Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Wii Can't Replace Actual Exercise 148

Next Generation notes the results of a study into the health benefits of playing the Nintendo Wii. According to the University of Liverpool research, Wii Tennis can't compare with the real thing. "The result showed that the youths burned 60 calories (in nutrition terms) more an hour playing Wii, a 2% increase in the amount of energy burned versus the Xbox 360 players. The study is quoted as saying that 'these increases were of insufficient intensity to contribute towards recommendations for children's daily exercise,' and that active gaming using the Wii is no replacement for actual sports."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wii Can't Replace Actual Exercise

Comments Filter:
  • by Gorm the DBA ( 581373 ) on Wednesday December 26, 2007 @01:02PM (#21822032) Journal
    2% is better than nothing. Also...which games did they test? Nintendo is coming out with a fitness oriented game soon, I've been told...

    No, it's not a replacement for real exercise, but as a replacement for sitting on your butt, eating cheetos, and pushing buttons, it's an improvement.

  • by joggle ( 594025 ) on Wednesday December 26, 2007 @01:28PM (#21822274) Homepage Journal

    I am sure if someone wanted to, they could run another study and grab another headline by stating something like Wii Burns As Many Calories as Real Workout.

    I seriously doubt it. I play Wii sports and workout. There really is no comparison. The boxing game doesn't provide any resistance so you are essentially doing (weak) arobic exercise. Cycling would be far superior if that's what you are going for. I've seen people get out of breath playing the boxing game but they've all been pretty out of shape too.

    I think people get the impression that if you are sitting on your butt, regardless of what you're doing you are burning the same number of calories. This isn't true, though, as you burn more calories when your brain is active, such as when you are playing an intense Xbox 360 game. Still no comparison to true exercise, but I can see how standing on your feet swinging your arms around is only a 2% increase over an intense Xbox 360 game. If you want to burn calories playing a video game, stick with DDR (on a difficulty of at least medium).

  • by techpawn ( 969834 ) on Wednesday December 26, 2007 @01:29PM (#21822276) Journal
    Personally I went from 215 down to under 160 in about 6 months. I'm not sure if it was DDR or that I changed my diet and started going to the gym after I started losing the weight. I like to think the DDR got me over that first step that so many people have trouble with and then it was all coasting from there. I've heard DDR Diet success stories, but, playing at home isn't the same as at the arcade (especially when you live on the third floor) and the math for cost per game VS. Gym membership over a year... the membership becomes cheaper.
  • Re:Not DDW (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Retric ( 704075 ) on Wednesday December 26, 2007 @02:18PM (#21822730)
    FYI: 2% still a big deal over time.

    60 calories * 2 hours * 5 days a week * 48 weeks a year = 28800 calories.
    28800 calories / (3000 calories / lb) = 9.6 pounds per year.

    Note: Actual weight loss would be less as body fat does burn some calories over time.

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers