calories burned walking 18 holes

[DavidFehertysBike]

Do you drink beer while you golf? Maybe a pint or two after the round? Maybe a cheeseburger or onion fries at the turn, or after the round? I bet that type of stuff is what's offsetting your caloric expenditure.

Sometimes ill have a pint or two after the round, but its not a everytime thing. Ill eat fried food once in a blue moon. Im a seafood and veggies kind of dude..

[Easy]

Sacm3bill speaks the truth. Walking 10km vs running 10km burns exactly the same amount of calories.

Although the person who ran 10km will be better off in the long term. Faster metabolism, lean body mass, etc.

[sacm3bill]

An interesting article about this topic was linked in the latest "Hitting the Links": Calories burned playing golf

I think the calories burned in this study might be a little inflated due to the six extra pounds of gear the subjects were wearing, but the numbers are in line with the higher values that I and others have been citing.

[jamo]

I think the calories burned in this study might be a little inflated due to the six extra pounds of gear the subjects were wearing...

Originally I thought the same thing, but if you look at the difference between with a bag (721) and with a caddy (621) (which is essentially the same as walking while carrying but without the bag), you get a different of only 100 calories. And that's the whole added weight of your bag, which can be 30-40-50 lbs. 6 added lbs isn't likely to do much.

Also, I would guess that for 18 holes you burn more than double that. You are more tired the second nine.

[StricklandPropane]

An interesting article about this topic was linked in the latest "Hitting the Links":

Funny I read it the other way, that the article disproved what a lot people were saying. Not sure where you were in this thread, but most people had it at over 1000 calories. Some even said 1400 walking, 1000 riding. The study said 721 walking and 421 riding. Both of those figures would be the lowest quoted in this thread by far save for Andy_Mac who had it right (if this article is right).

[Paradox]

Funny I read it the other way, that the article disproved what a lot people were saying. Not sure where you were in this thread, but most people had it at over 1000 calories. Some even said 1400 walking, 1000 riding. The study said 721 walking and 421 riding. Both of those figures would be the lowest quoted in this thread by far save for Andy_Mac who had it right (if this article is right).

You might want to read the article again because those are figures for 9 holes ;) Double 721 for a walker and what do you get? Double 411 and see what you get?

[sacm3bill]

Originally I thought the same thing, but if you look at the difference between with a bag (721) and with a caddy (621) (which is essentially the same as walking while carrying but without the bag), you get a different of only 100 calories. And that's the whole added weight of your bag, which can be 30-40-50 lbs. 6 added lbs isn't likely to do much.

Well, to be honest that makes me wonder how accurate this study really is. As hard as it is for some to believe that walking 18 holes burns over 1000 calories (I'm absolutely positive it does, based on both empirical and theoretical evidence), I find it even harder to believe that carrying a 30 lb bag for 5 hours only adds 100 calories to the total.

Funny I read it the other way, that the article disproved what a lot people were saying. Not sure where you were in this thread, but most people had it at over 1000 calories. Some even said 1400 walking, 1000 riding. The study said 721 walking and 421 riding. Both of those figures would be the lowest quoted in this thread by far save for Andy_Mac who had it right (if this article is right).

You may have missed (easily enough to do) that the article's numbers were for 9 holes.

[StricklandPropane]

Well, to be honest that makes me wonder how accurate this study really is. As hard as it is for some to believe that walking 18 holes burns over 1000 calories (I'm absolutely positive it does, based on both empirical and theoretical evidence), I find it even harder to believe that carrying a 30 lb bag for 5 hours only adds 100 calories to the total.

Hahhaahaha. Nice job by me. Yes I definitely missed that. Estimates confirmed then.

[2bGood]

I am sure I burn an extra 300 calories stressing over bets. (;

Not really a calorie thing, but I was a mini triathlon guy for a while and "trained" 5 times per week. I ended up taking a year off with my only cardio golf. To my surprise when I went for a run one day I had barely lost any time. I walk fast and carry my clubs, but I never really thought it was doing much in the way of fitness.

Also the golf swing itself is pretty athletic when done right. I know I find a good a range session a decent workout and I am in pretty average shape.

[iacas]

I can believe the bag bit. In the purest sense, the only "work" you do in carrying the bag is lifting it onto your shoulder. Walking horizontally doesn't really add much. Going up a hill would add work as well, I suppose, and the little bit that you lift it off your shoulder to set it down adds work.

But it's important, the "walking horizontally" part. There's little to no work done there.

I'd have guessed more than 100 calories, but not much.

[Paradox]

I can believe the bag bit. In the purest sense, the only "work" you do in carrying the bag is lifting it onto your shoulder. Walking horizontally doesn't really add much. Going up a hill would add work as well, I suppose, and the little bit that you lift it off your shoulder to set it down adds work.

