Researchers found that playing a Wii doesn't burn a whole lot more calories per hour than an Xbox, 167 vs 107, respectively. [icWales via The Raw Feed]
Post a comment
Comments:
You misread the article. It says the Wii burns 60 extra calories. So if the XBox burns 107, the Wii is burning 167.
Indeed, the article states that the Wii burns 60 *more* calories an hour than sedentary gaming systems, such as the Xbox, which comes in at 107 calories per hour. So according to these researchers, just 60 extra calories is not enough for kids, they'd be better off actually bowling or playing tennis. Which I thought was kind of a given.
@Improbable: I think they need to work on their grammar. The way they typed it, it could mean either 107 and 167, or 60 and 107. I have a hard time believing the Xbox burns more than the Wii.
Those figures take into account all the breaking stuff and screaming you do once a month when your 360 breaks, and also how you have to go out and do stuff while waiting for MS to send you a new one. Or maybe its that the Wii doesn't have any games.
If you were playing say...45 minutes a day, that's 16425 extra calories burned in a year. That's almost 5 pounds you either lost or didn't gain.
Little differences add up.
Or you could see this as a good reason to not try and legitimise the Wii as a work out device and get out of your living room and play some actual sports.
This basically gives me a reason to play my 360 for longer periods of time.
In other news, researchers have discovered an increase in carpal tunnel syndrome cases. Reasons are not known at this time. ;-)
Do you guys know what "respectively" means? The grammar is fine - 167 vs. 107 respectively means in the same relationship as the systems were mentioned, which is Wii first and XBox second.
A normal, 2000 calorie a day diet, as proscribed on the side of every food item (at least in the U.S.) everywhere, takes into account little physical activity. That amount is what you need to keep your body at a toasty temperature, and do everyday activities like walking around - little strenuous physical activity is factored in. This is why soldiers and such are on 3000 calorie diets, and most people who get a lot of exercise have to figure out their own nutritional needs.
167 calories an hour isn't anything to laugh at, nor are 60 extra calories an hour. On a weekend day, if you played Wii for 8 hours, (no huge feat for most gamers, I've personally done game-a-thons that begin to border on 20 hours) you'd burn 1336 calories. That's a damn lot of calories for playing video games in a fairly regular amount - in fact, it's equivalent to keeping a 20 mph pace on a stationary bike for 1.42 hours. Playing the mentioned Xbox wouldn't be that bad, either - 856 calories, or nearly an hour of stationary biking.
Regardless, the Wii's increase in burn is also significant, percentage-wise.
The Wii is hardly a replacement for exercise, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing.
This is just abysmal reporting. 56% more calories are being burned; a gigantic difference. Change two words and we have:
"Researchers found that playing a Wii burns a whole lot more calories per hour than an Xbox, 167 vs 107, respectively."
In other words, with a Wii you will burn through all the calories from a can of coke, with a Xbox you won't. Sounds significant to me.
Health isn't about major changes, it's taking the stairs instead of the elevator; it's having unsweetened tea instead of a latte; it's the net effect of a lot of small changes.
56% sure sounds like a hell of a lot more to me!
Sadly though, even the good news isnt that good. the sample size was eleven people.
In other words: Playing video games is still leisure, and people still need exercise.
The Wii is still awesome. :P
90% of the calories you burn on a daily basis are the ones needed to simply keep yourself alive. By getting up and being active you are promoting good cardiovascular health and building muscle which in turn increases your metabolism and leading to a long term calorie loss. The results from this experiment are simplistic and misleading.
People get paid to research this stuff? Where can I sign up for that gravy train.
Liverpool John Moores University also did some research a year ago and said the Wii was a good thing:
Can someone please clarify for me if this article is referring to calories in the American sense (that is, kilocalories) or literal calories? If the former, 107 seems to be a huge amount for sitting around playing video games for an hour. Of course, if the latter, then that is, as would be expected, almost nothing. Thank you.
Back in elementary school we were told that the human body burns about 2 Calories (kilocalories) each minute when you're just sitting around. I imagine that figure is pretty close, but might be a little on the high side.
no one has mentioned yet that this caloric difference is going to relate to WHICH games you're playing on the Wii. Try and play Wii sports boxing 'properly' (i.e. standing up, bobbing and swaying and punching hard and fast) for one hour! you CAN'T do it!! I guarantee it!! That would burn 500+ calories, I PROMISE you. TRY IT!! Put on the bodybugg and see for yourself!!
It should be noted that this is "average" calories burned.
It is entirely possible to play most Wii games with nothing more than a flick of the wrist, which burns even fewer calories than a typical console game given that more controller manipulation is needed in the average console title.
This is simply a horrid study, the results are quite worthless.
You can 'use' a treadmill by sitting next to it and pushing the track with your arm. That doesn't mean that you're not going to burn many calories on a treadmill, it simply means that you aren't going to burn many calories if you fail to use the treadmill *properly*.
@banmojo: Amen. I was sore for 3 days after playing Wii Boxing...then again, it might help if I didn't sleep on a cement floor.
Never underestimate the calorie burning potential of the thumb muscles.