Well, it's really more of a range. I agree with you on the BMI. But a flat tummy doesn't mean a ripped tummy. If you have a well defined six pack and veins popping out of your arms, then yes, the BMI will be too low for NBE. It takes fat to make fat, so no body fat = no breasts. But the reverse is also true. Total body fat still = no breasts, or breasts that are not purportional and never will be.
Have you ever noticed that those who have a lot of fat in the butt or tummy tend to enlarge the butt and tummy the most, and first? One of the main complaints I have seen over the years is that women were trying to grow their breasts but ended up growing their tummy or butt instead - or their arms, or their thighs. Not their tummy and their breasts, but the tummy instead of their breasts. Some women get an increase in inches in the bust measurement but do not fill the cups any better. Adding width measurements showed that this was an increase in back fat. Women who are highly athletic with extremely low body fat, or are overly thin have a very hard time growing breasts, but women who are not extreme but have a good workout grow the best. What explains all of this? Why can't the breasts just be targeted and nothing else grow instead?
Basically, the theory is mathematical. Breasts are enlarged/grown one cell at a time. This is done by docking something that "binds weakly" to estrogen receptors on those cells. Those cells are located on the stomach, back, thighs, butt and breasts. The bigger the fat padding, the more cells there are, the more of the phytoestrogen that they attract. And, there is an order when it comes to fat accumulation and loss. The idea is to keep the body as healthy as possible as a survival mechanism. The body keeps fat off organs, then off muscle in that order. Storage is on muscle, then on organs in that order. Considering the breasts and stomach, for example, fat goes on the stomach first (muscle) and comes off it last. The breasts are the opposite. Fat goes on them last and comes off them first (unless breastfeeding) because they are organs. Note also that when breastfeeding has ended, the fat has been removed (used up) from the breasts, but the stomach fat may remain.
The reason for getting rid of the other estrogenic fat is to remove the competition for the phytoestrogens as an attempt to target the breasts by eliminating (or reducing) all other competition for the phytoestrogen molecules. If the competition is not removed, the larger fatty areas will win. They will attract more of the herbs because of the organ order in which fat is accumulated and removed, and because those areas, being bigger, have more cells than the breasts available to bind with (and therefore remove from circulation). But yes, if you remove too much too fast, then the breasts will have less fat to compete with the other organs. It is really a way to target the breasts for growing - by reducing the other fat pockets so that they will not be as big of a magnet. And yes, losing too much will take it off the breasts also and that is to be avoided. Doing topicals while losing weight (slowly) is one way to keep ahead of the curve.
Have you ever noticed that those who have a lot of fat in the butt or tummy tend to enlarge the butt and tummy the most, and first? One of the main complaints I have seen over the years is that women were trying to grow their breasts but ended up growing their tummy or butt instead - or their arms, or their thighs. Not their tummy and their breasts, but the tummy instead of their breasts. Some women get an increase in inches in the bust measurement but do not fill the cups any better. Adding width measurements showed that this was an increase in back fat. Women who are highly athletic with extremely low body fat, or are overly thin have a very hard time growing breasts, but women who are not extreme but have a good workout grow the best. What explains all of this? Why can't the breasts just be targeted and nothing else grow instead?
Basically, the theory is mathematical. Breasts are enlarged/grown one cell at a time. This is done by docking something that "binds weakly" to estrogen receptors on those cells. Those cells are located on the stomach, back, thighs, butt and breasts. The bigger the fat padding, the more cells there are, the more of the phytoestrogen that they attract. And, there is an order when it comes to fat accumulation and loss. The idea is to keep the body as healthy as possible as a survival mechanism. The body keeps fat off organs, then off muscle in that order. Storage is on muscle, then on organs in that order. Considering the breasts and stomach, for example, fat goes on the stomach first (muscle) and comes off it last. The breasts are the opposite. Fat goes on them last and comes off them first (unless breastfeeding) because they are organs. Note also that when breastfeeding has ended, the fat has been removed (used up) from the breasts, but the stomach fat may remain.
The reason for getting rid of the other estrogenic fat is to remove the competition for the phytoestrogens as an attempt to target the breasts by eliminating (or reducing) all other competition for the phytoestrogen molecules. If the competition is not removed, the larger fatty areas will win. They will attract more of the herbs because of the organ order in which fat is accumulated and removed, and because those areas, being bigger, have more cells than the breasts available to bind with (and therefore remove from circulation). But yes, if you remove too much too fast, then the breasts will have less fat to compete with the other organs. It is really a way to target the breasts for growing - by reducing the other fat pockets so that they will not be as big of a magnet. And yes, losing too much will take it off the breasts also and that is to be avoided. Doing topicals while losing weight (slowly) is one way to keep ahead of the curve.