Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wii Can't Replace Actual Exercise

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the deeply-shocking dept.

Wii 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."

cancel ×

148 comments

It's still a far cry better than 0% (3, Interesting)

Gorm the DBA (581373) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822032)

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.

Not DDW (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822206)

2% is better than nothing. Also...which games did they test?
Definitely not Dance Dance Wii [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Not DDW (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822406)

Probably not Wii Boxing with the gain turned all the way down either.

Re:Not DDW (4, Interesting)

Retric (704075) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:Not DDW (1)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 6 years ago | (#21824376)

3000 calories per pound? I wish I could find food like that, it would easily cut my eating time in half!

Re:Not DDW (1)

darthflo (1095225) | more than 6 years ago | (#21824706)

Try pure fat. 9 kcal per gram equals some 4 Mcal per pound. Alcohol (3.2 Mcal/lb) would work, too.

Re:Not DDW (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21824666)

My first introduction to the Wii was playing boxing almost all the way through, straight. I do a respectable 10 km run a couple of times a week and I was drenched in sweat and exhausted, but I couldn't stop until I'd paid back that chick for pounding me into the ring.

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (3, Informative)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822288)

That fitness game is actually a peripheral that allows for all kinds of balance/weight related games. It's called the WiiFit (more info/videos at http://www.wiifit.org/ [wiifit.org] and no I'm not involved with that site in any way).

It should be available in the US on January 1st. (Good luck finding one, though. I'm guessing it'll quickly sell out and then become almost as hard to find as a Wii console.)

Apparently, the fitness game itself isn't that strenuous, but some of the other games (running a race, moving a marble across a platform to a hole, skiing, dancing, etc) are. Also, I've heard that other games developers are looking into how to use this. Tony Hawk has been quoted as being interested in using it for one of his skateboarding games. (I'm not a fan of those games, but I can see how it could be applied there.)

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823378)

### Tony Hawk has been quoted as being interested in using it for one of his skateboarding games.

That sounds like a twisted ankle waiting to happen. Unlike a dance mat the balance board isn't flat, but actually quite high and also quite small, so you really don't want to jump around on that thing or you might very easily misstep. I am also not quite sure if it would be robust enough for that kind of use. From the looks and the name of it, it seems to be designed for exactly one thing: detect balance. None of Nintendos demos involved any kind of jumping or so, just standing there and wiggling a little to the left or right.

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 6 years ago | (#21824346)

There's a Ski Jump game for the board out already. The thing would certainly work with THPS, although you would not want people actually jumping around; you'd have to do ollies using sudden weight shifts, or maybe using the actual button on the remote.

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (4, Insightful)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822466)

A 2% increase over playing the 360 is better than nothing? Yeah the way having 2 pennies in your pocket is better than being flat broke. A far cry from it? Please.

Using the Wii to get exercise is one thing. It requires playing particular games in a particular fashion; not something I wager the test subjects did in this study. But playing it in such a fashion that you burn 2% more calories than playing the 360 is *not* exercise. You can probably do better if you play any game while tapping your feet to the in-game music. To defend the Wii in this case and say that 2% is better than 0% is just silly.

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (4, Insightful)

Sierpinski (266120) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822592)

A 2% increase over playing the 360 is better than nothing? Yeah the way having 2 pennies in your pocket is better than being flat broke. A far cry from it? Please.

Using the Wii to get exercise is one thing. It requires playing particular games in a particular fashion; not something I wager the test subjects did in this study. But playing it in such a fashion that you burn 2% more calories than playing the 360 is *not* exercise. You can probably do better if you play any game while tapping your feet to the in-game music. To defend the Wii in this case and say that 2% is better than 0% is just silly.


I don't think anyone ever said that the Wii is suppose to replace any type of exercise regimen. The whole point though, is that if it gets kids off the couch and moving around, that's better than sitting on the couch. I don't think any of the Nintendo people ever advertised 'Hey you don't have to do your normal exercise routine, just buy a Wii'. Getting up and moving around burns more calories than sitting, it's a fact. Is it enough to burn all your necessary "workout" calories? No of course not.

There is another factor involved that most people don't think about, and that is the stretching part of it. I can't count the number of times I've had sore muscles in the morning, basically from lack of use for the last 6-8 hours. If I have a particularly busy day at work, I can spend close to 12 hours sitting down (with hopefully a few breaks in between) and my muscles hurt then too. Getting kids to get up and move around helps stretch their muscles, not to mention just the simple part of playing a game that requires more movement of your body than just your hands stimulates more of the mind. Does it replace thinking? No of course not, but it's "better than nothing".

People (probably) don't buy a Wii for exercise, they buy it because it's fun for them. If they get 2% more exercise in a day (which IS better than nothing... only Sith deal in absolutes!) then that's 2% less they have to get the rest of the day to meet whatever quota you've made up for them.

Just because some study says that playing a Wii doesn't replace exercise doesn't mean that Nintendo was actually saying that it did. Sounds like someone wanted something original to write a thesis about.

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822658)

Okay, really, am I the only one who understood what the "2%" in the study referred to? It wasn't 2% of some nebulous daily exercise regimen. It was 2% of the calories burned playing 360 for an hour. If playing the 360 burned 100% of the calories burned while playing 360, then playing the Wii burned 102%. That's what it means. So, to say "2% is better than 0%" in this case is VERY STUPID. If 2% of the calories burned playing 360 for an hour is enough to IN ANY WAY adjust an exercise regimen, then that exercise regimen is not a healthy one.

