PDA

View Full Version : At what weight do you consider someone to be 'big' ?



Tom Mutaffis
01-07-2011, 08:38 AM
Since this site is WannaBeBig I figured that it would be relevant to obtain everyone's opinion on what they consider 'big'.

Obviously there are quite a few factors here such as height, body composition, and weight distribution.

Here is my definition:

5'8 or Shorter - 185+ lbs
5'8 to 6'0 - 205+ lbs
Over 6'0 - 220+ lbs

For all of these weights I would say that the body composition should be 15% or lower in order to meet the 'requirements'. If body composition is around 20% then I would say to add another 10-15 lbs to each of the figures. If body composition is 10% or lower (visible abs) then I would say to subtract 5-10 lbs from the figures above.

What does everyone else think? Or what type of goals do you have?

Cmanuel
01-07-2011, 09:03 AM
I'm around 5 8, and want to be a natural 225-230 with minimal body fat. Thats kind of my long term goal.

I've always thought 200 was the cut off for being big. Now that I'm into strongman, I would say 260-270 is now the cutoff for being big :)

Off Road
01-07-2011, 09:07 AM
I think the taller you are, the more advantage you'll have in the "big" catagory. Tall, skinny guys get called "big" all the time. People all the time turn to me asnd say, "did you see how "big" that guy is, and I'll outweigh him by 40 lbs.

But all that aside, I consider a guy at 5'-10", 12ish % BF, and 200 lbs to be "big." You can adjust up or down for height from there.

Myself, at 5'-11", ~20% BF, and 240 lbs get called "big" all the time. But I've seen guys 80 lbs lighter than me be called big too just because they have [relatively] large arm muscles...go figure :)

IronDiggy
01-07-2011, 09:09 AM
Weight is pretty deceiving. at 5'10" I was 210 and looked pretty damn skinny. I got that comment from a lot of people as well. Now at 250 I still don't feel very big, but a lot of it is fat. I would say I agree with Tom's numbers given the person is lean. Add about 50lbs for anyone who isn't very lean.

Daniel Roberts
01-07-2011, 09:10 AM
I'd go with that ballpark.

Tom Mutaffis
01-07-2011, 09:16 AM
Now that I'm into strongman, I would say 260-270 is now the cutoff for being big :)

True, in certain sports there are different standards.

I would say that for a competitive bodybuilder to be "big" they may only have to be around 200 lbs, but for a competitive strongman to be "big" then you are looking at closer to 300 lbs.

My post was intended for general public / general gym-goers - a way to define if someone who is walking down the street would consider someone to be "big".

Raleighwood
01-07-2011, 09:23 AM
I am 5'7'' 180, and while I am substantially bigger than the non-fat average joe, I don't really consider myself big.

I think when I hit 190 with ~12% BF I will be big and ripped :)

Aqualoo
01-07-2011, 09:33 AM
Over the past few weeks I've had several people in the gym and around work approach me and tell me I'm getting big. At 6' 0" and 185lbs probably 8-10% BF I do not feel big at all. But being in the Army most people are generally very lean from the amount of cardio done during PT. If I was at the same body fat percentage and maybe another 10-15lbs heavier I'm not sure if I'd still consider my self "big" but would be very comfortable with my size. Currently gaining about 1lb per week and still dropping in BF.

Behemoth
01-07-2011, 09:55 AM
Since this site is WannaBeBig I figured that it would be relevant to obtain everyone's opinion on what they consider 'big'.

Obviously there are quite a few factors here such as height, body composition, and weight distribution.

Here is my definition:

5'8 or Shorter - 185+ lbs
5'8 to 6'0 - 205+ lbs
Over 6'0 - 220+ lbs

For all of these weights I would say that the body composition should be 15% or lower in order to meet the 'requirements'. If body composition is around 20% then I would say to add another 10-15 lbs to each of the figures. If body composition is 10% or lower (visible abs) then I would say to subtract 5-10 lbs from the figures above.

What does everyone else think? Or what type of goals do you have?

I like yours I'll go with them.

It's almost baffling how much different two people with the same stats can look though. Height, weight, and bodyfat all considered.

mchicia1
01-07-2011, 09:58 AM
I am 6'5" and mid 230's and I don't consider myself big. Big difference between a 6'1" guy and a 6'5"+ guy in terms of what weight they need to be to be considered big. I think you should add another category for 6'4"+ :). I would say somewhere in the 245-255 range is big for a person that height.

ffkjj
01-07-2011, 10:21 AM
Anyone around 200 10-15% BF I consider big. I have a friend who is 180 and I call him a "pretty big dude" lol

Anything over 250 I call huge.

