Golf for fitness

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
7,524
Location
Yeovil
You don't need to get the heart rate up to lose weight. As long as the energy expenditure is there.

This has come up alot recently. People need to understand that a 5 to 6 mile walk is a substantial amount of exercise. As far as fat burning goes a 6 mile run is nearly as equal as a 6 mile walk. Most of your mates don't walk 12 to 18 miles a week I can guarantee that

Most of my mates do - they are all golfers and a lot do not walk in a straight line tee to green:LOL:
 

Rooter

Money List Winner
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
9,651
Location
Newbury
Talking about foods, which I love talking about food and nutrition, I think people also massively underestimate calories and eat too large a portion too. Lots of hidden calories and sugars too.

A very lazy day example below,

Breakfast
Plain Oat so Simple with semi-skimmed milk 180kCal and 8.4g Sugar

Tesco Lunch Meal Deal (790kCal and 33.8g sugar)
BLT Sandwich 435kCal and 6.1g sugar
Hula Hoops BBQ grab bag 250kCal and 0.7g sugar
Bottle coke 105kCal and 27g sugar

Pre Dinner 2 beers (cans fosters lager, I know!)
36kCal per 100ml, so 317kCal

Tesco Chicken Tikka meal for one (inc rice)
749kCal and 21.4g Sugar

The above is NO snacks, no tea/coffee, no drinks outside of water and to be fair, that's not a horrendous selection.

2036kCal and 63.6g Sugar (NHS Suggest 30g of Sugar for an adult) Most of the sugars above are added and manmade, some easy choices above would be coke/zero or even water in the meal deal, OK no one, in reality, is eating a ready meal every day, but the concern for me probably comes in home-cooked meals, portion control is then out of the window, the BHF has a really good guide here: https://www.bhf.org.uk/informations...olkit/food-portions/potatoes-bread-rice-pasta

But it may surprise again, the recommended portion of rice, for example, is two heaped tablespoons!! that's mental, I would say 100g is an OK small portion... I will wager many will have double this and some more with dinner and white rice for example is 131kCal per 100g, same with chips, mash, pasta whatever is the 'filler' of the meal... it's too much.


A few examples of snacks that may surprise you and it's probably these that will harm your progress without knowing,

Cuppa tea with Semi and 1 sugar = 40kCal and 7 sugar
2 Plain digestive biscuits = 142kCal and 5g sugar
Medium Latte (no sugar) from Costa = 167kCal and 16.9g Sugar!

Take all 3 which is nothing really = 349 calories and 28.9g sugar added to daily total! And you have had no fruit, no veg (of which natural occurring sugars are present), it's scary!

I think as a nation, portion sizes are too big, education is not good enough and it's of no surprise that a large portion of the population is overweight, with a scary number of people who are dangerously so.
 

sunshine

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
1,566
People need to understand that a 5 to 6 mile walk is a substantial amount of exercise.
Maybe it is to you. For others it is not even exercise, let alone "substantial".

As far as fat burning goes a 6 mile run is nearly as equal as a 6 mile walk.
Blatantly rubbish. Maybe a slow waddle is not much different, but actually running is much higher intensity than walking.
 

Rooter

Money List Winner
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
9,651
Location
Newbury
Blatantly rubbish. Maybe a slow waddle is not much different, but actually running is much higher intensity than walking.
Not rubbish at all, tons of research out there that proves Walking 'can' burn more fat. The important point is 'burn more fat'. Not use more calories, critical to note! Research is VERY roughly around the theories that walking, as its low intensity, doesn't require carbohydrate (ie food) as a fuel source, it can tap into the natural fat supply quicker and easier.
 

sunshine

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
1,566
Not rubbish at all, tons of research out there that proves Walking 'can' burn more fat. The important point is 'burn more fat'. Not use more calories, critical to note! Research is VERY roughly around the theories that walking, as its low intensity, doesn't require carbohydrate (ie food) as a fuel source, it can tap into the natural fat supply quicker and easier.
I agree, but there are a very specific set of criteria, in terms of timing, food intake, speed, metabolism, that need to be in place for that to be true!

Generally safe to say that a 6 mile run (say 45 mins) burns more fat and calories than a round of golf (say 3h30min).
 

hovis

Tour Winner
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
5,336
Maybe it is to you. For others it is not even exercise, let alone "substantial".



Blatantly rubbish. Maybe a slow waddle is not much different, but actually running is much higher intensity than walking.
This is my business. This is what I do for a job. Walking for 2 hours to cover 6 miles is almost the same calories as running 6 miles in 50 minutes. All intensity does is burn energy faster.
So after your 50 minute run you are sat at home with your feet up whilst the walker is still out there for an additional 70 minutes. Total calories are almost identical.

If I remember correctly it was
Walking 90 cals per mile
Jog 95 cals per mile
Sprint 105 per mile.

