Weight loss and computer games Part 2

The Nintendo Wii study - marketing meets science, yet again!

If you scroll down this page, you'll see a post I did a little earlier today looking at a comparison between the Nintendo Wii computer game and an X-Box 360 game. The study found that Wii games, which are "active" and involve simulated hand and body movements by the players, burn more energy than the chosen X-Box 360 game (Project Gotham Racing). This has led to the inevitable marketing suggestion that Wii should form part of a weight loss strategy in response to concerns over childhood obesity.

In response to this post, we received a couple of great email comments noting that the selection of the X-Box game is itself a 'flaw' with the study. Both Stan and Daniel made the point that comparing Wii games to a car racing game (which is what Project Gotham is, by the way) may not be the ideal comparison. They suggested that perhaps the better comparison might be between Wii and some of the more active Playstation/X-Box games, like dancing games (which they do produce). So the choice of games, both neglecting the more active X-Box games and the more passive Wii games, represents a point of contention.

The reason for the choice - a "strategic" decision, perhaps?

Now, this is of course a valid point. I suspect that the authors (and certainly Nintendo), would argue that MOST of the X-Box games are in this category of "passive" games, but perhaps a comparison with a dancing game was required. There are a couple of other limitations, including the fact that energy expenditure was not measured directly, but rather calculated based on accelerometer data. It's not difficult to measure energy expenditure, so it is only a matter of time before this is done.

However, when you look at the choice of games, it's clearly one of the less active X-Box games compared to the more active Wii games (not all Wii games are this 'active'). Now, here at The Science of Sport, we're always alert to conflicts of interests in science - my (Ross) marketing training has made me more sensitive to this. On top of this, both of us are directly involved in perhaps the biggest conflict of interest of all - the sports drink industry, where Gatorade has its very own Sports Science Institute that funds "research" that, surprise, surprise, tells you to drink as much as you can!

So the conflict alert had been sounded from the beginning. Now, I looked at the paper specifically to find this, and I can't believe that I missed it the first time around:

Here's the thing - the study was funded by Cake, which is the MARKETING arm of Nintendo....Forgive my cynicism, but let's not all scramble to purchase Nintendo Wii as the solution to childhood obesity based on this study! Had there been no difference, I'd be willing to bet this research would not have seen the light of day. Having said this, the scientists have, to their credit, written a reasonably neutral discussion - they even make the point that the energy advantage is minimal on Wii and actually state in their paper that the "energy used when playing active Wii Sports games was not of high enough intensity to contribute towards the recommended daily amount of exercise in children".

So no problem with that - it's the use of the data by others that represents the conflict of interest. This is the eternal dilemma faced by science - funding is critical, of course, and the search for knowledge requires a question (does "active" gaming burn more energy than "passive" gaming?) But when the funder and the provider of the question are one and the same, or when the funder stands to gain from a specific answer, there's always a possible issue. This particular occasion is not the best (or worst) example of it, but it's there nevertheless.

But I wonder if the choice of games, and the study design, were not somehow 'strategically' influenced by Nintendo. It would be a shame, but as Daniel has pointed out, same old tricks recycled in another form!

One thing is for sure, it will come up in 2008 as well, and we'll hopefully be onto it!

Thanks for the comments - we love this blog and the readership we've gained because the 'dialogue' we have stimulates understanding all round!

Ross

Weight loss and Nintendo Wii

Nintendo Wii is not an exercise and weight-loss option: A study you never thought you'd see...

It's been a quiet period for us over the last week, but we're sure you understand! If you are anything like us, you've been relieved to you open your e-mail inbox to see nothing but a few junk emails, none of which require thought as you hit 'delete' (We hope that this email, if you're reading it as an email, is not one of them!).

But we have received a few great emails, and questions, and one suggestion for a series on weight loss and running. That sounds like a great idea to us, and for sure, it's in our list of "Topics to cover in 2008".

But for today, I was in the process of doing a post looking back at the most interesting SPORTS SCIENCE articles of 2008. And as I was about to begin, I came across this really interesting article published this week in the British Medical Journal. It's interesting, not because it's a breakthrough piece of research that will advance the field of exercise science or because it challenges existing thinking, but more because:

• It might be relevant to you, if you have purchased one of these for Christmas
• It is an indictment on society that there is even a need to do this type of study
  

The context - the gaming wars and obesity

Right, so here's the context. In the past few years, we've witnessed the "computer game wars", with Sony Playstation, Microsoft's X-Box and Nintendo's Wii all vying for market leadership in what is clearly an incredibly lucrative market.

For example, in August this year, it was reported that Nintendo Wii had become the fastest ever game-console to hit the 1 million mark in the United Kingdom - it took about 9 months. In August this year, total sales of 10.1 million Nintendo Wii, 10.3 million X-Box 360 and 4.1 million Playstation 3 were reported. I recall people queing overnight to buy their consoles when they were first released, and even acts of violence when consoles were sold out! Perhaps you have further added to this number in the last few days...(though hopefully not with the violence option!)

At the same time, the obesity rates in the western world (Europe and N.America, mainly) have hit record highs (though the rate has apparently levelled off in the USA). This is the case for adults and children, but the increasing prevalence of obesity and the associated conditions are becoming more and more worrisome in younger populations. It's reported that children in the UK spend an average of 12.2 hours PER WEEK playing computer games! Of course, the link is always made between computer games and obesity, because hours of computer games per day does not lend itself to a life of exercise and activity!

The marketing angle - Nintendo Wii causes more weight loss?

Now, you may be aware that the uniqueness of the Nintendo Wii system is that it involves the use of a hand-held wireless wand that requires the player to move around using arm motions. You can play games including tennis, golf, baseball, boxing and tenpin bowling. So it's a "more active" form of computer gaming than the passive X-Box and Playstation fare, which is great for thumbs and wrist exercise, but not much else!

Or at least, that's the claim. It seems that an entire industry jumped up around the Wii "Weight loss Plan", and there were a number of bloggers who put the theory to the test. One gamer did a 6-week self-experiment in which he played Wii games for 30 minutes a day, and apparently came out 9 pounds (about 4kg) lighter at the end! While this is an interesting 'experiment', it has numerous flaws (I don't think the author would ever claim it as a work of scientific integrity, to be fair - at least, I'd hope so), and so other studies were needed. This did not stop numerous TV appearances, marketing claims (obviously) and an added push to already growing Wii = Weight loss movement!

The study - Nintendo Wii - it burns you a quarter of a chocolate bar more per hour!

Enter researchers from John Moores University in Liverpool, who did a study that was published this past week. They looked at energy expenditure in 11 children (13 to 15 years old, boys and girls) playing either Nintendo Wii games (bowling, tennis and boxing), or an X-Box 360 game (Porject Gotham Racing 3, for those who are interested!) The objective, of course, was to measure energy use in order to predict whether the Wii burns more calories. If it does help with weight loss, then it will have comparable rates of energy use to other exercises, and much higher than for the X-Box.

The finding - a "whole" 250 kilojoules per hour more

So what did they find? Well, the table below shows the energy cost, in kJ per hour, for the X-Box game (a driving game, remember), the three Wii games and some other activities you will probably be more familiar with.

To put this even more into perspective, if you, as an adult (assuming you are, that is!) went out and ran at 5min/km for 60 minutes, you would be looking at between 2000 and 4000 kJ burned! It is admittedly impossible to compare, because the above values are for 15 year old children, and not typical 70 to 80kg males, but you get the point.

So there are really two messages here. Firstly, Wii games burn more energy than the X-Box 360 game tested. Secondly, neither comes near the good old-fashioned exercises that one would normally associate with weight loss. But that's another point. For now, let's stick with the study in question.

So then we have an increase of 51%, which at first glance must seem enormous. The Nintendo marketing team must be licking their lips...more on this later!

The reality is that the total amount of energy burned here is so small that it basically makes no difference - we're talking a quarter of a Mars Bar per hour. Therefore, you have a choice of sitting down and playing X-Box and becoming unfit and overweight, or you can do the same playing Wii games, except you can eat a quarter of a chocolate bar more per hour of playing before you get there! So yes, you can have your 51% more, but it's 51% of such a tiny amount that you're better off simply getting up to change the TV channel a dozen times a day than going for Wii instead of the other options.

Putting a spin on things

But, as one might expect, the finding is being spun in different directions, depending on who you ask. The afore-mentioned gamer who lost 4kg playing Wii says in his website that "studies conclude that Wii is a viable workout". Depends on how you define "viable" - if viable means you burn a quarter of a chocolate bar more per hour, then it certainly does help.

The scientists who performed the experiment, incidentally, suggested that "the energy used when playing active Wii Sports games was not of high enough intensity to contribute towards the recommended daily amount of exercise in children". That hardly sounds like the description of a viable workout to me! They do however admit that the "trivial" amount could still make a contribution to weight management, but then so again, so could about a hundred other things. For example, you probably burn this much simply by parking at the far end of the lot at the shopping mall and walking!

I think that the point is that if you are completely inactive, and you do NOTHING but play computer games, then suddenly swopping Wii for the other two is going to make a difference - hey, just the fact that you might stand up makes a difference! But the reality is that given lifetime of Wii, you still won't be exercising!

A sad indictment on society

I think that the mere fact that this debate exists is a worrying and sad indictment on society. I must emphasize that I'm actually not against computer games - in fact, I confess that one of my very own Christmas presents was Madden 08 - a Playstation game, which I've put to use since the 25th! But everything in moderation, that's the key.

And the point is, you cannot substitute computer games for exercise. Parents who allow their children to spend hours a day in front of a television without encouraging exercise are, in my opinion, walking a fine line of neglect, because of the health problems those childrens may one day experience as a result of neglect. And choosing Wii over Playstation or X-Box 360 because they think they're encouraging exercise is a futile exercise.

In fact, I suspect it will be a matter of time before an adult with heart disease and obesity sues their parents for neglect for failing to encourage exercise when they were younger! Stranger things have happened!

It seems to me that we are moving further and further away from 'traditional' exercise, which has led us into the era of justifying an activity such as computer games as a means for weight loss! One might however argue that "if you can't beat them join them". That is, children enjoy the games enough to want to play them, so we might as well figure out ways to get them active doing what they want to do, because forcing exercise is perhaps even more futile. However, this strikes me as slightly defeatist, though I recognize the tricky situation that exists for parents.

I'm young enough to appreciate the emergence of computer games, but fortunately I am old enough to remember that when I was 13 (as the children were in this study), my family did not yet have a personal computer (this was in 1994, we were slow on the uptake! I'm grateful!), and so I spent my Saturday afternoons playing soccer, tennis, cricket or running with friends. I never knew better, and perhaps that is the problem - children simply "know better", and prefer to spend their time playing "virtual tennis" in the comfort of their homes, with a Coke and a packet of Crisps an arm's length away.

So they're playing Wii and using their arms - great. But what happened to actually playing tennis? That's the control group that was needed in the Liverpool study, that's the comparison we should be talking about. But then we all know what that would show, right?

Ross

Check out the "Addendum" to this post, looking at the interpretation of the results and the possible conflict of interests with the study

2007: Running Year in Review

Highs and lows, world records, meltdowns, and great races from 2007

The Science of Sport was only really born in April this year, and so we missed some of the year's running highlights. But we'll take some liberties and include those in our look-back on the year that was in running.

Highs and lows

When we look back on the sport of running in 2007, a few things stand out, sadly not always as highlights. There were some great moments, absolutely - Gebrselassie finally bagging the marathon world record, Asafa Powell breaking the 100m World record (again), and Tyson Gay imposing himself on Powell and the rest of the world at the World Championships in Osaka. Then there was Zersenay Tadese, who ended a dynasty at the World Cross Country Championships in Kenya, Paula Radcliffe made a comeback from pregnancy to win in New York, and Martin Lel grew his reputation as one of the great marathon racers, first in London, then in New York.

But there were also lowlights - Marion Jones' confession of drug use was the inevitable drug related low of the year - her gold medals, having been returned, are still in doubt because everyone she beat is as much a drug cheat as she was!

But it was two Comrades Marathon runners in South Africa, Chad Schieber, Matthew Hardy and Ryan Shay who cast the biggest pall over running in 2007 - they are all athletes who collapsed and died during marathons this year. This became one of the biggest talking points here at the Science of Sport. It began early this year, with the collapse of Alberto Salazar during training, and ended, perhaps most tragically, with the death of elite marathon runner, Ryan Shay, aged only 28. It was not limited to road running either, with soccer players falling victim to cardiac problems as well, most tragically Antonio Puerta of Seville, who died during a Spanish Premier league match.

We tried to cover the spectre of sudden death during exercise as much as possible, explaining the causes, the risks, and ultimately, what this means for all of us, who may have the perception that we are protected as a result of our fitness. And while we certainly are afforded some protection, we are not immune, as 2007 has reminded us. So as we look back on the highs and lows, we remember these athletes, and their loved ones.

Performance of the year

OK, so we're biased towards the longer distance events here at The Science of Sport, but our vote for performance of the year goes to Haile Gebrselassie. A man who's hardly in need of any more awards or accolades, but he can now add to his collection the Science of Sport award for Best Running Performance of 2007! His remarkably paced and controlled World Record of 2:04:26 was a magnificent performance, one which we analysed in some detail - first as it happened, and then with the pacing splits and analysis the day after.

You'll see from Geb's splits how the record was really under control the whole way - he began needing to run 2:57.6/km to beat Tergat's time, and this never spiralled out of control - he churned out kilometer after kilometer of even paced running and at 35km, he was exactly on pace. A fast final 5 km, and the record was his! All that remains for Geb now is the Olympic Gold in the Marathon, and we wait with baited breath for Beijing...

Athlete of the year - sprint events

OK, so now we'll try to redeem ourselves for our distance bias, by giving this out as an award in two categories (OK, so we're still showing our bias!). First, for Sprint/Short distance athlete of the year, our nod goes to Tyson Gay, who completely dominated the World Athletics Championships in Osaka, Japan. In particular, it was the ease with which he dealt with the World's fastest man, Asafa Powell, that earns him this 'presigious award' (along with all the other 'lesser' awards he's won! Just kidding, IAAF and USTAF!)

The build-up to the Men's 100m final was the most hyped of the IAAF Championships, but in the end, it was Gay who handled the pressure and dominated the race. He went onto dominate the Men's 200m final as well, and played his part in the USA's victorius 4 x 100m relay team. The 100m-200m double has become something of a tradition at the World Champs (Maurice Greene, and most recently, Justin Gatlin also achieved it). But Gay came in and defeated a World Record holder, and did so with ease. It capped off a magnificent year for Gay, one in which he also ran the second fastest 200m time in history (19.62s), and won the double at the USA Championships in Indianapolis. His racing ability makes him the man to beat in Beijing, despite the fact that Powell went on to break the 100m world record a few weeks later.

An honourable mention here goes to Allyson Felix, a 21-year old who won her second World 200m title in Osaka, beating a stellar field (on paper, anyway) by 0.53 secs, the largest margin in the history of the Championships. Her winning time of 21.81s was a huge PB, and the arrival of a true world star. She races so infrequently that the world was denied the chance of seeing her run more often in Europe, but as she matures, that will surely change. What is more, she gave notice this year of her frightening ability over 400m, beating Sanya Richards in Europe. I do believe that in time, she will dominate the 400m event, and given her established dominance over 200m, we may be seeing the women's equivalent to Michael Johnson - unbeatable over two distances, for a long time. Perec won the double in Atlanta, but Felix could rule over these events for a long time to come.

Athlete of the year - distance events

You thought Gebrselassie, right? Well, you'd be wrong! Again, this is my personal bias, but I choose instead to give this award to Martin Lel, who in 2007 was the best marathon racer in the world. Gebrselassie is a great athlete, no doubt, but the one question mark that remains against him is his ability to win a competitive marathon, as opposed to the time-trials he was won against the clock. No such questions against Lel, who this year won the London and New York Marathons. In London, he led 5 athletes into the final 400m and then dismissed them with a remarkable finishing kick. In New York, he did the same to Abderrahim Goumri, who once again had no answer to Lel's finishing speed. An analysis of this race can be found here.

Just how good is that kick? Well, we timed the final 400 yards in 57 seconds - that's a 63 second last 400m on the track, at the end of a marathon race! Remarkable! But apart from just the sheer speed he possesses, Lel is a high pedigree athlete. We featured him in a post leading up to the New York race, where we picked him as the winner, based on his 60:10 winning performance from the Great North Run a few weeks earlier. Lel has the potential to run the world record close, and he most definitely has the ability to win the Olympic title, if he chooses to run in Beijing.

Unfortunately, his status as leader of the Marathon Series means he's likely to choose London and probably New York again, and give Beijing a miss, which is a shame. In London, the competitive field means he probably won't go for a world record (tactical race is more likely), and so we may have to wait on that all-out race against the clock. But he ends 2007 as our Athlete of the Year.

An honorable mention here goes to Zersenay Tadese, of Eritrea, who has been the subject of some recent posts relating to his incredibly good running economy - The Most Economical Runner in history, they are reporting! But earlier this year, Tadese ended the Bekele dynasty at the World Cross Country Championships in Kenya, and followed this up with a World Title over 21 km in Italy. Regular readers will know that I'm a huge fan of Tadese's, I think he's a wonderful runner. I pick him to be the next world record holder in the marathon, and with a little bit of luck, and good preparation, the 10 000m title in Beijing is not out of his ability! Bekele will need to be in great shape to beat him, better than he was this year. Otherwise, Eritrea will be celebrating its first Olympic Gold medal.

Other honorable mentions go to Paula Radcliffe, who made a stirring comeback after pregnancy and the birth of her daughter to win in New York. Radcliffe will bid for the elusive Olympic title next year, but will have to get through the heat, the humidity and possibly our other honorable mentions, Lornah Kiplagat and Catherine Ndereba. Kiplagat did "the Tadese" in 2007, winning both the World Cross Country and 21 km titles. Ndereba won the World Marathon title in oppressive heat in Osaka, which is a good sign since it shows her ability to handle those conditions - Beijing will throw up more of the same and so Ndereba will line up as a big contender.

The Choke collar award for choker of the year

The winner of this dubious award is Asafa Powell. Before you cry out in disbelief that the man who broke the world 100m record could win this title, let me clarify - Powell is a great athlete, the fastest man in the world. But how he managed to not even win the silver medal in the IAAF World Champs in Osaka is testament to the fact that he simply doesn't know how to handle the big occasion. Instead, he chooses a relatively obscure second tier meeting in Italy to blast out a time that he should have run 3 weeks earlier. His form in Osaka had been excellent, he was running dominant races looking comfortable and relaxed as he oozed power and class. But suddenly Gay was on his shoulder and he froze. Then Atkins came up on the other side, and he gave up. And so for giving up, the Let-down of the year award. He's still a great athlete, let's hope he brings that to the 100m final in Beijing!

The undo a lifetime of achievement award

This award goes to Marion Jones, who, after years of denial, defiance and deception, eventually confessed to having used performance enhancing drugs. We can only assume the prospects of criminal charges drove her to what was ultimately, in my opinion, a half-baked confession - she did what every 4-year old figures out when they're caught with their hand in the cookie jar - she confessed to some charges, but still maintained her "innocence" in other areas. She maintains that she was tricked into using, that she thought it was "flaxseed oil" and not actually a banned substance. Anything to keep the wolves at bay, I guess...

The end result is that Jones' record achievements from Sydney have been wiped off the books, and she has returned all her medals. Her image, once that of women's athletics, is now associated with shame and guilt and all that is wrong with the sport. A long way to fall, and a career of achievements built on lies and deception is undone. The worst thing of all was that despite the fact that she knew her guilt after being confronted by prosecutors (she was "innocent" - it was flaxseed oil, remember?), she went so far as to initiate an aggressive, proactive campaign to clear her name, hiring PR consultants to fight the good fight on her behalf. Keeping your guilt quiet is one thing, taking the fight to your accusers when you know you'r guilty, that's another thing altogether. Congratulations, Ms Jones...

The "Losing sleep over the future award"

This unique award goes to Liu Xiang, of China, who next year, will take to the start blocks in Beijing knowing that unless he wins the Olympic Gold medal, he will be seen as a failure by about a billion people! In 2007, every move Liu has made has been scrutinized, because he was unfortunate enough to be picked to be the Face of the Beijing Olympics. His bad luck was that he was so good four years out from the Games, and he became a symbol for China's aspirations to dominate the Olympics and the commercial world - Chinese consumers have associated Liu Xiang as an endorser of 19 different brands! So far, he's stood up to the challenge, but come Beijing, he's going to feel the crush of expectation unlike any athlete has probably had to deal with, ever! What makes it worse is that his event, the 110m Hurdles, relies on absolute precision, and any tightness or nervousness is not simply seen as a bit of tension in the shoulders - it could be disastrous. And even worse, 2007 has seen the emergence of Dayron Robles of Cuba, an exciting new talent who is getting better and better all the time. Good luck, Liu...

Wrap-up

So it's been a wonderful year for running and for the analysis of running (which is what we try to do, after all). Unfortunately, some sad analysis of death during running, but a great deal of fantastic performances, great athletes and wonderful races to analyse.

Let's hope that 2008 brings more of the same!

Ross

Can Paula Radcliffe win the elusive Olympic Gold Medal in Beijing? And will Haile Gebrselassie add marathon gold to his collection? Read our PREVIEW OF 2008 here!