Now upper body can play a huge roll in this. I have seen guys who I though where huge (looked like they weighed 250) only to have bird legs.

I have seen guys I think are average go out bench 350 lbs and pick up the back of a car:omg: (just a example)

StLRPh
01-07-2011, 10:40 AM
I am 6'5" and mid 230's and I don't consider myself big. Big difference between a 6'1" guy and a 6'5"+ guy in terms of what weight they need to be to be considered big. I think you should add another category for 6'4"+ :). I would say somewhere in the 245-255 range is big for a person that height.

6' 4" - should be 240+

I'm 220lb and think with another 20lb there wouldn't be many people that would think I wasn't big :)

Kiff
01-07-2011, 10:43 AM
6' 4" - should be 240+

I'm 220lb and think with another 20lb there wouldn't be many people that would think I wasn't big :)

Doesnt matter how big you are, you cant look big in velcro shoes :indian::outnumber:

StLRPh
01-07-2011, 10:58 AM
Doesnt matter how big you are, you cant look big in velcro shoes :indian::outnumber:

Oh no you didn't. I know you didn't just talk **** about my velcro shoes :ninja:

mchicia1
01-07-2011, 11:09 AM
6' 4" - should be 240+

I'm 220lb and think with another 20lb there wouldn't be many people that would think I wasn't big :)

6'4" 240 is like a linebackers size and they all look big. Thats a good number to shoot for.

Raleighwood
01-07-2011, 11:15 AM
I just started working with 6'6" 400lb client. I consider him big.

He's surprisingly mobile. Teaching him how to barbell squat is tough though, since doing a body-weight or air squat is moving around 350lb pounds!

Off Road
01-07-2011, 01:37 PM
Doesnt matter how big you are, you cant look big in velcro shoes :indian::outnumber:


Oh no you didn't. I know you didn't just talk **** about my velcro shoes :ninja:

I think I just peed myself from laughing so hard :evillaugh:

StLRPh
01-07-2011, 02:02 PM
6'4" 240 is like a linebackers size and they all look big. Thats a good number to shoot for.

Thanks funny you say that. I was out with some friends of my wife's and I told them I was thinking about moving up to about 240 and that's exactly what the husband said.

StLRPh
01-07-2011, 02:03 PM
I think I just peed myself from laughing so hard :evillaugh:

We aim to please.



BTW, I'm over 6'5" in my velcro shoes...just saying

Dan Fanelli
01-07-2011, 02:27 PM
5'10 - 6'2 220lbs would be the STARTING point of being big. 240-260 would be more like it.

But guys that are like 6'6 and 300+ lbs, those guys are BIG

4g64fiero
01-07-2011, 02:35 PM
^^^I agree with Dan. There are some guys that look big at 5'10-6'2 that are 220 but there are some that dont. At 240, you will look big no matter what sub 15% body fat.

soclydeza
01-07-2011, 05:09 PM
Here is my definition:

5'8 or Shorter - 185+ lbs
5'8 to 6'0 - 205+ lbs
Over 6'0 - 220+ lbs


according to my drivers license, i am big by this definition (sweeeeeeeeet). unfortunately, they wont change the height on my license from when i was 17. im more like 5'9-10 now, which knocks me into the 5'8 to 6'0 range, so i'd need 10lbs more (im 195lbs now).

to me, i think ill be happy when im 200-205lbs lean

chris mason
01-07-2011, 08:46 PM
It depends on lot on one's frame as well.

MrQuoteable
01-07-2011, 10:59 PM
Looks like I've got a way to go. I'm 5'10 and 170 lbs. I feel like I'm entering the beginning stages of "getting big"

pricedtosell
01-09-2011, 04:51 AM
If you have to say that someone is "big for their height" or "big for their frame" then they're not big. I definetely wouldn't consider anyone even remotely big unless they're over 200 lbs. That's where the low end of the spectrum for "big" begins, IMO. The vast majority of people who think they are big are far from it.

