Shocking study reveals that activity in gaming fights obesity
By Darren Murph 
posted January 5th 2007 6:31PM
posted January 5th 2007 6:31PM
Providing a mighty blow to both "research studies" and the value of Ph.D degrees everywhere, the latest rubbish information to come flowing from the Mayo Clinic's research lab is as close to an insult to intelligence as you can get. While it may have been somewhat understood that television can act as a painkiller for children, and that wireless headsets actually don't improve driving safety, this obviousness of this one takes the literal cake. The study, which is proclaimed as the "first to scientifically measure the energy spent playing video games," proved that sitting around while gaming burned the same amount of energy as kicking back and watching the tube, but when engaged in a "camera-based activity" (Eye Toy?), the "energy expenditure tripled." It was also shown that walking on a treadmill while gaming it up also tripled the energy burned, but it showed a "fivefold increase for the mildly obese group" of participants. While these results may be miles away from shocking, the most depressing aspect of the entire study was the conclusion that the results were so awe-inspiring that "they warrant further studies in randomized trials." Now, who's paying for this hoopla again?[Thanks, Mike]
Listen engadget, since you find this study so repulsive, why cover it?
The person posting this story in the first places clearly knows absoutely nothing about the medical world or medicine. Mayo clinic is one of the top research clinics in the world and is considered one of the most credible sources of medical information in the anywhere today. Their research is respected worldwide.
Probably because it's funny Davis...Calm down.
To let people like you whine over it in the comments ;)
"...this one takes the literal cake"
Literal cake? No, you probably just meant that it takes the cake, figuratively.
Literally taking the cake would be if they slapped the chocolate cake out of the mouths of the study's participants.
Dimitri
There's cake???
The cake is literal, but it was taken figuratively. Ergo, the study is of the figurateive cake-taking variety, as the taking of said literal cake is purely figurative in nature. Literally.
They could have at least waited for the Wii to come out, so we could see how it stacks up compared to a treadmill. Go Wiimote!!
I'm kind of with Davis on this one. I think Engadget is taking a really cynical view of this. In this age gaming is everything to kids and even gen-X'ers like me. I think that it's very valid to study how gaming is affecting our health (pros and cons)since it is so integral to our lives. I would expect Engadget to be particularly sympathetic. Well...all to their own.
I dont think engadget is being unsympathetic I just think they are stating the obvious that the studies are stating the obvious.
Personally, I, for one, welcome engadgets sarcasm (with or without the sympathy)
I don't think it's the subject per se that Engadget finds worthy of cynicism. It's the fact that a formal study was actually conducted to prove something where sheer commonsense would have sufficed.
The study has essentially confirmed "activities that require more energy to perform burn more calories." Well, duh.
Where the formal study might actually be useful is in quantifying it. But I'm sure every electronic calorie counter fitted to a treadmill actually has this information already.
since my idea to set up Dance Dance Revolution in gym's were taken, maybe they start setting up Wii's in gyms now too.
@Reg...ok I'll give you that the treadmill is pretty obvious. However, new and emerging tech like Eyetoy and the Wii is going to open up a whole new aspect to gaming that involves physical activity? I think the researchers are concerned about HOW MUCH of an effect this will have on the obesity of children. Some of the findings are not so obvious. I was surprised that gaming didn't burn more calories than watching TV (considering the physiological responses). Also, the results of the Eye-toy were quite impressive. I might even look into getting one of these if it can allow me to burn some flab while playing on the computer.
Whee! When I do stuff... I burn energy... Energy = Calories... That means I burn calories... That means... If I take in less calories than I burn... I lose this damn keg!
Oh the joy of science. :D
"...proved that sitting around while gaming burned the same amount of energy as kicking back and watching the tube."
Actually, according to another 'scientific' study, playing a game for a few hours can equate to jogging for an hour, apparently. The prelim study was featured in an article of UK PCGamer last year (I subscribe to it). In it, it says playing FPS games (I remember UT2004 was mentioned) is good for you... They measured the participants' physical signs, of which I can't remember what they were.
Just wanted to point that out, and yeah, this 'scientific' study is a waste of time and money.
LOL this article takes the proverbial cake
Hoopla!
The whole point of research studies like these in this day and age is just to refute a previous study's results and to warrant "further research". It's how these so-called researchers maintain a job. Someone spends a year proving that gaming burns more calories than watching TV and along comes someone else asking for money to try and disprove it. When they do, they finish off their "results" by saying further research is needed. In other words, "I need more money to do more research."
Who needs science and research studies when we have religion and Left Behind: Eternal Forces? It's as obvious as daylight and pompous pseudo-journalism.
Seriously, I think the interesting part of the study is in quantifying the amount of energy expended. Sure, we spend more energy... but how much? Did you know that the brain, yes the brain, is the greatest consumer of energy in the human body?
i'm getting myself a wii with a treadmill, because i'm not obese, but i want to stay the hell away from it. and because it's just so 1337 to work out while playing red steel on a 63" rear projection tv.
The researcher comes out and says that the conclusion that moving more burns more calories is obvious (she doesn't need snarky Engadget bloggers who don't even bother to read the original research to tell her that). It's the quantification of the energy burned that is significant.
And responding to whoever said that you can just look at a treadmill calorie counter and get the same information: Those things are just very, very rough estimates--and how do you think they come up with those estimates?! By doing research on how much energy is expended doing various activities (i.e. "rubbish" like this study).