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (2, Insightful)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 6 years ago | (#21824020)

You're absolutely correct. And the article is correct, due to the fact that their small 2% increase was because they were basically playing the Wii like you'd play any video game on any console. The only difference was, instead of pressing a button they flick their wrist. Of course you're not going to get much additional exercise from that. But if you play the Wii like it was *meant* to be played, you're going to get a whole hell of a lot more than a 2% increase. Probably closer to a 20,000% increase. It's all in how you use it. And I for one think using a Wii to exercise is a hell of a lot more fun and interesting than a treadmill.

Oh yeah, the Wii is more useful for exercise than TFA is for any purpose. That's all.

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (1)

bwalling (195998) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823210)

Read the article. It's a 2% increase in your total energy expenditure for a WEEK! Not 2% more energy used during the time spent playing games.

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823240)

Article wasn't coming up; I went by the summary. Anyway, a 2% increase in expenditure for a week is still pretty miserable and to say it's "better than nothing" is pretty sarcastic.

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (1)

d34thm0nk3y (653414) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823546)

A 2% increase over playing the 360 is better than nothing? Yeah the way having 2 pennies in your pocket is better than being flat broke. A far cry from it? Please.

Having 100% of you hypothetical sum isn't much better than being broke either.

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823718)

Hahah, true enough, but that's because my hypothetical sum in this case would be akin to 100% of the exercise you get from playing the Xbox 360. :-)

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (5, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822638)

2% is better than nothing.
It's also wrong. The summary says:

a 2% increase in the amount of energy burned versus the Xbox 360 players
But the actual STUDY [bmj.com] says:

Predicted energy expenditure was at least 51% greater during active gaming than during sedentary gaming. This equates to an increase in energy expenditure of 250 kJ (60 kcal) an hour during active gaming compared with sedentary gaming. In a typical week of computer play for these participants, active gaming rather than passive gaming would increase total energy expenditure by less than 2%; although this figure is trivial it might contribute to weight management.
The emphasis is mine. Taken as a whole, here's what the study says:

1. You burn 51% more energy playing the Wii over the XBox 360.

2. If you always played the Wii rather than the 360, you'd increase your caloric burn for a given WEEK by 2%.

The study also says:

[T]he monitor does not detect arm movements well. Energy expenditure may therefore have been underestimated during active gaming, which involves arm movements.


The conclusion?

Activity promoting new generation active computer games significantly increased participants' energy expenditure compared with sedentary games


Now please mod this story -1 WRONG. Thank you, have a nice day. :-)

Here is a good idea.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21823226)

I want to tape a Wiimote around my penis with duct tape, and for some game publisher to create a vagina game that I can thrust my penis with the Wiimote attached tword the screen for exercise..

Can you help me?

The device used for collecting data (1)

Loke the Dog (1054294) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823334)

The IDEEA system comprises a small recorder worn at the waist and five sensors attached to three thin and flexible wires that connect to the recorder. Sensors are attached to the centre of the subject's chest (about 4 cm below the clavicle), the front of each thigh, and the underside of each foot on the outside arch, using porous hypoallergic medical tape. Sensors measure the acceleration and angle of each body segment.
I must say, this seems a bit stupid. If you guesstimate how much someone moves like this (or by counting steps or whatever) you will sometimes get strange results, especially with so few participants. Without going into the finer points of biology, let me just say what they should have done:

They should have measured the amount of CO2 produced by the participants. Sure, this means they can't do this study at home and it will cost a lot more to do. But on the plus side, it will be actual, meaningful science that is really undisputable. I know their method is both common and accepted, but I also know that similar systems have created a lot of confusion in the past because the results are not what you'd expect.

Re:The device used for collecting data (2, Informative)

ePhil_One (634771) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823480)

They should have measured the amount of CO2 produced by the participants. Sure, this means they can't do this study at home and it will cost a lot more to do. But on the plus side, it will be actual, meaningful science that is really undisputable.

Heck, simply monitoring their heart rate would have given better results, which would be simply done via an off-the-shelf Pulsar Heart Rate Monitor/watch.

Re:The device used for collecting data (1)

Intern Dan (1095909) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823614)

Very good point. Top that off with the fact that mechanical work does not and cannot predict metabolic work correctly (take a look through some biomechanical modeling literature if you're interested for more info) and you've got a pretty ill-conceived study. -Dan

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (1)

Intern Dan (1095909) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823558)

The system used to measure physical activity is also raucously stupid. It's been shown over and over in biomechanical literature that mechanical work does not and cannot predict metabolic work. Combine that with the fact that the apparatus hasn't been validated well for upper body use, and the 6 kid sample size, and you've got a worthless study of poor design that absolutely should not have been published. Just building on your good start of criticism :)

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (1)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822672)

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.

I think you've hit on the real advantage to the Wii's more active style of game control - Sitting and eating.

Sure, in a controlled environment, with a non-exercise-oriented game, you may only burn 60 calories more (as an aside, merely standing vs sitting burns an extra 40 calories per hour). But in a normal living-room environment with cheetos regularly available, how much less crap do you consume using a Wii?

I would expect to see a much, much bigger difference if they took that into consideration for hte study. Although exercise itself does matter, simply not eating more calories than you burn matters a lot more.

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823702)

That's exactly right. Even something as trivial as sitting on the floor while watching TV or taking a nap burns more calories than just watching TV. I'd suggest that there's a similar situation for videogames as well.