200-225 lbs - smallest big guys
225-275 lbs - legitimately big
275-300 lbs - biggest of the big guys
300+ lbs - big isn't a fitting description anymore, these guys should be called huge

I used to train submission wrestling under a former pro bodybuilder who still did a ton of heavy lifting, but he was 5'5". I trained/rolled with him a ton of times when he weighed 220 lbs. He had a big frame and was as massive as he possibly could have been before his size would start to hinder more than it helped, but I never thought of him as a real big guy. He was JUST big enough to be able to grapple with the 300+ lb guys that trained there and submit them.

GazzyG
01-09-2011, 06:00 AM
I'm only 5.6'' and 165lbs but with nice broad shoulders and thick midsection so I have a nice stocky build.

Once I reach my target of 185lbs (only another 20lbs to go >< ) then I think I'll have a good look. I still won't be BIG (how can anyone look big at 5'6''?) but I hope that people will definitely see that I'm solid.

Tom Mutaffis
01-09-2011, 06:16 AM
5'10 - 6'2 220lbs would be the STARTING point of being big. 240-260 would be more like it.

But guys that are like 6'6 and 300+ lbs, those guys are BIG


If you have to say that someone is "big for their height" or "big for their frame" then they're not big. I definetely wouldn't consider anyone even remotely big unless they're over 200 lbs. That's where the low end of the spectrum for "big" begins, IMO. The vast majority of people who think they are big are far from it.

200-225 lbs - smallest big guys
225-275 lbs - legitimately big
275-300 lbs - biggest of the big guys
300+ lbs - big isn't a fitting description anymore, these guys should be called huge

I used to train submission wrestling under a former pro bodybuilder who still did a ton of heavy lifting, but he was 5'5". I trained/rolled with him a ton of times when he weighed 220 lbs. He had a big frame and was as massive as he possibly could have been before his size would start to hinder more than it helped, but I never thought of him as a real big guy. He was JUST big enough to be able to grapple with the 300+ lb guys that trained there and submit them.

My intention for the thread was to define the view of the general public, since those are the people who you see everyday.

I agree that someone who has a significant weight training background or strength sports background may not consider anyone to be 'big' unless they are well over 200 lbs; but that would be more of an online or 'gym' standard rather than just general standard.

As Off Road mentioned I have heard people called 'big' simply because they have large arms or are tall but not muscular. The reason that I included height brackets is that if you see someone who is 5'8 200 lbs he is going to be pretty 'thick', but if someone is 6'2 200 lbs he will be quite thin (assuming that both are sub 15% body fat).

Would you still give the same numbers if you were talking about what someone might perceive if they just saw someone walking through the mall?

Kiff
01-09-2011, 08:21 AM
I'm only 5.6'' and 165lbs but with nice broad shoulders and thick midsection so I have a nice stocky build.

Once I reach my target of 185lbs (only another 20lbs to go >< ) then I think I'll have a good look. I still won't be BIG (how can anyone look big at 5'6''?) but I hope that people will definitely see that I'm solid.

Did not realise you are only little mate :evillaugh:

Interesting on this thread to see how guys of different heights view other heights.

I would say that bodyfat is a huge thing rather than just weight tho.

Off Road
01-09-2011, 08:27 AM
Funny story that relates to this thread. I read Brooks Kubik's blog and he had a story on there about John Grimek visiting a taylor to get a suit made. The taylor wrote down his dimensions as; Fat arms, fat legs, fat chest, and skinny waist. Perceptions are funny, aren't they?

Cards
01-09-2011, 09:04 AM
I like Toms original statement, that would make me big ;)

5'7 185 lbs, I'm larger than most people who do not go to the gym and hold my own in the gym. My avatar is me at 177 and I've put on another 8-10 lbs.

austin.j.taylor
01-09-2011, 10:04 AM
It depends a ton on how big your frame is. I have a large frame and at 250, i look smallish. I have seen a ton of people that have smaller frames that look huge with 20 pounds less weight.

GazzyG
01-09-2011, 10:44 AM
Did not realise you are only little mate :evillaugh:

Interesting on this thread to see how guys of different heights view other heights.

I would say that bodyfat is a huge thing rather than just weight tho.

Yeah mate, midget me, lol!

I'm bang on 12st but fairly lean with it, so I look quite solid.

And you're right, it's not just weight - went gym with two mates the other day who're both six foot and both have a stone or more on me and I'm still a bit stronger than both. It's about how much of your size is meat lol.

cphafner
01-09-2011, 11:18 AM
I agree with your list and Chris' statement about frame. Some guys just have those freaky round muscles that look big but you would be surprised by their weight.

