News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Found, the missing golfers.
« on: December 20, 2014, 11:07:43 AM »
Anecdotally this is something I've observed.  I know many more people who've completely or mostly given up golf for Cycling in the past 5 years, than I do people who have taken up golf.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/30422698  


Speaking to these men and women I get the impression that

A even a long Cycle takes less time.
B they can see the effort they put in being rewarded much more easily than getting results by practicing golf.
C the clothing is trendier
D Once you've bought the bike the outgoings are less
E one is perceived as healthy, the other not really.  Health is a major concern today.


I do think golf as an industry has ignored the health  benefits.  It is a sport and they should be trumpeted by Golf Unioins and the R&A.  Just imagine if your partner knew that golf was exercise and doing you good.   It is an issue totally ignored by the magazines.  A couple of years ago I had a long letter pubished about the state of golf and the only bit they edited out was the health benefits!

The only reference I've ever seen on here.


http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/ivan-july-2012/



1. First, please discuss the health benefits of golf.
Swinging a golf club is more demanding than some people think. More calories and energy are burned than would generally be thought when you play a game of golf. To prove the point, try swinging non-stop and see how long you last? If you can keep it going for more than sixty seconds you are super fit. It’s more likely that you will be shocked at how soon your arms will turn to jelly and the club will fall from your hands. Provided they walk and do not ride in carts, dedicated golfers are not as mad as they might appear. By walking and playing a lot, golfers can get themselves into better shape in an enjoyable way that is hugely beneficial to healthy living.
In Life As A Way of Golf, I write about 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.
Of course, maintaining a low, single-figure handicap involves playing a lot of golf, which also supports the argument that being out in the fresh air and walking at a reasonable pace for up to 5-miles to complete 18-holes regularly has to be good for you."



Dr MacKenzie was right.  As the populaition ages Golf should be encoraged.


Confession. In the past 3 years I have acquired 2 new bikes.  I would love to have more time for this so if you see me posting less here, you will understand.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2014, 11:37:28 AM by Tony_Muldoon »
Let's make GCA grate again!

Mike Schott

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2014, 11:33:14 AM »
Cycling and golf, never really thought about the two as competing but the comparison is a good one. I do both but since the birth of my son 4 years ago the amount of time I spend on the course has been drastically reduced. It just takes too much time and expense. I am a cyclist and already have the bike and clothing (my bike is 22 years old but still relevant for my purposes) and can get dressed ride for an hour and showered in less than 2 hours. As far as fitness, I am a walker with a pull cart but still don't burn nearly the calories or elevate my heart rate as I do on the bike.

Slightly more OT: I read an article the other day about MAMIL's (Middle Age Men in Lycra). I'm one of these and it ain't pretty.


Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2014, 12:11:24 PM »
Thanks for one nice picture in there!

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2014, 01:18:39 PM »
I have to say I never quite understood the whole "bike outfit" thing.
Not a lot of activities a pair of old khaki shorts won't work for.
Golfers(well many of them) ;) look way less ridiculous by comparison
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Mark Pavy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2014, 02:59:14 PM »
Tony, I agree with your observations. Many of my golfing friends (45-55yr old men) now mountain bike in preference to golf. Some do both. Their spare time is finite, so the more they mountain bike the less they golf and vice versa. Over the last 10 years in my area, I have seen the amount of golf retail outlets go from 5 to 1, I would estimate the amount of bike shops (mainly mountain bikes) has risen from 2 to 15. The decline in golf participation is very real from my perspective.

Mike Schott

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2014, 08:40:35 PM »
I have to say I never quite understood the whole "bike outfit" thing.
Not a lot of activities a pair of old khaki shorts won't work for.
Golfers(well many of them) ;) look way less ridiculous by comparison

Good cycling clothes are functional. Racing style bikes have seats with little padding. The lycra shorts have chamois padding. This is the optimal setup for long distance riding. Khaki shorts would be disastrous in this scenario. Obviously the tight jerseys are to keep them from flapping in the breeze. And we wear shoes that clip into the pedals. Geeky but effective.

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2014, 08:57:17 PM »
You can't get run over playing golf. There's your health benefit.
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2014, 04:46:04 AM »
You can't get run over playing golf. There's your health benefit.

