Article updated on September 30, 2026. This new version replaces our 2023 article examining the differences in energy expenditure between carrying a golf bag and using a trolley. New research now allows us to extend the comparison to the use of a golf cart.
Do you need to carry your bag to get the full physical benefits of golf? Does using a push trolley really make the round easier? And what do you actually lose when you stop walking and use a golf cart instead? Two studies published several years apart now allow us to separate two questions that are often confused: how you transport your clubs when walking, and what changes when you stop walking altogether. The answer to the first contains a surprise. The answer to the second is much clearer.
Carrying your bag does not necessarily burn the most calories
Andreas Kasper, Amy O’Donnell, Carl Langan-Evans and their colleagues studied the energy expenditure of 16 skilled golfers, all with handicaps below 5. Each player completed three competitive rounds of golf under three different conditions: carrying their bag, using a manual trolley and using an electric trolley. The study therefore did not compare three separate groups of golfers, but the same players experiencing each of the three conditions.
An Actiheart accelerometer was used to estimate activity energy expenditure. The researchers also recorded heart rate and collected ratings of perceived exertion and enjoyment after each round. The results challenge a fairly common assumption:
- manual trolley: 756 ± 210 kcal;
- bag carried: 688 ± 213 kcal;
- electric trolley: 663 ± 218 kcal.
It was therefore with the manual trolley, rather than carrying the bag, that players recorded the highest average energy expenditure. The overall difference between the three conditions was right on the threshold of statistical significance (p = 0.05), while effect sizes remained small or trivial depending on the comparison.
The average difference between carrying a bag and using an electric trolley was only 25 kcal. The difference between the manual trolley and carrying the bag reached 68 kcal, with no statistically significant difference between those two conditions. The electric trolley stood out more in terms of how the effort was experienced: perceived exertion and maximum heart rate were lowest in this condition. The researchers found no significant difference in enjoyment.
Over rounds lasting approximately three and a half hours, carrying several kilograms of equipment on your back therefore does not appear necessary to substantially increase the energy expenditure of a round of golf.
The real difference appears with the golf cart
The first study did not answer another question: what happens when a golf cart replaces much of the walking? Amy O’Donnell, Andrew Murray and their colleagues examined this in subsequent research published in the European Journal of Sport Science.
Sixteen highly skilled male golfers, with an average age of 20.9 and an average handicap of 2.3, completed two randomised rounds under tournament-like conditions on a 6,587-metre championship course. In one condition, the golfers walked while a caddie carried their bag. In the other, they travelled in a golf cart, also driven by a caddie. This distinction matters: the study compares walking without carrying a bag with riding in a golf cart. It does not directly compare carrying a bag with using a golf cart.
The golfers averaged 17,007 steps when walking compared with 6,274 when using a golf cart. Their activity energy expenditure reached 880 ± 279 kcal when walking compared with 456 ± 155 kcal in the golf cart, an average difference of 424 kcal.
These figures should not be directly compared with the 688, 756 and 663 kcal recorded in the Kasper study. The protocols, courses and experimental conditions were different. Each study allows comparisons between its own experimental conditions, not between the two studies.
Walking increases the physical load
The differences go beyond steps and calories. Core temperature was higher when walking at holes 6, 12 and 18. Heart rate progressively increased during the walking round, whereas it decreased in the golf-cart condition. Perceived exertion after the round was also higher.
The researchers also assessed lower-body muscular power before and after the round using a vertical jump test. The decline in performance after the round was greater when the golfers had walked. Over a single round, walking therefore places a greater physiological and muscular load on the body than riding in a golf cart.
More tired, but not necessarily less effective
Does this fatigue translate into poorer golf shots? The researchers measured clubhead speed, ball speed and carry distance at several points during the round. No significant difference in clubhead speed or ball speed was found between walking and using a golf cart across the round as a whole.
There was, however, one notable exception. On the 12th tee, average carry distance reached 249.4 yards, approximately 228 metres, in the golf-cart condition, compared with 238.2 yards, approximately 218 metres, when walking. This tee came immediately after a 28.14-metre climb from the 11th green. The authors therefore suggest a possible acute fatigue effect on shot performance, but the difference relates to a single measurement on one hole.
