year 10, Issue 2 (Summer 2022)                   Ann Appl Sport Sci 2022, 10(2): 0-0 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Ilhan Odabas H, Gercek N. In-Game Physiological Responses of Young Elite Male and Female Golf Players: A Field-Based Study. Ann Appl Sport Sci 2022; 10 (2)
1- Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Halic, Istanbul, Turkey ,
2- Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Marmara, Istanbul, Turkey
Abstract:   (2499 Views)
Background. Females' golf course lengths have been reduced due to their strength characteristics, leading to shorter shot distances than men. Although the golf game requires different physical conditions for females and males, the physiological demands of both genders are unknown.
Objectives. This study aimed to investigate the physiological responses of female and male golfers during 18 holes golf games.
Methods. Twentynine elite golf players (females:11, males:14) with 1-10 handicaps participated in the study (age: 17.76±2.05 years and handicaps: 5.4±2.9). The players' physiological responses were assessed using BioHarness 3 Zephry wireless supported heart rate monitor. Perceived exertion rates of the players were enrolled using Borg Scale.
Results. Female golf players had significantly higher heart rate values and energy expenditures than male golf players during 18 holes golf games (P<0.05). Although playing golf produced higher physiologic demands in female players, there was no difference in perceived exertion rates (P>0.05). Conclusion. Although the golf game is facilitated by changing the course length for female golf players, it has been investigated that they encountered greater physiological demands than males. However, the perceived exertion rates of females were similar to those of males during the golf course play. This study provides a comprehensive insight into the physiological demands of female and male golf players during 18 holes golf games. It can be suggested that female players should not compete in the same category as male players, despite the game being simplified by changing the course length.
Full-Text [PDF 317 kb]   (1277 Downloads)    
  • This study provides a comprehensive insight into the physiological demands of female and male golf players during 18 holes golf games.
  • It can be suggested that the female players should not compete in the same category as male players, despite the game being simplified by changing the course length.
  • In addition to that, endurance training programs should be different due to the different cardiovascular requisites of golf games in females and males.

Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Sport Physiology and its related branches
Received: 2021/07/13 | Accepted: 2021/09/9

