Assessment of Activity Energy Expenditure During Competitive Golf: The Effects of Bag Carrying, Electric and Manual Trolleys

Golf is often perceived as a low-intensity, skill-dominant sport with minimal physiological demand. As such, many team sport athletes may play this on their days off from training or even post-training. However, modern performance analysis has challenged this assumption, showing that competitive golf involves a substantial locomotor component, prolonged time-on-feet, and meaningful cumulative energy expenditure. Over 4–6 hours of play, golfers may walk 6–10 km depending on course design, playing level, and tournament conditions.

Within this context, a key applied question emerges for practitioners and players, how does mode of club transportation influence energy cost and fatigue during a round of golf? The work of Kasper et al. (2023), assessing activity energy expenditure (AEE), directly addressed this question by comparing three common strategies of golf club transportation, carrying the golf bag, pushing a manual trolley and using an electric trolley. While differences may appear trivial at first glance, small variations in energy expenditure and mechanical load can accumulate meaningfully across a full round, especially in multi-day competitions or congested playing schedules.

The Physical Demands of Golf

Despite the absence of continuous high-intensity movement, golf involves sustained low-to-moderate intensity activity across prolonged durations. Players repeatedly walk between shots (especially during competition), traverse uneven or steep terrain (especially if playing poorly), carry or push external load (clubs, balls, accessories) and execute repeated rotational and ballistic movements during swings. The combination of walking distance, environmental conditions, and load carriage creates a meaningful aerobic demand.

A major determinant of the physiological load in golf is whether the player is carrying clubs on the back, pushing or pulling a manual trolley and using a motor-assisted electric trolley. Each method alters the mechanical load on the musculoskeletal system, postural demands, cardiovascular strain, thermoregulatory stress and fatigue accumulation over time. The question remains how significant club transport mode effects energy expenditure across 18 holes.

Potential Mechanisms Driving Differences in Energy Cost

Load Carriage and Metabolic Demand

Carrying a load may increase the energetic cost of walking in a near-linear relationship up to moderate loads. The physiological reasons include increased ground reaction forces, higher muscle activation in lower limb stabilisers, increased trunk stiffness requirements and reduced stride efficiency. Even relatively modest loads can significantly alter gait mechanics over prolonged durations.

Upper Body Fatigue and Postural Stress

Carrying a golf bag introduces sustained isometric loading of trapezius, erector spinae, deltoids and core stabilisers. Over time, this contributes to local muscular fatigue, which may indirectly affect swing mechanics due to altered postural control and trunk rotation efficiency.

Thermoregulation

Load carriage increases metabolic heat production, which can elevate thermal strain during warm-weather rounds. Even small increases in core temperature can contribute to perceived exertion, dehydration risk and cognitive fatigue. This is particularly relevant in tournament play where hydration opportunities may be limited.

Energy Expenditure Differences Between Carrying and Trolley Use

Carrying the Golf Bag

Carrying a golf bag introduces an external load typically ranging from 8–15 kg. This load is borne continuously and asymmetrically across the trunk and upper body, depending on strap configuration and movement mechanics.

Manual Trolley Use

Manual trolleys remove the need for load carriage, transferring the external weight to a wheeled system. Although significantly less demanding than carrying, manual trolley use still incurs a higher energy cost than electric trolley use due to the mechanical work required during propulsion. Importantly, manual trolley use also introduces asymmetrical loading patterns (particularly in pulling), which may affect fatigue distribution across the upper body and trunk musculature.

Electric Trolley Use

Electric trolleys provide motorised assistance, eliminating the need for active propulsion or load carriage. The golfer’s role is reduced primarily to walking alongside the equipment. However, it is important to note that walking distance remains unchanged.

Findings from Kasper et al. (2023) revealed that golf can provide a substantial amount of physical activity regardless of how clubs are transported. Interestingly, golfers using a manual trolley recorded the highest average energy expenditure. However, the differences between conditions were considered relatively small overall. Where the electric trolley stood out was in reducing cardiovascular strain and perceived effort. Golfers using electric trolleys experienced lower average heart rates, lower ratings of perceived exertion and similar enjoyment levels compared to the other conditions.

The average calorie expenditure during a round was similar between conditions:

• 688 kcal when carrying the bag

• 756 kcal using a manual trolley

• 663 kcal using an electric trolley

Despite transportation method and external demand, the main driver of energy expenditure seemed to be the walking itself.

Practical Considerations and Contextual Factors

Player Population

The relevance of transport method depends on the level and population:

• Elite professionals: may prioritise marginal gains in recovery and consistency

• Amateur golfers: may experience more pronounced fatigue differences due to lower conditioning

• Youth golfers: load carriage may impose unnecessary musculoskeletal stress

Limitations of Current Evidence

Kasper (2023) highlights that while energy expenditure differences are measurable, several limitations remain in the study. Small sample sizes in field-based studies, variability in golfer anthropometrics and fitness, differences in course layout and environmental conditions and limited integration of performance outcome data. Additionally, energy expenditure does not directly equate to performance impairment. The relationship between physiological load and skill execution in golf is complex and highly multifactorial.

Practical Recommendations for Golf Practitioners

• Electric trolleys are the lowest-energy-cost option and may support recovery in tournament play.

• Manual trolleys provide a moderate compromise between physical engagement and fatigue reduction.

• Carrying may increase physiological demand and may be more appropriate for training contexts rather than competition.

• Decisions should be individualised based on athlete goals, conditioning, and competitive schedule, however when playing for fun or exercise, the walking is the most important aspect of the physical activity.

Conclusion

The assessment of activity energy expenditure during competitive golf demonstrates that equipment choices only influence physiological load minimally over 6-7 km walked during a golf round. Kasper (2023) provides applied evidence that carrying a golf bag results in the highest energy expenditure, manual trolley use reduces this load, and electric trolleys minimise it further, however the differences are relatively small. While golf performance is ultimately determined by technical skill and decision-making, physical fatigue remains a contributing factor, particularly across prolonged tournaments. Therefore, managing unnecessary physiological cost may offer a subtle but important performance advantage. In competition, the choice between carrying, manual trolley use, and electric assistance should not be viewed purely as a logistical preference, but as a strategic decision influencing energy management, recovery, and consistency across competition.

References

Kasper et al. (2023). European Journal of Sport Science, 23, 330–337.

Maughan et al. (2010). Sports Medicine, 40, 115–130.

Murray et al. (2011). Journal of Sports Sciences, 29, 933–939.

Sell et al. (2007). Sports Medicine, 37, 813–827.

Thompson et al. (2007). Applied Ergonomics, 38, 647–655.