with just less T, that would possibly save money and give more results.

It goes without saying that it's unhealthy to have low levels of both T and E; we do need certain levels of T and E to avoid issues such as osteoporosis.  But is successful MtF HRT more than simply raising E levels to speed up changes, or is it equally (or more) important to get T levels down to a female level so the more subtle, delicate changes caused by E can show through?

Really it's both, but if you had to have either one or the other, lower T would definitely be the choice. I believe I read somewhere that DHT>T>E in terms of hormone strength, that one blocks the effects of the other. There's a reason why trans men generally don't have to take estrogen blockers when they go on T shots, usually the T alone can overcome the effects of the E and masculinize them, even though they still have E in their systems, where we have to take T-blockers for the E to do anything.

The widely-reported notion that most people attain a burst of feminization following SRS supports it, because the only thing that changes after SRS is that your T levels hit rock bottom.

The thing is, though, honestly I don't think the difference is that great. My T levels crashed to the ground, all the way down into the basement of the female range (22 pg/dl, average=25-95,) within only 2 months on HRT, and yet it took me a good year and a half before I consistently started seeing a girl in the mirror. Some of my friends whose T still isn't in the female range after over 2 years, they're still hovering around the 150-200 range because their doctors are way more conservative, got way better results way faster than I did. There are also a few who got no results at all no matter where their T levels or E levels were.

HRT is pretty much a crapshoot. You give yourself the best chance of feminizing when your T is as low as possible and E is over at least 100ish, but I don't think it really matters as much as we like to believe it does. If you're pre-programmed to respond to estrogen, you're going to feminize and do it quickly whether or not you're in the "ideal" range or not. Same with those who aren't. I'm starting to think that genetic predisposition is more important in determining the effectiveness of HRT than hormone levels. If you're from a family of more-masculine straight-framed angular-faced women, or women who went through very late puberties, you're probably not going to get boobs or a butt quickly no matter where your hormone levels are at. Likewise, if you're from a family of very feminine round-faced curvy women, or women who went through puberty very early, get ready, you're likely going to feminize and do it quickly.

Carrie Liz, thank you so much for your detailed reply.  Makes perfect sense from a scientific standpoint when you think about it really, although like you say, the range of "normal" responses to HRT are so diverse that it's hard to predict how anyone will react.

Reassuring to hear that my endo's approach (focusing first on reducing T to low female levels) is not some crazy plan.

My endo doesn't even test E levels, believing that getting T down to the female range + enough E added for feminization (and she basically asks each appointment "are you happy with the changes so far?") is sufficient.

I am on super low dose E but my T is and has always been in the middle of the female range, suppressed by E alone, and I've had excellent results nonetheless.

Quote from: Jenna Marie on November 19, 2014, 07:42:07 AM
My endo doesn't even test E levels, believing that getting T down to the female range + enough E added for feminization (and she basically asks each appointment "are you happy with the changes so far?") is sufficient.

I am on super low dose E but my T is and has always been in the middle of the female range, suppressed by E alone, and I've had excellent results nonetheless.

Thanks Jenna Marie - interesting to hear that other docs are getting great results by getting the T to where it needs to be for a cis-female rather than the E.

I've been on a fairly low dose of E too, and I've had some pretty good results so far.  I've always been worried, however, that my E levels are just insanely low and whether raising them would produce faster and more pronounced changes.

Also helps explain why my endo was so adamant that I add medroxyprogesterone as an additional means to lower my T.  Already taking spiro and finasteride and the T levels were not quite as low as they needed to be, so with any luck the MPA will push things in the right direction.

Again, thanks for the anecdotal data - it's good to read that my treatment regimen isn't out of the ordinary and that it works.

Blocking T and DHT had no feminizing effect on me whatsoever, neither physically nor emotionally. Speaking from my own experience, I first blocked DHT, then blocked T, and then started a meaningful dose of E. My T was reduced by almost 90 percent, to only slightly above the female range (the elevated level being mostly because of dutasteride, which raises T by preventing it from turning into DHT. That is actually an anti-androgenic effect because DHT is more potent).

