Damn you J.K. Wadley

[Ted Sturges]

J.K. Wadley of Texarkana, Texas is credited with developing the very first golf cart in the 1930's.  Prior to that "innovation", golf was all about walking (which is a great form of exercise as it turns out).  An 18 hole round of golf, where the golfer walks and carries his or her bag burns an estimated 1500 calories.  How many caloric burn opportunities have been dismissed with the invention of the golf cart?  After this dazzling innovation, we were then "rewarded" with the invention of the cart path.  In the history of golf, have there been worse "innovations" than the golf cart (#1) and the cart path (#2)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_cart


TS

[Paul Gray]

Nice thread J.K.

To the surprise of even myself, I'm of the opinion that carts actually have a place in golf. They do allow many people to play a game they love long after they would otherwise have to hang their clubs up. However, I remain adament that the cart path is a hideous eyesore which serves precious little function other than to reinforce the idea that excessive manicuring of the green stuff is in some way beneficial to the game. 

[Ted Sturges]

Nice thread J.K.

To the surprise of even myself, I'm of the opinion that carts actually have a place in golf. They do allow many people to play a game they love long after they would otherwise have to hang their clubs up. However, I remain adament that the cart path is a hideous eyesore which serves precious little function other than to reinforce the idea that excessive manicuring of the green stuff is in some way beneficial to the game.  

I'll take the other side of this one.  What if...when a person is getting up in age, instead of opting for a golf cart, they WALK 9 holes instead of riding 18?  I know I can't prove this, but my theory is that there would be more health benefits to this approach (which could keep the aging golfer vibrant longer) versus jumping into a cart in one's 60's.  I used to belong to a club where one of the older men had a Sunday bag with about 8 clubs in it that he used to play his rounds.  All of his golf buddies rode in carts.  The story played out that the old guy continued carrying his Sunday bag and playing golf into his 90's...long after the other 3 members of his old foursome had perished.

TS

[Brent Hutto]

Invention of the scorecard had a more far reaching effect than golf carts. Also the concept of "relief" was a biggie.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Nice thread J.K.

To the surprise of even myself, I'm of the opinion that carts actually have a place in golf. They do allow many people to play a game they love long after they would otherwise have to hang their clubs up. However, I remain adament that the cart path is a hideous eyesore which serves precious little function other than to reinforce the idea that excessive manicuring of the green stuff is in some way beneficial to the game.  

I'll take the other side of this one.  What if...when a person is getting up in age, instead of opting for a golf cart, they WALK 9 holes instead of riding 18?  I know I can't prove this, but my theory is that there would be more health benefits to this approach (which could keep the aging golfer vibrant longer) versus jumping into a cart in one's 60's.  I used to belong to a club where one of the older men had a Sunday bag with about 8 clubs in it that he used to play his rounds.  All of his golf buddies rode in carts.  The story played out that the old guy continued carrying his Sunday bag and playing golf into his 90's...long after the other 3 members of his old foursome had perished.

TS

Ted:

+1

I can't prove it either, but my father is 78 and plays 2-3 times a week (always walking). His playing partners - all in their 70's and early 80's also walk. I'm convinced that if he didn't walk, his health - both mental and physical - would deteriorate rapidly. I believe he has only ever taken a cart once, and that was because the course (Concra Wood) has some steep climbs in places.

Brian:

Maybe 1500 kcal is on the high side, but I can assure you that even if you drink water during a round, you'll be 200 g - 300 g lighter afterwards. Not sure what that translates into when converted to kcal. Of course it depends on the person. Michael Mosely of the BBC Horizon programme made a fascinating series last year on exercise and diet, and showed that different people react in different ways to exercise.

[Brent Hutto]

Maybe a 300lb guy playing a 7-hour round carrying a 40-pound staff bag would burn 1,500kcals...including his basal metabolic rate.

But in reality the additional energy one expends walking a golf course for four hours or so is at most a few hundred kcals beyond what you'd expend sitting around doing nothing. Anything that would burn 1,500kcals of exercise energy expenditure over just a few hours is going to be an activity none of us around here would want to do.

