A new study says the average age of video-game players in the United States is 35, and oh, by the way: They're overweight and tend to be depressed.
Investigators from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Emory University and Andrews University analyzed survey data from 552 adults in the Seattle-Tacoma area. The subjects ranged in age from 19 to 90, according to the study, published in the October issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
The hypothesis was that video-game players have a higher body mass index — the measure of a person's weight in relation to their height — and "a greater number of poor mental health days" versus nonplayers, said Dr. James B. Weaver III of the CDC's National Center for Health Marketing. The hypothesis was correct, he said.
The findings, he said in the article, "differentiated adult video-game players from nonplayers. Video-game players also reported lower extraversion, consistent with research on adolescents that linked video-game playing to a sedentary lifestyle and overweight status, and to mental-health concerns."
The Seattle-Tacoma area was chosen for the study, researchers said, both because of its size as the 13th largest media market in the United States and because its Internet usage level is "the highest in the nation." The study was done in 2006; the results analyzed in 2008.
While the study helps "illuminate the health consequences of video-game playing," it is not conclusive, its researchers say, but rather serves to "reveal important patterns in health-related correlates of video-game playing and highlights avenues for future research."
Does this finding reflect the people you know who play video games? Female video-game players reported greater incidents of depression and "lower health status" than women who do not play video games, researchers said, while male players reported a higher BMI and more Internet use time than nonplayers.
The findings "appear consistent with earlier research on adolescents that linked video game playing to a sedentary lifestyle and overweight status and mental health concerns," Weaver and other co-authors say in the article.
'Digital self-medication'? One interpretation of the findings, researchers said, is that among women, video-game playing "may be a form of 'digital self-medication.' Evidence shows that women are effective at mood management through their media content choices, so some women may immerse themselves in cognitively engaging digital environments as a means of self-distraction; in short, they can literally 'take their minds off' their worries while playing a video game."
An implication of that, researchers said, is that "habitual use of video games as a coping response may provided a genesis for obsessive-compulsive video-game playing, if not video-game addiction."
Among men who play video games, compared to those who don't, "male video-game players spend more time using the Internet and rely more on Internet-community social support," researchers said. "They also tend to report higher BMI and lower extraversion.
"These findings illustrate that, among men, the association among sedentary behaviors, physical inactivity, and overweight status observed in children and young adults may extend into adulthood."
Both male and female video game players spend more time than nonplayers seeking friendship and support on the Internet, the study found, "a finding consistent with prior research pointing to the willingness of adult video-game enthusiasts to sacrifice real-world social activities to play video games."
The data, Weaver said, points to the need for "further research among adults to clarify how to use digital opportunities more effectively to promote health and prevent disease."
In a commentary in the same issue of the magazine, Dr. Brian A. Primack of the University of Pittsburgh's School of Medicine agrees, and asks: "How do we simultaneously help the public steer away from imitation playlike activities, harness the potentially positive aspects of video games and keep in perspective the overall place of video games in our society?"
For children and adults, he writes, games that require physical exertion, such as "Hide and seek" and "Freeze tag" are "still probably what we need most."
Also, while it's a small sample and we don't know what the data actually looks like or how the surveys were conducted, I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that more video game playing = less physical activity. It certainly beats TV though.
On August 19 2009 09:26 GhostKorean wrote: While it is true that some gamers need to exercise more often, they shouldn't stereotype all gamers like this.
On August 19 2009 09:26 GhostKorean wrote: While it is true that some gamers need to exercise more often, they shouldn't stereotype all gamers like this.
they didn't say all gamers are overweight and depressed, just that on average they are.
People who like videogames become 'fat' and introverted? Or, people who tend to be 'fat' and introverted also like videogames? I see no reason to think it's one over the other, but the link isn't surprising.
I used to play Ragnarok Online for something like 6-8 hours a day when I was younger. And knowing everyone in my guild, and ll my friends who played with me, the conclusions drawn from this study doesn't surprise me at all.
You sit in front of a desk all day working then go home and spend the little free time you have left in front of a desk playing. I don't see how people would expect to weigh less.
Is the average age of video game players really 35? What the hell, including people under 18?
On August 19 2009 09:26 GhostKorean wrote: While it is true that some gamers need to exercise more often, they shouldn't stereotype all gamers like this.
they didn't say all gamers are overweight and depressed, just that on average they are.
lol then you could say that on average americans are fat. What the hell does video games have to do with anything.
