Calories burned golfing but riding in cart?

I see most of the focus of this debate is the walking around portion and how many calories it actually burns. What about the swinging motion and all the reps performed? I know not every swing is full and to the max but the twisting and turning of your core and upper body should count towards the calorie count. While i do not agree with 1200 calories being burned playing 18 holes in roughly 4 hours but it is a strenuous activity that works the body. I know i often am sore the next day after hacking away at the ball and shooting in my usual high 80s. Especially in the middle of a Phoenix, AZ summer.

Does anyone know about how many calories you would burn golfing, but riding in the cart. MFP claims over 1200 calories and I really don't think that could be correct. Maybe I should cut that in half. Any ideas?

why don't you just get out and walk?

I don't understand posts like these. Seriously. They make my head hurt.

Part of an article from Golf Magazine

An enjoyable game, and for many an opportunity for social outings, golf is also a way to pick up some beneficial exercise. Whether walking the course, hitting the range or taking a cart, playing golf is a leisurely way to burn some extra calories. This is true even in the case of a nine-hole outing, depending in part on a player's weight, walking vs. taking a cart and metabolism.
Walking vs. Cart
It comes as little surprise that golfers will burn more calories during a round on the links should they choose to walk nine holes over using a cart. According to Shapefit, an online health and nutrition advice site, a 190-pound golfer will burn approximately 130 more calories per hour (431 to 302) pulling his clubs on a wheeling device than by taking a cart. Should a player elect to carry his clubs, that jumps to 474 calories per hour. Considering an average nine-hole outing takes between two and three hours, golfers may burn upwards of 300 more calories total by carrying or pulling their clubs.
Taking a Cart
According to Shapefit, a 130-pound golfer will burn approximately 207 calories per hour while taking a cart, compared to 246 for a 155-pound golfer and 302 calories per hour for a 190-pound golfer. That means that over a nine-hole round, which is likely to take around two hours with a cart, golfers burn between 400 and 700 calories per outing.
Pulling Clubs
According to Shapefit, a 130-pound golfer will burn approximately 295 calories per hour while pulling her clubs on a wheel-accessible device, compared to 352 for a 155-pound golfer and 431 calories per hour for a 190-pound golfer. That means that over a nine-hole round, which while pulling clubs is likely to take around 2 1/2 hours, golfers burn between 700 and 1,100 calories per outing.
Carrying Clubs
According to Shapefit, a 130-pound golfer will burn approximately 325 calories per hour while carrying her clubs, compared to 387 for a 155-pound golfer and 474 calories per hour for a 190-pound golfer. That means that over a nine-hole round, which while carrying clubs is likely to take around 2 1/2 hours, golfers burn between 800 and 1,200 calories per outing.
Driving Range
Before hitting the links, some golfers will first take to the driving range. Fortunately, this serves as another way to burn calories. According to Shapefit, a 130-pound golfer will burn approximately 177 calories per hour on the range, compared to 211 for a 155-pound golfer and 259 calories per hour for a 190-pound golfer.

There are several issues with this type of article.

1. The data is weak. There has not been that much research on golf and that which has been done involves either tiny sample sizes or more simulated golf activity. Often, compendiums of physical activity (often used as a source) vary widely in the quality of the source information. The information is not vetted in detail, so it can range from very accurate (walking, running) to not reliable at all (household activities). The Shapefit article does not provide any citations for its information, so there is no way to judge its veracity.

2. It is difficult to collect large volumes of data under "real life" conditions. And if you hook people up with gear to collect and analyze expired gases, you have introduced "observer bias" or observer interaction into the experiment. You are going to affect the way that people play and, again, interfere with the accuracy of the data.

3. Often, estimates of energy expenditure for activity assume that the activity is being done on a continuous basis. Otherwise, there is no way to get a consistent response. Again this will tend to lead to an overestimate of energy expenditure. And if you are taking 2 to 2.5 hours to play 9 nine holes, at least 50% of that time is spent sitting around doing almost nothing--waiting for some dope to line up and mark a 3rd putt or watching a bunch of old guys with $1000 clubs spend 10 minutes looking for a $4 golf ball.

4. In situations where low-level energy is being expended over a long period of time, resting energy, or BMR, has to be taken into consideration. Some who burns 500 calories in 45 minutes doesn't have to be too concerned about the 60 or so calories you body burns at rest. When the expenditure is only 150-200 calories per hour, then the 80-120 cal/hour of BMR is a more significant factor. Those 9-hole totals, even if they were accurate, would need to be reduced by 200-250 calories just to account for BMR.

5. In addition to BMR, estimates of TDEE also include an "allowance" of calories for casual daily activity--some 25% - 50% of BMR, depending on activity level. So some of that is already accounted for in the golf "estimate".

6. Then there is what happens the rest of the day. If golf is as big a calorie-burner as these articles say, then the average golfer is going to be fatigued enough from playing that it is quite likely that the golfer will reduce their activity the rest of the day. Once more, this will offset the effect of the energy expended playing golf.

The fact is that, in the grand scheme of things, while golf involves physical exertion that can lead to muscle fatigue and, being an outdoor summer activity, can result in sweating, neither of these are reliable indicators of calories burned.

Golf absolutely provides general health and some fitness benefits compared to sitting on a couch, but it pales in comparison to most other types of exercise. Visit any golf course anywhere in America and it will become readily apparent that golf is not a very good weight-loss strategy. The time when I played the most golf (1-2x per week) was also the time when I was at my heaviest. And I usually play 18 hours and I also did not have money to use a cart. On a clear course, I can walk and play 18 holes and finish in under 2.5 hours. And I never lost an ounce of weight during that time, nor did it do anything for my fitness. (If I play now, I'll do a full workout before heading to the course, because I know it's not a substitute).

I am going into this much detail because I think these types of articles are extremely misleading--like the charts that say you burn 1000 calories washing a car. Anyone who thinks they are going to burn 1000 calories playing 9 holes is in for an unpleasant surprise.

mindbattle wrote: »

Riding in a golf cart you walk 78 steps per minute verses 122 steps per minute walking. This is according to the "Activities to steps conversion chart" by healthy Utah.