For instance, one study found that during the Tour de France the cyclists were expending about 7,800kcal during each 24 hour period. That includes both their baseline metabolism and their activity energy expenditure during 6+ hours on a bicycle including extended periods of near maximal exertion.

http://world.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/file1571.pdf

[Rick Shefchik]

Nice thread J.K.

To the surprise of even myself, I'm of the opinion that carts actually have a place in golf. They do allow many people to play a game they love long after they would otherwise have to hang their clubs up. However, I remain adament that the cart path is a hideous eyesore which serves precious little function other than to reinforce the idea that excessive manicuring of the green stuff is in some way beneficial to the game.  

I'll take the other side of this one.  What if...when a person is getting up in age, instead of opting for a golf cart, they WALK 9 holes instead of riding 18?  I know I can't prove this, but my theory is that there would be more health benefits to this approach (which could keep the aging golfer vibrant longer) versus jumping into a cart in one's 60's.  I used to belong to a club where one of the older men had a Sunday bag with about 8 clubs in it that he used to play his rounds.  All of his golf buddies rode in carts.  The story played out that the old guy continued carrying his Sunday bag and playing golf into his 90's...long after the other 3 members of his old foursome had perished.

TS

Ted:

+1

I can't prove it either, but my father is 78 and plays 2-3 times a week (always walking). His playing partners - all in their 70's and early 80's also walk. I'm convinced that if he didn't walk, his health - both mental and physical - would deteriorate rapidly. I believe he has only ever taken a cart once, and that was because the course (Concra Wood) has some steep climbs in places.

Brian:

Maybe 1500 kcal is on the high side, but I can assure you that even if you drink water during a round, you'll be 200 g - 300 g lighter afterwards. Not sure what that translates into when converted to kcal. Of course it depends on the person. Michael Mosely of the BBC Horizon programme made a fascinating series last year on exercise and diet, and showed that different people react in different ways to exercise.

If one is to keep walking into their 70s and 80s, it helps to choose the right course. We have a number of steep hills at our club, and I greatly admire the older players who still walk 18 holes. Many have chosen to walk the front nine and take carts on the steeper back nine.

When I get to the point where I can't walk our 18 holes without distress (and I've already reached that point when the temperature reaches 90) I'm going to wish I belonged to a flatter golf course.

[Ted Sturges]

Maybe a 300lb guy playing a 7-hour round carrying a 40-pound staff bag would burn 1,500kcals...including his basal metabolic rate.

But in reality the additional energy one expends walking a golf course for four hours or so is at most a few hundred kcals beyond what you'd expend sitting around doing nothing. Anything that would burn 1,500kcals of exercise energy expenditure over just a few hours is going to be an activity none of us around here would want to do.

For instance, one study found that during the Tour de France the cyclists were expending about 7,800kcal during each 24 hour period. That includes both their baseline metabolism and their activity energy expenditure during 6+ hours on a bicycle including extended periods of near maximal exertion.

http://world.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/file1571.pdf

Closer to 1500...


http://golf.about.com/od/fitnesshealth/a/golfphysical.htm

TS

[Paul Gray]

I'll agree entirely with walking being desirable. I was really thinking more of old boys taking to buggies when they had no other option.

Growing up at a rather traditional links course, buggies were just not part of the furniture. However, when a life long member and former five time British amateur champion became too frail to walk an exception was made. He bought his own buggy and continued to play until, near enough, the day he died. Admittedly this did lead to a few unfortunate/hilarious incidents when scenality got the better of him (he was found sleeping in the gorse on more than one occasion) but he certainly added to the tapestry of the place.

But essentially you're right; the buggy, or cart if you must, is all too often the lazy man's way of partaking in the game whilst avoiding the premise of activity. In essence, it's a vehicle which serves to move the game into the territory of the institutionally sedentary. I suppose the mercenaries that regard growing the game to be the purpose of life itself see nothing wrong with that but, for me, it's an encroachment on my human rights to, to paraphrase Mucci, play the game without having to suffer morons!  