However the runners felt more wiped out so rested more Durring the remainder of the day thus negating the difference

As far as fitness goes running is absolutely better than walking but then you have to accept the additional risk of injury. If you like running then fine but if your goal is to lose weight then walking is a better option as your less likely to get injured and less like to rest after the activity because your shattered. That's called "NEAT"
 
Last edited:

pauldj42

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
14,050
Location
Seaham
I use Garmin Connect to record/monitor my fitness, I think there is a slight confusion when comparing Golf to running.

ie: Me
Saturday, Golf, 4 Ball, Ind Comp, - 5.7mile, 3hrs 51min, 574 Calories.

Sunday, Run, - 6.36mile, 57min 30Secs, 703 Calories.

On the above there is no way the 2 compare, however, it is possible a continuous walk of 2 hours may be closer to the run, but Golf is stop start and will burn less.
 

hovis

Tour Winner
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
5,336
I use Garmin Connect to record/monitor my fitness, I think there is a slight confusion when comparing Golf to running.

ie: Me
Saturday, Golf, 4 Ball, Ind Comp, - 5.7mile, 3hrs 51min, 574 Calories.

Sunday, Run, - 6.36mile, 57min 30Secs, 703 Calories.

On the above there is no way the 2 compare, however, it is possible a continuous walk of 2 hours may be closer to the run, but Golf is stop start and will burn less.
The apps work simply by overall distance and they use a very broad calculation to add the time is was achieved in. But 700 cals for 6.3 miles is about right and 574 cals for 5.7 mile looks good too. I can't be bothered to do the math but if your round was also 6.3 miles that would be about 625 cals. So that run gave you a benefit of a whopping 75 cals!!!!
So given the choice I'll take a round of golf over a run anyday
 

pauldj42

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
14,050
Location
Seaham
The apps work simply by overall distance and they use a very broad calculation to add the time is was achieved in. But 700 cals for 6.3 miles is about right and 574 cals for 5.7 mile looks good too. I can't be bothered to do the math but if your round was also 6.3 miles that would be about 625 cals. So that run gave you a benefit of a whopping 75 cals!!!!
So given the choice I'll take a round of golf over a run anyday
But that would be 1hr approx compared to 4hr approx, not 1hr run to 2hr walk as mentioned in the thread above.

Edit:
29 Sep out on my own for Golf;
1hr 59min, 4.71mile (off Yellows), 484 Calories.
 

hovis

Tour Winner
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
5,336
But that would be 1hr approx compared to 4hr approx, not 1hr run to 2hr walk as mentioned in the thread above.

Edit:
29 Sep out on my own for Golf;
1hr 59min, 4.71mile (off Yellows), 484 Calories.
What I'm saying is its the distance covered not the time. The start stop makes no difference. It just means your out there for longer if that makes sense. If you haven't got 4 hours every day and only have the one hour then running would be the overwhelming better choice.
 

pauldj42

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
14,050
Location
Seaham
What I'm saying is its the distance covered not the time. The start stop makes no difference. It just means your out there for longer if that makes sense. If you haven't got 4 hours every day and only have the one hour then running would be the overwhelming better choice.
I get that, it was this quote in post #26 I was comparing it to

“This is my business. This is what I do for a job. Walking for 2 hours to cover 6 miles is almost the same calories as running 6 miles in 50 minutes.”

ie, 2 hours not 4 hours. I understand the distance element, but surely that brings an element of pace/time in to it.
 

sunshine

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
1,566
This is my business. This is what I do for a job. Walking for 2 hours to cover 6 miles is almost the same calories as running 6 miles in 50 minutes. All intensity does is burn energy faster.
So after your 50 minute run you are sat at home with your feet up whilst the walker is still out there for an additional 70 minutes. Total calories are almost identical.

If I remember correctly it was
Walking 90 cals per mile
Jog 95 cals per mile
Sprint 105 per mile.

However the runners felt more wiped out so rested more Durring the remainder of the day thus negating the difference

As far as fitness goes running is absolutely better than walking but then you have to accept the additional risk of injury. If you like running then fine but if your goal is to lose weight then walking is a better option as your less likely to get injured and less like to rest after the activity because your shattered. That's called "NEAT"
I'd love what you are saying to be true. I'm at a point in my life where I no longer do the level of exercise I used to at the gym or running or on the football pitch, however I'm not kidding myself that playing golf is a like for like substitute.
 

hovis

Tour Winner
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
5,336
I'd love what you are saying to be true. I'm at a point in my life where I no longer do the level of exercise I used to at the gym or running or on the football pitch, however I'm not kidding myself that playing golf is a like for like substitute.
As far as fitness goes your right. Unfortunately golf isn't going to cut it for you. But as far as energy consumption goes don't write golf of as negligible.
 

4LEX

Active member
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Messages
302
Golf and carrying clubs is actually a great form of exercise for calories burnt. Unless your course is hilly it won't get your heart pumping to the same level as running, cycling, swimming etc will though.

The problem is most golfers have a crap breakfast, another unhealthy snack at half way or a chocolate bar, followed by a few beers and crisps.
 
Top