about assessing the risks... - Printable Version
+- Breast Growth For Genetic Males (https://www.breastnexum.com)
+-- Forum: Methods (https://www.breastnexum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=64)
+--- Forum: Herbal Breast Enhancement (https://www.breastnexum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: about assessing the risks... (/showthread.php?tid=14816)
+- Breast Growth For Genetic Males (https://www.breastnexum.com)
+-- Forum: Methods (https://www.breastnexum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=64)
+--- Forum: Herbal Breast Enhancement (https://www.breastnexum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: about assessing the risks... (/showthread.php?tid=14816)
Pages:
1
2
about assessing the risks... - AbiDrew85 - 13-03-2013
I'm starting this thread due to the thread that spawned the conversation being inappropriate to continuing the discussion, but feeling that the discussion ought to be continued, just elsewhere.
(13-03-2013, 12:44 AM)bryony Wrote:(12-03-2013, 12:29 PM)AbiDrew85 Wrote: And my definition of natural does not involve being OTC or readily available and I'm not naive enough to believe anything is "not dangerous".
Yes, well I suppose potatoes are dangerous if you eat enough of them, and certainly carrots are too. That's about the level of risk you have with PM compared to unsupervised DIY hormones. The degrees of freedom differ hugely.
Quote:There's been discussion lately about the drugs (both legal and my own definition in this case) for anti-t... THAT is something *I* disagree with. Yet IIRC, you didn't complain at all about them discussing those.
I was remiss. I'm concerned about those too. They don't belong in a natural breast enlargement discussion either. I'm glad that you appear to agree! A shame you don't feel the same way about DIY Pharm.
Maybe Eve would be willing to create a separate sub-forum for DIY Hormone/Anti-hormone experimenters.
In deference to the OP I'll shut up now... it never seems to do any good anyway.
B.
Was where that conversation left off.
Basically, what's going on is this. Just what level of risk ARE we taking with the various things we are using, and is that level really acceptable to us?
Aside from the obvious ones of growing breasts and societal and personal reactions to such stimuli, there's the side effects of BOTH herbs and pharma to consider.
I find that the list of side effects and therefore the level of risk from pharma anti-androgens to be unreasonable and the level of risk from licorice likewise. I do not consider the risks from estradiol to be anywhere near the same ballpark.
And bryony seems to think there is no more level of risk to pm than there is any other "food". If you ate even straight whole undried tubers raw, even then, if you ate it like you would say, potatoes. You'd be so OD'd it wouldn't be funny. And I'm not talking about the estrogens here. I'm talking side effects. PM sparks an insulin response. And a powerful one. That's a RISK we are ALL taking if we're using PM. That's a pretty big risk if you ask me.
The biggest supposed risk of estradiol is actually only directly STUDIED and linked to premarin, NOT estradiol at all. And that's of an increased risk for DVT.
Aside from that, the rest of the risks of the two are identical. PM is a powerful enough plant estrogen that it CAN and OFTEN DOES cause symptoms of estrogen dominance.
RE: about assessing the risks... - AnnieBL - 13-03-2013
At the risk of being repetitious, there is a distinction to be made between personal and public risk. Most highly publicised pharma rrisks are public health risks where eve a small incidence of adverse side effects can be a big problem. At a personal level, these low incidences may constitute an acceptable risk, particularly when one is driven by strong compulsions.
You mention that PM sparks a powerful insulin response. Can you enlarge on this? I'm not diabetic, nor even near, but big insulin spikes are undesirable for all of us.
RE: about assessing the risks... - SarahSchilling - 13-03-2013
(13-03-2013, 01:28 AM)AbiDrew85 Wrote: If you ate even straight whole undried tubers raw, even then, if you ate it like you would say, potatoes. You'd be so OD'd it wouldn't be funny. And I'm not talking about the estrogens here. I'm talking side effects. PM sparks an insulin response. And a powerful one. That's a RISK we are ALL taking if we're using PM. That's a pretty big risk if you ask me.
Odd that you mention this, because while reading up on some pharma estrogens, I found that I already seem to have some of the side effects.
