palindromicbob
Tour Winner
Rather than being disappointed that I'm not thinner by playing golf I'm thankful I play otherwise I'd be a lot fatter!
How many calories does a round of golf burn?
- Thread starter North Mimms
- Start date
The problem is that exercise makes you hungrier. I always fancy a nice big curry or fry up after a round of golf! :mmm:
shortstuff
Assistant Pro
You obviously don't question anything. Here's another source but this time showing only 238 cals per hour: http://calorielab.com/burned/?mo=se&gr=15&ti=sports&q=&wt=150&un=lb&kg=68
So this brings a 4 hour round to 952 cals.
So nearly 1000 calories burned during a 4 hour round of golf. Not too bad then, but easily made up for by a curry and a pint afterwards!
Last edited:
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
I do, I questioned you.
With a source I can accept but with a guess, nah not for me im afraid.
Ethan
Money List Winner
I rarely walk all 4 hours when playing golf. I sometimes stand around waiting on playing partners to hit, people to clear the green, lining up a shot to putt etc. I doubt I actually walk much more than an hour or so.
A 6500 yard golf course is 3.7 miles plus any walks between greens and the next tee. As I have already pointed out in this thread the total walking distance around our course is at least 5.5 miles, even with straight hitting. A good walking pace is 3-4 mph, so you are probably walking for an hour-and-a-half. Then add on the energy for standing up and actually swinging the golf clubs and it must add up. Our course is also relatively hilly, so that also adds to the energy output tally.
North Mimms
Tour Winner
I must have used up at least 500 extra calories with all the bunker raking i had to do on saturday!
AmandaJR
Money List Winner
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
I'd suggest you're a bit out with that Ethan, i don't think you are only doing on average 3 mins of walking per hole including walking from green to the next tee etc. I know for sure I'm walking more than 3 mins per hole on average.
Jimaroid
Journeyman Pro
The real answer to this question is "it depends".
I've been involved in making some health tracking software in the past and like nearly all of the GPS/Phone Apps it's a formulaic estimate based on data published in the "Compendium of Physical Activities" which gives us a table of activities and their energy costs. You can learn all about that starting here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent
The physical activities compendium tells us that golf(carrying clubs) uses 4.3 MET where 1 MET = 1kcal/kg/hour. Which means for me, weighing 56Kg, I use approximately 268.8 calories per hour playing golf. That tells me a 3.5 hour round of golf uses 843 calories.
The problem with that answer is that it's wrong. It's an estimate based on old and somewhat flawed scientific study. Studies that have been done in the last 10 years or so have shown that the energy consumption between individuals can vary by as much as 76%. The original value of 1MET was created from a sample of just one man!
The differences between individuals and their energy consumption can be huge. Together with the very wide range of physiological and external factors at play (different heights, age, weight, fitness, environmental conditions etc.) mean that the estimates being created aren't all that good. More recent science suggests that the compendium values are likely to be 20-30% over-estimated. So for me, a 3.5 hour of golf might use between 590 and 843 calories.
Basically, estimating calorie expenditure is full of inaccuracies and the only way to be sure about how much one person consumes is to use some very expensive (and not portable) lab equipment. I should also point out that the compendium above can be corrected if you know your resting metabolic rate to give more accurate results but that also needs lab equipment.
I've been involved in making some health tracking software in the past and like nearly all of the GPS/Phone Apps it's a formulaic estimate based on data published in the "Compendium of Physical Activities" which gives us a table of activities and their energy costs. You can learn all about that starting here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent
The physical activities compendium tells us that golf(carrying clubs) uses 4.3 MET where 1 MET = 1kcal/kg/hour. Which means for me, weighing 56Kg, I use approximately 268.8 calories per hour playing golf. That tells me a 3.5 hour round of golf uses 843 calories.
The problem with that answer is that it's wrong. It's an estimate based on old and somewhat flawed scientific study. Studies that have been done in the last 10 years or so have shown that the energy consumption between individuals can vary by as much as 76%. The original value of 1MET was created from a sample of just one man!
The differences between individuals and their energy consumption can be huge. Together with the very wide range of physiological and external factors at play (different heights, age, weight, fitness, environmental conditions etc.) mean that the estimates being created aren't all that good. More recent science suggests that the compendium values are likely to be 20-30% over-estimated. So for me, a 3.5 hour of golf might use between 590 and 843 calories.
Basically, estimating calorie expenditure is full of inaccuracies and the only way to be sure about how much one person consumes is to use some very expensive (and not portable) lab equipment. I should also point out that the compendium above can be corrected if you know your resting metabolic rate to give more accurate results but that also needs lab equipment.
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
So there's your answer, cheers Jim
stevek1969
Money List Winner
https://www.facebook.com/1283189906...41825.128318990650140/428543750627661/?type=1 Found this on our clubs page
ruff-driver
Journeyman Pro
So if i eat three mars bars and drink two cans of non diet cola per round , how many holes does it require to burn off ?
AmandaJR
Money List Winner
So the sceptics amongst us were right to be sceptical :thup:
600-800...not 1200-1500!
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
No, he said for him it might be between 590 and 843. I've met Jim and believe me he doesn't need to be losing anything through burning calories
AmandaJR
Money List Winner
No, he said for him it might be between 590 and 843. I've met Jim and believe me he doesn't need to be losing anything through burning calories
Fair enough. Anyone weighing around 2.5 x Jim might strike it lucky at 1200-1500 then
HomerJSimpson
Hall of Famer
Having read the myriad of answers I'm still firmly in the "who cares" camp
Jimaroid
Journeyman Pro
Fair enough. Anyone weighing around 2.5 x Jim might strike it lucky at 1200-1500 then
Maybe, maybe not. The research is showing its not as simple as weight or build or fat content or whatever. That's partly why things like BMI are being looked on so skeptically as a measure these days. Two people with the same height and weight might have quite different metabolic rates. Equally a small and large person could be the same.
So here's a thought. It's currently impossible to predict where a person falls on the metabolic spectrum. It's science fiction territory but if someone cracks that problem it would transform human existence. No diets, no obesity, no hunger, no starving children, no food poverty... Or maybe it'll just start another war.
There are other benefits to playing golf apart from calorie burning. I am just coming up to 69 years old, and I seem to be a lot fitter and healthier than my non-golfing contempories, some of whom are starting to look and walk like real old men!
Last edited:
