Calories

[lefty92]

I remember reading Golf Digest and it said you burn "x" amount of calories in a round of golf (when you carry your clubs). Anyone know this number?

[USMC2602]

I find the amount of calories I burn is in direct proportion to the amount of calories I consume while drinking a bloody mary before I tee off and a "few" beers on the course. I think I net out at a positive 300...maybe more with a dog at the turn.

 

Seriously though--try this site:

 

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm

[lefty92]

Thanks.

 

I thought it was a little higher though.

[Ducky]

It's actually quite a good number considering it's not very intense and you take constant breaks.

[darryk91]

that seems a little off to be honest. it says someone with a body like mine (155ish) burns 387 calories carrying a bag for an hour. so say you play 18 and say it takes you 5 hours. 387x5=1935 calories. if that is true, thats amazing.

[ezra76]

No way it's that much, I'd be dead right now. lol. I would think the 387 would be closer to the whole round. You have to consider putting the bag down, waiting if there is a group ahead and such.

 

On a semi-related note... I just realized the other day that a 20 oz. Gatorade has 35g's of carbs. I used to occasionally grab a Pepsi instead but will certainly be doing 2 Gatorades per round now.

[charles321]

Its Probably closer to 1200 Calories because it takes energy to swing a club and you walk a long way which is usually up and down hills. Then you consider carrying the extra weight on your back but you have to consider the time when you are not doing anything so take away probably 20% of the time it took then calculate it.

 

Also i think this website is better

Link

[ezra76]

I have a hard time believing that. I don't think you'd burn 2000 calories if put the cart in nuetral and pushed it around the course the entire round.

 

 

I just looked up some statistics. It would take a 170 lb. man running at an 8minute mile pace over 13 miles to burn 2000 calories.

[ezra76]

The same source says you burn 59calories walking 10minutes at 3.5 MPH. So lets say the actual walking part is 2 hours. That would be 708 calories walking. I can't imagine what would be done to burn an addtional 1300? Stopping to flog it in the woods between every hole maybe? :tongue:

[lefty92]

No way it's that much, I'd be dead right now. lol. I would think the 387 would be closer to the whole round. You have to consider putting the bag down, waiting if there is a group ahead and such.

 

On a semi-related note... I just realized the other day that a 20 oz. Gatorade has 35g's of carbs. I used to occasionally grab a Pepsi instead but will certainly be doing 2 Gatorades per round now.

 

I remember hearing recently that in rest mode (sitting, sleeping, standing, etc.) you burn aprox. 100 calories in an hour, and aprox. 300 at a slow walking pace. So... you do the math.

 

4x300=1200

PLUS swinging the club. However, I think it would be a little less than whatever that would equal, due to the fact you stop... a lot.

 

Beats me. :rolleyes:

[Skaffa77]

You'd be surprised, I didn't think it'd be that much, but I've seen several sources that say it's about 300-350 calories an hour if you carry your clubs. I'm willing to bet this is figuring a decent pace (4 hour round) on an average length course (not a par 3 course).

 

Couple things to remember, this isn't just walking...you are carrying a bag of clubs which requires more effort and in turn burns more calories. I'm sure the number would vary on the course depending on if it has a lot of hills (versus a flat course) or some distance between holes.

 

Also, if you are having to wait between holes, you can't simply add the additional time to the average calorie burned playing golf. It doesn't work that way. That's like running for 5 minutes on a treadmill, taking a break for 5 minutes and then running another 5 minutes, but claiming the calorie burn for 15 minutes of running. If you are waiting between holes, the average calorie burn has to be somewhat spread over the entire time.

[pocketfulladoubles]

I read somewhere that carrying a bag for 7000 yards (edit: and ~ 100 swings) equated to about 1600 calories for a typical sized male.

[oregongolf]

Nice thread.

 

I've been trying to rationalize getting that hotdog at the turn with me walking my round then heading to the gym at night :D

[Skaffa77]

Funny - I rationalize not going to the gym if I walk 18 holes. :D

[truck13]

i have a website that i go thru for my personal training at 24 hr fitness...i plug in my workouts and food intake and what not and it monitors everything and gives tips, pretty cool..anyway it gives you calorie burning of all different types of activities and when i plugged in my weight 169 and a modest 4.5 hours of golf carrying my clubs it said it was just over 1800 calories, i cant remember the exact number right now..ill come back and edit when i go to the site tonight.

[truck13]

ok here it is for me at 169 pounds for 5 hours

 

in a cart - 1340 calories burned

pulling clubs - 1915

carrying own clubs - 2105

[charles321]

Golf is no where near that high in calories. If it was you would drop a heap of weight cause a standard man would consume 2500calories a day, and you would have a deficit of 1500-2000 calories which huge and probably unhealthy.

