SSBHM VS BHM, SSBBW VS BBW

[Wishuwerebigger]

Anyone here know the approximate difference? Like is there a line? I’m handsome as shit and fat as hell, but am I a BHM or a SSBHM? Is it based on size? Like height considered? Like BMI? Had a mental debate within my own head and only got more confused lol. Like if I was 5’2 and my current weight of xxx vs my actual height of 5’10, does that change anything? And sexist though this question may be, is it different for different genders? Should it be? If I include a picture to illustrate my size, will that help?

[Doe_Nylie CLIPS]

I've seen the debate a lot, and I think though there are similar factors to consider for both, a lot of them are subjective. You could give a general weight range, but I don't think it's the only way to measure "Super Sized" vs "Plus Sized", especially because height absolutely plays a factor, especially in how weight can be distributed, and in that case a lot of it comes down to proportions. 

For me, I consider height and weight fairly equally, but also where that weight is distributed, as well as what is affected in daily life and how. 250lb doesn't seem like much to me, especially as someone considered technically 'tall' as a woman, but 250lbs on someone under 5'5" can be absolutely massive. I don't think gender plays much into it, personally. Unless you're considering whether or not the belly or pooch is engulfing any sex organs, but I feel that has more to do with how someone gains/carries their weight. You could have someone who is far more "top heavy" but still be considered "Super Sized". I knew a gal who was tall, very leggy, and all of her weight was belly and up- if you only saw the top half of a photo, you wouldn't hesitate to say she was and SSBBW or very close to it.  Her husband was short, and very stout, and though I don't think he was all that much heavier than I was on a scale, because he was short and wide, that made a big difference. 

Some other things to consider: Are they more wide than they are long? Are the "smallest" parts of their body still bigger than any other "average" person? Do they still easily get in and out of a fixed booth at a restaurant? Can they get in a normal vehicle without trouble? Are we only shopping at specialty stores or online because things just absolutely do not come in their size otherwise? I think you should also consider how they look in comparison to their environment. I always feel that I don't look nearly as big by myself, but then seeing me next to my significantly smaller partner I change that tune really quick. 

[Wishuwerebigger]

@Doe_Nylie see this is where I went down the rabbit hole with it. My wife and I are just big people. The number of people that are absolutely shocked that I’m 350 pounds is very high. I think part of it is that it’s a number that is just unfathomable to some people, where as I had to lose your average adult female’s body weight to get there. Like for example, without giving away specifics because their weigh ins make them money, but my wife and Casey are roughly similar weights, but my wife is nearly a foot taller than her. Is Casey bordering on SSBBW, while my wife is barely a BBW, especially by standards here? Juicy Jackie is like twice her weight, clearly a Ssbbw and maybe even a usbbw, more pronounced because she’s a tiny bit shorter than average. There’s people on here guzzling weight shakes to be what I weighed in 8th grade. Wanna know what started this all? Someone’s definition of SSBHM online (I know 🙄) was 500 pounds. 500! Also, I’m mad as hell because at my biggest, I was close but still not in according to that guy 😆 I’d be so mad if I missed it by about 15 pounds. That’s 2, maybe 3 good months for me at that time in my life

[Doe_Nylie CLIPS]

Considering I also weighed about 200-250 through high school (and could still easily walk into any random plus-size section in a generic store and pick out at least a few things that would fit), for me, personally, I think that's firmly BBW/BHM territory. I don't think someone starts approaching SSBBW/SSBHM until you're over 300, depending on height. I'd say 500 is definitely USBBW/USBHM, because when you start factoring in things like health, mobility, and generally how your daily life is going to be, and that the world isn't built with that size in mind, and even without factoring in height, 500lbs is literally a quarter ton of human being. You're talking Andre The Giant sized person there. When you start getting into that weight range, I think proportions and height matter less when trying to 'label' or categorize. 

I've found pretty much everyone has a different definition, though. About 5 years ago when I first thought about getting involved with doing FA modeling, I spoke with a gal who said that I couldn't even get started until I was over 300 because anything below that was still considered fairly 'average'. I think part of that is, at least in America, the common size/weight you're seeing more and more is that 200+ range, so as that becomes 'the norm', what does it take to be "plus"? That could be a whole other conversation on it's own, too. 

[bluetech]

This same topic always seems to pop up every couple of years. In the past I have offered these categorizations.