I saw a bouncer the other night that was about 6'9 and at least 350 lbs. His bodyfat was reasonable. That is big.

pricedtosell
01-09-2011, 05:37 PM
My intention for the thread was to define the view of the general public, since those are the people who you see everyday.

I agree that someone who has a significant weight training background or strength sports background may not consider anyone to be 'big' unless they are well over 200 lbs; but that would be more of an online or 'gym' standard rather than just general standard.

As Off Road mentioned I have heard people called 'big' simply because they have large arms or are tall but not muscular. The reason that I included height brackets is that if you see someone who is 5'8 200 lbs he is going to be pretty 'thick', but if someone is 6'2 200 lbs he will be quite thin (assuming that both are sub 15% body fat).

Would you still give the same numbers if you were talking about what someone might perceive if they just saw someone walking through the mall?

Ah, I didn't know that we were looking from the view of the general public. I spend most of my time in gyms and have made most of my friends through muay thai gyms, submission wrestling gyms and powerlifting gyms so those are the people I was sort've comparing in my head and deciding where the big cut-off points were.

Average height for an adult male (in the U.S.) varies between 5'8 1/2" to 5'11" based on where you're looking.

I'll go with 5'9.2" from http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/growthcharts2/f/avg_ht_male.htm

Here's an article that has the Army's weight allowances for various heights. For a 5'9" male, you can weigh 175-169 lbs pounds before you're over their "weight threshold" and you would have your body fat measured. As long as you're below the 20% BF maximum, you're good. The maximum for a 5'9" male varies between 179 lbs and 186 lbs, based on what age bracket you fit into. I think it's reasonable to assume that the general population would think the average 'in shape' person (who hasn't done extensive lifting) won't weigh over 179-186 lbs

Now, if that's the figure for average 'in shape' people, we need the overall average weight.

The average weight for an adult male (in the U.S.) is 189.8 lbs from http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/growthcharts2/f/avg_wt_male.htm

So, if we want to decide when a person becomes 'big', we need to decide what constitutes a significant deviation from the norm. Personally, I think someone would have to deviate from the norm more than 5-6% (which would put them at 200 lbs) to be considered significantly larger than the average person. I guess it really all depends on how much bigger than average a person needs to be before you consider them big. It also becomes a little complicated because most people who could be called big are going to have a lower body fat than the average person. Still, body fat or not, weight is weight.

Honestly, looking at these numbers, I'm going to have to stand by my original figures. If they're off, they aren't off by much.

4g64fiero
01-09-2011, 05:51 PM
Well its not that simple because a guy at 190 lbs 20% bodyfat wont look as big as a guy with 175lbs 8% bodyfat all else equal.

pricedtosell
01-09-2011, 06:00 PM
...that's why you have to account for the differences in body fat by deciding what constitutes a significant change in weight, did you not read my post?

NickAus
01-09-2011, 06:05 PM
I think the general public in Australia see over 200 as fairly big, 240 is big here.

NickAus
01-09-2011, 06:07 PM
I think the taller you are, the more advantage you'll have in the "big" catagory. Tall, skinny guys get called "big" all the time. People all the time turn to me asnd say, "did you see how "big" that guy is, and I'll outweigh him by 40 lbs.

But all that aside, I consider a guy at 5'-10", 12ish % BF, and 200 lbs to be "big." You can adjust up or down for height from there.

Myself, at 5'-11", ~20% BF, and 240 lbs get called "big" all the time. But I've seen guys 80 lbs lighter than me be called big too just because they have [relatively] large arm muscles...go figure :)

This is very true!!

4g64fiero
01-09-2011, 06:13 PM
...that's why you have to account for the differences in body fat by deciding what constitutes a significant change in weight, did you not read my post?

Increase in bodyweight doesnt necessarily mean a decrease or increase in bodyfat %. It also doesnt mean you will infact look bigger in terms of what is flattering. Thats what I am getting at. I am under the understanding that the OP meant "big" as in a flattering manner which would mean your process is a bit irrelevant to the task at hand. It seems you are discussing it from the point of view that all weight gain is going to make someone look bigger, well it will in some ways, but not in the sense I feel is originally intended.

