Found, the missing golfers.

[Brent Hutto]

Ed,

How many calories does it say you burn sitting around watching TV for four hours?

[Tony_Muldoon]

Just to say

-some people who should know better seem more intent on portraying cycling as a health hazard than promoting the benefits from golf!

-it has occurred to me that we don't  really understand how golf benefits us.  Could the happiness or mental challenge be more important than the calories it burns? The important thing is to get the message out that in the only measurable statistic that counts - it works.

"the research undertaken in 2009 at the renowned Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, which found that on average, golfers live a life span of 5-7 years longer. The average death rate for the 300,000 registered Swedish golfers is 40% lower than for other citizens of the same sex, age and socio-economic status. How this was discovered is simple. The national mortality register was compared with the handicap records of the Swedish Golf Federation; data emerged that golfers die at an older age than non-golfers with a noticeable and significant decrease in mortality rates in line with the holding of a lower golf handicap."


Now if that is accepted then some interesting research might be carried out to understand more.

[Mike Schott]

I think 700 calories for 9 holes is excessive - 1400 cals - no way am I burning that. But I'm happy to round it down to 1000 for 18 holes and have a decent post round meal to have me at 0 cals.

Mark Ferguson: If I burn 1000 calories during a round of golf (rounded down figure), I am not going to listen to anyone telling me that this does not constitute a significant benefit to my health!

Brian,

Searched yesterday for some pictures of Dooks as I'm staying at Inch beach at the end of July next year. Saw your thread and pictures, plus your picture on the POTY thread from Tralee. Looking at the food pictures in those threads you need to be running round to burn it off!

Per my cycling app, a 65K cycle ride taking 2 hours 20 minutes with 328m of elevation change and no breaks burns 1,316 calories. There is absolutely no way that a 3 hour round of golf burns more than that. It still has a worthwhile health benefit - it's certainly better than sitting down watching sky sports all day!

Ed

Hi Ed. I believe a 140 minute bike ride at a decent speed (say 13-14 mph on the road) burns far more than 1316 calories. Probably closer to 1800 but this is dependent on your weight. I calculate that at my average speed which is 15 mph I burn about 1000 calories in a 70 minute ride over the fairly flat ground in my area. This is per the Bicycling Magazine website.

[Ed Tilley]

Hi Mike,

I have the Strava bike / run app which I think is the most popular one in the world for cyclists so I assume it is reasonably accurate? To be honest, I use it as a timing / distance device and never take any notice of the calories - until this thread. I would also say that it depends on what bike you are using - 15mph on a mountain / hybrid bike is a lot more effort that 15mph on a reasonable road bike.

Anyway - both cycling and golf are good for you and should be encouraged!

[Mike Schott]

Hi Mike,

I have the Strava bike / run app which I think is the most popular one in the world for cyclists so I assume it is reasonably accurate? To be honest, I use it as a timing / distance device and never take any notice of the calories - until this thread. I would also say that it depends on what bike you are using - 15mph on a mountain / hybrid bike is a lot more effort that 15mph on a reasonable road bike.

Anyway - both cycling and golf are good for you and should be encouraged!

Thanks Ed.

Completely agree. The problem with estimating calories burned are the number of variables. The include weight, age, speed, rolling resistance, wind, elevation changes and others. I'm no spring chicken nor am I trim so I prefer to err on the high side which makes me feel better about the exertion  .

Either way, experiencing nature and elevating our heart rates is always a good thing!

[Marc Haring]

There's an argument for saying that if you burn a thousand calories you will be a thousand calories more hungry and your brain will force you to consume the shortfall, so not much benefit but it's got to be better than sitting around doing nothing. What I want to know is how come i'm more hungry and more tired after a bad round of golf compared to a good one.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Marc,

Yes, I had misremembered -- it is indeed for 9 holes. For all the doubters out there, the research study I linked to was legit and not some Internet calculator.

