Controling Estrogen After Gyno Surgery?

Pharma
1

So my question to you guys is say one gets gyno surgery and has the entire gland removed, thus resulting in a sort of immunity from future gyno, how should one approach using AAS? Would there even be a need to control estrogen outside of water retention and mood?

Wouldn’t more estrogen be more anabolic? Would PCT really need to be as intense, as it’s mostly to conrol estrogen while normalizing natural T production anyway (us guys on HRT wouldn’t even need to worry about that).

So… is too much E bad if you don’t have to worry about gyno?

2

Forgot to add that this may have long-term health benefits, allowing higher E levels on-cycle. Thoughts?

3

Also, any thoughts on prolactin/progesterone?

4

[quote]Schwarzenegger wrote:
So my question to you guys is say one gets gyno surgery and has the entire gland removed, thus resulting in a sort of immunity from future gyno, how should one approach using AAS? Would there even be a need to control estrogen outside of water retention and mood?

Wouldn’t more estrogen be more anabolic? Would PCT really need to be as intense, as it’s mostly to conrol estrogen while normalizing natural T production anyway (us guys on HRT wouldn’t even need to worry about that).

So… is too much E bad if you don’t have to worry about gyno?[/quote]

Your assumptions sound good to me, other than elevated E would probably cause some emotional/mood issues that would be pretty unwanted (think PMSing woman).

I don’t have the science background to say much more than this.

One thing I could bring up that is diagonally related to the subject at hand, though, is that I’ve heard that removal of the entire gland results in a caving in of the nipple, and looks just as unnatural as gyno. I guess if you are already spending thousands of dollars anyway they might be able to put a tiny little silicone inplant in there, give you a little boob job.

5

As far as the inversion, I believe this has more to do with remaining fat. Provided you are lean enough (probably 8% or less) you shouldn’t have enough fat to cause a caving effect. Once you are this lean, and you remove the gland, any fat gain would be proportional and should result in a flat, natural-looking nipple. However, there is a method of folding in a flap of fat behind the nipple to avoid this problem, but I’d just to with the get-really-lean-first approach.

Anyone think this would work?

6

[quote]Schwarzenegger wrote:
As far as the inversion, I believe this has more to do with remaining fat. Provided you are lean enough (probably 8% or less) you shouldn’t have enough fat to cause a caving effect. Once you are this lean, and you remove the gland, any fat gain would be proportional and should result in a flat, natural-looking nipple. However, there is a method of folding in a flap of fat behind the nipple to avoid this problem, but I’d just to with the get-really-lean-first approach.

Anyone think this would work?[/quote]

Hey schwartz,
Im getting my glands removed late spring. Ive had 2 consultaions with my surgeon and he explained to me that the indent will only occuor on men with 9-10% + in bodyfat, from there all you gotta make sure of is that you have chosen a surgeon that is very experienced with the knife. I have another one coming up sometime next week, need me to ask him anything?

7

I know a guy who had gyno surgery in his late teens because of naturally occuring bitch tits.

Does it mean he can never have gyno again?

Then yeah you’d need to control E for mood swings, water retention and other such sides but it probably isn’t a must anymore.

8

[quote]sota123 wrote:

Hey schwartz,
Im getting my glands removed late spring. Ive had 2 consultaions with my surgeon and he explained to me that the indent will only occuor on men with 9-10% + in bodyfat, from there all you gotta make sure of is that you have chosen a surgeon that is very experienced with the knife. I have another one coming up sometime next week, need me to ask him anything?

[/quote]
Perhaps ask if the entire gland can actually be removed. I’ve heard that it’s impossible to remove the entire gland.

9

^I’ve heard the same. I’ve also heard that if they leave any behind then you can still get gyno.

I’ve often thought about this, but something that bothers me is that gyno is one of our few “warning signs” of high E. If we take away that signal - we have no obvious way of telling what’s going on besides bloodwork, which is pretty expensive (over here anyway).

Having said that, does high E necessarily = gyno? Do “gyno-prone” people have more sensitive receptors, or do they merely convert more T to E than their “non-prone” counterparts?

10

This interests me a lot because i have been considering the surgery for a while but plan on continuing to cycle in the future so i have been holding off.

From the liturature I read from a few surgeons continued alcohol, pot, steroid use (the known causes) will lead to reappearance of gyno but they may not have been removing the entire gland!

11

If the surgeon leaves a sensate nipple and areola, breast tissue remains.

The “total gland” is not removed.
(Surgery for male gynecomastia generally is not even a subcutaneous mastectomy.)

Sorry, fellas.

12

Wow, all this talk and nobody has brought up the issue of prostate enlargement that would consequently be greatly elevated (risk-wise) should such person become overconfident with a lack of gyno side-effects.

Not to mention drastic mood changes that are inevitably consequential to heightened estrogen levels.