The average weight gain of around 2lbs., per year as people have aged is equivalent to less than 100 extra calories a day. It really doesn't take that much of a change to stop that kind of expansive situation.

But that aside, the whole point of the study was to get funding, anybody with half a brain would recognize that a sport that involves both running around and swinging is almost assuredly going to burn more calories than a game that involves mostly just swinging.

Re:It's still a far cry better than 0% (1)

kwanbis (597419) | more than 6 years ago | (#21824468)

Last sunday, my nephew came home to play Wii. He loves wii tennis. So we played for about 6 hours. My right hand is still recovering, we both have to take shirts, cause we where sweating. I don't ever remember sweating while playing segas 2k2 tennis or another like that on my PS2 or Dreamcast.

And which would you prefer? (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822036)

Of course arm movement alone is not the same a full body movement. But I would prefer that the kids at least get some exercise. I wonder if it would have been different if they had tested the boxing game as it is much more physically involved.

Re:And which would you prefer? (1)

spirality (188417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822468)

The boxing game would have probably been more exercise than the tennis game. Nonetheless I have both boxed and played the Wii boxing game. To make any sort of comparison at all is almost laughable.

I've played a variety of sports and fighting is one of the most intense things you can put yourself through. A round boxing/kick boxing feels like the longest two minutes of your life.

Let's take four activities and rank them by level of intensity from lowest to highest:
1. Wii boxing (minimal force exerted into punches, minimal footwork)
2. Shadow boxing (more foot movement, still minimal force, probably no gloves or just wraps)
3. Heavy bag training (slightly less footwork, much more force exerted into punches and kicks, ideally you're wearing one pound gloves)
4. Fighting (a lot of footwork, full force into many punches, getting hit by someone else)

This is surely a logarithmic scale of intensity. It is amazing how much energy is expended in the act of getting hit by someone. It saps you like nothing else can.

Re:And which would you prefer? (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822492)

yeah, the arms barely weigh anything. But you know what they should study: my fav, DDR! If your whole body isn't off the ground 10 times per song, you just lost lol. It's so tiring and sweat inducing I bet normal exercise can't stand up to it. I can't think of any sport of exercise where you have to move as fast as Max Unlimited on Standard or Dead End on Heavy.

Re:And which would you prefer? (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822580)

No, just no. Try an actual boxing workout, jump roping, or a high intensity spinning class. I guaruntee you'll be more tired than any DDR session. For one thing you're not working a sustained heartrate, so the cardio benefit is probably minimal. Just jog for an hour a day.

Re:And which would you prefer? (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823352)

have you even played DDR? Your feet hit and leave the ground about 2x faster than any stupid jump roping exercise and you use a lot more muscles. Whenever I play a bunch of really hard DDR songs my heartrate measures in the 240's. It doesn't get any more intense than DDR, trust me.

Being that they are gamers... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822736)

Practicing those arm muscles will come in handy later in life.

Namely, when they hit puberty. They'll be moving those arms like crazy then.
Best to start building those muscles and tendons early.

Unclear article (2, Insightful)

ChowRiit (939581) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822040)

The article makes no mention of what games they used on the Wii to test this. My experience is that some games are far more active than others - playing Wario Ware normally leaves me quite worn out after a while, but playing Super Mario Galaxy requires almost no movement. Without knowing what they used for the experiment, its results are meaningless...

Re:Unclear article (1)

Fez (468752) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822294)

My experience is the same, Re: Super Mario Galaxy. That doesn't require much movement, just wrist twitching for the spin attack. There is the occasional control scheme switch but nothing major, like the sequences where you jump on top of the ball and tilt the controller.

They should have used a game like Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games. Even if it is just an arm workout, it still wears me out.

I must be really out of shape. :P

Wii Sports for 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes. Bunk. (1)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822310)

They also used young teenagers to test it as well. They compare against a kid playing a PS2 game vs a kid playing Wii Sports for 15 minutes. I believe their test pool was five or so kids as well.

The study basically doesn't prove anything because you would need more than 15 minutes to break a sweat and really start burning calories with Wii Sports. You would also need to test overweight people where it actually is easier for them to expend more energy far easier than a fit kid who can basically bounce off the walls for five hours straight and burn 0 calories.

If they wanted to test this, they would have ran the tests of over an hour, and used normal or overweight middle aged people.

Re:Wii Sports for 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes. Bun (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822836)

Oh yeah, and YOU'RE the expert, aren't you? Pfft, if I had a dollar for every armchair expert on slashdot, I'd be a millionaire.

Burning calories is linear, so additional time adds nothing to the test. Plus, it's measured as a percentage increase, so it doesn't matter if people are fat or not.

God you nintendo apologists take the fucking cake for excuses, backpedaling, and denial.

But hey, go run your own tests, find out that the wii isn't a an exercise machine like all the wiibots were chanting months ago and come back and truthfully report your findings. Then maybe we'll take you seriously.

Re:Wii Sports for 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes. Bun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21823032)

how about a boxing match between me: a "wibot", and you: a non-believer?

i hope you like hospital food buddy.

Re:Wii Sports for 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes. Bun (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 6 years ago | (#21824182)

He's not an expert. You, on the other hand, are about as far from an expert on the subject as a person could possibly get. Burning calories is, in most cases, not even close to linear. Unless of course your "activity" involves so little energy output that you could do it all day. Do you have any idea how much energy your body expends just to keep itself cooled down as you go beyond those 15-minute sessions? Didn't think so.

