Psuedo Gyno and Body Fat %

[optimumacidx]

Does anyone have a guess at what body fat % psuedo gyno disappears?

[a-man]

I believe I have "psuedo gyne" (ie no gland, just fat), and was down to 155lb at 6' with 12% body fat, and it was still very much there...

People told me I looked anorexic, and horribly skinny for my frame.

Despite what people think, sometimes surgery is also the only real option for pseudo-gyne too, if your gyne doesn't go away at a realistically maintainable body fat percentage.

[HEG]

I share a similiar experience to anonymous-man. I dropped to an abnormally low (for myself) 200lbs at about 10% bf or less and my chest still looked like junk. My abs were sharp and everything else looked great, but alas my chest stayed mainly the same.

I also consider myself to have "pseudo gyne" in that I do not feel any sort of gland when my chest is relaxed or flexed.

Dropping 30lbs or so in hopes of my gyne just being "fat" was a bitter sweet experience. I got a lot of negative comments about people saying I got skinny or stopped working out (which was hardly the case...in fact I trained just as hard), but at the same time it gave me some closure on the issue and now I know that for me surgery is the only option.

[esr]

I have dropped 45 pounds since last Christmas. Went from 210 lbs at about 30% fat to my current 165 lbs at about 10% fat. I am 5' 7". My gyne has decreased during that time but not nearly enough to look normal. My consult is 3 weeks away and I'm trying to get to 5-7% bf by then and see how I look for the consult.

[STILLgotIT]

I have dropped 45 pounds since last Christmas. Went from 210 lbs at about 30% fat to my current 165 lbs at about 10% fat. I am 5' 7". My gyne has decreased during that time but not nearly enough to look normal. My consult is 3 weeks away and I'm trying to get to 5-7% bf by then and see how I look for the consult.

Bad idea. If you get surgery with 5-7% bf and then, after surgery, put some weight back on (because 5-7% isn't realistic over the long haul) then you run the HUGE risk of putting fat back on the chest.

Go into surgery at a normal bf level unless you want problems later on.

[hypo]

Just to concur with STILLgotIT whose information is spot on.

Not only that but if you diet so much that you become malnurished, glandular gynecomastia can actually develop via a process explained in many gynecomastia papers, through a process termed refeeding.

[tonysoprano]

Bad idea. If you get surgery with 5-7% bf and then, after surgery, put some weight back on (because 5-7% isn't realistic over the long haul) then you run the HUGE risk of putting fat back on the chest.

Go into surgery at a normal bf level unless you want problems later on.

tHIs is what I did - afraid to say..

I try to get myself as skinny as possible by  my surgery date (3.5 months ago), so that my surgeon would think I was naturally ultra skinny and would remove as much fat as possible from the chest, since any slight excess of fat on someone that slim and skinny (I dieted and exercised like a motherfukkr every day for the 2 months leading up to my op, and was 5'8ft ,140 pounds on the day) would be overtly noticeable and out of place.

well this was not the case...

what infact happened was that my ps did a fat pinch test, deduced that I had a crazily low bf% , and assumed that removing any more than a slight amount of fat off the chest  would result in a concavity (since someone that skinny couldnt possibly have all that much chest fat to work with anyway).
a lot of the weight loss (from my whole body and chest area too) would most likely have been water loss anyway.

I wasnt happy with the level of flatness achieved, even immediately post-op (the first time I removed the vest at about 4 days post), and to add to that , I have even put on about 7-10 punds since the op, to be at what is a more normal and 'comfortable' weight and shape.

anyway.. Im pretty certain I'll be needing a revision for scar tissue in about 6 months anyway, so Im just gonna come straight out and tell my ps that I think I need a fair bit more lipo (since he originally said he didnt do very much - 20cc per side - anyway, since there "wasnt too much fat there").

In hindsight, I half killed myself to be extra thin for surgery to gain maximum flatness, but this plan proved to backfire big-time.
at 3.5 months post op, and still as conscious and concerned about my chest as ever (with fukkd up nipples and scars to boot), I realise how incorrect this distorted way of thinking was.

[optimumacidx]

Sigh, there has to be a way around this.  I don't want surgery.  

