Energy Expenditure of Collegiate Golfers in a Competitive Setting

Kaela Hierholzer; Amanda Salacinski; Peter Chomentowski III; Craig Broeder

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13

| Peer-Reviewed

Energy Expenditure of Collegiate Golfers in a Competitive Setting

Kaela Hierholzer, Amanda Salacinski, Peter Chomentowski III, Craig Broeder

Published in American Journal of Sports Science (Volume 6, Issue 4)

Received: 15 August 2018 Accepted: 11 September 2018 Published: 15 October 2018

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Collegiate golf is physically demanding; however, little research has been done to establish the energy expenditure (EE) and metabolic demand on a golfer during competition. With advances in wearable technology, it has become easier to gain knowledge on physical activities outside the lab. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the amount of EE a collegiate golfer expends during a competitive golf tournament. METHODS: Eight NCAA-caliber golfers (4 males; 4 females) participated (Age: 19.3 ± 2.0 years; WT: 149.5 ± 13.4 pounds; Bag WT: 22.3 ± 2.0 pounds; Bag Wt./Body Wt.: 15.0 ± 1.8%; HT: 67.7 ± 3.6 inches;% Body Fat: 20.0 ± 7.3%). One VO_2max and two randomly ordered 6-minute steady-state walk (6MW) tests were performed. One 6MW was completed with a weight vest simulating each golfer’s bag weight, and the other was completed without the vest. RESULTS: Phase 1, males had a lower% BF (p=0.03), higher FFW (p=0.03), VO_2max (p=0.02), max heart rate (p=0.04), max RER (p=0.03), and max VE (p=0.02) compared to females. Looking at caloric expenditure during all 6MW tests, the Garmin VivoactiveHR™ overestimated calories expended compared to the metabolic cart kcals (+22.4%; p=0.01). For the 6MW without the bag, stepwise regression showed in order of importance heart rate, distance covered, and step count entered the equation (r-squared = 0.966, p=0.0021). Phase 2, females had higher scores (females: 87.5 ± 6.43 strokes; males: 76.75 ± 4.65 strokes), walked a greater distance (females: 7.43 ± 0.23 miles; males: 7.37 ± 0.18 miles), took longer to complete the golf rounds (females: 282:42 ± 37:16 minutes; males: 266:05 ± 11:10 minutes), and had a greater average HR (females: 121.99 ± 15.26 bpm; males: 111.00 ± 4.31 bpm). The Garmin VivoactiveHR™ underestimated the female golfers’ kcal expenditure by 6.22% compared to the metabolic predicted kcals; however, the males experienced an overestimation of 5.3% by the Garmin VivoactiveHR™. The stepwise regression conducted on the golf tournament data indicated that calories/hour (p=0.00) and time (p=0.00) affected Garmin VivoactiveHR™ kcal expenditure the most. CONCLUSION: The Garmin VivoactiveHR™ was unable to accurately estimate caloric expenditure during the in-lab and golf tournament testing.

Published in	American Journal of Sports Science (Volume 6, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13
Page(s)	144-156
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2018. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Wearables, Energy Expenditure, Steady-State Exercise, Golf