 

"To give you an idea, soldiers undergoing winter SF selection course consume around 5000-6000 calories a day....If your burning 2000 calories on a round of golf....well, your not playing golf as I know it...

 

2000 Calories = 8,368KJ....thats about the equivalent of a 1/2Kg of snickers bars...."

 

a post from another forum.

 

 

and think about the time you wait and line up the ball, club choice etc you probably actually do exercise for half the time you are out there so punch in about 50-60% of the total rounds time and that should be pretty close to what you would burn.

[pocketfulladoubles]

you make a good point, but it has been documented to be about 1600 calories for a full round of golf carrying your bags. Not that I think the magazine stating this is super-scientific, but I'm pretty confident they didn't just dream up some number.

[Skaffa77]

The time aspect doesn't necessarily represent the calorie burn. The point here is that some source or sources (which is the big question) reports that the average amount of energy used to walk (carrying full bag of clubs) and play 18 holes of golf is approx. equal to 1200 calories. Now, I don't know how this is scientifically figured out, but it's probably an estimate based on the "normal" actions taken to walk/play 18 holes on a specific type of course. With that said, if you take extra time to line up putts or play just perfect where every shot is lands where is should and only record birdies or pars, then you will still burn an amount near to the 1200 calorie mark (assuming that figure is accurate).

 

If there are long waits, you are just extending the amount of time it takes to complete the action of walking and playing 18 holes and thus the calorie burn from this activity is spread over that period of time.

 

It's just like walking 4 miles. If you do it in 1 hour, you burn the same amount of calories as you would if it takes you 2 miles...you're just burning it faster at a 4 mph pace.

[lefty92]

The only reason I don't think it's that high is...

 

assume you burn aprox. 1600 calories for 4 hours of golf (carrying clubs)

and they say you burn a MINIMUM of 100 calories in an hour (body just naturally does... this doesn't mean you need to be exerting any energy).

So, even if you sat for 20 hours in a day, and played a round of golf, you would burn 3600 calories!

 

1600 + (20x100)

= 1600 + 2000

= 3600 calories

[Skaffa77]

It does appear kind of odd doesn't it? I've been tracking my calories consumed and burned for about 4 years now. I'll offer some observations.

 

The average 28-29 year old male with a decent metabolism will burn roughly 2300-2600 in the course of his normal day. This assumes he isn't just laying in bed all day. Getting up, making breakfast, taking a shower, walking from his car to his desk, going to meetings, etc...just an average day WITHOUT exercising. The number for women is lower...something like 1800-2100.

 

With that said, someone asked if the individual would be in a huge deficit if he walked 18 holes. I would venture to say NO. My observation is that most males HONESTLY consume more than 2500 calories a day. Personally, I try to keep it no greater than 2500, but it's hard even when you are watching your food intake. Considering what most people eat in the average day, the fact the most people have no concept of the calories they are truly consuming and the statistics on weight gain in the US, it's way more than 2500. Now, if the person happen to consume on 2500 calories that day, but eats like normal (let's assume 3000 calories) every other day that week...he would be in excess of 3500 calories that week. Thus the 1000-1500 extra calories he burned in that day walking 18 holes would not make up for the excess food that the person consumed in that entire week.

 

I had a friend who was, well, depressed a few years ago and his therapist advised he play more golf because it made him happy. He was walking nearly 18 holes 3-5 nights a week that summer because the local golf course let him basically walk on for free during the evening because he knew them. By the end of the summer, he had lost nearly 25 lbs without a change in diet.

 

Now...I won't say that golf is any type of cardio exercise...in other words, your not challenging you heart with fast pace exercise, but I do believe it burns a decent amount of calories.

[lefty92]

It does appear kind of odd doesn't it? I've been tracking my calories consumed and burned for about 4 years now. I'll offer some observations.

 

The average 28-29 year old male with a decent metabolism will burn roughly 2300-2600 in the course of his normal day. This assumes he isn't just laying in bed all day. Getting up, making breakfast, taking a shower, walking from his car to his desk, going to meetings, etc...just an average day WITHOUT exercising. The number for women is lower...something like 1800-2100.

 

With that said, someone asked if the individual would be in a huge deficit if he walked 18 holes. I would venture to say NO. My observation is that most males HONESTLY consume more than 2500 calories a day. Personally, I try to keep it no greater than 2500, but it's hard even when you are watching your food intake. Considering what most people eat in the average day, the fact the most people have no concept of the calories they are truly consuming and the statistics on weight gain in the US, it's way more than 2500. Now, if the person happen to consume on 2500 calories that day, but eats like normal (let's assume 3000 calories) every other day that week...he would be in excess of 3500 calories that week. Thus the 1000-1500 extra calories he burned in that day walking 18 holes would not make up for the excess food that the person consumed in that entire week.

