weight loss and computer games part 2

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