Re:Wii Sports for 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes. Bun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822838)

They also used young teenagers to test it as well.

They also demonstrated [bmj.com] a much higher than 2% energy consumption increase, a number that the BBC appears to have completely misrepresented from the "Discussion" section of the report, which had concluded that "In a typical week of computer play for these participants, active gaming rather than passive gaming would increase total energy expenditure by less than 2%". In other words, everything you do the rest of the week dwarfs the amount of energy that you used by playing games for a few hours, or in layman's terms: "no shirt, shitlock". The BBC ignored the first sentence of the section: "Predicted energy expenditure was at least 51% greater during active gaming than during sedentary gaming."

Is it a replacement for exercise? Not really, but that's not based on the "only" 2% increase in energy consumption.

Shocking! (1)

Syuveil (449108) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822046)

And here I thought playing Wii tennis made me better at the real thing...

Re:Shocking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822474)

I'm going to post this message then go back to playing pocket ping pong.

though (1)

Sobieski (1032500) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822052)

it CAN replace the Gamecube, which it was built to do

Re:though (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822640)

it CAN replace the Gamecube, which it was built to do
Not for Game Boy on TV. One GameCube accessory that didn't make it through the Wii transition was the Game Boy Player.

Not True... (1)

JKSN17 (956518) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822070)

Not True...the injuries are real. I am personally suffering from some nasty tennis elbow from Wii Sports, and a torn ACL from playing Madden '08. Doctors say I'll be up and running by the '09 season.

Depends On The Player (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822072)

Some folks go nuts with Wii sports and jump all around, but chances are the kids are just sitting around. I swear I think my aunt is going to tear down my house half the time and is pretty much exhausted afterwards.

Picture is not as good as the real thing (2, Insightful)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822076)

I know I can't bowl a perfect game in real life, but come damn close in Wii Sports. Nothing is the same as getting up and getting moving but even the article points out:

The study did concede that while the actual calorie-burning benefits of the Wii were trivial, the activity that the Wii inspires could aid in weight management...
Sadly that's what these kids need; Motivation! If playing Wii Sports gets them interested in playing real tennis then yeah, it's a good thing. Not a replacement, I won't stop going to the gym because I got a Wii or play DDR but it's a step in the right direction to get people moving again.

Re:Picture is not as good as the real thing (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822188)

I have a friend who lost 60+ lbs due to a DDR addiction.

It all depends on the game you play. If Nintendo picks up on the head targeting system for a few games, playing an hour of a Wii game could wind up being just shy of the calories burnt in a low height stepper-size class. And you'd get to shoot Nazis too!

-Rick

Re:Picture is not as good as the real thing (2, Interesting)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822276)

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:Picture is not as good as the real thing (2, Insightful)

fotbr (855184) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822958)

I think thats the key. DDR (or the Wii, or whatever) can serve as the kick in the butt to get things going (even if just mentally). Once motivation is there, more traditional methods are probably more effective.

Re:Picture is not as good as the real thing (2, Insightful)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823478)

I am an overweight over 40 man who has played DDR for many years, often in heavy mode, thanks to competition with my 20 year old daughter who always kicks my ass at it. It seems to be an excellent source of cardio excercise. But as a calorie burner, not so much. Most of the time your arms are not really used. Once I got good at it, the jumping tended to be mostly from my calves, not any of the larger muscle groups. I tend to be on my toes during the game, not really doing deep knee bends.

My daughter and I noticed that when we play, our upper bodies almost remain motionless, only moving our shoulders as we shift positions.

For a couple of years, I would play at least 30-45 minutes 3 or 4 times a week but sometimes every day depending on my work schedule. I found that my heart rate and breathing benefited from DDR, and my blood pressure dropped. I remained the same weight for the most part over that period. It wasn't until I reduced my DDR time and added in regular calisthenics that I began to reduce my weight.

But my calves got hard as a rock ....

I'm sure my daughter will get the WII version. It should be interesting to see if the addition of arm movements adds any significant exertion. I used to juggle quite a bit, and discovered that holding your arms out in front of you and moving them up and down was not trivial. I remember speaking to a physical therapist who suggested it was an excellent therapy for carpel tunnel rather than simple stretching because it increases the blood flow.

Hm. (1)

ACAx1985 (989265) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822090)

I don't believe the study (or I need more information). Standing and moving around (such as Wii boxing or tennis, or whatever) burns many more calories than just sitting there and playing an RPG on Xbox360 -- this study isn't conclusive at all, with just six kids being tested.

I do agree, however, that it doesn't even come close at all to real sports, and that it should not ever be considered a replacement. Nothing beats a few hours on the courts :)

Depends on the user (5, Insightful)

manekineko2 (1052430) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822130)

Without a doubt, the results of this study depend heavily on the methodology of how they had players play. This study got a total of eleven individuals in order to reach this conclusion.

There are two ways to play the Wii, especially Wii sports: You can really get into it, swinging yours arms and making big motions and make it exercise (while having more fun in my opinion).
Or you can play it like a video game, and just twitch the controller around. Of course, as Tycho and Gabe put it so eloquently, that makes you a toolbox:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/11/13 [penny-arcade.com]

In reaching the conclusion that Wii is only a 2% increase in calorie burning over 360 games, I'm sure the kids were only moving their wrists. Then, the difference breaks down to 360 = twitching thumbs, Wii = twitching wrists. I could believe that twitching wrists instead of just thumbs is a 2% increase in calories burnt over the 360.