 

I had a friend who was, well, depressed a few years ago and his therapist advised he play more golf because it made him happy. He was walking nearly 18 holes 3-5 nights a week that summer because the local golf course let him basically walk on for free during the evening because he knew them. By the end of the summer, he had lost nearly 25 lbs without a change in diet.

 

Now...I won't say that golf is any type of cardio exercise...in other words, your not challenging you heart with fast pace exercise, but I do believe it burns a decent amount of calories.

Well said.

[mat562]

Interesting reading, this thread...

 

I permanently look like Charles Howell after a bout of illness, so I am always interested in deitary advice and discussion.

 

Before anyone asks, I eat around 4000 cals a day and have always been stick thin.

[hbear]

I may be able shed a little info here as I have training in this field. (Certified Exercise Physiologist [CSEP-CEP] through the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology/Certified Strength and Conditioning Coach [CSCS] through the National Strength and Conditioning Association, etc.)

Bare in mind the below is a VERY ROUGH estimate as I really didn't care to dig through my books for the more nitty gritty stuff.

 

Now keep in mind there are quite a few ways to "estimate" energy expenditure....the only true method to measure it would be on a metabolic cart to actually measure your oxygen uptake. However there have been a number of "pretty good" equations to estimate it using body weight, metabolic cost of the activity, time/distance/rate duration, etc.

 

I think what is throwing the higher calculations above out is the fact that although it does take us 4-5 hours to play golf....it does not take us 4-5 hours to walk the golf course. So those equations that simply take "here's how many calories you will burn walking for 1 hour" and multiply it by 4 or 5....are GREATLY overestimating the actual value.

 

In reality the equation should be more along this line: which again is a rough guide and doesn't factor in time. It only factors distance covered as we know the energy cost of walking a certain distance is the same no matter how fast/slow one does it. (Speed of walk just changes the rate of energy expenditure not the total amount)

 

So for example using these numbers.

At 3 mph or 3.5 mph appox. 0.5 kcal/lb/mi

So a 150lb person walking the course (lets say 6 miles [10km] total distance) and carry their bag (lets assume the bag weighs 20lbs fully packed) we would use:

0.5 kcal/lb/mi x 150+20lb x 6mi = 510 kcal

 

Swinging the golf club, picking up and putting the bag down I think would be negligible....but for arguments sake lets say it burns up 70 kcal doing that (which I think is high).

 

So for a 150lb person carrying a 20lb bag, walking for a total distance of 6 miles (10km) at a pace of 3mph, and estimating 70kcal for swinging a golf club and misc stuff....we will have a total of approx. 580 kcal burned during a round of golf based on energy expenditure for the activity only.

 

A FAR cry from the 2000 of so quoted above.

 

Hope that helps.

[Boyce890]

i read in golf monthely that the average person burns about 700 calories in a round of golf.

[lefty92]

i read in golf monthely that the average person burns about 700 calories in a round of golf.

That seems more realistic. But with 9/10 of the sites and magazines saying you burn over 1200, I don't know what to think.

[Skaffa77]

First, I love the avatar of Gulbis. It makes it hard for me to write a response with any coherent thought...but it does make it me happy. :D

 

I will say that I have no clue how any source came up with the calorie expenditure of golf. Since it is so widely proliferated through publications and many online sources, I would HOPE that they did an some type of detailed analysis to measure the energy expenditure of the activity, walking 18 holes. Most publications state that the average person will burn 1200 calories walking 18 holes of golf (no time measurement included). Based on that, you can create a usable time-based value on the average or standard time it takes to complete the activity (generally speaking 4 hours for 18 holes). What I've seen using various web tools is that 4 hours is near 1200 calories.

 

Now as was stated in the example above, time isn't really the factor that affects the energy expenditure...it just a way for the average person to measure the "calorie burn" using a time variable against the average time-based value calculated for the activity. If you complete the activity faster, the approximate calorie burn wouldn't deviate far from the average because you are still using the same amount of energy to complete the activity in 3 hours as you would have in 4 hours (all things being equal - distance, number of shots, etc). You are just doing it faster which allows you more time to burn calories doing other activities.