[Thomas Dai]

I also greatly admire those older players who still walk 18-holes (or more), good luck to them, carry on for as long as you can. Seeing the young or the healthy playing in carts is IMO generally rather unedifying.

For those however, who struggle to play due to age or health restrictions then perhaps the thread would be more appropriately titled 'Thank you J.K. Wadley", for without his invention many would no long be playing the game they love. This also applies to those who actually have to sit in a buggy while playing their shots - yip, there are golf enthusiasts and players who are in this situation, although they mostly have their own specially adapted buggy.

One thing about the use of buggies that really peeves me is at some locations players who are in some way either health or age incapacitated, and have to use a buggy to even get round, are also required to hire a caddy to drive it (eg TOC, Machrihanish Dunes) or are restricted to staying on cart paths (eg Celtic Manor 2010). Highly inappropriate IMO. I suggest that these locations should revise their positions.

Also, most games are 18-holes, so the otherwise excellent idea of walking a few and then getting on a buggy for the rest of the round is only possible if your course routing loops back to the clubhouse at some point.There's also the temperature factor, those who have health or age limitations frequently can't play as much in even mildly hot or cold temperatures, so they end up playing less golf even if buggies are available.

All the best

[David Stewart]

But in reality the additional energy one expends walking a golf course for four hours or so is at most a few hundred kcals beyond what you'd expend sitting around doing nothing. Anything that would burn 1,500kcals of exercise energy expenditure over just a few hours is going to be an activity none of us around here would want to do.

Hang on. Are you suggesting walking 18 holes of golf is just a little bit tougher than sitting on my couch for a few hours?

[Brent Hutto]

No I am saying that 1500kcals is a metric buttload of activity energy expenditure. Way way beyond what is used to walk 4-5 miles.  

Here's the broad strokes of how energy expenditure works. Somewhere around 1,500kcals is what you'd expend lying in bed all day. Adding another 1,500kcals during a 4-hour round of golf means that during those four hours you are burning energy at about seven times the rate you would lying in bed.

Unless you're a very fit athlete, it's unlikely you could maintain an activity requiring 7x your baseline rate for more than a minute or two without gasping for air. The typical schlubby middle-aged golfer is not physically capable to maintain that for four hours. And if he did, he'd walk more like 20-30 miles than 4-5.

In all likelihood the walking golfer toting his bag is burning somewhere around 4x his baseline energy burn AT PEAK and averaging closer to 2x or 2.5x over the whole four hours including the time standing around. So he burns the same 300kcals he would have sitting at home plus an additional 300-500kcals from playing golf.

Even if he's a big guy playing a long course and taking more than four hours we're still nowhere close to adding 1,000kcals attributable to golf.

[David Stewart]

I was curious about this so went searching. I know not everything on the internet is true, but I googled "calories burned calculator" and just used the first four sites that popped up. I am 6'3", 220 lbs so entered that for my weight. I can walk 18 in under 3 hours so I used that for my time for all of them and compared it to calories burned sitting for 3 hours.

For carrying clubs, golfing, for 3 hours they gave me 1728, 1822, 1347, and 1650 calories burned.
Sitting for 3 hours watching TV gave 314, 317, 299, and 300 calories.

Again, not sure how they get their figures, but I don't doubt that 18 holes walking is at least 1000 calories.

Here are the websites if you want to check them out:
http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/calories-burned-calculator.php
http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc
http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php
http://www.webmd.com/diet/healthtool-fitness-calorie-counter

[Brent Hutto]

David,

The numbers you quote are claiming walking and playing golf to be 5x-8x the baseline energy expenditure. That's ridiculous. There's a compendium someone came up with years ago that gives every conceivable kind of activity in terms of how many times a person's baseline metabolic rate that activity requires.

That compendium lists golf, walking and carrying to be a 4.5x activity based on actually hooking golfers up to metabolic calorimeters. An early version of the compendium used some wild-ass guesstimates much higher than that based on no evidence at all. In 1993 the golf numbers were revised downward, once they got around to actually measuring the energy expenditure.

