Quote from: Blush on March 29, 2015, 06:19:21 PM
I don't think the more the better is likely whatsoever. I'd assume SHBG would bind them all to a normal level anyway? From my understanding the body can only accept so much - people taking shot after shot of testosterone aren't doing anything productive as SHBG will bind it all away anyway.
If the body can only accept so much, why is it that only at higher levels, did I see improvement in my well-being and overall feminization? The same can be said of several transwomen who noticed better results on higher levels. Why do womens' bodies produce such high levels during pregnancy if their bodies can only accept so much?
QuoteAgain, pregnant women experience these levels for a very short time compared to their average hormone levels over their whole lives, where as transwomen are on HRT for the rest of their lives with little dosage adjustment.
I explained this but I will explain it again.
Yes, most women will experience these levels for a short time while a few, for a longer time, depending on how many pregnancies they have had. But, if a ciswoman can survive amounts of 1,000 - 75,000 pg/ml for several months and some for several pregnancies (thus, several years) AND if you consider that levels will usually be no more than 5,000 pg/ml (mine were less than 4,000) for several years and perhaps decades for transwomen on injectables,
15 x less than the maximum reached during pregnancy, I consider their risk quite low as well.
And besides, what risks are you concerned about?
- breast cancer is extremely rare amongst transsexual women, noted to be similar to genetic men who haven't taken any HRT, by a leading specialist and expert working with tens of thousands of transsexual women for decades.
- it has been noted that the more children and thus the more pregnancies a ciswoman experiences, the lower her breast cancer risk.
I explained that thrombosis incidence was very low in pregnant women and in male prostate cancer patients despite high levels.
Cardiovascular risk is lower in premenopausal women (relative to men), who go through pregnancies and peaks during the menstrual cycle. It was also not increased in male prostate cancer patients during bio-E administration parenterally.
QuoteI don't think men would accept estrogen as a means to treat prostate cancer, in fact I've never heard of it until now.
Men with prostate cancer have been treated with estrogen ever since the 1960's and even perhaps, before that. With risky forms of estrogen in the past such as DES and more recently with estradiol, transdermally or by injection. This information can be found on
pubmed.com and in a document published by Harry Benjamin. I can PM you links and more info, if you want.
QuoteWhat is clear about bio identical and not? You've mentioned having shots above, which from my understanding are synthetic, unlike bio identical topical creams and gels.
I receive estradiol valerate shots. Estradiol valerate, upon entering the blood, quickly transforms into bio-identical estradiol; estradiol valerate is not active. So I end up getting the exact same molecule (bio-identical) produced by the human body and found in high levels in ciswomen during pregnancy.
Bio-identical forms are metabolized faster by the body, hence, have a lesser chance of staying long enough to stimulate clotting by recirculating through the portal vein again and again like non bio-identical forms. No matter the form, and except for Premarin, every other form of estrogen is a synthetic as it is made in the lab, not produced internally by the body.
I agree that transwomen injecting estradiol cypionate may perhaps incur higher risks as I strongly suspect (not proven in studies) that Estradiol Cypionate actively triggers estrogen receptors and since remaining longer in the body, stimulates, perhaps, significantly clotting.
But, if bio-identical estradiol is taken and the only active estrogen (other than estrone and estriol) in the body, I personally consider risks aren't significant, especially if taken non-orally, even in higher levels. Again, I repeat, I am NOT a doctor. This is MY opinion only.
QuoteEstrogen levels are no higher during puberty than they are over the course of the rest of life before menopause, it's growth hormone levels that increases, stimulating SHBG levels to lower during puberty in males and females thus allowing more of the hormones that are already there to be used, then growth hormone levels drop, SHBG levels return and puberty ends.
GROWTH = keyword. More growth hormone is one of probably many other factors (like younger age) during puberty that explains body's high sensitivity to hormones. It may be that to reach the same potential, we need higher levels, due to older age and less GH.
QuoteIn encouraging people to think more of their treatment there's the risk of trusting some anonymous person's advice over the internet rather than a licensed medical professional, who may not know all, but at least knows how to keep patients healthy.
I encourage people to
always question everyone and anyone, including me, of course. I offer opinions and it is up to others to dig deeper, question, do their own research, talk with several doctors, etc. If they have something to bring to the table, then all the better.
A licensed professional may harm his/her patient if a less than effective (and safe) regimen is given because it may impact on their well-being and on their feminization. Higher levels *may", in some instances, produce improved well-being as well as give better feminization which helps patients feel better about themselves, feel more in tune with their bodies which, as you know, is very important for us.
QuoteI don't understand why levels aren't disallowed to be discussed alongside dosages, if someone says, my levels are X, and I've got huge breasts, but whoops I can't tell you how much I'm taking sorry!! Guess what many people will do? Start chomping down pills hoping to get bigger breasts.
In no way am I promoting high levels or a certain level, EVER. I actually discourage this. I'm just saying that it depends, that individuals vary. That what works for some may not for others. Some do wonderfully well at lower levels, other need more. What I'm arguing over is the concern over higher levels and how it can potentially harm those that may benefit from higher levels.
And besides, as I have explained it several times, levels will fluctuate so how valid is a test really? And what does it really tell us that we don't already know?