 

What I find interesting is that the formula above calculates the calorie expenditure based on a total value of weight (person and clubs) against the standard value of walking at a certain pace. For some reason I find that odd (not saying it's wrong), but wouldn't the energy expenditure of walking at a certain pace with a 20lb bag change? In other words, if 2 guys are walking 5 miles, of course the guy who weights a little more will burn more calories, but the difference isn't truly that much. If both guys added a 20-30 lb backpack to their walk, each person would have to exert a lot more effort (translates to energy expenditure) to complete the same task. Maybe I'm wrong...

 

I don't honestly have enough knowledge on the analytical part of calculating this, but I've seen some sites that show a fairly significant difference in calorie expenditure when weight is added to the activity.

 

Again, I can't say how the 1200 calorie value was obtained and I think this is where it really boils down. What is the correct value and how was it obtained?

[hbear]

What I find interesting is that the formula above calculates the calorie expenditure based on a total value of weight (person and clubs) against the standard value of walking at a certain pace. For some reason I find that odd (not saying it's wrong), but wouldn't the energy expenditure of walking at a certain pace with a 20lb bag change? In other words, if 2 guys are walking 5 miles, of course the guy who weights a little more will burn more calories, but the difference isn't truly that much. If both guys added a 20-30 lb backpack to their walk, each person would have to exert a lot more effort (translates to energy expenditure) to complete the same task. Maybe I'm wrong...

 

Workload is workload is workload.

A guy that is 2x heavier than the other will work 2x as hard to go the same distance in a weight bearing activity.

Or the same as the lighter guy adding weights to equate the mass.

 

It may not "feel" that way but the straight numbers on energy cost are just that.

What you "feel" is relative.

E.g. A 200 lb man has an easier time walking a flight of stairs than a 100lb man with 100lbs strapped to his body.

However the workload or energy cost is exactly the same for both in regards to the activity.

Workload does not care (nor does the equation care) if a person is really 200lbs....or if that person is 170lbs with 30lbs added to their body. Or if a person is a "fat" 200lbs or a "muscular" 200lbs.....200lbs is 200lbs. Physics is physics.

 

Effort does not have a real correlation to energy expenditure.

Another example....400m Olympic level sprinter and average Joe blow non athlete.

Lets say both weight 175lbs and they both "run" 400m. Joe Average at a full sprint (or as best he can) and Mr. Olympic at 50% speed (same rate as Joe Average). They finish at the exact same time, run the exact same distance.....Joe Average in a sweaty heap gasping for air unable to breath....Mr. Olympic looking fresh as a daisy and heart rate barely elevated.

Which one do you think exerted more "effort"???

Yet the energy expenditure of the activity cost is EXACTLY the same between them.

 

Again just to double check my above estimation.

So for example using these numbers.

At 3 mph or 3.5 mph appox. 0.5 kcal/lb/mi

So a 150lb person walking the course (lets say 6 miles [10km] total distance) and carry their bag (lets assume the bag weighs 20lbs fully packed) we would use:

0.5 kcal/lb/mi x 150+20lb x 6mi = 510 kcal

 

Swinging the golf club, picking up and putting the bag down I think would be negligible....but for arguments sake lets say it burns up 70 kcal doing that (which I think is high).

 

So for a 150lb person carrying a 20lb bag, walking for a total distance of 6 miles (10km) at a pace of 3mph, and estimating 70kcal for swinging a golf club and misc stuff....we will have a total of approx. 580 kcal burned during a round of golf based on energy expenditure for the activity only.

 

Here's another equation one can use and it involves Mets (Metabolic equivalents)

 

Calories burned by exercise = [(METs * 3.5 * weight in kg) / 200] * duration in minutes.

Using the above data again...

150lb person (approx 66.6kg), walking the course (6miles or 10km) at a rate of 3mph which gives us an activity duration of 120minutes (can't count time just spent standing around)

4 Mets playing golf and carrying bag (taken from the Australian Government for MET costs of activities http://www.facs.gov.au/guides_acts/sslaw/s.../4f778321.html)

(Note: We do not include the weight of bag in this example as it's already accounted from by the met value)

 

We have:

 

[(4mets x 3.5 x 66.6kg)/200] x 120min = approx. 559.44 kcal

 

So not too far off my original estimation.

2 different calculations, coming to a very similar result....

 

But hey what do I know? It's not like I do this sort of thing for a living or anything.

:D

 

Again, I hope that helps.

[Skaffa77]

Oh, no I understand the physics part of it and I'm not necessarily questioning the formula because I 100% agree that it makes sense. What amazes me is that a 200 lb man and a 150 lb man exercising the same would result in the 200lb man burning more energy, yet we are not seeing the population as a whole reaching an weight equilibrium. I realize that a major factor is what the person eats, but still, it's interesting to me.