I had to take enough E to bring my level over 50 before noticing any feminizing effect. At that level, the estradiol shifted at least an inch of body fat from my waist to my butt and also caused emotional development that for me personally, is essential to my transition.

I read you are dissatisfied with your figure. It stands to reason that having more E could help, since it is the presence of E (and not the absence of T), that feminizes cis females.

Quote from: Steph34 on November 19, 2014, 11:45:51 AMI had to take enough E to bring my level over 50 before noticing any feminizing effect. At that level, the estradiol shifted at least an inch of body fat from my waist to my butt and also caused emotional development that for me personally, is essential to my transition.

I read you are dissatisfied with your figure. It stands to reason that having more E could help, since it is the presence of E (and not the absence of T), that feminizes cis females.

Hmmm.  Interesting.  I am dissatisfied with the physical effects (or lack thereof, especially fat redistribution) thus far.  The mental effects - awesome.  Even adding just a tiny bit of E did wonders for my psychological wellbeing, but to be honest, the improved mood only goes so far before it starts to become frustrating once again that I don't appear in the mirror like the person I feel I am inside.

It seems, though, that the presence of T - even in small amounts for a guy - really puts the brakes on feminization if the T levels are still above those for a cis-female.

Brenda : Glad to help. :) The other factor, which is more frustrating because it's less often documented, is that of course it also depends on how much E someone's body is producing naturally AND how receptive their body is - that could explain why two people get two very different results from the same regimen. For someone who's very susceptible to estrogen and/or makes more than usual themselves, suppressing T + relatively small E will still bring about dramatic changes; for someone else whose body is either less responsive or has less natively or both, it takes a much higher dose of E to get good results. More E doesn't help, of course, once someone has achieved the maximum effective dose; after that it's just wasted. The only way for you to find out what the max effective dose is, though, is by endo-supervised trial and error.

(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. And I am, literally, on a dose so low it's within the range prescribed to menopausal cis women. Incidentally, if it helps, I found fat redistribution *really* slow - I was generously endowed up top and still seeing only the tiniest increase in hips and butt.)

My lady doctor at the VA hospital, after hearing me talk about my gender dysphoria, simply said not to mess with hormones. Great help she was. So, now, I have to stick with the B.O. and keep taking the finasteride that is actually prescribed for the shrinking of the prostate, but will do the DHT thing with the testosterone, just the same.

Time for a new doctor, Stephanie2?

My T had been 20 to 26 ng/pmole for 17 months and  I was on 2/3 E oral for 3 months the full E oral 13 months then IM full dose E 9 weeks. I also take finasteride and progesterone. I think IM injections are making a big difference but that may be wishful thinking.

I am  definitely increasing in bust growth. Today I was in a meeting with 4 guys and they looked at my boobs. The shirt I was wearing was a bit tight and getting tighter.

Last month I had to show my ID to buy something and the guy said it did not look like me in the picture. Then he said He looks like the person I am buying x for. It felt good. So over time small changes add up. I still see mostly the same person but at times I get a glimpse at someone else in the mirror, odd when it happens.

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!

Hi Brenda

I agree with Carrie and Jenna Marie;

I am only on a low dose of Progynova (for nearly 2 years) and my T levels are basically negligible (at the bottom end of CIS Female range (less than 0.5), but all my mothers side of the family were best described as curvy and voluptuous. My mother was 38DD and I am now a B cup going on small C, with  rounded butt and 2" on the hips. My problem though is my tummy. Although my waist is appearing I still weight tpo much (112Kg) and although I go to the gym twice a week, HRT  and my now slow metabolism and all the years of excess as a male  means I am just carrying too much weight. Oh I wish I could shed 25Kgs!
JudithLynn

I was afraid it might be the harmful testosterone that is holding me back. My level has been near the top of the female range (whether it is abnormally high depends on the reference range used; there is some disagreement as to that. The lab that performed the test seems to say yes, it is abnormally high.) Since I am also blocking DHT, however, my DHT level should actually be in the lower part of the female range, although the blood test I received is not sensitive enough to find any DHT. Since DHT is much more androgenic than T, my total androgenic activity (from T and DHT) should be within the range that is considered normal for females. As such, I am still inclined to blame insufficient E levels for my slowing progress; I think I should try to bring it over 100 after I come out in January. At $575 per month on medications alone, I will be soon be broke, and I still have too much T and too little E. I will have to talk about this with my doctor at my next appointment in December. It is very distressing. :(

Quote from: Steph34 on November 20, 2014, 09:37:25 AMAt $575 per month on medications alone . . .