[Paa_Paw]

It must be kept in mind that some men are simply more prone than others to put on fat in the breast area.

Likewise, while some reduction in size of the breasts will occur in the course of weight loss,  it is highly unlikely for a person to lose it all.

Famine is one of the many causes of gynecomastia, Thus excessive weight loss could backfire and produce increased breast growth.A person should get fit and have their weight in the proper range because it is good for their health overall.  But, getting fit in the hope that it will cause gynecomastia to go away is not realistic.

[optimumacidx]

How could weight loss spur breast increase?

[hypo]

A way around what optimumacidx?

Quote
How could weight loss spur breast increase?
Unquote

What is being said here is that dieting to the point of malnutrition or to an extreme low body fat percentage/weight can in some instances lead to development of gynecomastia (Glandular via refeeding or pseudo via natural weight gain in the chest area).

That you do not wish to excessively diet before a surgical procedure (should you be having one) so that your body fat/weight is at an unsustainable level.

Now come on think  

I take it you are not planning excessive weight loss or malnutrition?

If my assumption is correct;

Where are your concerns

[optimumacidx]

Well, actually, I plan to get to extremely low bf% and use drugs to fix my chest.
I was considering Yohimbine + Caffiene + Tyrosine and maybe Arginine as a combination to get rid of the fat there.  Of course I would bike ride to burn those fatty acids released.

[jc71]

What is being said here is that dieting to the point of malnutrition or to an extreme low body fat percentage/weight can in some instances lead to development of gynecomastia (Glandular via refeeding or pseudo via natural weight gain in the chest area).

That you do not wish to excessively diet before a surgical procedure (should you be having one) so that your body fat/weight is at an unsustainable level.

If anyone knows of the extreme training and dieting competitive bodybuilders endure, particularly during the last few weeks before a contest, and how their bodies look a few short weeks later, then you'd know what hypo's talking about.

Many years ago, I had this friend who was competing as a 19 year old.  The day of the show he was in great shape but because his body was so depleted of, well, everything, he put on literally 15 pounds in 3 days.  Those of you who are around that type of athlete know that this is not uncommon, it's the norm.

I know you can argue that it wasn't all fat he put on. I know that. I'm simply saying that getting lower than your ideal body weight is not a good thing.  When you gain the weight back, it could settle in your chest.

[hypo]

There is simply no point whatsoever being at a low/unnatural and unsustainable body weight.

optimumacidx you have bee informed of the possible ramifications of dieting to such extremes, what you do with that information and how you live your life is your prerogative;

Just don't say you haven't been informed!

With regard to the substances you are talking about, none of them have been used in clinical studies to my knowledge and if that is the case none of them are proven to do anything at all to reduce glandular mass.

The reason I say this is because you don't actually know what percentage of glandular mass you have in your chest, your don't truly know what the composition of gland to fat is.

This is something that the PS Dr Bermant even states when he is performing an operation.  He stated that he didn't truly know what was gland and what was fat until he had it in his hands!

And of course no amount of weight loss in the world will reduce glandular mass.

Furthermore regarding those substances, I am not aware of any those or in fact any substances that can cause localized fat loss.  

As far as I know there is nothing on the planet that can do that.  

If there was it would be worth billions, would be rushed through clinical trials faster than you can say velocity and would be on every single supermarket shelf in the western world- in short it would be the greatest selling consumer product of all time!!!!!

Now given that is the potential market, would you believe someone would turn that down to quietly market such products to limited markets

That is like me offering to tell you how I became a billionaire if you pay me just 1$    

The point being if I had the billions I wouldn't need the.......you get the point :-/

P.S

There are drugs that do have proven results (only on glandular mass) despite what a load of self medicating people say which may or may not help you.  If you are interested in them see an endocrinologist.  If you are not and want to get rid of the problem consider surgery....
Alternatively live with it.


P.S

Or of course continue on your present trajectory

Or

should that be spelt- tragedy.

[optimumacidx]

I have been told what I have is not a gland, it is simply fat.
The drugs I spoke of increase subcutaneous fat burning, not localized.
I will try to maintain 8-10% BF.