The rapid heartbeat/cold sweats/hypoglycemia kind. They seem to have stopped to a great extent since I started cycling PM . Or maybe I've just gotten used to them.....I'm hoping the former.
Seems like eating ice cream/candy keeps it in check though.
These side effects are a part of the reason I'm going to see a therapist and then a doctor. I don't think PM is quite as safe as many tend to think it is, nor are pharma hormones quite as dangerous. As with most things the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
RE: about assessing the risks... - AbiDrew85 - 13-03-2013
(13-03-2013, 02:17 AM)AnnabelP Wrote: You mention that PM sparks a powerful insulin response. Can you enlarge on this? I'm not diabetic, nor even near, but big insulin spikes are undesirable for all of us.
The only real study I can find that most directly talks about what's happening is this one:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/np0203887
It talks of it as a benefit for those who LACK insulin. But in those who have plenty, it can cause severe hypoglycemia very rapidly without a nice dose of sugars at the same time as your dose of PM.
PM Tubers have no known sugars on their own.
This is actually a well known side effect with plenty of anecdotal support, if not all that much in studies to prove it. Among the women using PM, I honestly think all of them are aware of it.
RE: about assessing the risks... - sfem - 13-03-2013
Abi, that article refers to P. Lobata, which is not P. Mirifica. They are different precisely in the ways that make us use PM in the first place. Check out
http://dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6531
Do you have any other sources for PM causing an insulin response?
RE: about assessing the risks... - AbiDrew85 - 13-03-2013
Dang. Nope. Not actual studies anyways. But the point of the article was that PUERARIN is the culprit. Puerarin is a chemical constituent of ALL pueraria species.
I do know both from personal experience and from correctly diagnosing others with hypoglycemia the insulin response caused by taking PM.
That study actually completely isolated and PROVED puerarin to be at fault.
There's actually quite a LOT of puerarin in even the purest of extracts, let alone the whole powder that most of you guys use.
RE: about assessing the risks... - bryony - 13-03-2013
(13-03-2013, 01:28 AM)AbiDrew85 Wrote: And bryony seems to think there is no more level of risk to pm than there is any other "food". If you ate even straight whole undried tubers raw, even then, if you ate it like you would say, potatoes. You'd be so OD'd it wouldn't be funny. And I'm not talking about the estrogens here. I'm talking side effects. PM sparks an insulin response. And a powerful one. That's a RISK we are ALL taking if we're using PM. That's a pretty big risk if you ask me.
Ok, I'm not aware of this effect.
According to this FDA document FDA Under section VII Safety, there are no records of adverse events in Thailand. I'm sure if there had been an insulin hazard it would have been noted there.
(There was also a complete failure to ascertain an LD50 dosage.... that was why I was talking about potatoes. I believe if you cooked and ate the root you would not OD at all, just excrete what was not used.)
Quote:The biggest supposed risk of estradiol is actually only directly STUDIED and linked to premarin, NOT estradiol at all. And that's of an increased risk for DVT.
I think absence of studying isn't a reassurance that the risk does not exist. What about breast cancer? If you have the genes for breast cancer, ordinary estrogens are supposed to accelerate growth, whereas there is research that shows that PM is actually protective against this.
See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037851220700240X
Quote:Aside from that, the rest of the risks of the two are identical. PM is a powerful enough plant estrogen that it CAN and OFTEN DOES cause symptoms of estrogen dominance.
As for the risks of the two being identical, I'm going to have to ask you for some evidence here.
I often see the phrase "estrogen dominance" bandied about. As far as I can make out, it refers to the balance of estrogen and progesterone in women - please correct me if I'm wrong. I thought TS HRT was all about making a male body estrogen dominant over testosterone, so I find this hard to understand. If you can point me at any useful info regarding estrogen dominance in MTF TSs I'd be interested.
I had a look at that paper you mentioned later, regarding antihypergycaemic effects: It says:
"These results suggest that puerarin can increase the glucose utilization to lower plasma glucose in diabetic rats lacking insulin. "
It does not say that this is by increased insulin activity... it could be using some other pathway. Without buying the article and having enough science to understand it I cannot be sure.
