| Post Reply | RetroFed Forum Forum Index » Trans |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
πππ
quokk.au
Quokka@quokk.auJoined: 2025-06-09 |
Whats the consensus on whatβs a good time to start? I see a lot of talk on waiting, some people jumping into it from day one, etc. |
||
| 16 Original | |||
|
kybean
pawb.social
kybean@pawb.social Joined: 2024-07-27 |
My doc put it to me this way: if you start prog and e together you'll get more cone shaped boobs, if you stay on e only for a few years for your boobs to develop before adding prog you'll get rounder/fuller boobs after prog does it's work. I don't have references/papers that show this to be the case generally tho, just repeating what my doc told me before i started prog |
||
| 6 | |||
|
Tunawithshoes
lemmy.blahaj.zone
Tunawithshoes@lemmy.blahaj.zone Joined: 2023-06-17 |
From mostly hearsay that I seen and my recomandtion is when you reach tanner stage 3 and been on it at least a year. There is not enugh research for any conclusions. Some started immediately and devolope round breast. Other cone shape. Now some develop cone shape even doing tanner stage 3 and a year part so that is even less fact. Again there is not enugh research but I feel it is bad to gamble. Unless you find a certain feature from progesterone that you feel this important now. Especially with the very minuscule risk of backdoor dht with progesterone. |
||
| 3 | |||
|
MacroMoray
lemmy.blahaj.zone
quantumgenderino@lemmy.blahaj.zone Joined: 2025-05-30 |
My doc put it to me this way: if you start prog and e together you'll get more cone shaped boobs, if you stay on e only for a few years for your boobs to develop before adding prog you'll get rounder/fuller boobs after prog does it's work. I don't have references/papers that show this to be the case generally tho, just repeating what my doc told me before i started prog
That definitely sounds like they're wither talking out of their ass, or had one or two patients Talk about their boob shape, and are drawing conclusions from a sample size incomprehensibly too small to be statistically significant. |
||
| 2 | |||
| Post Reply |
Back to top |