References

[1]	Zunzer, S. C., von Duvillard, S. P., Tschakert, G., Mangus, B., & Hofmann, P. (2013). Energy expenditure and sex differences of golf playing. Journal of Sports Science, 31 (10), 1045-1053.
[2]	Ziegenfuss, T. N., Habowski, S. M., Lemieux, R., Sandrock, J. E., Kedia, A. W., Kerksick, C. M., & Lopez, H. L. (2015). Effects of a dietary supplement on golf drive distance and functional indices of golf performance. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 12 (4), 1-14.
[3]	Stevenson, E. J., Hayes, P. R., & Allison, S. J. (2009). The effect of a carbohydrate-caffeine sports drink on simulated golf performance, Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 34, 681-688.
[4]	Evans, K. & Tuttle, N. (2015). Improving performance in golf: Current research and implications from a clinical perspective. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 1-9.
[5]	Levine, J., (2005). Measurement of energy expenditure. Public Health Nutrition, 8 (7A), 1123-1132.
[6]	Brooks, G. A., Fahey, T. D., Baldwin, K. M. (2005). Exercise Physiology: Human bioenergetics and its applications (4^th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
[7]	Smith, M. (2010). The role of physiology in the development of golf performance. Journal of Sports Medicine, 40 (8), 635-655.
[8]	Najafi, B., Lee-Eng, J., Wrobel, J. S., & Goebel, R. (2015). Estimation of center mass trajectory using wearable sensors during golf swing. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 14, 354-363.
[9]	El-Amrawy, F. & NouNou, M. I. (2015). Are currently available wearable devices for activity tracking and heart rate monitoring accurate, precise, and medically beneficial? The Korean Society of Medical Informants, 21 (4), 315-320.
[10]	Bassett Jr, D. R., Rowlands, A. V., & Trost, S. G. (2012). Calibration and validation of wearable monitors. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 44 (1 Suppl 1), S32-S38.
[11]	Wang, R., Blackburn, G., Desai, M., Phelan, D., Gillinov, L., & Gillinov, M. (2017). Accuracy of wrist-worn heart rate monitors. Journal of the American Medical Association: Cardiology, 2 (1), 104-106.
[12]	Murakami, H., Kawakami, R., Nakae, S., Nakata, Y., Ishikawa-Takata, K., Tanaka, S., & Miyachi, M. (2016). Accuracy of wearable devices for estimating total energy expenditure: Comparison with metabolic chamber and doubly labeled water method. Journal of the American Medical Association: Internal Medicine, 176 (5), 702-703.
[13]	Sell, T. C., Abt, J. P., & Lephart, S. M. (2008). Physical activity-related benefits of walking during golf. Science and Golf V: Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress of Golf, 128-132.
[14]	Kras, J. & Larsen, B. (2002). A comparison of health benefits of walking and riding during a round of golf. International Sports Journal, 6, 112-116.
[15]	Albinali, F., Intille, S. S., Haskell, W., & Rosenberger, M. (2010). Using wearable activity type detection to improve physical activity energy expenditure estimation. Proceedings of the 12^th ACM international conference on Ubiquitous computing, 311-320.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Kaela Hierholzer, Amanda Salacinski, Peter Chomentowski III, Craig Broeder. (2018). Energy Expenditure of Collegiate Golfers in a Competitive Setting. American Journal of Sports Science, 6(4), 144-156. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Kaela Hierholzer; Amanda Salacinski; Peter Chomentowski III; Craig Broeder. Energy Expenditure of Collegiate Golfers in a Competitive Setting. Am. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 6(4), 144-156. doi: 10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Kaela Hierholzer, Amanda Salacinski, Peter Chomentowski III, Craig Broeder. Energy Expenditure of Collegiate Golfers in a Competitive Setting. Am J Sports Sci. 2018;6(4):144-156. doi: 10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13,
  author = {Kaela Hierholzer and Amanda Salacinski and Peter Chomentowski III and Craig Broeder},
  title = {Energy Expenditure of Collegiate Golfers in a Competitive Setting},
  journal = {American Journal of Sports Science},
  volume = {6},
  number = {4},
  pages = {144-156},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajss.20180604.13},