I know that when playing Wii boxing and making real punching motions, my arms get physically tired and I can work up a sweat after long enough. 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.

Re:Depends on the user (3, Interesting)

joggle (594025) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822274)

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).

Re:Depends on the user (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822808)

you are essentially doing (weak) [aerobic] exercise.

More people should play the way my friends and I do when we get together at the house of a friend with a Wii. That is, jumping madly all over the place, swinging the Wiimote as if it were the handle of an axe, and accidentally smashing our hands into wooden furniture in order to win at Wii Sports Tennis.
But yes, it's still obviously no match for e.g. 30-60 minutes of running. The same friends of mine and I were actually discussing this last week and definitely lumped the "Wii is exercise!" people in with the "I am awesome at Guitar Hero, as soon as I pick up a real guitar I will be Steve Vai!" crowd.

Re:Depends on the user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822852)

It's too bad the only "intense" thing about XBox games are how much vitriol the 12 year olds spew at you while you trivially frag their ass.

Xbox games are all dull, boring warmed over shit that are only fresh to someone who didn't see the 80's

Re:Depends on the user (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822908)


Even DDR on easy for a half hour 4 days a week will keep you fit.
As a reminder, fit does not equal slim.

Wii boxing (3, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#21824470)

You don't need much resistance to do aerobic exercise if you are using parts of your body other than your legs.

You can drive your heart rate well into the anaerobic range just by keeping your hands in constant motion. If you haven't tried something like shadow boxing, you'd be surprised. I think that the human body has evolved for efficient bipedal locomotion; it is extremely inefficient at keeping the arms in motion. Three minutes of continuous shadow boxing takes far more energy than jogging the same amount of time. If you don't believe me, try it; see if you can shadow box for three minutes, and throw during that time 120 minutes, a mere 1.5 seconds/punch.

Check out this video [youtube.com] of a boxer hitting the focus mitts. Notice that his punching rate averaged over each 30 second period goes up and down -- from about 1 1/3 down to about 3/4 punch per second. He's throwing blindingly fast combinations, but he has to rest and the rest period between combinations goes up and down. If you took 100 people off the street, I'd bet maybe one or two could keep up this level of activity for three minutes without coming close fainting. Of course the bulk of the energy being provided is from the creatine phosphate pathway and glycolysis, but believe me you go into oxygen debt doing this. I've seen strong men reduced to the consistency of overcooked spaghetti by underestimating how hard this is. It's really amusing to see the reaction of a newbie macho man when after sixty seconds the 98 pound woman in the next group is hitting harder and faster than he is.

In Wii Tennis, you lose the main benefit of real tennis: running. Wii Boxing is far superior to Wii Tennis because you are encouraged to keep your upper body in constant motion, which as we've seen uses a lot of energy. It would be even better if there were a head tracking device, or something like a DDR mat that gave you more interesting tactical options like circling, advancing or retreating. One thing that newbies have trouble putting to use is that there are more directions in sparring than just forward and back. It adds a whole new um... dimension to the sport. Moving side to side is part of the answer to practically every kind of fighter. If you have a guy with a lot of reach, you throw of his sense of distance shifting to the side. If you have a powerful, aggressive puncher, you keep in circling so he can't plant his feet for a heavy punch. If you've got a southpaw, you move left to get out of range of that sneaky left hook, and so you can cross his lead with your own left hook.

It would be better exercise too, not because the lower body motions are huge in themselves, the key is that you'd have more of your body moving at one time. It is reasonably easy to throw 120 fast punches in three minutes if you are standing flat footed, but if you are shuffling forward and back, side to side, doing a little bobbing and weaving and its a serious workout, even though if you kept your hands perfectly still those motions would hardly amount to anything.

Of course, it still depends on the user. More experienced users are no doubt more efficient, just as more experienced sparring partners are more efficient. But the key is that it is to your advantage in the game then to throw more punches and blocks with your saved energy. In tennis, as you get more efficient, it is more advantageous to relax and wait for the next ball.

Of course I totally agree, Wii Sports -- even Wii Boxing aren't a substitute for working out. But I think the Wii points the way to games that are much more active. I'd like to see head foot and hand tracking incorporated into future games. Non-shooting combat games are ideal for getting the whole body into motion.

Re:Depends on the user (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823316)

Wii!

Personally I would like to see them do a study with the boxing game, or even the supposedly better boxing game on the market that I haven't had a chance to play yet.

I have played all these games a bit, not so much tennis. However the boxing game I found to really wear me out. I mean, it was no hour of martial arts class like I used to do several times a week, but it was enough that 2 matches in I wanted to sit for a miniute.

-Steve

Great marketing idea! (2, Insightful)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822136)

We need to have weighted Wii-motes to help go that extra distance. It would be like the 2 pound power-walking weights.

Re:Great marketing idea! (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822162)

Wii-Weights? Who are you Piccolo... Rock Lee...?

Re:Great marketing idea! (1)

Fez (468752) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822258)

My wife got me a Nerf-made Wii Sports pack with a tennis racket, baseball bat, and golf club for Christmas.

I had thought the cheap plastic ones would be too light to make a difference, but the Nerf ones have some weight to them and really change the experience, almost too much! I was getting pretty good at tennis, but I put the Nerf attachment on and I practically have to relearn the game because of the added weight.

Plus, it's Nerf. You can smack people over the head with it and it's fine.