Sure about that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN_6bSSeyiM 
Let's make GCA grate again!

Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2014, 05:32:11 AM »
If I skip breakfast




That would be on the days when suasages might be airborne?  :)


Brian I'm in total agreement with you but why do you think this subject is never discussed?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2014, 05:36:01 AM by Tony_Muldoon »
Let's make GCA grate again!

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2014, 08:21:29 AM »
Anecdotally this is something I've observed.  I know many more people who've completely or mostly given up golf for Cycling in the past 5 years, than I do people who have taken up golf.


Count me as one. I rarely play golf anymore, but I bike 2-3 times/week.

The bike is a more convenient activity to work in given time constraints. But mainly it's because I know after a bike ride I'll feel invigorated, healthy, and pleased with myself. After golf I feel weak, stupid, clumsy, and frustrated.

The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2014, 09:19:04 AM »
I have to say I never quite understood the whole "bike outfit" thing.
Not a lot of activities a pair of old khaki shorts won't work for.
Golfers(well many of them) ;) look way less ridiculous by comparison

Good cycling clothes are functional. Racing style bikes have seats with little padding. The lycra shorts have chamois padding. This is the optimal setup for long distance riding. Khaki shorts would be disastrous in this scenario. Obviously the tight jerseys are to keep them from flapping in the breeze. And we wear shoes that clip into the pedals. Geeky but effective.

au contraire,
the khaki shorts are geeky ;) ;D
but then I've never been a gear guy-in multiple sports

no doubt riders of a certain range and ability need such gear-It's just amazing how we could ride miles and for hours as kids without such a get-up and suddenly a middle aged guy needs a full on set-up of 7 oz. bike and shiny clothes to run down to the Apple store ;) ;D
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Mike Schott

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2014, 10:22:51 PM »
I have to say I never quite understood the whole "bike outfit" thing.
Not a lot of activities a pair of old khaki shorts won't work for.
Golfers(well many of them) ;) look way less ridiculous by comparison

Good cycling clothes are functional. Racing style bikes have seats with little padding. The lycra shorts have chamois padding. This is the optimal setup for long distance riding. Khaki shorts would be disastrous in this scenario. Obviously the tight jerseys are to keep them from flapping in the breeze. And we wear shoes that clip into the pedals. Geeky but effective.

au contraire,
the khaki shorts are geeky ;) ;D
but then I've never been a gear guy-in multiple sports

no doubt riders of a certain range and ability need such gear-It's just amazing how we could ride miles and for hours as kids without such a get-up and suddenly a middle aged guy needs a full on set-up of 7 oz. bike and shiny clothes to run down to the Apple store ;) ;D

I have to get my caramel soy no whip frappacino before I go the the Apple store.  ;D

Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2014, 02:41:15 AM »
Few golfers die or end up paralysed due to the game!
Cave Nil Vino

Brian_Ewen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2014, 03:18:30 AM »
Count me as one. I rarely play golf anymore, but I bike 2-3 times/week.

The bike is a more convenient activity to work in given time constraints. But mainly it's because I know after a bike ride I'll feel invigorated, healthy, and pleased with myself. After golf I feel weak, stupid, clumsy, and frustrated.

Me too, and its been like that for 5 years.

Would not say it was about health, as much as cost and changes at my local golf club.

BTW, there is so much great cycling clothing out there, that I have never felt the need to wear lycra or become a Mamil.

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2014, 05:15:46 AM »
Brian S

I can run for 80 minutes and use up 1000 calories.

Personally, a mixture of gym, running and gold does me, and has limited chance of being run down by a car.  Perhaps a mad cyclist on the shared footpath is a risk.

Crossing the railway line at golf though - well I can see and hear them coming.

James B
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

Mark_F

Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2014, 05:39:16 AM »
Tony, the health benefits of golf are undeniable. If you carry your own bag, a round of golf is said to burn in the region of 1300 calories for someone my weight - circa 200 pounds.

That sounds like a very high figure Brian.  I would have thought half of that, maybe a little more. 

Some people have a very black and white view of what is a "health benefit" based on misinformation - if it's not high intensity, it's no good!