I think that the only added benefit to carrying a bag vs. using a push cart would be the strength aspect of core muscles. I also think the number isn't much difference because when you add 30lbs of weight to someones back, they'll walk a little slower and negate a lot of the "gain" due to pace. Someone using a push cart would probably outwalk someone with a bag in normal circumstances just due to body fatigue.

As for me, carrying a bag kills my back(old sports injuries) and just makes the game of golf miserable.

[ThereIsNoBall]

Your mileage may vary (literally) but here are some empirical numbers for comparison. I played 3 rounds over the last the week or so on 3 different courses, walking, carrying clubs, and wearing a Garmin Forerunner GPS watch & heart rate monitor that converts measurements into calories burned.

I carry 14 clubs in a Ogio Grom bag. A large bottle of water or Gatorade I refill at every opportunity, 8-10 balls, laser range finder, a wind breaker, and a smattering of tees, markers, gloves, band aids, etc etc. I drive a desk for work and am in pretty lousy shape at 195lbs.

1. North Park Golf Course: 4:03 round time. 6,440 yard listing. 6.6 miles walked. 546 ft of elevation gain. 1,453 Calories Burned.

2. Moon Golf Club: 4:03 round time. 5,404 yard listing. 6.1 miles walked. 555 ft of elevation gain. 1,217 Calories Burned.

3. Ponderosa Golf Course: 4:18 round time. 6,283 yard listing. 7 miles walked. 512 ft of elevation gain. 1,362 Calories Burned.

So the short answer is "it depends" but for me, 1,200-1,400 looks like a fair estimate. I have a couple 9 hole rounds that also fall in that range.

Sorry, but I don't have comparison for riding a cart.

-TiNB

-----------------
Edit to add weather information:

All 3 rounds in low 90's, high 80's weather, about 75% humidity.

[DavidFehertysBike]

When you carry your bag, the vertical load goes into your back, hips, and knees. It can be a drain on your body and game over several miles - you walk at least 3 miles over 18 holes. Over 36 holes definite muscle fatigue will set in, and you will start to slouch over to compensate, which can be bad. But for a person in moderate shape over 18 holes, 40 pds or so is not that big of a deal.

[saevel25]

Walking is about 7 calories per minute, hiking is about 9.5 calories per minute. So your probably looking at 8 calories per minute. .
Standing around is about 2 calories per minute

So if you play a round of golf by yourself, no one infront of you, your just walk hit walk hit. Your looking at probably 95% of the time carrying clubs. Like i did saturday, it was great, i did a 3 hour round, ;b. That would be about 1400 Calories burned, now if you have to stand around, just add that in. But that 1400 is just the walking part, which is the major part of it.

[noisemaker]

Seems there should be a temperature factor in here somewhere. Here in the midwest where we're experiencing 95-100 degree afternoons, I would guess we burn more than 1,000 calories walking 18 holes. And what about a hilly course that requires lots of uphill climbs?

I would also imagine an overweight golfer would burn more calories than a fit one. But then a typical wide-body would most likely ride anyway. Needs a cupholder for the beer!

[Shanks A Million]

Carrying more weight significantly affects your output. When you carry a bag, you burn more with every step. You have to move your own weight, and the weight of the bag with every step. Your hamstrings, quads and calfs need to do more work for you to carry a bag, even on flat ground. According to the expert (my mother, an RD), a heavier person burns more walking the same distance. A heavier person also needs more calories just to maintain their weight. The common rule among dietitians is to consider 25% of all weight above ideal metabolically active.

Weight is a huge factor in all aspects of physics. In cars, to have the same acceleration, for example, all other things being equal, you need to quadruple the amount of power for every doubling of the weight. So, a 1,000 lb car with 100 hp is equal to a 2,000 lb car with 400 hp, which is equal to a 4,000 lb car with 1,600 hp.

Add: Temperature also affects the amount of energy expended. It takes more energy to keep the body cool in hot weather.

[sacm3bill]

In the purest sense, the only "work" you do in carrying the bag is lifting it onto your shoulder... the "walking horizontally" part. There's little to no work done there.

I know you're the physicist, but you're neglecting the fact that you're "working" against gravity (i.e. there is an accelerative force) even when standing still. Carrying more weight increases that work expenditure.

Carrying more weight significantly affects your output.

Yes, this. (And everything else Shanks says, but the above is the gist.)

[iacas]

I know you're the physicist, but you're neglecting the fact that you're "working" against gravity (i.e. there is an accelerative force) even when standing still. Carrying more weight increases that work expenditure.

I know that. It doesn't require a lot of muscular effort though. The vast majority of the forces that counter-act gravity is handled by your bones. We're not boneless blobs that use our muscles to

entirely support our weight (or whatever we're carrying). Houses remains standing without muscles. Their bones - the wood - supports the weight. Just like in our bodies.