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.)

Quote from: Brenda E on November 19, 2014, 07:54:07 PM
Time for a new doctor, Stephanie2?

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.

Quote from: Carrie Liz on November 18, 2014, 09:55:03 PM
There's a reason why trans men generally don't have to take estrogen blockers when they go on T shots, usually the T alone can overcome the effects of the E and masculinize them, even though they still have E in their systems, where we have to take T-blockers for the E to do anything.

The reason why most often transgirls take blockers and transguys don't is because transguys for the most part take their T by injection and transgirls don't so that a high concentration of either E or T suppresses the other hormone. When you inject E pre-op, most likely you don't need a blocker like transguys who inject.

QuoteThe widely-reported notion that most people attain a burst of feminization following SRS supports it, because the only thing that changes after SRS is that your T levels hit rock bottom.

I got less feminization and poorer results following SRS, despite my T levels being quite low. I had to take very high doses of E to help quickstart feminization again and some progesterone. Some girls report the same. It is not my experience that many report increased feminization after SRS. It seems to depend.

QuoteHRT is pretty much a crapshoot. You give yourself the best chance of feminizing when your T is as low as possible and E is over at least 100ish, but I don't think it really matters as much as we like to believe it does.

With the right combo of E and P, hormones made a significant difference in how I looked and felt. Took several months but it can make a difference.

QuoteIf you're pre-programmed to respond to estrogen, you're going to feminize and do it quickly whether or not you're in the "ideal" range or not.

I don't think there is an ideal range within which we all best respond. It depends on each case. I respond best to high levels of E and some P, some may do better with much less or even more or no P, etc. There is also what you started with, how masculine you looked like before HRT. The dose of hormones and what you take is important and can make a difference as I've learned. Most definitely!

QuoteSame with those who aren't. I'm starting to think that genetic predisposition is more important in determining the effectiveness of HRT than hormone levels.

I think both are as important. Some doctors may be too conservative with levels/doses, mine are not, luckily for me. :) Genetics are very important, yes but so are hormones. Don't underestimate what they can do.

Quote from: Steph34 on November 19, 2014, 11:45:51 AM
it is the presence of E (and not the absence of T), that feminizes cis females.

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.

Quote from: judithlynn on November 20, 2014, 09:00:38 AM
I am just carrying too much weight. Oh I wish I could shed 25Kgs!

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

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.

Quote from: Brenda E on November 20, 2014, 10:44:31 AM
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.

Quote from: Indoctrinated on November 20, 2014, 07:32:52 AM
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.

Quote from: Stephanie2 on November 20, 2014, 10:52:47 AM
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.

Quote from: KayXo on November 20, 2014, 05:19:00 PM
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.

Quote from: Jenna Marie on November 19, 2014, 12:00:01 PM
(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. :(

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.

Quote from: Steph34 on November 22, 2014, 09:56:46 AM
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.

Quote from: Randi on November 22, 2014, 10:48:42 AM
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.

Quote from: Steph34 on November 22, 2014, 09:56:46 AM
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).

Quotetoo 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).

QuoteI 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. :)

QuoteFat 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.

Quote from: Randi on November 22, 2014, 10:48:42 AM
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.

QuoteThere 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.

Quote from: Steph34 on November 22, 2014, 11:28:59 AM
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.

QuoteFor me personally, more fat = more food

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

Quote from: KayXo on November 22, 2014, 02:00:20 PMIndeed. 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?

Quote from: KayXo on November 22, 2014, 02:00:20 PM
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.

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteAlso, 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteOther 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

QuoteMy 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.