The study does not allow us to conclude that walking reduces golf performance over 18 holes. Nor does it tell us what might happen after several consecutive days of tournament golf.
A golf cart does not reduce perceived mental workload
The researchers also used the NASA-TLX, a questionnaire assessing six dimensions of perceived workload: mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, perceived performance, effort and frustration. As might be expected, physical demand was higher when the golfers walked. Perceived performance also differed between the two conditions.
However, no significant difference was found for mental demand (p = 0.43), temporal demand (p = 0.31), effort as measured by the NASA-TLX (p = 0.41), or frustration (p = 0.82). Under the conditions of this study, using a golf cart therefore did not reduce the mental workload perceived by the players.
4.5 METs with a trolley, 3.5 in a golf cart
A scoping review published by Andrew Hall and colleagues in Sports Medicine places these experiments within a broader body of research on the use of golf carts in competitive golf. The researchers identified 879 publications and retained 72. They grouped the literature into seven themes: physical demands, accessibility, cognitive demands, legal and ethical considerations, nutrition and hydration, sporting equity and safety.
The review draws in particular on data from the 2024 Compendium of Physical Activities. Golf is estimated at:
4.3 METs when walking and carrying clubs;
4.5 METs when walking with a manual trolley;
3.5 METs when using a golf cart.
A MET — Metabolic Equivalent of Task — expresses the energy intensity of an activity relative to resting metabolism. These figures should not be treated as an absolute ranking of the different ways to play golf. Hall’s review itself highlights the heterogeneity and limitations of the available literature. It nevertheless concludes that the evidence points in the same direction: travelling by golf cart reduces the physical demands of golf, particularly the distance covered and energy expenditure.
Studies involving golfers very different from most amateurs
There is an important limitation when attempting to apply these figures to your own game. The Kasper study involved 16 golfers with handicaps below 5. O’Donnell’s study involved 16 men with an average age of 20.9 and an average handicap of 2.3. Both studies therefore relied on small samples of highly skilled golfers.
We cannot assume that the differences would be identical for a 60- or 70-year-old golfer with a 20 handicap playing a very hilly course, in hot weather or with physical limitations. Hall’s review also highlights another role of the golf cart: making golf accessible to people for whom walking 18 holes would be difficult or impossible. It points in particular to its value for some golfers with disabilities or mobility limitations.
In such circumstances, comparing walking and riding solely in terms of calories burned loses much of its relevance. The golf cart is no longer simply a way to reduce physical effort: it may be what enables someone to continue playing.
The bag or trolley was not really the most important question
In 2023, we asked whether carrying a bag or pushing a trolley was preferable for maximising the physical benefits of golf. The available evidence now allows for a more precise answer. When golfers complete the course on foot, the way they transport their clubs appears to have a relatively limited influence on energy expenditure. Contrary to intuition, the highest average value in the Kasper study was actually recorded with the manual trolley.
The difference becomes much greater when a golf cart replaces a large proportion of the walking: in the O’Donnell study, the average step count fell from 17,007 to 6,274 and activity energy expenditure from 880 to 456 kcal. That does not make using a golf cart a bad choice. For some golfers, it is precisely what makes playing possible.
But for a golfer who is physically able to walk 18 holes and also wants to benefit from golf as a form of physical activity, the available research leads to a much simpler conclusion than the traditional debate over bags and trolleys: what matters most is not carrying your clubs. It’s walking.
References
Kasper A.M., O’Donnell A., Langan-Evans C. et al. Assessment of activity energy expenditure during competitive golf: The effects of bag carrying, electric or manual trolleys. European Journal of Sport Science, 2023, 23(5), 892-898. DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2022.2036817.
O’Donnell A., Murray A. et al. Riding a Golf Cart Versus Walking: A Study on the Physiological and Performance Differences in Tournament Golf. European Journal of Sport Science, 2026, 26(1), e70099. DOI: 10.1002/ejsc.70099.
Hall A.J. et al. The Use of Golf Carts as On-Course Transportation During Competitive Golf Events: A Scoping Review. Sports Medicine, published online in 2025, volume 56, 2026. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-025-02354-8.
Ainsworth B.E. et al. 2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities: A third update of the energy costs of human activities. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 2024.