 

The one part that has me a bit confused is that you are using 2 hours as the time measurement to walk/play 18 holes. I realize that if a golfer was walking at a constant pace of 3 mph, the person SHOULD walk the distance of 18 holes in 2 hours resulting in the 550 calorie number. The activity itself isn't a constant walk and I have known very few people able to walk/play 18 holes in 2 hours which would mean that there are other actions that consume time and energy. In other words, I would have to believe the calorie expenditure of this activity includes other time consuming actions that would result in additional energy expenditure (you mentioned this above, but believed it would be negligible). Thus is 2 hours the proper time measure? A flat 2 hours might be used for walking the distance, but what of the other 1-2 hours spent playing the game? According to the calculations using METS, if one were to believe that this figure is based on the total energy expenditure of walking & playing the game, the time factor would be greatly affected. If the average person spends 3-4 hours to walk and play 18 holes, the number would closer to 850-1100 calories.

 

Also, some other factors that are in question, do we always walking a straight line from tee to green? Are we assuming no distance between holes?

[MrParr1Noid]

What I find interesting is that the formula above calculates the calorie expenditure based on a total value of weight (person and clubs) against the standard value of walking at a certain pace. For some reason I find that odd (not saying it's wrong), but wouldn't the energy expenditure of walking at a certain pace with a 20lb bag change? In other words, if 2 guys are walking 5 miles, of course the guy who weights a little more will burn more calories, but the difference isn't truly that much. If both guys added a 20-30 lb backpack to their walk, each person would have to exert a lot more effort (translates to energy expenditure) to complete the same task. Maybe I'm wrong...

 

Workload is workload is workload.

A guy that is 2x heavier than the other will work 2x as hard to go the same distance in a weight bearing activity.

Or the same as the lighter guy adding weights to equate the mass.

 

It may not "feel" that way but the straight numbers on energy cost are just that.

What you "feel" is relative.

E.g. A 200 lb man has an easier time walking a flight of stairs than a 100lb man with 100lbs strapped to his body.

However the workload or energy cost is exactly the same for both in regards to the activity.

Workload does not care (nor does the equation care) if a person is really 200lbs....or if that person is 170lbs with 30lbs added to their body. Or if a person is a "fat" 200lbs or a "muscular" 200lbs.....200lbs is 200lbs. Physics is physics.

 

Effort does not have a real correlation to energy expenditure.

Another example....400m Olympic level sprinter and average Joe blow non athlete.

Lets say both weight 175lbs and they both "run" 400m. Joe Average at a full sprint (or as best he can) and Mr. Olympic at 50% speed (same rate as Joe Average). They finish at the exact same time, run the exact same distance.....Joe Average in a sweaty heap gasping for air unable to breath....Mr. Olympic looking fresh as a daisy and heart rate barely elevated.

Which one do you think exerted more "effort"???

Yet the energy expenditure of the activity cost is EXACTLY the same between them.

 

Again just to double check my above estimation.

So for example using these numbers.

At 3 mph or 3.5 mph appox. 0.5 kcal/lb/mi

So a 150lb person walking the course (lets say 6 miles [10km] total distance) and carry their bag (lets assume the bag weighs 20lbs fully packed) we would use:

0.5 kcal/lb/mi x 150+20lb x 6mi = 510 kcal

 

Swinging the golf club, picking up and putting the bag down I think would be negligible....but for arguments sake lets say it burns up 70 kcal doing that (which I think is high).

 

So for a 150lb person carrying a 20lb bag, walking for a total distance of 6 miles (10km) at a pace of 3mph, and estimating 70kcal for swinging a golf club and misc stuff....we will have a total of approx. 580 kcal burned during a round of golf based on energy expenditure for the activity only.

 

Here's another equation one can use and it involves Mets (Metabolic equivalents)

 

Calories burned by exercise = [(METs * 3.5 * weight in kg) / 200] * duration in minutes.

Using the above data again...

150lb person (approx 66.6kg), walking the course (6miles or 10km) at a rate of 3mph which gives us an activity duration of 120minutes (can't count time just spent standing around)

4 Mets playing golf and carrying bag (taken from the Australian Government for MET costs of activities http://www.facs.gov.au/guides_acts/sslaw/s.../4f778321.html)

(Note: We do not include the weight of bag in this example as it's already accounted from by the met value)

 

We have:

 

[(4mets x 3.5 x 66.6kg)/200] x 120min = approx. 559.44 kcal

 

So not too far off my original estimation.

2 different calculations, coming to a very similar result....

 

But hey what do I know? It's not like I do this sort of thing for a living or anything.

:)

 

Again, I hope that helps.

 

 

hbear

 

I was wondering how long it would take the rest of the posters in here to to actually read what you have written here. :D ;)