QuoteFiber 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

QuoteI 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.

QuoteVegans 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.

Quote from: Brenda E on November 18, 2014, 08:35:51 PM
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

Quote from: Indoctrinated on November 20, 2014, 07:32:52 AM
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....

Quote from: Brenda E on November 22, 2014, 05:37:22 PM
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.

Quote from: Steph34 on November 24, 2014, 03:41:43 AM
Needles are creepy and painful.

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

QuoteActually, 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.

QuoteStudies 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.

QuoteThe 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. 

QuoteStudy 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.

QuoteStudy 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/

QuoteStudy 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. :)

QuoteThe 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/

Quote
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.

QuoteAlso, 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. 

Quoteand 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.

QuoteI 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...

QuoteHigher 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.

QuoteWay 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.

Quoteand 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.

Quote from: Clhoe G on November 24, 2014, 04:26:12 AM
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.

Quote from: KayXo on December 04, 2014, 08:24:03 PM
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.

Quote from: KayXo on December 04, 2014, 08:24:03 PM
Fatty steak, bacon and eggs . . .

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

Quote from: Clhoe G on December 05, 2014, 01:47:32 AM
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. :)

Quote from: KayXo on December 05, 2014, 10:15:19 AM
I think it's important to make the distinction and make things more accurate for everyone's benefit. :)

::)

Quote from: KayXo on December 04, 2014, 08:24:03 PM
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.

QuoteI 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.

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

Yes, but they eat fewer grams.

QuoteNot 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.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteBesides, 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.

QuoteAlso, 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

QuoteUpon 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.

QuoteThis 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.

QuoteAlso, 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.

QuoteFirst, 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.

QuoteSecond, 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.

QuoteAlso, 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteBesides, 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.

QuoteTo 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.

QuoteNot 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.

QuoteAlso, 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

QuoteI 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

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.

Quote from: Steph34 on December 06, 2014, 10:25:51 AM
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.

QuoteI 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. 

QuoteI 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!

QuoteTaubes'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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteThe 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?

QuoteStudies 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.

QuoteA 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.

QuoteAs 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.

QuoteInterestingly, 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. 

QuoteThere 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.

QuoteFurthermore, 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.

Quotethere 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.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteAnimal 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.

QuoteFoods 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.

QuoteBy 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.

QuoteHigh-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. ;)

QuoteWhile 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. (????)

Quote from: Clhoe G on December 06, 2014, 12:07:06 PM
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.

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?

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

 ;D  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?

Quote from: Stephanie2 on November 20, 2014, 10:52:47 AM
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. :D

Quote from: KayXo on December 07, 2014, 03:30:12 PM
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.

Eating too much fat (100+ g/day) seems to enlarge my face vertically, giving it a more masculine shape. A few days on a lower-fat diet (<50 g/day)reverses that effect for me.

QuoteThis 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.

Actually, my T blocker was given by an experienced doctor as an intramuscular injection into the butt, and I am not allergic to any of its contents. I still had pain, but no swelling.

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

You probably would have seen very rapid results had you used injections sooner, like at my current stage in the process. As I understand it, you used injections at a later stage, after some feminization had occurred already, when lower levels were no longer effective enough. As one becomes more feminine, it may require higher levels to induce further feminization by changing features that are resistant to lower levels. I have nothing against that approach provided that it is done safely under a doctor's supervision, but it would be wrong to assume that injections would produce slow progress in an early stage just because they produced slow progress in a later stage.

QuoteWhy aren't carbs filling? Empty calories?

Carbohydrates leave the stomach faster; the reduced fullness is largely due to a higher rate of gastric emptying. Indeed, many of the "carbs" eaten today are added sugars and heavily processed foods like bleached flour that have little nutritional value, and are thus empty calories. Switching to unrefined, complex carbs that come with their nutrients and fiber intact, like whole grains, instead of typical processed foods can reduce gastric emptying rates and increase nutritional value. The problem with carbohydrate consumption therefore lies not in the carbs themselves, but rather in the way that modern food processing has stripped carbohydrate-rich foods of their nutritional value.