  abstract = {Collegiate golf is physically demanding; however, little research has been done to establish the energy expenditure (EE) and metabolic demand on a golfer during competition. With advances in wearable technology, it has become easier to gain knowledge on physical activities outside the lab. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the amount of EE a collegiate golfer expends during a competitive golf tournament. METHODS: Eight NCAA-caliber golfers (4 males; 4 females) participated (Age: 19.3 ± 2.0 years; WT: 149.5 ± 13.4 pounds; Bag WT: 22.3 ± 2.0 pounds; Bag Wt./Body Wt.: 15.0 ± 1.8%; HT: 67.7 ± 3.6 inches;% Body Fat: 20.0 ± 7.3%). One VO2max and two randomly ordered 6-minute steady-state walk (6MW) tests were performed. One 6MW was completed with a weight vest simulating each golfer’s bag weight, and the other was completed without the vest. RESULTS: Phase 1, males had a lower% BF (p=0.03), higher FFW (p=0.03), VO2max (p=0.02), max heart rate (p=0.04), max RER (p=0.03), and max VE (p=0.02) compared to females. Looking at caloric expenditure during all 6MW tests, the Garmin VivoactiveHR™ overestimated calories expended compared to the metabolic cart kcals (+22.4%; p=0.01). For the 6MW without the bag, stepwise regression showed in order of importance heart rate, distance covered, and step count entered the equation (r-squared = 0.966, p=0.0021). Phase 2, females had higher scores (females: 87.5 ± 6.43 strokes; males: 76.75 ± 4.65 strokes), walked a greater distance (females: 7.43 ± 0.23 miles; males: 7.37 ± 0.18 miles), took longer to complete the golf rounds (females: 282:42 ± 37:16 minutes; males: 266:05 ± 11:10 minutes), and had a greater average HR (females: 121.99 ± 15.26 bpm; males: 111.00 ± 4.31 bpm). The Garmin VivoactiveHR™ underestimated the female golfers’ kcal expenditure by 6.22% compared to the metabolic predicted kcals; however, the males experienced an overestimation of 5.3% by the Garmin VivoactiveHR™. The stepwise regression conducted on the golf tournament data indicated that calories/hour (p=0.00) and time (p=0.00) affected Garmin VivoactiveHR™ kcal expenditure the most. CONCLUSION: The Garmin VivoactiveHR™ was unable to accurately estimate caloric expenditure during the in-lab and golf tournament testing.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Energy Expenditure of Collegiate Golfers in a Competitive Setting
AU  - Kaela Hierholzer
AU  - Amanda Salacinski
AU  - Peter Chomentowski III
AU  - Craig Broeder
Y1  - 2018/10/15
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13
T2  - American Journal of Sports Science
JF  - American Journal of Sports Science
JO  - American Journal of Sports Science
SP  - 144
EP  - 156
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8540
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13
AB  - Collegiate golf is physically demanding; however, little research has been done to establish the energy expenditure (EE) and metabolic demand on a golfer during competition. With advances in wearable technology, it has become easier to gain knowledge on physical activities outside the lab. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the amount of EE a collegiate golfer expends during a competitive golf tournament. METHODS: Eight NCAA-caliber golfers (4 males; 4 females) participated (Age: 19.3 ± 2.0 years; WT: 149.5 ± 13.4 pounds; Bag WT: 22.3 ± 2.0 pounds; Bag Wt./Body Wt.: 15.0 ± 1.8%; HT: 67.7 ± 3.6 inches;% Body Fat: 20.0 ± 7.3%). One VO2max and two randomly ordered 6-minute steady-state walk (6MW) tests were performed. One 6MW was completed with a weight vest simulating each golfer’s bag weight, and the other was completed without the vest. RESULTS: Phase 1, males had a lower% BF (p=0.03), higher FFW (p=0.03), VO2max (p=0.02), max heart rate (p=0.04), max RER (p=0.03), and max VE (p=0.02) compared to females. Looking at caloric expenditure during all 6MW tests, the Garmin VivoactiveHR™ overestimated calories expended compared to the metabolic cart kcals (+22.4%; p=0.01). For the 6MW without the bag, stepwise regression showed in order of importance heart rate, distance covered, and step count entered the equation (r-squared = 0.966, p=0.0021). Phase 2, females had higher scores (females: 87.5 ± 6.43 strokes; males: 76.75 ± 4.65 strokes), walked a greater distance (females: 7.43 ± 0.23 miles; males: 7.37 ± 0.18 miles), took longer to complete the golf rounds (females: 282:42 ± 37:16 minutes; males: 266:05 ± 11:10 minutes), and had a greater average HR (females: 121.99 ± 15.26 bpm; males: 111.00 ± 4.31 bpm). The Garmin VivoactiveHR™ underestimated the female golfers’ kcal expenditure by 6.22% compared to the metabolic predicted kcals; however, the males experienced an overestimation of 5.3% by the Garmin VivoactiveHR™. The stepwise regression conducted on the golf tournament data indicated that calories/hour (p=0.00) and time (p=0.00) affected Garmin VivoactiveHR™ kcal expenditure the most. CONCLUSION: The Garmin VivoactiveHR™ was unable to accurately estimate caloric expenditure during the in-lab and golf tournament testing.
VL  - 6
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Kaela Hierholzer