That's the simple truth unfortunately.  A sedentary person or someone whom only walks the dog is going to get an initial benefit from playing golf.  The benefits will plateau after a while, so you will either need to play more often  :) or play at a quicker pace to attain the same benefits.

Golf is better than nothing, but higher intensity exercise is better for overall CV health than low intensity exercise.

Scott Macpherson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2014, 07:25:40 AM »
The solution seems simple – cycle to the golf course. Who remembers those days...?

scott

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2014, 07:28:44 AM »
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Ed Tilley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2014, 08:00:00 AM »
Golf should definitely advertise the health benefits more, particularly for older golfers. However, it will never compare to the benefits, both physical and psychological, you get from cycling. Cycling is (or should be) much more high intensity than golf and the feel good factor you get after a good cycle ride from the release of endorphins is fantastic - you really do feel so much better which you don't get from golf.

I think triathlon is the sport that is taking off, particularly in the traditional key market of 35-55 males. Cycling and swimming are both low impact on joints. I'm 42 and I've taken up triathlon in the last 3 years and the increase in people who are doing it, and events you can do it in, even in that short time has been amazing. Whilst you don't have to be super fit to do a sprint triathlon, you need to do a reasonable amount of training which obviously means less time for golf. Over 55 is where golf should really be pushing health benefits.

For me, part of the attraction of golf is getting out in the open air. Playing on a course in a nice setting is very pleasant. Cycling has that in spades, as long as you plan your route properly. If you live outside of a city, or near the edge, with a bit of planning you can cycle on quiet country roads with no cars whizzing past you all the time. I can cycle for a couple of hours through the Oxfordshire countryside going through several beautiful villages, burn 1300 calories, and only have a small section with any cars. Most other parts of Britain would be similar. There is nothing pleasant about cycling on a busy road but this is easily avoided - unless you live in London where it is plain dangerous to cycle.

Marc Haring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2014, 08:20:21 AM »
Mark: correct, just over half Brian's figure, or about 700 calories:
http://onpar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/a-little-scientific-research-for-all-those-19th-hole-debates/?_r=0

I think that's for nine holes Mark. There are many calorie burning calculators and I come out at about 1600 calories for four hours of walking golf.

Personally I think the health benefits are considerable in terms of burning calories and fat. Low level exercise will burn nearly all fat (provided you don't eat too much high carb crap). When you increase the intensity to say jogging you start using up glycogen reserves and then if those run out then you'll also burn lean tissue which is bad news and why all endurance specialists either running or cycling tend to have little actual muscle on them.

I walk whenever I can and at least an hour a day and then maintain muscle by short but bloody hard resistance training at the gym and for me, that does the trick. Golf is a great way of burning that fat!!!

Ed Tilley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2014, 09:08:21 AM »
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


Brent Hutto

Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2014, 09:34:36 AM »
I have seen the raw numbers in the Compendium of Physical Activity that is the source for most of these figures bouncing around in the media.

I do not find their numbers or the way in which they were sourced very compelling. And I say that somewhat reluctantly, having worked closely (albeit in the distant past) with at least a couple of the people behind the Compendium.

Those calorie numbers tend to be arrived at by taking some rather speculative numbers to represent the multiple of resting metabolic rate for various activities, multiplying them by not always realistic RMR energy expenditures and then spreading the whole thing out over, again, spitball estimates of duration of the specific activity types.

It is *very* easy when doing that kind of spitball estimation to combine three or four numbers that are each at least loosely correspondent to reality and come up with a combined number that's off by a factor or 2x or more. So take those 1,300 kcal and similar numbers for golf more as upper limits for some golfers under some conditions. I certainly wouldn't count on it for diet and fitness planning.

Ed Tilley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Found, the missing golfers.
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2014, 09:47:15 AM »
I've just checked my app from a couple of years back. I went on a family seaside walk in Cornwall and tracked it. It was clifftop and a bit up and down but only 4.4k in an hour so just under 5,000 yards. It says I burned 859 calories so with a bag, and walking approx. 7,000 yards including tee to green it would probably would come in close to 1,400. Difficult to believe but maybe accurate?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back