What I do know is that I have been taking 3g/day on average for 18 months, so if my insulin had spiked all that time, I'm sure I would have noticed.
What you aren't appreciating is that PM is a traditional herb that's been used in N Thailand for generations. We know it is safe, for the same reason that we know that, under the right circumstances, St. John's Wort is safe, but Deathcap mushrooms aren't. How long has estradiol valerate been around in comparison? And if it is so safe, why do so many countries regulate it?
B.
RE: about assessing the risks... - AbiDrew85 - 14-03-2013
I'm not saying it's safe. I'm saying it's not AS dangerous as some would like you to think.
Likewise, PM isn't as safe as some would like you to believe.
The terminology I'm using is, yes, the terminology that is normally applied to women. But any endo worth his PhD who has experience working with TS will tell you that once you bring a MTF transsexual's testosterone down and crank up their estrogen, they start to react as a typical woman if they do not have sufficient progesterone.
It's been debated to death whether or not we actually need to supplement progesterone, but I think the truth lies in individual needs. Some people need it. Others do not. Some might even have the opposite problem as testosterone falls but estrogen doesn't yet start getting cranked up. (This is actually a scarily common practice for people to be put on anti-T's, some of which are ALSO progestins, and not put on estrogens until months or even years later).
I realize though that I'll never be able to sufficiently prove my points to you, since I cannot back them up with hard facts since no one wants to pay for hard facts to be provided. I've provided what hard facts I can that INDICATE what I'm talking about, but don't DIRECTLY state and prove them. I've seen too much evidence though for you to convince me otherwise.
RE: about assessing the risks... - flamesabers - 14-03-2013
(14-03-2013, 02:17 AM)AbiDrew85 Wrote: It's been debated to death whether or not we actually need to supplement progesterone, but I think the truth lies in individual needs. Some people need it. Others do not. Some might even have the opposite problem as testosterone falls but estrogen doesn't yet start getting cranked up.
I agree. I'm definitely one of the individuals who needs to use progesterone cream to prevent estrogen dominance.
RE: about assessing the risks... - bryony - 14-03-2013
(14-03-2013, 02:17 AM)AbiDrew85 Wrote: I realize though that I'll never be able to sufficiently prove my points to you, since I cannot back them up with hard facts since no one wants to pay for hard facts to be provided. I've provided what hard facts I can that INDICATE what I'm talking about, but don't DIRECTLY state and prove them. I've seen too much evidence though for you to convince me otherwise.
Well I don't want to end on a sour note... I'd just like to make a few points so you can see my heart is in the right place:
1) I am totally for transition for classic transsexuals, particularly young ones who are free to make decisions without harming others.
2) To achieve this, pharmaceutical drugs will be necessary, and I understand this, but they require careful monitoring and blood work etc.
3) Where someone is middle-age/late middle-age, has struggled all their life with GD, and just can't take any more, then unless they have a very understanding family and have particularly feminine features (and/or lots of money) I would do my best to discourage transition, because I believe that either they, their family or all of them will suffer. That's where I'm particularly interested in PM, because my experience is that it is safe and reduces the worst symptoms of GD for such people. I would be concerned to think that such people were tempted to exeriment with more powerful, pharm-grade hormones, as it could start them down a path where they might think they want to go, but live to regret it.
I've seen a number of these cases reported, and this article attempts to explain it: testosterone toxicity
4) I want to discourage a cavalier attitude to self-medication with pharmaceuticals, as I mentioned before, because I don't want new members to get the opinion that it is relatively risk-free. I know you think that the risks are low enough for you to try, but you've done your research, read the warnings and want to go ahead. I'd just like to see some kind of health warning at the start of any thread discussing illegitimate self-medications with regulated drugs.
This isn't meant to be any kind of put-down, just erring on the side of safety.
This isn't a moderated forum with 'stickies' and 'faqs' that can hold those warnings, so it is incumbent on us to make sure that newbies aren't led astray.
All the best,
Bryony