Side note: For Baseball, the bat is great for hitting but awkward for pitching, and it's a little difficult to get the bat portion snapped on/off in time during the pitching/hitting transition so you just about have to leave it on the whole time.

One could .. (1)

zehaeva (1136559) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822172)

One could always add say wrist weights to your wii enjoyment. Wii Boxing with 5lb's on yeah arm will get your going real fast.

One word, 3 letters (3, Insightful)

darkrowan (976992) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822174)

... DDR!
Nothing... NOTHING beats a DDR workout. Wanna really test something against a sport/gym workout? 30 mins of DDR (actual play time) vs 30min Cardio workout. I'd be curious how close the ratio comes out to 1 on that.

~my $.02

Re:One word, 3 letters (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822198)

30 mins of Max300/Legend of Max or all the Paranoia Mixes... Yeah that should get you pretty close if not past 30 mins of cardio... It would be awesome if my gym got a "free play" ddr machine for members...

Re:One word, 3 letters (1)

framauro13 (1148721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822616)

Nothing... NOTHING beats a DDR workout.
Initially, maybe. After doing it for a month, you need to bump the intensity to see any real results. Eventually, if you just stick to DDR, your body will stop progressing and reach a plateau.

I enjoy video games, but NOTHING is a substitute for actual exercise, despite what we try to convince ourselves. A 30 minute outdoor run will work a lot more muscles and build your stamina faster than playing a dancing game.

~my $.02, depending on the strength of the yen.

Re:One word, 3 letters (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822796)

Most of the home versions have a "workout mode" that takes your weight as input and calculates how many kcal you burn based on your performance.

Now that I think about it, I'm curious how accurate those calculations are... how would they know if I'm holding onto a chair in back of me to support my weight or if I'm really twisiting around and stuff?

Breaking News (2, Funny)

TheRasher (911196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822192)

I'm going to assume that this is Obvious Day, so I'm expecting the next headline to read something along the lines of "Scientists Announce That The Xbox 360 Is Less Effective At Making Toast Than An Actual Toaster".

Re:Breaking News (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822502)

I'm going to assume that this is Obvious Day, so I'm expecting the next headline to read something along the lines of "Scientists Announce That The Xbox 360 Is Less Effective At Making Toast Than An Actual Toaster".

You honestly think the fact that playing wii tennis burns only 2% more calories than an xbox game is obvious? Wasn't obvious to me.

Re:Breaking News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822652)

That's because you're a fucking idiot.

Re:Breaking News (1)

TheRasher (911196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822822)

That part of the article isn't obvious, no, but the "Wii Can't Replace Actual Exercise" headline certainly is. I don't know of anyone who has stopped playing sports or going to the gym since they got their Wii.

Re:Breaking News (1)

LrdDimwit (1133419) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823050)

It was mentioned up before, I think it bears repeating here: the two percent figure is a grand total over everything that person does; the study projects about 65% improvement at Wii games versus the 360. It's just that most people don't spend all their time gaming, and other activities still burn more calories, so the 65% boost doesn't actually accomplish as much as you'd think. It's like Amdahl's Law, except backwards.

Re:Breaking News (1)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823068)

That's because that isn't what the study found. Playing Wii tennis burned 51% more calories than playing Xbox 360. The 2% increase is for an entire week, including time not spent playing games.

Re:Breaking News (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#21824100)

Ok, if we're going to get pedantic, here's what the article says:

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.

So, according to the article, and this is on a Gaming Website so it must be true, playing X-Box 360 games for more than an hour will burn a staggering 3,000 calories, approximately 500-1,000 more, indeed, than the average person is supposed to consume in a day.

So, for the sake of your health, remember to consume at least six Big Macs an hour when playing games on the Wii, or else you're going to die of starvation.

No, really? (1)

MztrBlack (35164) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822194)

Real exercise consists of more than merely flapping your arms around? Seriously?

Hey, take what you get! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822204)

With today's kids, I'd already be happy with 2% workout. It sure is an insane boost from the 0% they get now.

Re:Hey, take what you get! (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822394)

Real good math there! A *2% increase from playing 360* is a 2% workout? Okay...

Also, "2% of a daily workout" would be insignificant and about as useful as 0%. Seriously. If you have an exercise regimen and one day you replace your 360 with a Wii, it doesn't mean you should adjust your exercie regimen.

Re:Hey, take what you get! (1)

bahwi (43111) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822484)

Did you read the OP? He was stating that most kids exercise routine is the Xbox 360! And that getting a 2% boost is still better than not doing anything at all.

Re:Hey, take what you get! (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822600)

It's 2% of the Xbox routine, man!! If you think the 2% is significant, then that Xbox routine must be a hell of a workout. Good grief, this isn't rocket science.

A known joke, just like every year (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822228)

This is a hoax. The original research "appears" at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7633/1282 [bmj.com]

It is worth noting that BMJ regularly provides joke studies on Christmas.

Further explanation from the Language Log: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005246.html [upenn.edu]

Re:A known joke, just like every year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822514)

Further explanation from the Language Log: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005246.html [upenn.edu]

What if this Christmas-time article lumping together all the other Christmas-time articles as a hoax is itself a hoax?

Either way, the research (whether it's real or made up) clearly indicates that the difference is more than 2%, and the BBC (and Next Generation, and Slashdot), suckered or not, is just flat out wrong: Wii Bowling (most sedentary Wii game) had a mean energy expenditure of 190.6 kJ/kg/min (with a SD of 22.2) and the Xbox had 125.5 kJ/kg/min (SD: 13.7).

my arms are killing me (1)

sneakyimp (1161443) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822290)

i played wii boxing and tennis for about 2 hours last nite and my arms are killing me.