I am trying to get the across in a non-malicous manner purely for the sake of debate. Its all subjective anyways.

pricedtosell
01-09-2011, 07:44 PM
I don't think you have much of a point, I addressed it already.

Even if you did have a point (which you don't), my post would just be referring to lean body mass instead of their actual weight. If that were the case, you'd just find a person's LBM and decide what constitutes a significant change in LBM to determine whether or not someone is big.

Tom accounted for this already, too.


If body composition is around 20% then I would say to add another 10-15 lbs to each of the figures. If body composition is 10% or lower (visible abs) then I would say to subtract 5-10 lbs from the figures above.

4g64fiero
01-09-2011, 08:03 PM
I don't think you have much of a point, I addressed it already.

Even if you did have a point (which you don't), my post would just be referring to lean body mass instead of their actual weight. If that were the case, you'd just find a person's LBM and decide what constitutes a significant change in LBM to determine whether or not someone is big.

Tom accounted for this already, too.

Thats the first time you mention LBM. Just because someone mentioned a specific situation to make an example doesnt mean its understood that the rest of the topic has the same parameters. I think what you are going for is "all else being equal". In that case I agree. Your 2nd post doesnt read that way, though.

pricedtosell
01-09-2011, 08:18 PM
Gotcha. Sorry if I came off as a dick, which I'm pretty sure I did.

4g64fiero
01-09-2011, 08:33 PM
Gotcha. Sorry if I came off as a dick, which I'm pretty sure I did.

No hard feelings I was just trying to clarify something I didnt understand.:)

dynamo
01-10-2011, 10:13 AM
I'm 5'11" 270 lbs. I've lost a lot of body fat lately, although, not where I want to I would say I am about 20% bf, and when I tell people I am 270 lbs they generally take a dump right there in front of me in disbelief. Even though I am 270 lbs I don't see myself as big when I look in the mirror, but when I flex my quads I usually surprise myself and think I should go into body building from the waist down. I don't really see anyone as big either. Its rare to see a well built individual. Usually I see chodes with huge arms and pencil legs or really fat guys who must be 300+ lbs and strong for an average guy but not strong enough to merit their excessive weight. As I have gotten bigger I am really surprised with how feminine most guys look, I even mistake them for females in the distance a lot.

BoAnderson71
01-10-2011, 12:03 PM
I think big is a combination of height and weight. so someone who is 5'8 200 pounds is not big in my opinion but short and stalky. I dont think bodyfat has anything do with it either. If your 275 with a six pack or 275 with keg in my opinion your still big. I dont think you can put numbers on big, its more of a appearance. And speaking in terms of the general public (excluding pro bodybuilders, strongman, nfl guys etc.) I have never seen someone with a six pack at the gym and thought wow there big. I have seen some big guys with a relatively small or flat stomach but not a six pack.

BoAnderson71
01-10-2011, 12:05 PM
I'm 5'11" 270 lbs. I've lost a lot of body fat lately, although, not where I want to I would say I am about 20% bf, and when I tell people I am 270 lbs they generally take a dump right there in front of me in disbelief. Even though I am 270 lbs I don't see myself as big when I look in the mirror, but when I flex my quads I usually surprise myself and think I should go into body building from the waist down. I don't really see anyone as big either. Its rare to see a well built individual. Usually I see chodes with huge arms and pencil legs or really fat guys who must be 300+ lbs and strong for an average guy but not strong enough to merit their excessive weight. As I have gotten bigger I am really surprised with how feminine most guys look, I even mistake them for females in the distance a lot.

yes its sad how feminine men are starting to look.

4g64fiero
01-10-2011, 03:01 PM
It does seem as if guys are forgetting they're supposed to weigh more than their significant others and have more muscle. I am into a more classic, comic book hero style of masculinity and honor. That is just getting lost now a days.

ThomasG
01-10-2011, 03:08 PM
x234234 on frame making a difference. I'm 5'10 200lbs probably 10-12% bf and I don't think I look big. Most guys would look big at 200lbs 10-12% but my wide pelvic/hip frame is where a lot of my mass is.

Off Road
01-10-2011, 03:09 PM
Women dictate how men should look...and I'm convinced that the new generation of women are all closet lesbians. They want their men skinny, with $100 hair styles and wearing jewelry.

