(13-10-2024, 13:08)blueseltzer Wrote: I did not know this was available when I purchased the Evebra, but I would have still went with Evebra had I seen it. I find the marketing of the bosom beauty to be very misleading. They talk a lot about instant growth when you need long term expansion over weeks to be effective for most people long term.
Their device is also not teardrop shaped and the rings look not comfortable compared to the Evebra silicone bases which are really wide and stretchy. I had a noogleberry before I got the Evebra and there was no way I could wear that for weeks at 12 hours a day. The bosom beauty looks like a noogleberry with maybe slightly better rings and an electric pump.
For me it was this or breast surgery, so the cost of the Evebra and a Prospera pump were very worth it. I know not everyone can afford these though, so maybe the Bosom Beauty may work for them if they can wear it long term. I’m afraid with the Bosom Beauty’s marketing though that a lot of people may buy it and try it for a while and not actually get long term growth.
Before buying the Evebra I genuinely thought it was better in every way than any other ready-made pumping system or DIY system in existence. Now that I own one, and have had time to live with it, I no longer feel that way. I still feel that it’s unique, carefully designed, and impossible to perfectly replicate using parts and devices taken from elsewhere, (other than maybe Stwics and Brava parts, but one of those systems is a direct knock off the Evebra and the other is its predecessor, so they almost don’t “count”). That uniqueness doesn’t necessarily make it better for all people in all situations, and I’ll explain why I’ve come to that conclusion.
Where the Evebra shines is in its ability to maintain suction during movement. The skirt style of rim padding, and the special bra are what makes this possible. You do not necessarily need a smart pump (aka a wound vac style pump) to accomplish this. A cycling pump (aka a nursing style pump) arguably creates and maintains a vacuum much more easily than a wound vac used at low pressure, but without rim skirts, a cycling pump is still not enough to maintain suction very well while the user is moving around. In my experience though, a cycling pump does a much better job at maintaining suction while sitting upright at a desk, for example, than a manual pump with or without airlocks.
The other major advantage of the Evebra is that its creators put a lot of effort and money into figuring out exactly how their system should be used for best results. Figuring out how best to use any other system is a bit of a crapshoot, unless you just find a way to directly imitate the pumping pressure and pumping schedule recommended by Evebra. On the other hand, I think it’s a mistake to assume that their specific combination of pressure and pumping schedule is necessarily the only way to pump for growth, or even the most efficient way. It’s true that their method is the only pumping method that has any sort of actual direct scientific support. On the other hand, a lot of the negative pressure wound therapy studies that were used as the basis for their original system could be said to indirectly apply to any other pumping system as well, but that’s a stretch, and that kind of indirect evidence is nowhere near as valuable as scientific studies of the actual system in use. Evebra’s scientific support does not inherently make their system or method the best imho, but I do agree that scientific support for a system is extremely important and desirable. The Noogleberry, a completely different type of pumping system, has a pretty well established track record of producing growth, even though there’s absolutely no direct scientific support for their system. It’s very difficult to condense down all the huge amount of personal experiences in Noogleberry’s forum (which they very recently shutdown) into a standard method and a typical result, but I can try. I’d say that, assuming the user was not below the minimum healthy body fat percentage range, and was not actively losing weight, that about 2 hours per day of pumping, at a moderate pressure (roughly 50mmhg), tended to produce about 2 cups per year of growth for most people that stuck to it fir that long. People who pumped for more than 2 hours per day did seem to get a faster rate of growth, but it’s very hard to say how much faster it actually was. This is a massive over simplification, and neither I or anyone else can even come close to “proving” that what I just said is correct, but that’s the best summary I can manage at this moment.
The final advantage of the Evebra system is the easiest one to explain. The extremely low pressure means that it’s probably impossible to cause the permanent nerve and artery damage that’s possible (but nowhere near common) with other higher pressure systems. Whether that means the Evebra is overall safer than more traditional kinds of pumping systems is very much debatable, because based solely on my own experience reading user’s logs over the years, nearly all Evebra users seem to experience pressure sores at some point, whereas extremely few Noogleberry users reported what appeared to be permanent nerve and/or artery damage. Pressure sores are basically unheard of with the Noogleberry system. I’ve personally never seen that issue reported by any noogleberry user, although it’s not impossible that I missed it. Even the very small number of people on the noogleberry forum that slept with the system did not report pressure sores, but they were probably only wearing the system for 6-8 hours a day, about half as long as Evebra is supposed to be worn. I understand that difference in prevalence of pressure sores is mostly due to the different way that the systems are typically used. On the other hand, obviously, permanent nerve damage is permanent, while pressure sores will eventually heal (although there’s a small possibility of permanent scarring). How you choose to weigh these risks is entirely a personal choice, and I don’t think it can be firmly stated which system is truly safer overall. A lot of people will have a strong and justifiable opinion about which type of system is safer, but it’s necessarily somewhat subjective.
In my next comment, I’ll explain the ways in which I think the Evebra actually performs worse than “traditional” systems, but this has turned into a goddamn novel and I need to do other things. Hopefully people are actually reading this and finding it useful. I’ll post the rest of my two cent’s worth later tonight if I get the chance.
