I've spent a few years on this site reading countless stories of females taking various amounts of certain herbs and spices over several months and achieving differing amounts of temporary and permanent breast growth. And after researching the old methods of initiating a pseudopregnant state with hormone injections to treat hypoplastic breasts, and after studying the progressive growth, and lack thereof, of the breasts of pregnant females, the sum of the matter seems to be that breast growth in an XX chromosome female is directly proportional to her individual sensitivity to various endogenous hormones.
We know that the estradiol and progesterone levels of pregnant females are usually at least 100 times higher than their menstruating levels, not to mention their levels of other growth factors like human growth hormone, IGF-1, hepatocyte growth factor, epithelial growth factor, etc., yet there are countless pregnant females that experience little to no breast growth. The majority of breast growth in a pregnant female is visible around the second trimester, when her estradiol levels are 5,000 to 15,000 pg/mL, and her progesterone levels vary between 50 to 280 ng/mL. These levels exceed menstruating levels exponentially, yeah there are many females that see little change in their breasts during this time. These levels also exceed anything possible with herb or spice intake, yeah we find some females that achieve great growth of their breasts by taking these foodstuffs.
The users of this forum are taking modest amounts of common plants and glands, with very few of them experiencing dramatic breast growth, and most seeing little to none. Reading the reviews of birth control at drugs.com reveals that some women increase their breast size by two cups without gaining weight elsewhere, while others see little change or find themselves gaining appreciable size in their lower body.
Why is it so common to find that females who are bottom-heavy have modest, even flaccid, breasts whose growth is resistant to reasonable levels of steroid hormones? We find both the fat and the lean to present with all measures of breast size. We see gestating females of all kinds displaying wildly various amounts of breast change during their gestation.
Is not all of this ultimately due to individual variations in steroid hormone sensitivity? For how else can two similar females take identical amounts of the same birth control medication and yet experience dramatic differences in their breasts? How else can some pregnant females have enormous increases in their steroid hormones and growth factors, yet see little breast change, while others multiply their breast size two or even three-fold?
Should we not be more focused on finding methods to modify existing chemical sensitivities, rather than only increasing these hormones or their doppelgangers?
We know that the estradiol and progesterone levels of pregnant females are usually at least 100 times higher than their menstruating levels, not to mention their levels of other growth factors like human growth hormone, IGF-1, hepatocyte growth factor, epithelial growth factor, etc., yet there are countless pregnant females that experience little to no breast growth. The majority of breast growth in a pregnant female is visible around the second trimester, when her estradiol levels are 5,000 to 15,000 pg/mL, and her progesterone levels vary between 50 to 280 ng/mL. These levels exceed menstruating levels exponentially, yeah there are many females that see little change in their breasts during this time. These levels also exceed anything possible with herb or spice intake, yeah we find some females that achieve great growth of their breasts by taking these foodstuffs.
The users of this forum are taking modest amounts of common plants and glands, with very few of them experiencing dramatic breast growth, and most seeing little to none. Reading the reviews of birth control at drugs.com reveals that some women increase their breast size by two cups without gaining weight elsewhere, while others see little change or find themselves gaining appreciable size in their lower body.
Why is it so common to find that females who are bottom-heavy have modest, even flaccid, breasts whose growth is resistant to reasonable levels of steroid hormones? We find both the fat and the lean to present with all measures of breast size. We see gestating females of all kinds displaying wildly various amounts of breast change during their gestation.
Is not all of this ultimately due to individual variations in steroid hormone sensitivity? For how else can two similar females take identical amounts of the same birth control medication and yet experience dramatic differences in their breasts? How else can some pregnant females have enormous increases in their steroid hormones and growth factors, yet see little breast change, while others multiply their breast size two or even three-fold?
Should we not be more focused on finding methods to modify existing chemical sensitivities, rather than only increasing these hormones or their doppelgangers?
