Compendium of Physical Activities

LemonSnap

I like to play golf - I like it a lot. I particularly like that it burns kcals and I can use it as a workout whilst getting my R & R. I try to get out at least twice weekly so that is four to five hours of exercise.

Here's the thing: MFP tells me that if I play golf for two and a half hours - pulling my clubs - I burn 1473 kcal (I'm old, female and fat). I also use the 'Endomondo' app and up until last week it told me I burned around 350 kcal for the same exercise - big difference! I was going with Endomondo. Then..... Endomondo sent an upgrade and suddenly all their kcal calculations went through the roof - I'm now burning over 2000 kcal playing nine holes.

So, I do a little research and find that Endomondo have changed their calculations to those of the Compendium of Physical Activities. You'll find all the info here: https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/

In a nut shell, the Compendium has changed their MET formula to account for how an individual’s variation in age, height, sex and body mass may influence the intensity of their physical activity. That's me; old and fat and female.

They seem legit. Backed by credible research. What do you lot think? I've always felt that MFP overestimated exercise calories but now I am wondering.

roachhaley

Well, 4-5 hours of walking seems like it would burn quite a few calories. I personally go with the lowest estimate - maybe go for something in the middle?

LemonSnap

Well, 4-5 hours of walking seems like it would burn quite a few calories. I personally go with the lowest estimate - maybe go for something in the middle?

Some days it really does feel like a workout; all that arm rotating and bending and squatting and pulling and pushing and

---

there is actually a lot of concentration and calculation required - which is why golf is recommended for older people (activate the brain) and those needing to lose themself and escape from day to day stress.

jfan175

The 350 sounds about right for 9 holes. There's no sustained cardio or heavy lifting involved. If you're carrying your clubs vs. using a pull cart, you'll burn more....and there's no cupholder for beer!

thebigcb

The only realy way to tell is to get a hate rate monitor.

Have you been achieveing your goals while using the original calories burn? If you have stick with that one is my advice

LemonSnap

The 350 sounds about right for 9 holes. There's no sustained cardio or heavy lifting involved.

Ha! you obviously don't drive like I drive..... long and down the middle - power walking dragging that dead weight behind me, that's cardio baby.

Have you been achieveing your goals while using the original calories burn? If you have stick with that one is my advice

I kind of do - well, some times more, but I DO have a lot to lose.

I thought some people might be interested in the studies used by the Compendium of Physical Activities and, more interestingly, how their calculations correspond to the much maligned numbers used by MFP

Azdak

I like to play golf - I like it a lot. I particularly like that it burns kcals and I can use it as a workout whilst getting my R & R. I try to get out at least twice weekly so that is four to five hours of exercise.

Here's the thing: MFP tells me that if I play golf for two and a half hours - pulling my clubs - I burn 1473 kcal (I'm old, female and fat). I also use the 'Endomondo' app and up until last week it told me I burned around 350 kcal for the same exercise - big difference! I was going with Endomondo. Then..... Endomondo sent an upgrade and suddenly all their kcal calculations went through the roof - I'm now burning over 2000 kcal playing nine holes.

So, I do a little research and find that Endomondo have changed their calculations to those of the Compendium of Physical Activities. You'll find all the info here: https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/

In a nut shell, the Compendium has changed their MET formula to account for how an individual’s variation in age, height, sex and body mass may influence the intensity of their physical activity. That's me; old and fat and female.

They seem legit. Backed by credible research. What do you lot think? I've always felt that MFP overestimated exercise calories but now I am wondering.

The "Compendium" looks very "authritative" but its accuracy varies widely, depending on the activity. I read a number of the supporting documents that were issued with the latest upgrade and they confirmed what I already suspected:

in an attempt to put together a more comprehensive list of activities, they do not seem to be particularly rigorous in vetting the sources used to assign the MET values. For traditional exercises, the numbers are reasonably accurate, as that data is well-established.

For other things, they just pull from other sources, other tables, other reference sources. They don't really verify whether THOSE sources were accurate. So what you end up with is a hodgepodge that ranges from usefully accurate to basically "making it up'.

The golf numbers would more likely fall in the latter category.

Azdak

The 350 sounds about right for 9 holes. There's no sustained cardio or heavy lifting involved.

Ha! you obviously don't drive like I drive..... long and down the middle - power walking dragging that dead weight behind me, that's cardio baby.

Have you been achieveing your goals while using the original calories burn? If you have stick with that one is my advice

I kind of do - well, some times more, but I DO have a lot to lose.

I thought some people might be interested in the studies used by the Compendium of Physical Activities and, more interestingly, how their calculations correspond to the much maligned numbers used by MFP

I suspect that MFP draws a lot of its data from the Compendium or something like it. For all of its flaws, the Compendium is still the only comprehensive resource out there, as far as I know.

Azdak

I try not to use myself as an "n=1" data source, but all I know is that when I was at my heaviest and gaining weight, I played a ton of golf. I almost always walked and I don't stroll around either-- if it's not too crowded, I routinely walk and play 18 holes in 2 1/2 hours. I never lost an ounce of weight playing golf--nor did it help my fitness either. YMMV

christabeltoria

I try not to use myself as an "n=1" data source, but all I know is that when I was at my heaviest and gaining weight, I played a ton of golf. I almost always walked and I don't stroll around either-- if it's not too crowded, I routinely walk and play 18 holes in 2 1/2 hours. I never lost an ounce of weight playing golf--nor did it help my fitness either. YMMV

So then, what DID you do, Adzak?

Azdak

I try not to use myself as an "n=1" data source, but all I know is that when I was at my heaviest and gaining weight, I played a ton of golf. I almost always walked and I don't stroll around either-- if it's not too crowded, I routinely walk and play 18 holes in 2 1/2 hours. I never lost an ounce of weight playing golf--nor did it help my fitness either. YMMV

So then, what DID you do, Adzak?

Not sure if that's a serious question or not, but...I decreased my calorie intake, increased my exercise, and lifting weights. Pretty much the standard formula.

I'm not sure if my previous comment came off as negative or not--it wasn't mean to be, but sometimes words have a different "tone" on "paper" than they had in my head. I just meant to express that I am somewhat baffled by the hugely inflated calorie numbers I sometime read being given for playing golf. I just can't reconcile those numbers in my head with the reality that I experience--and see in others--when playing the sport. I actually had to cut way back on golf because it was interfering with my workouts--it was hard to find time for both and I knew that golf was not giving me any "bang for my buck". So I either did my usual workout and then played, or I played golf on a scheduled "rest" day-and I didn't take very many rest days.

jfan175

The 350 sounds about right for 9 holes. There's no sustained cardio or heavy lifting involved.

Ha! you obviously don't drive like I drive..... long and down the middle - power walking dragging that dead weight behind me, that's cardio baby.

No, I don't drive like that....but I have to bust trail through pawpaw patches, swim and crawl to find my drives!