NickAus
01-10-2011, 03:54 PM
Yep Men or actually boys are letting females dictate how Men should look.

whatdahell?
01-10-2011, 04:05 PM
I think big is a combination of height and weight. so someone who is 5'8 200 pounds is not big in my opinion but short and stalky. I dont think bodyfat has anything do with it either. If your 275 with a six pack or 275 with keg in my opinion your still big. I dont think you can put numbers on big, its more of a appearance. And speaking in terms of the general public (excluding pro bodybuilders, strongman, nfl guys etc.) I have never seen someone with a six pack at the gym and thought wow there big. I have seen some big guys with a relatively small or flat stomach but not a six pack.


You lost me here - "If your 275 with a six pack or 275 with keg in my opinion your still big. I don't think you can put numbers on big, its more of a appearance".

The first part you implied that regardless the look, being that weight would make you consider someone as "big". But then you see it's more of an appearance based thing.

:confused:

BULK_BOY
01-10-2011, 07:14 PM
To answer Tom's original question.......I'd say 250lbs. Whether it's Fat, Fat/ Muscle, just Muscle (wish!)
I've seen quite a few guys around this weight and higher. When they are standing beside an average joe - they look BIG. :burger:

Just saying......

BoAnderson71
01-10-2011, 07:33 PM
You lost me here - "If your 275 with a six pack or 275 with keg in my opinion your still big. I don't think you can put numbers on big, its more of a appearance".

The first part you implied that regardless the look, being that weight would make you consider someone as "big". But then you see it's more of an appearance based thing.

:confused:

My point was that bodyfat should have nothing to do with considering if someone is big. I just threw 275 out there as an example. I could of used 260,265,250, 288.7 I chose 275 just cause. I never said 275 was what I consider Big it was an example.

pricedtosell
01-10-2011, 09:57 PM
Women dictate how men should look...and I'm convinced that the new generation of women are all closet lesbians. They want their men skinny, with $100 hair styles and wearing jewelry.

I don't know a single woman who likes this. All of the girls I've been with have always liked the fact that I was bigger/more muscular, lifted weights regularly and trained muay thai + submission wrestling. I know a ton of girls who have told me they get turned on by men who can fight and/or are strong and big.

Obviously, this is only up to a point because most women are all about guys having a "six pack" and all that ****, but that doesn't mean they want to date some skinny bitch.

NickAus
01-10-2011, 10:00 PM
Here in Sydney most girls like small guys who dress to the current fashion.

Most stunners are with a pretty skinny guy!

r2473
01-15-2011, 10:13 AM
..........

Off Road
01-15-2011, 10:17 AM
Some guys are built in such a way that they look really big when they have their shirts off, but dissapear when they wear clothes. I guess that's why tank tops and sleevless shirts are so popular with the lifting crowd.

r2473
01-15-2011, 10:29 AM
..........

r2473
01-15-2011, 03:09 PM
.........

Cards
01-16-2011, 09:57 AM
Here in Sydney most girls like small guys who dress to the current fashion.

Most stunners are with a pretty skinny guy!

This is the truth. Woman like fit men, they do not like "big" men. One girl I was seeing told me she thought I was fat until I took my shirt off.

NoMoreFatChix
01-16-2011, 10:52 AM
Here in Sydney most girls like small guys who dress to the current fashion.

Most stunners are with a pretty skinny guy!

I've been really skinny and tall all my life and I used to wear super skinny jeans and all that, and yeah some girls really dig that, but all in all though I get more attention now with some more meat on my bones. Not only do you feel more masculine and confident, but it's so much easier being dominant towards girls. Like you know you can just pick them up and throw them in the air. I think there's something to that that women respond to whether they want to or not. By the 'big-standard' of this thread I'm still small though, so I can't really say much about being really big. For getting top tier girls I'd go for some size, definitely.

Sidenote: Oddly, fat girls seem to really love the skinnies though. Hence my screen name.

BoAnderson71
01-16-2011, 03:13 PM
I've been really skinny and tall all my life and I used to wear super skinny jeans and all that, and yeah some girls really dig that, but all in all though I get more attention now with some more meat on my bones. Not only do you feel more masculine and confident, but it's so much easier being dominant towards girls. Like you know you can just pick them up and throw them in the air. I think there's something to that that women respond to whether they want to or not. By the 'big-standard' of this thread I'm still small though, so I can't really say much about being really big. For getting top tier girls I'd go for some size, definitely.

Sidenote: Oddly, fat girls seem to really love the skinnies though. Hence my screen name.

hahahaha