QuotePutting 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.

I think that theory was debunked in the article I provided. The body stores fat easily regardless of whether a diet is high-fat or high-carb, for precisely the reasons you mentioned. When the body's signal is "plenty of food right now," it tries to store fat because, in the past, there was no guarantee it would stay that way.

QuoteIt 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.

There are plenty of overweight people on low-carb diets.

QuoteI 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?

No, but I have looked at many studies directly, and that is my conclusion. I prefer to avoid books by people who have an agenda of advancing any particular diet, because they tend to 'cherry pick' portions of studies that support their conclusion, while ignoring parts that contradict it.

Furthermore, most studies finding superiority of a low-carb diet relative to a low-fat diet are invalid because they also change a third variable, protein, simultaneously. It could be that the small benefit of low-carb diets often observed is due to their higher protein content, and indeed that is what many authors are concluding. It is not necessary to go low-carb in order to eat more protein.

QuoteHow can protein be more satiating than fat? Protein is mostly for rebuilding muscle, not used for energy.

Protein has fewer than half as many calories per gram, so that it can still be more satiating on a per-calorie basis despite being less so on a per-gram basis. The same cannot be said about carbs because they empty from the stomach more quickly. The satiating effect of protein is further enhanced by thermogenesis. Protein can be used for energy when fats and carbs are in short supply, but much less efficiently. This lower efficiency also makes it more difficult to convert protein to body fat, relative to other calories. Protein also tends to promote muscle rather than fat, and muscle tissue is more thermogenic. As a result, an increased-calorie diet could be expected to cause less weight gain when more of the extra calories come from protein. Therefore, it may be helpful in the prevention of obesity.
http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2003/11000/The_significance_of_protein_in_food_intake_and.5.aspx

QuoteA 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.

I never recommended a high protein diet, but merely increasing the protein content of a standard diet, kind of like in this study where they found that doubling the protein content of a standard diet led to lower overall calorie consumption, a likely explanation for any benefit of low-carb diets, which tend to be higher in protein.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/41.long

QuoteI'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.

Such a diet would be unhealthy because it is so restrictive on the food choices available. Perhaps that is why there is insufficient evidence from comparative studies involving a high fat/low protein diet to evaluate your conclusion; it would be probably be considered unethical LOL. My conclusion therefore holds when realistic scenarios are used.

QuoteTake 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.

The Inuits also had some of the shortest life expectancy on Earth; their low rate of heart disease was largely because heart disease is an age-related illness and very few of them lived long enough to develop it. If my grandfather had died of an accident at 45, he never would have had a heart attack, and therefore would not have contributed to the status of heart disease as the #1 killer, but it is hard to see how that would have been a good thing.

QuoteOnly in the short-term. Stick with it, give your body time to adapt and things improve.

Bowel problems often do persist long-term because a certain amount of fiber is required to promote regularity.

QuoteThe 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.

Perhaps we could learn something from those primates. Eating more vegetables is routinely linked to good health in humans, and some evidence suggests it can help with weight loss, too:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/6/1465.short

QuoteAmericans 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.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/500181-what-is-average-caloric-intake-of-people/
A difference of 3 percentage points in fat (18% vs. 21%) is rather small. Americans also consume more total Calories and more sugar. It is unlikely that the lower fat:carb ratio can explain America's weight problems given the small difference and the presence of other explanatory factors.

Furthermore, low-fat propaganda is irrelevant because most Americans do not follow a low fat diet. Low-carb diets have been growing in popularity even as America has become fatter. If low-fat diets really caused weight problems, then most vegans would be fat and that is clearly not the case.

QuoteIn 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.

Protein deficiency occurs in those places and contributes to high weight and body fat percentage. That problem can usually be corrected with a small amount of inexpensive beans. It does not require a high fat or meat-rich diet, which many people in poor countries cannot afford.

QuotePoor people are also usually more active and yet more obese.

Most poor people in America are very sedentary; physical activity is reserved for those who can afford it.

QuoteAt 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.