By BMI: The whole point of BMI is to normalize weight over different heights. Two people with the same approximate build but different heights will have the same BMI. BMI doesn't account for muscle vs fat, and fat itself isn't the best indicator of health, which is why BMI has a bad reputation due to doctors using it as a proxy for health. But most people are not athletes or body builders, so the difference in muscle mass and its effect on BMI is negligible for average people. So BMI is a pretty good way to quantify fatness. As far as categories, I like the breakdown of 30+ is BBW/BHM, 60+ is SSBBW/SSBHM, 90+ is USSBBW/USSBHM.

By clothing ranges as suggested by Doe_Nylie above: This is a lot more subjective, but reflects the reality of life as a (SS)BBW. If you can find clothes in generic clothing stores but have to go to the plus size section: BBW. If you have to buy your clothes online because even Torrid and Lane Bryant don't actually have your size in store: SSBBW. If it's hard to find stuff that fits even in online shops, USSBBW. This breakdown doesn't work as well for men, though, because as much as clothes shopping sucks for fat women, it sucks even more for fat men. Most department stores that have a plus size section for women have only a couple of shelves of Big and Tall clothes for men if they even have B&T section. I had to switch to online shopping for clothes many pounds ago, and I wouldn't consider myself quite SSBHM yet. (5'9", 350 lbs)

 

[Wishuwerebigger]

@bluetech you and I are currently roughly the same size, I shop on kingSize. Some of it sucks hard, some of it is decent. Also, Ralph Lauren does have pretty decent 5x and 4x stuff if you can find it in one of the plus size stores. I don’t know if I can agree with the idea that it’s harder for us though. My wife due to her height and weight is certainly an outlier, and has trouble shopping EVERYWHERE. Also, their sizing is wildly inconsistent, ie a 16 is not always a 16, and may be somewhere else’s 12 and another place, it may be a 20. Where as me? 50 is 50. 

[Doe_Nylie CLIPS]

35 minutes ago, bluetech said:

The whole point of BMI is to normalize weight over different heights.

I honestly completely forgot about BMI because it's something that's always been largely under scrutiny from those I've spoken with. I think it also doesn't take into consideration what the actual average is in any given area. I was under the impression BMI made it's calculations based on what should be the pinnacle of "fitness" or "health" for someone within a given height and age range. But that, again, brings it back to the question of "If average/normal size is getting bigger, how much bigger do you need to be in order to move into "plus" ranges?".

[bluetech]

@Wishuwerebigger By harder, I mean in store. I shop on kingSize as well. The in store experience may be inconsistent for women, but is nonexistent for men. In this post-covid world where we do much of our general shopping online anyway, it has become less of a problem than it seemed several years ago.

[bluetech]

2 minutes ago, Doe_Nylie said:

I was under the impression BMI made it's calculations based on what should be the pinnacle of "fitness" or "health" for someone within a given height and age range.

The calculation of BMI itself is just a number based on your height and weight. It is the categorization of different BMI ranges by doctors based on an assumed correlation to health that is problematic. For example, I have a BMI of about 52. This is just a number, just like my weight of around 350 is just a number. But the value of BMI is that somebody shorter than me or taller than me who also had a BMI of 52 would have a similar level of fatness (with the caveat of them not being a body builder with significantly higher than average musculature). That doctors would place my BMI of 52 into the "morbidly obese" bucket is beside the point.

[BlubberyGut]

It's really all subjective, but there does seem to be some common variables 

I'll speak about BBW cause I'm not totally sure on BHM statistics. But typically BBW starts once you get chubby enough to be considered pretty thicc (in a not toned way), and too big to look slim in practically any angle. Starter BBW numbers tend to look like 5'5 and 170ish lbs or 5'10 and 230ish lbs 

SSBBW's tend to be more up to debate. In my opinion it starts when you're pretty huge, basically past the point of no return. Big enough to be the size of multiple people put together, and big enough for anyone to label as fat. I'd say starter numbers tend to look like 5'5 320lbs or 5'10 400lbs. Though some could say that's not big enough to really be an SSBBW. 

USSBBW's are rare so there's not as much data. I'd just you're an USSBBW if your body is insanely huge, to the point where it starts looking more abstract in appearance. If you can walk just fine then you're probably not in this category. Hard to say anyone under 600lbs is unless you're very short. 

Other variables include how you hold your weight. If you're getting big but you're muscular then you probably aren't even a BBW. Top heavy women tend to be labeled as SSBBW's even if their legs are thin (and they weigh like 270lbs despite looking much bigger). So to sum it up BBW is noticeably bigger than the average person, SSBBW is huge territory, and USSBBW is when you're just a gigantic blob. I don't know how different in size a BBW and BMH would be if they were both say 5'9 and 320lbs, but they're probably both SSBBW's at that point