I was exploring the t-vox.org web site and came across a page called "Urban Legends." It discusses such things related to HRT as progesterone, eventual breast size, and how age affects results. What they report is directly opposite to what has been reported almost everywhere else, and the reasoning behind their statements is provocative.

The link to the page is:  http://t-vox.org/index.php?title=Hormones_:_Urban_Legends

Quote from: April221 on June 15, 2008, 01:24:13 PM
I was exploring the t-vox.org web site and came across a page called "Urban Legends." It discusses such things related to HRT as progesterone, eventual breast size, and how age affects results. What they report is directly opposite to what has been reported almost everywhere else, and the reasoning behind their statements is provocative.

The link to the page is:  http://t-vox.org/index.php?title=Hormones_:_Urban_Legends

Seems to me to be a very well written page backed up by common sense and more than a little endocrinological FACT.  Shame we can't get that posted to Snopes.

*sits back and eats popcorn*

I accepted as gospel that hormones would have little to no visible effect on me if I started them in my mid-sixties.

That turned out not to be true.


Kay


http://anotherself.blogstream.com

Quote from: Ashley Elizabeth on June 15, 2008, 06:32:41 PM
i'm not totally convinced that progestins are necessary....

i have also had a good result so far on hrt.

I didn't want progestins either.  I wanted progesterone.  Similar, but different.  In my experience progesterone helped make my breasts rounder, more fuller looking, instead of the pointy boobs many people report.

Anyone who wants to try progesterone I would suggest a natural, bio-identical type.  One that's easy for the body to use, usually labeled as micronized.

Hopefully this post doesn't get zapped for breaking the forum rules......

Quote from: Ashley Elizabeth on June 15, 2008, 07:58:07 PM
how do you know that it was the progesterone and not the natural development of your breasts? 

Well I know somebody who has been post-op for over 10 years, and when she started progesterones for the first time recently she got sore nipples again and her breasts filled out.

Blood tests can give you information about if your levels are in the normal range.

Quote from: lisagurl on June 16, 2008, 07:24:13 AM
Blood tests can give you information about if your levels are in the normal range.

This is true, but mostly the 'normal' levels are the ones associated with cissexuals, not transsexuals. Relatively very little info is available to suggest what a 'normal' trans level might be.

Quote from: Ashley Elizabeth on June 15, 2008, 07:58:07 PM
how do you know that it was the progesterone and not the natural development of your breasts? 

From usage and knowing what one has added to her intake and what was happening in the year or two before when no changes in prescriptions were made. IM Progesterone absolutely works and has many fewer behavioral side-effects than does the medroxyprogeterone (Provera) used by many women.

Costs are not different and in the case of using a compounding pharmacy for the prescription-filiing tend to be less even with the shipping charges, given the size of the vials shipped.

Just my experience, Ash.

Nichole

Quote from: that website on urban legendsThat many MtFs fear Androgens more than they fear cobra venom is likewise well known.

I LOL'd.

In my experience progesterone has a profound effect on breasts.  I have been on and off an HRT regimen that has included progesterone since I started HRT 20 months ago.  Whenever I am off the breasts are less full, and whenever I go back on, they immediately become fuller over the next couple weeks.  The linked articles makes a great point: natal females have progesterone for breast development, why shouldn't MtF have it too~?

QuoteThis is true, but mostly the 'normal' levels are the ones associated with cissexuals, not transsexuals. Relatively very little info is available to suggest what a 'normal' trans level might be

My lab reports have a range printed on them for GG and my doctor aims that they are in those ranges.

As do mine, Lisa. I think the point is still that your doctor is treating a TS-woman with GG-methods. A sis my own. That may or may not be totally efficacious.

N~

Quote from: Nichole on June 16, 2008, 11:10:25 AM
As do mine, Lisa. I think the point is still that your doctor is treating a TS-woman with GG-methods. A sis my own. That may or may not be totally efficacious.

N~

I realize that this is more faith then proved science because not many studies are aimed at this. We are human guinea pigs. But for practical health purpose and not most effective development, after SRS that is about the best reasonable guess.