Oh hey, I just thought of yet another reason golf has it over cycling: no BMW drivers.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/a_fine_whine/2013/07/bmw_drivers_and_cyclists_the_war_between_the_luxury_cars_and_bicycles.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/road-rage-bmw-bicyclist_n_3148014.html

[Mark Bourgeois]

Hey, Tony, still drive a BMW? 

[Will Peterson]

I read a book called "When War Played Through" which chronicles golf during WWII.  In an attempt to not be viewed as an unnecessary luxury, many courses championed the health benefits of golfing.  It was a way to keep in shape for the war effort on the home front. 

[Tony_Muldoon]

Hey, Tony, still drive a BMW? 

OK so either your memory is faulty or someone outed me!

[Andy Troeger]

Ed, I'm also struggling to believe it, but how to explain these estimates of 1300-1400 for a 200lb person carrying their own bag?

I've learned that calorie burning numbers vary a lot from person to person. I wear a monitor when I work out and at my fitness class I burn a minimum of 1,000 calories per hour. It is not Cross-fit, but still high intensity and a combination of cardio and weights. Most others burn 600-700 calories at the same class, and some of the women are closer to 500. I wore the monitor when I climbed the mountain in Albuquerque at a brisk pace (8 miles and 5,000 foot elevation gain in 3 hours) and hit 3,000 calories before reaching the car after riding the tram back down.

Golf calorie numbers benefit from the time it takes to complete 18 holes. Walking at any kind of pace with a golf bag gets the heart rate up somewhat, and over four hours that makes 1,400 calories seem reasonable. I've only worn my monitor on a day that I played 36 holes in a cart, and I ended up at 3,100 calories for the day.

[Doug Siebert]

I don't think the two have to be exclusive.  I do both - though I must note that I play fewer rounds than pretty much anyone at the 5th Major (my only GCA event)  Probably 1/10th as many as the most ardent golfers there!  But there's nothing special about cycling that distracts me away from the course, I run, lift weights, go boating (i.e. sitting around drinking beer for a few hours) or whatever.  There is lots to do in the summer, much more than just golf.

I think the arguments over calories burned walking only matter to those who play alone or with like-minded individuals.  If you're the only one who wants to walk in your group, you have to be dedicated to stick to walking when everyone else in sitting in their cart.  Once you're in the cart you're burning far fewer calories, and the "burn" can quickly become negative if you end up having a few beers during the round.

It is ironic that a pastime that should be moderately healthy was turned into something that is almost as unhealthy as sitting in front of the TV.  Only in America!

[Tony_Muldoon]

Anyone palayed golf in Sweden?  How many golfers there, ride in Carts?

[Mark Bourgeois]

http://wtop.com/world/2015/01/bono-i-may-never-play-guitar-again-after-crash/

[Adam Lawrence]

Anyone palayed golf in Sweden?  How many golfers there, ride in Carts?

Very few in my experience.

[Dan Boerger]

Interesting topic.

I used to be a very avid cyclist, raced quite a bit (left the competitive side of the sport as a Cat 3 rider). Recreational cycling does not take much time, but competitive cycling does! Logging miles to be competitive and then going to races burns plenty of time. Cycling clothes may look goofy, but are very practical if you ride any sort of distance and in varying weather. Now, I ride mostly with my kids (I have a 13 year old that climbs like a mountain goat.)

Although I walk 99% of my rounds of golf, I don't do it to stay in shape. More accurately, I stay in shape so I can enjoy golf more. (Run 15 miles a week on average for that.)

Golfing is a lot more mentally taxing than cycling, so that must burn some extra calories??

[John Kavanaugh]

You can't slow a car down unless you are seen and if your aren't seen you are gonna die. My wife and I both ride three wheeled recumbents and are often mistaken for wounded warriors. Our favorite moment last year was when a finish for a triathlon was on our regular route. We crossed the line to a standing ovation that quickly turned into looks of disgust with murmurs of disdain.

[Garland Bayley]

It seems to me that the bicycle is such an efficient machine that people could be over estimating the health benefits of riding. I tried bicycling for exercise (including century rides) at one point in my life and found it to be such a minimal workout, and that my other muscles atrophied to my dismay so much that I gave bicycling up for ineffectiveness.