Re:my arms are killing me (1)

bahwi (43111) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822532)

I was up and jumping around, with wrist weights on. My legs aren't hurting but are definitely resting from a workout, my arms and shoulders are both hurting from some tennis. (Swing both arms to get exercise, get up and move around, and yeah, you're getting more than an extra 60cals an hour)

What about other healthy activities (1)

Sean0michael (923458) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822364)

I would bet that, while it can't replace actual sports, it could replace other healthy activities like meditation, yoga, stretching or even light aerobics. The Wii Balance Board [nintendo.com] looks like it can help people with those, and I'm sure there are some health benefits from those like lower stress etc. While you might stretch the health benefits of something akin to DDR with a dancepad, it's still a step in a good direction for better health while still having fun with video games.

Blah, another voodoo scientific article (1)

bahwi (43111) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822404)

It's all about how much you put into it. These were healthy kids who regularly get exercise tested. Try it on a kid who now has the wii as the most movement they are getting at all. Most people using the wii as a fitness tool will be moving their feet for tennis and using full arm movement. Were these kids doing that? Or sitting down? Sometimes I even with wrist or ankle weights.

As an adult, I use one of those watches that counts how many calories you burn(takes your heart rate and compares with age, weight, height). I get a decent warm-up type workout, especially with wrist weights. I still go to the gym, but the wii helps me get into the mood. Light warm-up workouts really get you in a good mood and you want to go to the gym to continue that.

Also check out the Wii Sports Experiment [wiinintendo.net] .

I teach guitar... (0, Offtopic)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822428)

I teach bass guitar at a center with about 15 instructors so we've got about a hundred students coming through. Most of these kids attempt bass/electric guitar for a few months and then give up (this is typical of most instruments btw). I took an informal poll of the other instructors and we haven't noticed any increase in enrollment (or students actually sticking with it) since the introduction of Guitar Hero/RockBand.

While you can become pretty good if you sit down one day and play GuitarHero, while playing an instrument requires a *bit* more dedication/time/effort. However, if GuitarHero took as much time/effort/practice to get good at it as a real instrument, we'd probably see the same dropout rate.

You know why that is? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822884)

Musical Instrument teaching methodology sucks.

Maybe you are different, but not many people are interested in learning notes, they are interested in playing music.

I have yet to see a music teacher teach towards a goal the student can comprehend.

Usually it's, here is how you do this note, not please do it 10,000,000 times.and I'll also tell you your doing it wrong every 3rd time.
F' that.

If people taught guitar the way guitar Hero taught people to use the guitar controller, there would be fewer drop outs.

Let me tell you what piece of music I want to learn, and teach me what i need to know to get through that. The student will learn more as they get interested in a different piece of music.

Which is why I want to get funding to create a console guitar game that uses a real guitar.
All the pieces are there, I just need a 1.75 million to finish it and bring it to market.

Re:You know why that is? (2, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823486)

Wow, you're pretty out of touch with the way most instructors teach. Are you still stuck in the way one learned piano in the 50s? Sure there are many musicians out there that are 'jukeboxes' and can duplicate any riffs/songs, but if you asked them to play something in Gm, they'd look at you like you'd just asked them to play an accordion. Musicians understand what they are playing, jukeboxes are no different than GuitarHero players. They memorize positions/fingerings and get the desired sound.

On the very first lesson, we always ask the student one easy question, "Name me ONE song that you'd like to play, or one band that you like their music." We begin there. Why? Because if you start off with a 14yr old with "Mary had a little lamb", they'll be bored in 10seconds. Theory IS important, but getting them past all the plateaus is just as important.

However, I would say that many times when I ask a student "What do you like to listen to..?" I get the standard "I dunno... anything....". And this is from some kid who's got a $1500 guitar for his first lesson.

Why are you good at Guitar Hero? Because you're doing the same thing 10,000,000 times, and it tells you you're doing it wrong. Btw, any good musician knows that one wrong note in the presence of a full band isn't going to be noticed.

Hah! (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822430)

Clearly, they aren't playing it right.

The Wii was designed for the people who swing their arms from side to side trying to make mario jump.
It's not designed for couch potatoes.

If you're sitting down playing the Wii, or you're not getting into it and getting excited and involved, then no, of course you're not going to burn any calories you moron.

Play Guitar Hero the way it was meant to be played. Over your head, jumping up and down on stage, scissor-kicking, etc. And then just for good measure, thrash your couch with the guitar controller afterwards (but be sure to hit the cushiony parts).

THEN tell me how many calories you burn.

Re:Hah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21823056)

You people are completely missing the point. Do you want to work out, or do you want to play video games? Pick one. This half-assed wii "exercise" is borderline useless when it comes to any physical improvement. If you're looking for a workout, this ain't it.

It's like saying that you'll burn more calories chewing a steak than you will by eating pudding. Big fucking deal. They're both near zero anyways.

Chindgu to the rescue... Heavy Controller! (1)

aapold (753705) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822696)

Chindgu [wikipedia.org] to the rescue....

Surely this is easily remediable with some kind of "heavy" controller.

Heck, even duct tape them to hand weights.... they did the same thing with telephone handsets [google.com] awhile back...

