It is a very interesting post so I have read it again. The post within its self is very misleadiing to the layman because the word "gyno" being visible in the context SUPERCEDES clearvoyance.. LOL
IN SHORT, I had to zoom in on the word "Pseudo". Hence:
The prefix pseudo- (from Greek ?????? "lying, false") is used to mark something as false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something it is not.
So basically the activle is discerning between guys with FAT Titties and guys with Real Gyno. Hence the liposuction being effect as a reduction technique for "Pseudo-gyno". In short, true pseudogyno could be alleviated by weight loss alone. Gyno can not...
So my first interpretation of the article kinda mislead me into thinking "glandular" may have referred to "duct like". It was a brief incorrect assumption on my part that was never publicizd and remained in my head.
I am doing no more wiki-ing today so I am
going to take a guess that "glandular" in normal womens breasts refers to all tissue that can generate, sustain, retain, or expell milk or lactate. Thats my guess for now without further differentialtion between the DUCTs and the Resevoirs so to speak. We will have to further examine NORMAL breast development in WOMEN to see what propensities exist in normal nature with regard to breasts. But there is no question that womens breast sizes increase with additional body fat or general size increases with women for that matter. So a good question to a physician would be, when a woman puts on ADIPOSE TISSUE, or FAT, does it BLEND in with the normal breast glands, or simply sit ATOP...? My suspicion, and having fondled so many of them, is that increases in adipose tissue tend to blend in to the normal glandular breast development in women. If that is correct then it only further complicates what is the true definition of "Breast tissue", can could it be indeed roughly defined as "boobs" or "whatever is growing ona womans sternum", LOL - but seriously..
So to the poster who produced the pics of the man who had lyposuction (I think I read, or am I generating my own horse shit?), I believe the question you asked was did we think that was GYNO or FAT on his cheszt?? Just looking at the pics, I would have on first glance said thats just a big boy who had become so overweight that he now even has fat on his chest. Then you look closer and see the way around the nipple the tissue has a slightly different appearance and wonder. But I am going to assume this is a normal hazzard of this much MASS toward to pinnacle of a FOLD of body tissue and assume fat only. STILL - You dont see Body fat peaking to a point like that on a belly roll!! This all brings us back to the nature of breast area tissue and how it should normally grow.
We also have to give consideration to the NORMAL GENETIC DESIGN of a given individual and where he or she is intended to HOLD weight. Further, is there a predisposition to which type (adipose, breast, muscle, etc...). I have always been one to quickly assume that the kids with high fat levels on the chest/pec area tissue were the ones with a blessing to grow a massive chest in the gym if they wanted simply due to their inclination to hold weight there. But I wonder now...
So to be sure this thread has not "left the building" and hijacked its-self. The point is that gyno may have several social definitions. The real and distinct definition of gyno is the development of "Glandular" breast related tissue. Glandular I speculate being milk/lactate retaining, generating, expelling(duct). So "Fat Cheszt" is NOT Gyno. And the further point one point of the thread being to further investigate what society is doing by unleasing mass hormone dosing in males and thus the NATURAL UNNOTICED curve of breast tissue development in men being artificially bolstered - mole hills potentially becomming mountains given the seeming exponential rate of growth now begun or accerlerated much earlier SOCIALY than in days past. What will be the price?
What is the real implication of develping gyno as a steroid user - and to ANY degree....? Clearly tissue has a life of its own via its own tissue receptor composition. Clearly even gyno that APPEARS minor is having a considerable impact on males, even if only recognized as the dreaded "BB". And to clarify I am referring to a small nodule in the aereola - which I interpret as duct development. I found it amazing that after developing this "BB", I can not longer take wellbutrin
due to the drugs Dopamine/Prolactin relations - which is COMPLETELY IGNORED by the medical community. I have been reading lately about the effects of the dopamine agonizing drugs Bromo, Caber, etc. And how the can produce dramatic changes in the abiltiy to have an erection, or even cause SPONTANEOUS orgasms. And this is because of the clearly poorly documented relation between Dopamine and Prolactin. Prolactin is a facet of Breast tissue. So now you really have to ask yourself, to what degree due I have gyno going on and even on just an unnoticeable cellular level, what kind of prolactin is this GENERATING at the RECEPTORS. How is this impacting dopamine? And just HOW LITTLE does it take in terms of breast development to render a mans LIBIDO damaged, to cause poor erections, to cause premature orgasm thus leading to "impotence". How little Breast tissue development does it take?
You can take counts in serum ALL DAY LONG. The proof is going to be IN THE PUDDING - or whats actually physically present...!
interesting post above
on a related note, is this gyno or pseudo gyno?
what do you think guys?
http://www.cosmetic-md.com/gynecomastia/pseudogynecomastia/patient-250/
this patient is definitely significantly overweight, so I wonder, if without resorting to surgery (EDIT: it seems it was only liposuction in this case), would his gyno go away or get reduced to an acceptable standard if the man would simply eat better, exercize and lose 70 lbs or so?
(not sure re american laws abut linking to copywrighted material, it's just an example patient of Dr Mordcai Blau, I found these pictures searching on google for "pseudogynecomastia")
)