Department of Sport, Exercise, Recreation, and Kinesiology, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, USA
Amanda Salacinski

Exercising Nutritionally, LLC, Lisle, USA
Peter Chomentowski III

Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Northern Illinois University, De Kalb, USA
Craig Broeder

Exercising Nutritionally, LLC, Lisle, USA

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Kaela Hierholzer, Amanda Salacinski, Peter Chomentowski III, Craig Broeder. (2018). Energy Expenditure of Collegiate Golfers in a Competitive Setting. American Journal of Sports Science, 6(4), 144-156. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Kaela Hierholzer; Amanda Salacinski; Peter Chomentowski III; Craig Broeder. Energy Expenditure of Collegiate Golfers in a Competitive Setting. Am. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 6(4), 144-156. doi: 10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Kaela Hierholzer, Amanda Salacinski, Peter Chomentowski III, Craig Broeder. Energy Expenditure of Collegiate Golfers in a Competitive Setting. Am J Sports Sci. 2018;6(4):144-156. doi: 10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13,
  author = {Kaela Hierholzer and Amanda Salacinski and Peter Chomentowski III and Craig Broeder},
  title = {Energy Expenditure of Collegiate Golfers in a Competitive Setting},
  journal = {American Journal of Sports Science},
  volume = {6},
  number = {4},
  pages = {144-156},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajss.20180604.13},
  abstract = {Collegiate golf is physically demanding; however, little research has been done to establish the energy expenditure (EE) and metabolic demand on a golfer during competition. With advances in wearable technology, it has become easier to gain knowledge on physical activities outside the lab. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the amount of EE a collegiate golfer expends during a competitive golf tournament. METHODS: Eight NCAA-caliber golfers (4 males; 4 females) participated (Age: 19.3 ± 2.0 years; WT: 149.5 ± 13.4 pounds; Bag WT: 22.3 ± 2.0 pounds; Bag Wt./Body Wt.: 15.0 ± 1.8%; HT: 67.7 ± 3.6 inches;% Body Fat: 20.0 ± 7.3%). One VO2max and two randomly ordered 6-minute steady-state walk (6MW) tests were performed. One 6MW was completed with a weight vest simulating each golfer’s bag weight, and the other was completed without the vest. RESULTS: Phase 1, males had a lower% BF (p=0.03), higher FFW (p=0.03), VO2max (p=0.02), max heart rate (p=0.04), max RER (p=0.03), and max VE (p=0.02) compared to females. Looking at caloric expenditure during all 6MW tests, the Garmin VivoactiveHR™ overestimated calories expended compared to the metabolic cart kcals (+22.4%; p=0.01). For the 6MW without the bag, stepwise regression showed in order of importance heart rate, distance covered, and step count entered the equation (r-squared = 0.966, p=0.0021). Phase 2, females had higher scores (females: 87.5 ± 6.43 strokes; males: 76.75 ± 4.65 strokes), walked a greater distance (females: 7.43 ± 0.23 miles; males: 7.37 ± 0.18 miles), took longer to complete the golf rounds (females: 282:42 ± 37:16 minutes; males: 266:05 ± 11:10 minutes), and had a greater average HR (females: 121.99 ± 15.26 bpm; males: 111.00 ± 4.31 bpm). The Garmin VivoactiveHR™ underestimated the female golfers’ kcal expenditure by 6.22% compared to the metabolic predicted kcals; however, the males experienced an overestimation of 5.3% by the Garmin VivoactiveHR™. The stepwise regression conducted on the golf tournament data indicated that calories/hour (p=0.00) and time (p=0.00) affected Garmin VivoactiveHR™ kcal expenditure the most. CONCLUSION: The Garmin VivoactiveHR™ was unable to accurately estimate caloric expenditure during the in-lab and golf tournament testing.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Energy Expenditure of Collegiate Golfers in a Competitive Setting
AU  - Kaela Hierholzer
AU  - Amanda Salacinski
AU  - Peter Chomentowski III
AU  - Craig Broeder
Y1  - 2018/10/15
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13
T2  - American Journal of Sports Science
JF  - American Journal of Sports Science
JO  - American Journal of Sports Science
SP  - 144
EP  - 156
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8540
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajss.20180604.13
AB  - Collegiate golf is physically demanding; however, little research has been done to establish the energy expenditure (EE) and metabolic demand on a golfer during competition. With advances in wearable technology, it has become easier to gain knowledge on physical activities outside the lab. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the amount of EE a collegiate golfer expends during a competitive golf tournament. METHODS: Eight NCAA-caliber golfers (4 males; 4 females) participated (Age: 19.3 ± 2.0 years; WT: 149.5 ± 13.4 pounds; Bag WT: 22.3 ± 2.0 pounds; Bag Wt./Body Wt.: 15.0 ± 1.8%; HT: 67.7 ± 3.6 inches;% Body Fat: 20.0 ± 7.3%). One VO2max and two randomly ordered 6-minute steady-state walk (6MW) tests were performed. One 6MW was completed with a weight vest simulating each golfer’s bag weight, and the other was completed without the vest. RESULTS: Phase 1, males had a lower% BF (p=0.03), higher FFW (p=0.03), VO2max (p=0.02), max heart rate (p=0.04), max RER (p=0.03), and max VE (p=0.02) compared to females. Looking at caloric expenditure during all 6MW tests, the Garmin VivoactiveHR™ overestimated calories expended compared to the metabolic cart kcals (+22.4%; p=0.01). For the 6MW without the bag, stepwise regression showed in order of importance heart rate, distance covered, and step count entered the equation (r-squared = 0.966, p=0.0021). Phase 2, females had higher scores (females: 87.5 ± 6.43 strokes; males: 76.75 ± 4.65 strokes), walked a greater distance (females: 7.43 ± 0.23 miles; males: 7.37 ± 0.18 miles), took longer to complete the golf rounds (females: 282:42 ± 37:16 minutes; males: 266:05 ± 11:10 minutes), and had a greater average HR (females: 121.99 ± 15.26 bpm; males: 111.00 ± 4.31 bpm). The Garmin VivoactiveHR™ underestimated the female golfers’ kcal expenditure by 6.22% compared to the metabolic predicted kcals; however, the males experienced an overestimation of 5.3% by the Garmin VivoactiveHR™. The stepwise regression conducted on the golf tournament data indicated that calories/hour (p=0.00) and time (p=0.00) affected Garmin VivoactiveHR™ kcal expenditure the most. CONCLUSION: The Garmin VivoactiveHR™ was unable to accurately estimate caloric expenditure during the in-lab and golf tournament testing.
VL  - 6
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download