1. Bae JH, Kim DK, Seo KM, Kang SH, Hwang J. Asymmetry of the isokinetic trunk rotation strength of korean male professional golf players. Ann Rehabil Med. 2012;36(6):821-827. [DOI:10.5535/arm.2012.36.6.821] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Smith MF. The role of physiology in the development of golf performance. Sports Med. 2010;40(8):635-655. [DOI:10.2165/11532920-000000000-00000] [PMID]
3. Bull M, Bridge MW. The Effect of an 8-week plyometric exercise program on golf swing kinematics. Int J Golf Sci. 2012;1:42-53. [DOI:10.1123/ijgs.1.1.42]
4. Hellstrom J. Competitive elite golf: a review of the relationships between playing results, technique and physique. Sports Med. 2009;39(9):723-741. [DOI:10.2165/11315200-000000000-00000] [PMID]
5. Vandervoort AA, Lindsay DM, Lynn SK, Noffal GJ. Golf is a physical activity for a lifetime. Int J Golf Sci. 2012;1(1):54-69. [DOI:10.1123/ijgs.1.1.54]
6. Wells JET, Langdown BL. Sports science for golf: A survey of high-skilled golfers' "perceptions" and "practices". J Sports Sci. 2020;38(8):918-927. [DOI:10.1080/02640414.2020.1737350] [PMID]
7. Zunzer SC, von Duvillard SP, Tschakert G, Mangus B, Hofmann P. Energy expenditure and sex differences of golf playing. J Sports Sci. 2013;31(10):1045-1053. [DOI:10.1080/02640414.2013.764465] [PMID]
8. Dear JB, Porter MM, Ready AE. Energy expenditure during golfing and lawn mowing in older adult men. J Aging Phys Act. 2010;18(2):185-200. [DOI:10.1123/japa.18.2.185] [PMID]
9. Unverdorben M, Kolb M, Bauer I, Bauer U, Brune M, Benes K, et al. Cardiovascular load of competitive golf in cardiac patients and healthy controls. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(10):1674-1678. [DOI:10.1097/00005768-200010000-00002] [PMID]
10. Hayes PR, van Paridon K, French DN, Thomas K, Gordon DA. Development of a simulated round of golf. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2009;4(4):506-516. [DOI:10.1123/ijspp.4.4.506] [PMID]
11. Dobrosielski DA, Brubaker PH, Berry MJ, Ayabe M, Miller HS. The metabolic demand of golf in patients with heart disease and in healthy adults. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2002;22(2):96-104. [DOI:10.1097/00008483-200203000-00008] [PMID]
12. Sell TC, Abt JP, Lephart SM. Physical activity-related benefits of walking during golf. In: Science and Golf V: Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress of Golf2008.
13. Hailstone J, Kilding AE. Reliability and validity of the Zephyr™ BioHarness™ to measure respiratory responses to exercise. Measure Physic Educat Exercise Sci. 2011;15(4):293-300. [DOI:10.1080/1091367X.2011.615671]
14. Kim JH, Roberge R, Powell JB, Shafer AB, Jon Williams W. Measurement accuracy of heart rate and respiratory rate during graded exercise and sustained exercise in the heat using the Zephyr BioHarness. Int J Sports Med. 2013;34(6):497-501. [DOI:10.1055/s-0032-1327661] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. Nazari G, Bobos P, MacDermid JC, Sinden KE, Richardson J, Tang A. Psychometric properties of the Zephyr bioharness device: a systematic review. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2018;10:6. [DOI:10.1186/s13102-018-0094-4] [PMID] [PMCID]
16. Ardıç FE. gzersiz reçetesi. Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 60. 2014;2:1-8.
17. Borg G, Ljunggren G, Ceci R. The increase of perceived exertion, aches and pain in the legs, heart rate and blood lactate during exercise on a bicycle ergometer. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1985;54(4):343-349. [DOI:10.1007/BF02337176] [PMID]
18. Doherty M, Smith PM, Hughes MG, Collins D. Rating of perceived exertion during high-intensity treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(11):1953-1958. [DOI:10.1097/00005768-200111000-00023] [PMID]
19. Noble BJ, Borg GA, Jacobs IRA, Ceci R, Kaiser P. A category-ratio perceived exertion scale: relationship to blood and muscle lactates and heart rate. Med Sci Sports Exercise. 1983;15:523-528. [DOI:10.1249/00005768-198315060-00015]
20. Wells GD, Elmi M, Thomas S. Physiological correlates of golf performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(3):741-750. [DOI:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181a07970] [PMID]
21. Son S, Han K, So WY. The relationships of waist and mid-thigh circumference with performance of college golfers. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(3):718-721. [DOI:10.1589/jpts.28.718] [PMID] [PMCID]
22. Riebe D, Erhman JK, Liguori G, Magal M. American College of Sports Medicine Guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. Wolters Kluwer2016.
23. Broman G, Johnsson L, Kaijser L. Golf: a high intensity interval activity for elderly men. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2004;16(5):375-381. [DOI:10.1007/BF03324567] [PMID]
24. Kenney WL, Wilmore JH, Costill DL. Physiology of Sport and Exercise. Champaign, IL: Human kinetics2015.
25. Woolley CS. Effects of estrogen in the CNS. Curre Opinion Neurobiol. 1999;9(3):349-354. [DOI:10.1016/S0959-4388(99)80051-8]
26. Kendall B, Eston R. Exercise-induced muscle damage and the potential protective role of estrogen. Sports Med. 2002;32(2):103-123. [DOI:10.2165/00007256-200232020-00003] [PMID]

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Annals of Applied Sport Science

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb