/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3694764
My reasons for wondering about this were when you're bulking or cutting in body building it get successively harder to put on more fat as you gain more fat and successively harder to lose fat as you get a lower % body fat. So I am wondering if I cut to like 10% body fat or less, then change my hormones, if I will gain more bodyfat in my breasts than if I just went straight to hormones. I imagine, at the very least, my new bodyfat distribution will be more feminine than someone who did not cut first; I just want to know if from this, significant breast growth will follow.

One thing I forgot to mention, when losing fat, you tend to lose it where you last gained it. So by cutting then taking estrogen, I hypothesize that I will gain more immediate fat in my breasts. This then suggests that if I overbulk, gain too much fat, I can take off fat without it immediately coming off of my breasts to the same order it would if I had taking estrogen/anti-androgen without cutting first.

I really don't what kind of specialist would be qualified to put these hypothesis in perspective. Anyone have a clue?

>practicing MCAT
>only two physical science questions missed because of reading inter- as intra- and putting a molecular formula instead of a empirical formula.

'Gotcha!'s feel so cheap on science tests, especially when they're on the nomenclature level and not the actual understanding level. My BS is in Computer Engineering. Do you pure science guys have to deal with this a lot in your major? Is it from professor to professor? Or is it just this god damned standardized test?

pic unrelated.