I'm not sure there is enough info to create a separate standards yet, but it can't be far off.

A problem with GG levels is that when GG are devellopping
they are in their 10-20 when HGH (human growth hormones)
levels are very high.

Giving GG average levels to somebody in their 40's when
HGH levels are much lower will result in much much slower
devellopment. Considering that devellopment even
in normal times takes 7 years, you can see how "normal"
levels could short changed us. If HGH levels are half
that of puberty, full devellopment could take 14 years!! at
normal E levels.

My opinion is that its results (breast develllopment for example)
that should be used to
gage success of HRT and not blood levels. Bio identical
Estradiolis relatively innocuous even very high doses
(pregnancy levels are much much higher than average
levels and many women have had 10+ pregnancies
(10 years of mega levels) with little deleterious effects.

Endo's tend to underprescribe more often that they over
prescribe if you ask me.

The reason many older TS get less devellopped breasts
IS because they are undertreated and not because
its impossible for them to get them.

The concept of giving human growth hormones to older people is very debatable and has very little scientific data. This whole subject is more of a flying by the seat of your pants than proved facts. The truth is I would prefer to be safe on the health side than error the development side.

Posted on: June 16, 2008, 04:15:58 PM

---

ly estrogen does that:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3339116?ordinalpos=2&; itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubme d_RVDocSum

Quote:


J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1988 Feb;66(2):444-6.

Estrogen-induced prolactinoma in a man.

Gooren LJ, Assies J, Asscheman H, de Slegte R, van Kessel H.
Department of Endocrinology/Andrology, Academic Hospital Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Prolactinomas can be induced in rats by large doses of estrogens. Whether prolactinomas can be induced in humans by estrogens, however, is not known. This report describes the development of a prolactinoma in a man with previously normal plasma PRL levels after the administration of pharmacological doses of estrogen. The patient, a 26-yr-old male to female transsexual, took cyproterone acetate (100 mg/day, orally) and ethinyl estradiol (100 micrograms/day, orally) for 10 months and (surrepititiously) estradiol-17-undecanoate (100 mg, twice weekly, im) for about 6 of the 10 months. Plasma PRL levels rose from 0.05 to 5.20 U/L within 10 months (normal, 0.05-0.30 U/L). A computed tomographic scan showed a pituitary mass with suprasellar extension. After all estrogen therapy was discontinued, his plasma estradiol levels gradually declined from 2.8 to 0.77 nmol/L (normal, 0.04-0.12 nmol/L), but PRL levels rose further to 6.2 U/L. Bromocriptine treatment (2.5 mg twice daily) then was given. Plasma PRL fell gradually to 0.43 U/L and a computed tomographic scan after 5 months showed reduction in tumor size. The patient then discontinued bromocriptine treatment. Four months later his plasma estradiol level was normal, while plasma PRL had risen to 4.6 U/L, indicating autonomous PRL secretion. We conclude that 1) estrogen in pharmacological doses can induce prolactinomas in man; and 2) subjects treated with high doses of estrogen must, therefore, be surveyed for the development of such tumors.

Prolactinamia happens almost always with ethinilestradiol, not estradiol; DVT also happens almost exclusively with ethinilestradil.

All estrogens are conflated in most studies when in fact they have major differences in impact. That's a reason why most HRT regime switched from ethinil and premarin to estradiol and estradiol valerate.

I wasn't pushing HGH injections or anything but higher serum estrogen levels to compensate for lower HGH levels.

Lower E levels don't even saturate all receptors so
your not getting the most impact you could at a given HGH level.

E impact diminish with dosage as one
approaches receptor saturation, so there is a limit to the usefull dosage
(all the rest will be eliminated by urine or make the liver work a bit harder anyway).
Still, E dosage are in my opinion too conservative for us considering the
relatively low risk in an healthy individual (no more risk than estrogen in
a GG).

Ethinilestradiol, because it stays in the system much much longer (its hard to metabolise) at a given dose has a tendency to saturate receptors strongly at high doses which explains the prolactinamia problems.