There's a lot of info out there in the literature based on purely speculative guesswork back in the 80's about physical activity. In the past 15-20 years actual measurements have been taken, giving more realistic estimates. A lot of these calculators and third-hand sources are based on ancient, discredited guesswork.

[David Stewart]

Thanks Brent. I'd love to see some of the new numbers from the last 15 years if you know where to look for them. Let me know.

Regardless, even if you knock it down to 3x that is still nearing 1000 calories for me. I don't think we can discount the long term effects of walking: building strength in the legs and improving overall fitness. I know I lose weight in the summer when I start walking golf nearly every day. I don't think that is a coincidence.

[Brent Hutto]

Hey, don't get me wrong. Walking 4-5 miles several times a week is GREAT for you. And your 1,000 calories is probably realistic, at worst a slight overestimate. But if you go out and sustain even a 2.5x your base energy burn for even an hour on a regular basis most people would gain benefits.

Numbers like that 1,500 that get batted around seem to arise from taking generous estimates, rounding them upwards, adding them together and then rounding upward again. The effects are real, even if the numbers are oft exaggerated.

Here's a link to one version of the Compendium.

http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/docs/documents_compendium.pdf

My own "run the numbers in my head" estimate would be that 3-4 hours of golf adds about 750-1000kcals of AEE if walking/carrying and about 500-750kcals AEE in a cart. Unless it's cart-paths only of course ;-)

[Ted Sturges]

David,

The numbers you quote are claiming walking and playing golf to be 5x-8x the baseline energy expenditure. That's ridiculous. There's a compendium someone came up with years ago that gives every conceivable kind of activity in terms of how many times a person's baseline metabolic rate that activity requires.

That compendium lists golf, walking and carrying to be a 4.5x activity based on actually hooking golfers up to metabolic calorimeters. An early version of the compendium used some wild-ass guesstimates much higher than that based on no evidence at all. In 1993 the golf numbers were revised downward, once they got around to actually measuring the energy expenditure.

There's a lot of info out there in the literature based on purely speculative guesswork back in the 80's about physical activity. In the past 15-20 years actual measurements have been taken, giving more realistic estimates. A lot of these calculators and third-hand sources are based on ancient, discredited guesswork.

I'm not a doctor, and I don't play one on TV either...and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn express last night.

Brent, you are either a doctor, or a fitness professional I am assuming.  But, could you support your assertions with anything the rest of us could read up on?  It would be nice to know a reasonable estimate for what a walking, carrying round of golf results in calorie burning.  And...to determine why every single reference we can find on the internet says it's higher than you suggest.

I agree with David that not everything on the internet is true, but I can't find anything to support your thesis.  From everything I've read, the caloric burn is between 1200 and 1500 for a round of golf, while walking, and carrying one's golf bag.  I can see how it is much more than jogging for an hour, because of the practice swinging and shot hitting, walking, and carrying a load on your back all together. 

The main point I was making is that we should all be walking, whether it be 36 holes, 18 holes, 9 holes, or 4 holes.  It's hard to find a golf cart in the UK.  Golf carts are an American invention (yet another way the US has managed to lower this great game....insisting on medal play, the 5 hour round, etc. are others).  My point was the game and all who play it would be better off if this "innovation" had never come to pass.

TS

[Brent Hutto]

Check out the Compendium I linked to. They use a unit called "METS" which is short for metabolic equivalent or something like that.

If you had a metabolic monitor on you right now, it could quantify the amount of energy you use at every minute of the day. If you're asleep or have been sitting still for a long time it will be some low "baseline" level that's specific to the individual. Other activities would use more than the baseline energy and we call the additional energy burn "activity energy expenditure" or AEE. Baseline energy use scales pretty linearly with body mass so while 250-pound guys will each have a slightly different energy burns, all of them will probably use more energy than a 150 pounder.

That tabulated METS value is simply how many times your baseline energy expenditure you will be using each minute or each hour that you engage in that activity. If it says "4.3 METS" for golf with a push-cart that means you use 4.3 times as many calories during an hour of golf with a push cart than you would during an hour at rest.