Is it April Fools already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822740)

I'm assuming that most slashdotters managed to get through 3rd grade math, so they know this is a joke already. But for the three or four of you that don't understand any jokes that don't involve ponies, I'll explain.

If 60 extra calories per hour is a 2% increase over playing the xbox, that means the xbox users are burning 3,000 calories per hour. That would make playing the xbox about twice as much work as pro-level cross country skiing or long-distance bicycle racing.

Eh...try it with DDR (1)

maxair_mike (1154515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822984)

After an entire summer of working at Cedar Point with DDR Supernova machines at my disposal during my time off, I would think the new DDR game for the Wii would be an excellent candidate game for a study like this. I was usually sweating rather heavily after two rounds of DDR in the arcade on difficult 6 or 7 footers (I usually played at 9pm, when temps were about mid to low 70s, average indoor temp.), and by the time I finished my normal three or four rounds, I was breathing pretty heavily and my legs felt about ready to give. I'm not out of shape either, having ran cross and track, as well as playing volleyball whenever I get the chance. So yeah, do the study again with DDR on at least medium difficulty and I think you'll get some very interesting results.

Popular media can't count (1)

iabervon (1971) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822996)

This is a great example of science journalism. The study that the article is based on found that Wii games use at least 65.1 kJ/kg/min more than the 125.5 kJ/kg/min burnt playing sedentary games. Because science journalists lack even rudimentary math skills, they're often unaware that "2% more" isn't the same thing as "more than half again". Furthermore, since they also lack reading comprehension skills, they weren't tipped off that the position of the article was dead wrong by the statement that energy use when playing Wii games "was significantly greater than when playing sedentary games".

Of course, they also failed to notice that the study was from an issue of BMJ consisting entirely of jokes, like every other Christmas edition of this journal. In case it wasn't sufficiently clear that the articles were all jokes, one of the articles analyzed the distribution of types of jokes in articles in BMJ Christmas editions. It's unclear whether the cited study was actually carried out (some people will go to great lengths for a joke, perhaps even so far as to play video games in lab), but that just makes it even more annoying that the article managed to come up with a conclusion entirely contrary to the only possible source.

EPIC FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21823734)

in Liverpool took six boys and five girls aged 13 to 15
And the report from here on out is total bunk. Eleven samples? WTF
Come back to us when you test 100-500 people

They're doing it wrong. (1)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823764)

Anybody who thinks that the Wii doesn't promote exercise has never been in Walmart and heard "Attention shoppers, we just got a shipment of Nintendo Wii's in at the electronics desk." come over the PA.

RTFS... it actually says Wii burns over 50% more (3, Informative)

Deslock (86955) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823870)

The /. story (and next-gen article it's based on) are both very misleading. next-gen article states:

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.
Uhuh... if 60 calories more per hour is only a 2% increase, that'd mean that playing XBox burns 3,000 calories an hour! For anyone not familiar with a person's energy consumption, that's about triple what a 140-pound adult burns racing a bicycle at 20 MPH or running at 9 MPH. Since a typical 13-15 year weighs 110-pounds, the supposed 3,000 calories/hour would be more like quadruple what they would burn running/bicycling.

So obviously that article is wrong. This less sensational and more accurate article [medpagetoday.com] states:

Microsoft's Project Gotham Racing 3 for XBOX 360 can't hold a candle in fitness for teens to bowling, tennis, or boxing on Nintendo's Wii Sports, researchers found here.

But neither compared with fitness gains from playing live sports, reported Gareth Stratton, Ph.D., of Liverpool John Moores University, and colleagues in the Dec. 22 issue of BMJ.
and

- For Project Gotham Racing 3, the mean energy expenditure was 125.5
kJ/kg/min.
- For Wii Sports bowling, it was 190.6 kJ/kg/min.
- For Wii Sports boxing, it was 198.1 kJ/kg/min.
- For Wii Sports tennis, it was 202.5 kJ/kg/min.
So the study actually states that playing Wii Sports burns 51-61% more energy per hour than Project Gotham 3 on the XBox 360. However, the difference in total overall energy consumption over an entire week (counting time doing other things) is only 2%. It isn't clear in the medpagetoday article how many hours of play resulted in that 2% increase. However, if someone burned 12,000 calories per week then 2% of that would be 240 calories, which equates to 4 hours per week (keeping in mind that their definition of an hour includes a 5 min break for every 15 min of play).

Of course, how you play will affect how quickly you burn the calories too... I know people who play Wii sports sitting still while only flicking their wrists and others who stand up and move their whole bodies pretending they're really boxing/batting/whatever.

As an overweight Wii user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21823894)

I say the article smells of Microsoft propaganda. Sure, the Wii will never (and thankfully wasn't intended to) replace traditional sports played in a gym or outside, but it does a damn good job in making people move a little more.

Just a small note: losing weight is a goal nobody achieves by playing some Wii games and then going to McDonalds. Get rid of all that junk food and you'll lose lots of weight; the Wii will just help in making the transition much much funnier.

Pumping Iron-- (1)

triso (67491) | more than 6 years ago | (#21824148)

Not a bad article but they forgot to test with the top calorie burner for a Wii this holiday season: Trying to Find a Damn Unit to Buy. You will burn thousands and thousands of calories as you plod along from store-to-store in every mall and driving great distances in search of the elusive console. Be sure to practice your 100 m dash so you can be the first to get from the front door to the back of the store where there is only one box on the shelf. Remember the old children's jingle, "You Snooze, You Lose."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...