Hi, Sammie
A couple of thoughts.
One thing that I have always wondered about is what the word 'natural' means in the context of breast growth for genetic males. Many people would take the view that such growth is fundamentally unnatural (although the existence of gynecomastia would seem to indicate otherwise) I personally see nothing unnatural about choosing to benefit from and induce or encourage a naturally occurring condition. The next issue is the means used. It seems to me that many of us take the view that using not only herbs but anything available without prescription is fair game, including a wide range of supplements many of which are clearly synthesized even if they correspond to compounds found in nature. An interesting example is bio-identical progesterone cream, whose use is widely suggested, but the P in which is synthesized. It is available OTC in the USA, but by prescription only in many other jurisdictions. Is it natural in the US but not elsewhere?
Which brings us to E2. E2 is a human hormone naturally occurring in both males and females, and synthetic E2 has just as much entitlement to be considered 'bio-identical' as does synthetic progesterone. So why should we not use it as a 'natural' growth aid if it is available to us?
On the other hand, one could argue that Premarin is clearly a natural source product. But it is not bio-identical with human hormones, so is its use 'natural'? The same objection could be raised to bovine ovary and its ilk. Certainly there are a number of synthetic hormones such as DES and synthetic progestins other than progesterone itself which cannot possibly be considered natural and many of which are problematic.
My second thought is that I don't think that we should regard PM and E2 as alternatives. PM like most herbs is a complex blend of different active constituents. The phytoestrogens in PM are not equivalent to E2,, and it is not clear to me that E2, although within its scope of activity more powerful, can provide the range of benefits that can be provided by the range of active components (not just phytoestrogens) present in PM. Indeed it is possible that E2 and PM could act to complement each other with the PM providing some protection against the known hazards of significant quantities of E2.
Mind you, if I was offered an E2 prescription I might well grab it.
Your very low level of T at the moment does appear to be below that generally considered healthy, but reading the literature about low T in genetic males, there are all sorts of dire warnings about adverse physiacal and metal effects which in you and I at least seem unsubstantiated, so who knows? I wish I knew my own T level. I'm still trying to extract the results of the blood tests I managed to persuade the NP to order and have an appointment with her on Monday. I am interested that your endo said, Iif I understood you correctly, that loss of male function is usually reversible - I was certainly under the impression that mine had gone for good.
Hugs from Annie
A couple of thoughts.
One thing that I have always wondered about is what the word 'natural' means in the context of breast growth for genetic males. Many people would take the view that such growth is fundamentally unnatural (although the existence of gynecomastia would seem to indicate otherwise) I personally see nothing unnatural about choosing to benefit from and induce or encourage a naturally occurring condition. The next issue is the means used. It seems to me that many of us take the view that using not only herbs but anything available without prescription is fair game, including a wide range of supplements many of which are clearly synthesized even if they correspond to compounds found in nature. An interesting example is bio-identical progesterone cream, whose use is widely suggested, but the P in which is synthesized. It is available OTC in the USA, but by prescription only in many other jurisdictions. Is it natural in the US but not elsewhere?
Which brings us to E2. E2 is a human hormone naturally occurring in both males and females, and synthetic E2 has just as much entitlement to be considered 'bio-identical' as does synthetic progesterone. So why should we not use it as a 'natural' growth aid if it is available to us?
On the other hand, one could argue that Premarin is clearly a natural source product. But it is not bio-identical with human hormones, so is its use 'natural'? The same objection could be raised to bovine ovary and its ilk. Certainly there are a number of synthetic hormones such as DES and synthetic progestins other than progesterone itself which cannot possibly be considered natural and many of which are problematic.
My second thought is that I don't think that we should regard PM and E2 as alternatives. PM like most herbs is a complex blend of different active constituents. The phytoestrogens in PM are not equivalent to E2,, and it is not clear to me that E2, although within its scope of activity more powerful, can provide the range of benefits that can be provided by the range of active components (not just phytoestrogens) present in PM. Indeed it is possible that E2 and PM could act to complement each other with the PM providing some protection against the known hazards of significant quantities of E2.
Mind you, if I was offered an E2 prescription I might well grab it.
Your very low level of T at the moment does appear to be below that generally considered healthy, but reading the literature about low T in genetic males, there are all sorts of dire warnings about adverse physiacal and metal effects which in you and I at least seem unsubstantiated, so who knows? I wish I knew my own T level. I'm still trying to extract the results of the blood tests I managed to persuade the NP to order and have an appointment with her on Monday. I am interested that your endo said, Iif I understood you correctly, that loss of male function is usually reversible - I was certainly under the impression that mine had gone for good.
Hugs from Annie