Breast Growth For Genetic Males

So my education about NBE (phyto) versus bio-identicals (pharma) continues. I share the following for those that are considering combined phyto/pharma personal programs.

I found a technical paper on the interaction of estriol (E3, like in PM) and estradiol (E2, like in Progynova or Estradiol Valerate). This technical paper found via four different assay methods that estriol dampens the effects of estradiol and is at a maximum when estriol is 10x of estradiol and reduces estradiol effects by between 50 and 85 percent. This suggests that personal programs that intend to employ estradiol as the primary agent of feminization could possibly reduce the risk of cancer by also programming PM, but at the cost of lowered efficacy of estradiol. This is a very sophisticated choice and should be programmed with utmost care and should NOT be considered a proven method of risk reduction, in my opinion.
************************************************************
http://mend.endojournals.org/content/11/...8.abstract
Molecular Endocrinology, Nov 1997
Title: Molecular and Kinetic Basis for the Mixed Agonist/Antagonist Activity of Estriol
Abstract:
Estriol acts as a weak estrogen when administered in a single dose into immature or ovariectomized laboratory animals, but produces full estrogenic responses upon chronic administration. However, when estriol is injected together with estradiol it acts as an antiestrogen.
***
We discuss our results in relation to the massive estriol production during pregnancy and to the “Estriol Hypothesis” on the protective role for estriol in opposing carcinogenic effects of estradiol.

As someone who has taken both, but not at the same time, I really have to ask, why? The incidence of breast cancer in MTF transitionals is negligible, or at least it was a few years ago when I was doing my research before I started on pharmas. If you "gotta have them now", then you're probably someone who can accept that slight risk, and use pharmas. the risks are higher for other side effects, such as DVT. It seems to me that this study, (and it's 15+ years old), was geared to females?

If we can accept that pharmas, while truly risky, are indeed much more potent, then it follows that in order to introduce 10x the amount of estriol contained in PM, compared to an equivalent dose of estrogen, one would have to consume an enormous amount of PM? I can see no real reason to consider this mix. If, indeed anyone is, I would say, for the money you would spend on PM alone, you could buy 5x as much pharmas, (or more), and be set for a long time. My reasoning could be wrong, though, as I try to keep things simple.

To the best of my knowledge, PM does not contain estriol. So I don't see how the paper applies to deoxymiroestrol or miroestrol at all.

Good point. Had I known that, I could have saved the response. That's what I get for being to simple. Oh well.

Miroestrol/deoxymiroestrol are NOT neither one estriol. I said this last time you said they were, and I apparently need to say it again.

They have been compared against BOTH estradiol AND estriol and are not a perfect match to either, but fit somewhere between.

What exactly this means has not been adequately studied.

HOWEVER. There does exist two different estrogen receptors and it is my theory and belief that when mixing phyto and pharma you will hit the two receptors more evenly than using only one.

You DON'T want to use ANYWHERE near as much PM as your body should produce of estriol from breaking down the estrogens you give it. And btw, that's a key point: your body should produce plenty sufficient estriol on its own given large doses of estradiol. PM... Probably won't. Remember, it's already somewhere between estradiol and estriol, so it probably won't even react to the same stuff in the same way as estradiol to become estriol. It might react to something else in some other way to become yet something else. And that yet something else MIGHT be another estrogen... but estriol? Probably not. More likely something sooo weak as to be useless.