The unknown is you baseline value. If someone were a huge, high-metabolism person who burned 150kcals per hour just sitting around then they'd burn approximately 4.3x150=645kcals/hour while playing golf with a push cart. But a little, low-metabolism individual might only burn 50kcals per hour at rest so golf is a 4.3x50=215kcals per hour activity for them.

Here's the thing, though. If you burn 215kcals/hour for 4 hours that's 860kcals. But you'd have burned 200kcals of that at home napping on the couch. So the golf in that example only has an "activity energy expenditure" of 660kcals. Which is why I say you can certain gain 1,000kcals of energy expenditure during a round of golf but getting 1,500kcals of activity energy expenditure in 4 hours is probably not realistic unless you're a really big guy covering a lot of ground with your clubs on your back.

P.S. I am not an exercise physiologist. But I get paid by exercise physiologists to calculate energy expenditure numbers on a daily basis. We've all got to pay the bills somehow and this stuff's more interesting than digging ditches (4.0-9.0 METS according to the Compendium)...

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

he also donated the trophy for the Western Open and built a hospital here in town......so give him a  break

[David Stewart]

Brent,

From the chart it appears the 1993 value of 5.5 was lowered to 4.5 in 2000 because of new data. Why don't you trust this new number?

I do understand what you are saying though. If my sitting (baseline) value is 100 kcal/hr, and 4.5x is the value for walking, I'm at 1350 for 3 hours. And that is 1050 more than I would have burned just sitting there. But I agree the number is iffy. If I play in 2 hours by myself or 5 hours because I'm in a slow foursome, did I really burn 3x more calories in the 5 hour round? Definitely not. It is a hard value to calculate with the stopping/starting, swinging, weight of bag, etc. They need to include a "pace" per hole or something along with a bag weight in order to properly calculate it for a given individual.

[Brent Hutto]

David,

Absent any other evidence, I would accept that updated 4.5 value. Seems high to me but if that's what they measured, it's what they measured.

I'm a 100kg middle-aged guy and my baseline metabolic rate is probably in the neighborhood of 70kcals per hour. So taking the Compendium number of 4.5x70 would yield 315kcals per hour or a total of 1260kcals in four hours. But I'd have gotten 280 by just sitting quietly so the exercise energy expenditure is just about 1,000kcals. For a pretty large person. Which is why I say 1,000 is reasonable but 1,500 is way out there IMO.

[David Stewart]

Which is why I say 1,000 is reasonable but 1,500 is way out there IMO.

However, BURNING 1500 kcal, which is what Ted said originally, could be reasonable, given a larger person and if the 4.5 number happened to be slightly low. I agree that the actual difference in expenditure between walking golf and sitting is probably 800-1100 for average men.

[William_G]

J.K. Wadley of Texarkana, Texas is credited with developing the very first golf cart in the 1930's.  Prior to that "innovation", golf was all about walking (which is a great form of exercise as it turns out).  An 18 hole round of golf, where the golfer walks and carries his or her bag burns an estimated 1500 calories.  How many caloric burn opportunities have been dismissed with the invention of the golf cart?  After this dazzling innovation, we were then "rewarded" with the invention of the cart path.  In the history of golf, have there been worse "innovations" than the golf cart (#1) and the cart path (#2)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_cart


TS

no

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Like most things it's about the person using the golf cart.

Golf carts help grow the game and keep people playing--hardly a bad invention.

I prefer to walk and think the game is best played walking.

However the reason why golf is such a 'big' game is because of what it means to different people.

Golf carts help keep the game alive.

[Ted Sturges]

Like most things it's about the person using the golf cart.

Golf carts help grow the game and keep people playing--hardly a bad invention.

I prefer to walk and think the game is best played walking.

However the reason why golf is such a 'big' game is because of what it means to different people.

Golf carts help keep the game alive.

Interesting points you make, but I believe some of this is debatable.  I believe golf is "grown" by introducing the game to children...which has nothing to do with golf carts.  You and I agree that we think golf is best when played while walking.  If the health benefits of walking result in golfers living longer, your last point becomes iffy for me.  Walking while we play keep golfers alive...wouldn't that be better for the game?

TS