Hockey players' body weight

[Cape]

Well. There is somewhere the foto of Martin Stlouis legs. That”s the answer. Muscle weighs.

 

[Machinehead]

Sorry to hear you were ill, but I would state setting realistic fitness goals for healthy weight loss is a lot different than, "I got sick and lost a lot of weight that way." Apologies if I misinterpreted what you meant here.

I experienced severe muscle atrophy due to a prolonged illness and stay in hospital, and I entered the hospital at a healthy weight and lost 35% of my weight at its lowest point and at no point did I feel or look healthy or would be considered to be in good health.

Nobody with cancer says "I always wanted to be thin like this." Just as everyone's bodies are different, there are healthy or unhealthy weight loss methods.

It was more psychological. Too depressed and anxious to bother with eating.

Point is, I've gotten a chance to see myself at a wide array of weights (almost a 100-pound window) I hated absolutely everything about my body and physical performance at a weight that most people insist is a healthy weight for my height. And that's unrelated to any physical illness. I was weak and looked like a skeleton. My ribs started showing at 180.

Some people are just big. As I've mentioned, I'm a bit out of shape now, but I was 222 when I was in the best shape of my life. That's right before I had my difficulties. I was 23 and lean as hell. I wanna go back in time.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

6'2" and 170lb is a BMI of 21.8. 200+ would be in the overweight category, which is fine if you're an NHL player and it's your job to add muscle, but not if you spend more time posting on here than in the rink or the weight room.

BMI doesn't account for muscle mass vs fat, among other problems. Hardly a reliable indicator of anything other than the formula needing a number at the end.

 

[End on a Hinote]

I looked up a ton of players height and weight in the last few years and it does seems a little odd that almost every player is no smaller that 6 feet and lighter than 190 pounds. I have a feeling they are exaggerated, but can never understand why.

 

[MoneyManny]

6'2" and 170lb is a BMI of 21.8. 200+ would be in the overweight category, which is fine if you're an NHL player and it's your job to add muscle, but not if you spend more time posting on here than in the rink or the weight room.

These numbers mean absolutely nothing in a vacuum.

 

[JetsFan815]

If Mitch Marner is 180 pounds then the Pope isn't catholic. No way that man is milligram over 155 lbs and that's probably pushing it.

 

[Masked]

This means that you’re probably fat. And maybe take a trip outside of the United States for once.

I might be fat but at 200 pounds I'm not. And I've spent maybe three days in the United States in the past decade so a trip outside it isn't really necessary.

 

[trellaine201]

The listed weights of players are exaggerated remember i would minus 5 lbs at least.

 

[Hennessy]

WTF is up with all these off-season threads?

 

[Acallabeth]

A 6'2" man should be 200+ pounds. To weigh 165-170 would be emaciated.

Here is a 6'2, 168 lbs NBA player. He's not emaciated, he's just slim.

And yeah, most non-athletes who weigh 200+ pounds at 6'2 height could benefit from cutting some weight. The standard of 'people can't say that I'm obese from across the street' isn't really high lol.

 

[Avs2022]

In my my very early 20's, I had a started growing a big belly, skinny arms, huge quads from hockey, tennis, other sports (that I hadn't played in over 3 years). Bad posture, etc. I'm 5'8. Was 186 pounds. Joined a gym, started working out like crazy, eating healthy. Booze only on Saturday nights.

3 years later, I was pretty muscular (like toned, not bulgung muscles). Had a 4 pack, big arms that were rock solid, quads that were solid, big chest etc.

At my physical peak, I was obviously still 5'8, and weighed....185 pounds.

 

[rsteen]

These numbers mean absolutely nothing in a vacuum.

Which is why I mentioned the context of whether the 200+ lb person is a professional athlete or not

 

[Masked]

Here is a 6'2, 168 lbs NBA player. He's not emaciated, he's just slim.

And yeah, most non-athletes who weigh 200+ pounds at 6'2 height could benefit from cutting some weight. The standard of 'people can't say that I'm obese from across the street' isn't really high lol.

He's pretty much just skin and bones with a frame that's far thinner and narrower than your average man.

 

[topseed]

Legs are such a big muscle group and they really do weigh a lot. I have wide hips and tend to hold mass really well especially in my quads, trunk. I'm 6ft and come in at 185~sh. I'm athletic, i run and lift daily. When you look at me in clothes, you probably wont even say i lift, but take clothes out of the equation or look at a good angle and there will be signs. Big bone bodytype and/or bone density also adds to it. My bonestructure is like a girls, my palm for example is so small i can hardly fit my D in my hand.

 

[Acallabeth]

He's pretty much just skin and bones with a frame that's far thinner and narrower than your average man.

You're not wrong, the point is there are men who are muscular enough to be pro basketball players and still slim enough to not even weigh 170 lbs.

In fact, I looked up 6'2 NBA players and they are almost all (18/23) below 200 lbs. And none of the countries with average male height over 6 feet is anywhere close to the average weight of 200 lbs (and this is with today's pandemic obesity). I think your image of an average man is overweight.

 

[lokomotiv15]

I have always seen more skewing of height than I have of weight for guys in junior, semi-pro and of the guys I know that play in the nhl. My EP and team sites have given me (and dont think EP has changed) 6'3, 225 since junior, I think. I'm probably 6'2.5" on my best days, but the 225 was accurate then, now I am/play at around 240, hasn't been updated by new teams or anything and most people are surprised I weigh that much.

I'm in the middle in the below pic, and the guy on the left (my right) also plays and is listed at 5'11", 195 and the guy on the right is around 160 at maybe 5'10 or so, he plays recreationally. I don't think in any world anyone would assume I weigh 80 lbs more than the guy on my right, but the answer to that is ass and legs. We got lots of em and they weigh more than any other muscle group. If anything, I've seen more teams list lower weight than actual on guys than over-shooting.