Frankly, gyno is one of my lesser concerns while on cycle.

13

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
If the surgeon leaves a sensate nipple and areola, breast tissue remains.

The “total gland” is not removed.
(Surgery for male gynecomastia generally is not even a subcutaneous mastectomy.)

Sorry, fellas.[/quote]

If I understand what you’re saying…

  1. If the nipple is still sensitive, there is still breast tissue.
  2. A subcutaneous mastectomy would result in total tissue removal, but this procedure is typically not done?

Well, a subcutaneous mastectomy is a method of removing breast tissue through an incision around the areola. This is opposed to other methods which either remove the areola, cut away excess skin (after removing breast tissue), and grafting the areola on to the remaining skin, and the method of completely removing everything and ending up with no areola (or breast tissue, of course).

I really don’t have any experience with this outside of reading a couple medical resources, but from my understanding there is breast tissue that is connected to the areola that cannon be removed without destroying the areola, which is one reason why many breast cancer patients undergoing subcutaneous mastectomy have recurring tumor growth post-surgery. This would lead me to believe that, provided you left the nipple in tact after gynecomastia surgery (which you obviously would), that there would be some bit of breast tissue left that could potentially experience future growth in response to estrogen. However, the amount left would be so small that this possibility would be extremely reduced, though not impossible.

The way I think about it (I don’t actually know how it works, though am willing to learn if anyone knows) is say you’ve got 10cc of breast tissue. That breast tissue will have a certain amount of estrogen receptors. Say you shrink it down to 2cc using Nolvadex or Arimidex, that 2cc still has the same amount of estrogen receptors, and thus allows for an easy return to “normal” size, and potentially expanded growth, in the presence of estrogen levels. If you were to actually remove the tissue and leave only .5-1cc post-surgery then you would actually reduce the number of estrogen receptors and subsequent growth potential, though with enough estrogen it would still be possible to experience continued breast tissue growth.

The reason I speculate it would work this way is that this is how adipose tissue works. If you lose weight, adipose tissue shrinks, but does not actually go away. Obviously this is a very simplistic example, but it is true for the huge majority of the population within normal fat loss scenario. If you gain weight the adipose tissue will expand until a certain size, at which point it will multiply. This is the reason obese individuals (not from birth) experience a lot of negative metabolic disorders, as adipose tissue releases certain hormones that regulate metabolism, hunger, etc.

Genetically predisposed obese individuals from birth vs. those who acquire it over time have a different makeup of adipose tissue and have different sensitivity to various hormones by by and from their adipose tissue. This makes me think that by actually eliminating the large majority of the breast tissue in those who have it (we’ll say those who are genetically predisposed to being more estrogen sensitive, at least I presume because I’ve had my gyno since puberty), the dynamics of growth and sensitivity to estrogen/etc. by the remaining breast tissue would mimic that of an individual not as sensitive to estrogen. While the potential for growth is still there, we may be able to cycle at 1000mg/wk with only very moderate AI/SERM supplementation, and perhaps none at 500mg/wk, as opposed to needing something even at 100-200mg/wk (which is at least how I am).

I think I got off track from my original idea, but at least I got out some good discussion. What do you guys think?

14

[quote]Contrl wrote:
Wow, all this talk and nobody has brought up the issue of prostate enlargement that would consequently be greatly elevated (risk-wise) should such person become overconfident with a lack of gyno side-effects.

Not to mention drastic mood changes that are inevitably consequential to heightened estrogen levels.

Frankly, gyno is one of my lesser concerns while on cycle.[/quote]

I completely forgot about prostate health and E. But then again, depending on where you get your info, high androgen levels have been shown to impact prostate health as well. Some say it’s E, some say it’s T, some say it’s the ratio between the two, some even say it’s too little of one or the other. I’d imagine that unnatural levels of either T or E would have an impact on prostate health, which is why I would never perpetually cycle, and would likely still take an AI or SERM.

Mood is individual, and I find that high E levels don’t bother me as much as taking a SERM does, though AIs don’t bother me. It’s still individual, but I think having a slight bit of excess E during cycle would benefit cardiovascular and bone health much more than it would negatively impact prostate health. You can live with an enlarged prostate, and even take meds to control/shrink it, but you can’t live without a good heart.

15 
        Great thread here Schwarz.

As you know, I’m in that same range for sides from test. With this last shorty, when I was under 300/week from test, there were no sides, or just very slightly firm nips, as soon as I cranked it up to over this, the pain started up again. Happy to say it’s diminishing rapidly after initiating a nolva round in conjunction with the AI.

    I guess thought it's somewhat irritating, the sides I've gotten haven't made anything noticeable or funny looking as of yet. And it seems to be manageable as people say. I wouldn't want to make things worse though, so that's why I am pretty careful about what will and should be taken in the future.

          Sorry to get off track, great reading here, and very interesting.