Fat intake seems to have little, if any, effect on my measured T level now while on blockers, but it still increases masculinity for me. That could be because of my stomach condition, which makes it difficult for fat and fiber to exit my stomach. Also, eating too many calories does make me feel like my T production is spiking, and I tend to eat more calories when I eat more fat.

QuoteHow would creating more bulk decrease constipation

It is stimulating, which is not necessarily irritating. Stimulation is only irritating if it occurs in excess.

Quoteit might actually make things worse by creating some sort of congestion where intestines are overwhelmed.

In certain extreme situations, yes. I would not recommend consuming 100+ grams per day. At healthy doses, however, that is unlikely to occur.

QuoteIt is a well-known fact that fiber irritates the lining of intestines, ask biologists and that's why it helps to move things along.

If I were to accept that as fact, it would not prove that such irritation necessarily has any negative health effect.

QuoteWrong. 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.

While it is true that humans lack a multi-chambered stomach, not all herbivores have that. Carnivores have much shorter intestines and much more acidic stomachs than us, which is why humans need to worry about acute meat-borne illness and carnivores do not. The human body is clearly not adapted for meat consumption.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pe0FdA6CnGAhDUhKknqQGKdPmwWqEvWi8cYMZc5zZZg/preview?pli=1

QuoteWhich our species have not had time to adapt to and I'm talking about grains here, not fruits.

Thousands of years is long enough to adapt. We saw that occur with lactose tolerance, which did not exist before the rise of cattle ranching.

Quoteon a healthy diet of high fat, low protein, you won't need antioxidants as cancer is much less likely, it appears.

High fat consumption increases the rate of oxidative damage, thereby increasing the rate of aging and some cancers. The evidence is so compelling that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration even endorses this claim on certain low-fat products: "A diet low in total fat may reduce the risk of some cancers, which depends on many factors."

QuoteLow 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 would have to agree, unless the chemical is salt. I love my salt and the science against it is rather weak in my opinion. However, the same can also be said of low carb stuff where they use flavor enhancers and artificial sweeteners to make it taste good. Processed food is unhealthy, regardless of which diet it is compatible with.

QuoteI 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.

Trans fats are rarely used in frying these days, at least in the USA. The problem with fried foods is that the added fat offers nothing but calories. Even if it is 'healthy' fat, nutrient density of any diet is lower when such 'empty calories' are added.

QuoteFat achieves the same and delivers nutrients, without irritating bowel. ;)

Certain nutrients, like vitamin C, are not found in high-fat foods.

QuoteThis 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. (????)

Regarding weight loss, I was referring to a higher fat diet with a prescribed limit on calorie intake. The effect of an uncontrolled increase in fat on calorie consumption is likely to vary from one person to another, depending on food choices and sensitivity to eating cues. For me personally, the link between more fat and more calories is clear, but I am a binge eater so my case may not be generalizable to those who eat 3+ normal-sized meals per day. I tend to eat until my stomach cannot hold any more, and since fat is more energy-dense, it makes sense that my stomach can hold more calories in one session when the energy density of the food is higher, ie. when there is more fat.

QuoteYou 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.

Too much of anything is bad. Eat too much at once, and vomiting will occur. Even water, the most essential substance for life on Earth, can be fatal in cases of overdose. It is common sense among scientists and nutritionists that calorie intake is the primary factor in weight changes. That is why almost all scientific research comparing diets controls for calorie intake. If calories did not matter, then scientists would not be so concerned about making sure their subjects consume a precise number of calories, and dieticians would not be so concerned about portion size.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa0804748

Lastly, I will leave you with some food for thought: Carbs, mostly from grains, have been an important part of the human diet for millennia, yet obesity was almost nonexistent until the last century. What has changed in recent decades? Higher calorie consumption and intensive food processing that strips food of its nutrients and renders it less filling. And it is not just carbohydrate calories that have increased, but meat consumption too. Interesting...
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf

Quote from: TSLexiknight on December 08, 2014, 03:08:52 PM
Is it even possible to have high E AND high T?

Yes. If high doses of each are both taken at the same time exogenously.