[Mike Schott]

It seems to me that the bicycle is such an efficient machine that people could be over estimating the health benefits of riding. I tried bicycling for exercise (including century rides) at one point in my life and found it to be such a minimal workout, and that my other muscles atrophied to my dismay so much that I gave bicycling up for ineffectiveness.

That's just weird. No way is cycling a minimal workout. A bicycle is by definition inefficient and with increased weight and friction even more so. You are right about your other muscles, it's pretty specific to the lower body.

[Garland Bayley]

... A bicycle is by definition inefficient and with increased weight and friction even more so. ...

Most efficient form of transportation ever (see link below). If you want to burn as many calories as walking, you need to spend three times as much time. (EDIT: Mistaken logic on 3 times time as caught by Steve below)
Think you are saving time getting your exercise by bicycle. It seems that you might have to bicycle for 12 hours to burn as many calories as walking a round of golf. If you want a quick workout, perhaps speed golf should be your answer. Anyone know of a golf course that deals explicitly in speed golf?

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/whats-the-worlds-most-energy-efficient-vehicle-a-bicycle.html

Fads are fads. Facts are facts.

[John Kavanaugh]

You lose weight to cycle you don't cycle to lose weight.  Haul your fat ass up a few hills and you just might skip a meal.  I do love it though, the toys are even cooler than golf crap.

[Steve Okula]

GJ Bailey says,

" It seems that you might have to bicycle for 12 hours to burn as many calories as walking a round of golf."

Wrong.

From the link he posted:

"walking still took 3 times as many calories as riding a bike the same distance."

That is not to say you need to bike three times as long to burn the same calories as walking, but that you need to bike three times as far.

So it's not the length of time you're on the golf course that counts, but the distance you walk, say about five miles for 18 holes. It would take a 15 mile bike ride to burn the same amount of calories, which I, as a slow cyclist, could do in less than an hour and a half.

[Jason Thurman]

I'm trying to figure out my favorite quote from this thread. At first it was when Jeff suggested that khaki shorts would work just as well for a bike ride as lycra cycling shorts. That was hilarious, but made my ass hurt and thighs chafe just to think about it.

Then David had his great post about his frustration at how cyclists refuse to yield to his car. I agree with him. The only thing more annoying than a cyclist who won't get out of the way for a car is when a guy at a green light refuses to yield to me when I have a red one at the same intersection. Entitlement is a plague with these people.

I didn't think there was any way to top Garland's assertion that he tried riding centuries and it was so easy that he took up the more strenuous exercise of strolling. But then he dropped this:

If you want to burn as many calories (cycling) as walking, you need to spend three times as much time (cycling).
Fads are fads. Facts are facts.

I believe Garland is an engineer. Given the mathematical ineptitude implied in the post quoted, I hope for all our sake that he's a locomotive engineer. His train will only make it through the first third of its next trip, but at least he won't design a bridge that collapses under the strain of a khaki-shorts wearing fat guy on a bicycle. On the bright side, David's life will be spared when his car never makes it onto the bridge thanks to that cyclist's refusal to resign his legal right-of-way.

[Garland Bayley]

GJ Bailey says,

" It seems that you might have to bicycle for 12 hours to burn as many calories as walking a round of golf."

Wrong.

From the link he posted:

"walking still took 3 times as many calories as riding a bike the same distance."

That is not to say you need to bike three times as long to burn the same calories as walking, but that you need to bike three times as far.

So it's not the length of time you're on the golf course that counts, but the distance you walk, say about five miles for 18 holes. It would take a 15 mile bike ride to burn the same amount of calories, which I, as a slow cyclist, could do in less than an hour and a half.

Thanks for the catch Steve. I didn't think that one through well enough.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I didn't think there was any way to top Garland's assertion that he tried riding centuries and it was so easy that he took up the more strenuous exercise of strolling. ...

Since I did not say what I gave up to spend my time on a bike, you are jumping to quite a conclusion here.

In fact, what I gave up was pickup basketball games at the University gym.