 

[Romang67]

Lots of weight in the legs and core. Not a lot of weight in chest and arms, which is probably where you're looking when you're trying to figure out if a person is "strong."

 

[Masked]

You're not wrong, the point is there are men who are muscular enough to be pro basketball players and still slim enough to not even weigh 170 lbs.

In fact, I looked up 6'2 NBA players and they are almost all (18/23) below 200 lbs. And none of the countries with average male height over 6 feet is anywhere close to the average weight of 200 lbs (and this is with today's pandemic obesity). I think your image of an average man is overweight.

Why the hell would you think that NBA players are representative of the population? They're genetic freaks like, but in different ways than, NFL players. I'm not going to look up stats from NFL players to back my argument because that would be silly.

 

[LeafGrief]

They absolutely lie about their heights and weights. These guys are big and strong, tons of muscles in their legs and absolutely insane core strength with fairly low body fats. But there is absolutely no way that so many of them are in the ~200lb range. They'd need to be carrying crazy amounts of upper body muscle and look like Rod Brind'Amour with their shirts off to have those kinds of numbers. You've got a few for sure, plenty of these guys are just big, big men, but there's plenty of averagely built dudes and they're not 5'11 210 out there.

The easiest way to spot the lies is when you see the players put on 10-15lbs in an offseason. Those numbers, if true, are steroid numbers. Even if the guy is 20, an athlete who's been training for 10 years (and these guys all have been) isn't going to put on 10lbs of muscle in an offseason, no matter how serious he takes it or how much of a bulking diet (GOMAD lol) he's on.

The numbers are all inflated, and none of them really matter.

 

[Voodoo Child]

I think the outliers and guys on the smaller side are more likely to get an inch or 10 lbs pumped onto their measurements.

I work out and I'm 6'4 195 and toned, but with my metabolism unless I eat at least 2500 calories per I drop weight faster than a drug addict, but a big Christmas dinner can bump me to 200. I've been everywhere from 160 to 215, but I'm not really going for that, lots of men in the west are 6'1 250 heart attacks waiting to happen but it's okay they have a gut because they've got big arms, big shoulders and a big chest.

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

As someone who used to lift big time when he was younger, I have a good idea about real weights and e-stats.

My theory about why hockey players weights seem to be e-stats is two reasons. One, their height is usually exaggerated. Example, a guy like Erik Brannstrom being listed at 5'10". The other is that having a strong upper body is a detriment in hockey if it comes at the expense of building a core and lower body. It's the opposite mentality of your average guy who goes to the gym for cosmetic reasons. Your average lifter bro who is 5'10" 190-200 at close to single digit body fat is going to look massive compared to a hockey player with the same stats because with the hockey player that 200 lbs is mostly lower body and core, where as with the gym bro it's all back, shoulders, biceps.

The other thing is that players get pretty lean during the season due to the amount of energy they burn off. Someone who is lean generally doesn't look big. Where as, someone who lifts hard in that 15-20 percent BF range will look massive in street clothes.

Players absolutely do e-stat, but it's all relative. The above is why most players don't look big in person.

 

[Masked]

The easiest way to spot the lies is when you see the players put on 10-15lbs in an offseason. Those numbers, if true, are steroid numbers. Even if the guy is 20, an athlete who's been training for 10 years (and these guys all have been) isn't going to put on 10lbs of muscle in an offseason, no matter how serious he takes it or how much of a bulking diet (GOMAD lol) he's on.

You can absolutely add 10 pounds of muscle in an offseason without steroids. Lots of athletes train doing silly stuff in those 10 years instead of a novice progression of strength training.

 

[SEALBound]

You can absolutely add 10 pounds of muscle in an offseason without steroids. Lots of athletes train doing silly stuff in those 10 years instead of a novice progression of strength training.

Yeah but not every athlete will want to do that. 10lb of raw muscle can easily affect speed, balance, acceleration, etc if not done properly.

Strength on the ice is a lot more than muscle size and weight. There's a correlation for sure but there's also an "optimal balance" for each player.

It's why I shake my head at guys who look at a 18yo who is 6'3 190lbs and say "he needs to add a raw 30lbs over the summer!"

 

[Toby91ca]

It's all about build. Most athletes obviously have more muscle than your average person. As a washed up hockey player turned gym rat, I'm 5'10 215ish, and there's dudes of similar height yet 30lbs lighter who look fatter than I am.

In the case of hockey players specifically, our legs are massive from a lifetime of training. It makes sense that to be much heavier than your average person.

Totally agree here. I'm 5'11" and a good weight for me is like 185 or so. That said, I've been 190 and felt my pants were fitting my waist better than when I was 175...its a difference is muscle mass....not a hugely noticeable though. Someone mentioned ideal weight as well based on internet, etc. If you take my height, etc. and plug into a formula it will spit out a number. I can tell you this....I can't remember ever weighing that number, not even at 16 years old....though I can't remember what I weighed then. Point is, if I weighed that my wife would wan to take me to the hospital as she's be worried I was dying.

Long story short, I don't think the weights are exaggerated at all (perhaps with one-offs, though not sure about that anymore). I'll give an example....a guy who runs hockey clinics locally played in the Olympics, etc., so I was able to look up a profile on him. He's early 50s and he was listed at 5'10". I remember being taller than him as he walked past me with his skates on.....so that puts him probably 5'7" at best. So, there's a couple things there.....back in the 80s, you are basically going nowhere unless you were 5'10" at least....so maybe that's where it came from, or I guess it's possible he shrunk down a bit over the years, but no way it's that much.

 

[teravaineSAROS]

Are players weighed consistently?