                  ToneBone
16

[quote]Schwarzenegger wrote:
Mood is individual, and I find that high E levels don’t bother me as much as taking a SERM does, though AIs don’t bother me.
[/quote]
It amazes me how people’s side-effects can vary so much. I react the complete opposite way (SERMs give me no ill effects).

17

[quote]Schwarzenegger wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
If the surgeon leaves a sensate nipple and areola, breast tissue remains.

The “total gland” is not removed.
(Surgery for male gynecomastia generally is not even a subcutaneous mastectomy.)

Sorry, fellas.

If I understand what you’re saying…

  1. If the nipple is still sensitive, there is still breast tissue.
  2. A subcutaneous mastectomy would result in total tissue removal, but this procedure is typically not done?

Well, a subcutaneous mastectomy is a method of removing breast tissue through an incision around the areola. This is opposed to other methods which either remove the areola, cut away excess skin (after removing breast tissue), and grafting the areola on to the remaining skin, and the method of completely removing everything and ending up with no areola (or breast tissue, of course).

I really don’t have any experience with this outside of reading a couple medical resources, but from my understanding there is breast tissue that is connected to the areola that cannon be removed without destroying the areola, which is one reason why many breast cancer patients undergoing subcutaneous mastectomy have recurring tumor growth post-surgery. This would lead me to believe that, provided you left the nipple in tact after gynecomastia surgery (which you obviously would), that there would be some bit of breast tissue left that could potentially experience future growth in response to estrogen. However, the amount left would be so small that this possibility would be extremely reduced, though not impossible.

The way I think about it (I don’t actually know how it works, though am willing to learn if anyone knows) is say you’ve got 10cc of breast tissue. That breast tissue will have a certain amount of estrogen receptors. Say you shrink it down to 2cc using Nolvadex or Arimidex, that 2cc still has the same amount of estrogen receptors, and thus allows for an easy return to “normal” size, and potentially expanded growth, in the presence of estrogen levels. If you were to actually remove the tissue and leave only .5-1cc post-surgery then you would actually reduce the number of estrogen receptors and subsequent growth potential, though with enough estrogen it would still be possible to experience continued breast tissue growth.

The reason I speculate it would work this way is that this is how adipose tissue works. If you lose weight, adipose tissue shrinks, but does not actually go away. Obviously this is a very simplistic example, but it is true for the huge majority of the population within normal fat loss scenario. If you gain weight the adipose tissue will expand until a certain size, at which point it will multiply. This is the reason obese individuals (not from birth) experience a lot of negative metabolic disorders, as adipose tissue releases certain hormones that regulate metabolism, hunger, etc.

Genetically predisposed obese individuals from birth vs. those who acquire it over time have a different makeup of adipose tissue and have different sensitivity to various hormones by by and from their adipose tissue. This makes me think that by actually eliminating the large majority of the breast tissue in those who have it (we’ll say those who are genetically predisposed to being more estrogen sensitive, at least I presume because I’ve had my gyno since puberty), the dynamics of growth and sensitivity to estrogen/etc. by the remaining breast tissue would mimic that of an individual not as sensitive to estrogen. While the potential for growth is still there, we may be able to cycle at 1000mg/wk with only very moderate AI/SERM supplementation, and perhaps none at 500mg/wk, as opposed to needing something even at 100-200mg/wk (which is at least how I am).

I think I got off track from my original idea, but at least I got out some good discussion. What do you guys think?[/quote]

Good post. I have nothing to add other than that intuitively this makes sense to me.

18

[quote]Contrl wrote:
Schwarzenegger wrote:
Mood is individual, and I find that high E levels don’t bother me as much as taking a SERM does, though AIs don’t bother me.

It amazes me how people’s side-effects can vary so much. I react the complete opposite way (SERMs give me no ill effects).
[/quote]

I apparently get no ill effects from SERMs, either. I felt great while on Nolva.

19

[quote]Schwarzenegger wrote:
So my question to you guys is say one gets gyno surgery and has the entire gland removed, thus resulting in a sort of immunity from future gyno, how should one approach using AAS? Would there even be a need to control estrogen outside of water retention and mood?

Wouldn’t more estrogen be more anabolic? Would PCT really need to be as intense, as it’s mostly to conrol estrogen while normalizing natural T production anyway (us guys on HRT wouldn’t even need to worry about that).

So… is too much E bad if you don’t have to worry about gyno?[/quote]

I have some prepubetal gyno and on my last trip to the surgeon he said that once the gland is removed there is 0 chance of ever getting anything growing there…comprende? :wink:

However recent research is suggesting that the relationship test:estrogen is more important in detecting prostate problems than what PSA tests indicated.

So if you go the scalpel route IMO you could still benefit from “some” AI, but not necesarily with the degree that someone prone to gyno would need.

OTOH if you plan on competing, an AI will be needed.