:o they make it seem like the games cause these effects. Could it be that people who tend to be sedentary and have "mental health concerns" are ones who are more likely to play games as a way for them to get their fun? I mean if a person is depressed and not a social person it would be natural for that person to seek fun through a medium that allows for them to remain alone, which games can provide.
I'd say as a female video gamer I'll admit to 'lower health condition' but I don't think it's got much to do with my video gaming habits (since I don't own a console anymore and I was in better condition when I did.) I think it's also dependant upon your eating habits and environment.
On August 19 2009 09:32 ForSC2 wrote: You sit in front of a desk all day working then go home and spend the little free time you have left in front of a desk playing. I don't see how people would expect to weigh less.
'Digital self-medication'? One interpretation of the findings, researchers said, is that among women, video-game playing "may be a form of 'digital self-medication.' Evidence shows that women are effective at mood management through their media content choices, so some women may immerse themselves in cognitively engaging digital environments as a means of self-distraction; in short, they can literally 'take their minds off' their worries while playing a video game."
Why are people calling bullshit on this? Because they aren't fat and depressed, or maybe a few of their friends aren't? Think about all the people you see going into the Gamestop at the mall, or where ever you get your games. How many of them are social looking, fit people? From my experience, not many. Hell, when I used to play video games all the time (I hardly ever do now, which is somewhat ironic considering where I'm posting this) I was much fatter, and was absolutely depressed. Not that the video games caused that, I would never even suggest that, but instead I was looking for a way to entertain myself and be alone, and video games were the perfect outlet.
On August 19 2009 09:21 pencilcase wrote: Source:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32463904/ns/technology_and_science-games/wid/11915829>1=40006
A new study says the average age of video-game players in the United States is 35, and oh, by the way: They're overweight and tend to be depressed.
Investigators from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Emory University and Andrews University analyzed survey data from 552 adults in the Seattle-Tacoma area. The subjects ranged in age from 19 to 90, according to the study, published in the October issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
The hypothesis was that video-game players have a higher body mass index — the measure of a person's weight in relation to their height — and "a greater number of poor mental health days" versus nonplayers, said Dr. James B. Weaver III of the CDC's National Center for Health Marketing. The hypothesis was correct, he said.
The findings, he said in the article, "differentiated adult video-game players from nonplayers. Video-game players also reported lower extraversion, consistent with research on adolescents that linked video-game playing to a sedentary lifestyle and overweight status, and to mental-health concerns."
The Seattle-Tacoma area was chosen for the study, researchers said, both because of its size as the 13th largest media market in the United States and because its Internet usage level is "the highest in the nation." The study was done in 2006; the results analyzed in 2008.
You fucking retards.
Seattle has a really fucking high suicide rate because its rainy and depressing. learn to account for independent variables better you fucking shitty methodology morons. even if you "differentiated between players and nonplayers" isn't it obvious that the fact that the high internet usage in Seattle and Tacoma is because its rainy and miserable?
And as if that wasn't bad enough...
10 January 2004: Between international terrorism and a struggling economy, today's US citizens are faced with more stress than ever, claims a study released in January 2004. In this study, Portland-based Sperling's BestPlaces have identified the most and least stressful US cities.
The ‘Sperling Stress Index’ is composed of nine different factors which are associated with stress: unemployment rate, divorce rate, travel-to-work time, violent and property crime rates, suicide rate, alcohol consumption, self-reported ‘poor mental health’ and number of cloudy days.
Main findings Tacoma, Washington, a city of some 195,000 people and situated 50 kilometres south of Seattle, ranks as the most stressful city of the 100 largest metro areas. Galveston, Texas, earns the dubious honour in the mid-size category, and Yuba City, California, is the most stressful among the smallest metro areas.
This study is just fucking terrible. My inner statistician is pissed. There are many factors besides video games to be accounted for. Not to mention that there could be a more polarizing difference between games and nongamers because outgoing people would be outgoing regardless of the conditions, while others whom may otherwise be outgoing would be depressed and gaming in Seattle.
On August 19 2009 09:42 DM20 wrote: No researcher worth their salt would have used BMI.
Except BMI is perfect for statistical uses.
What do you mean it's perfect for statistical uses? It's a bad indicator of health... so how is it perfect for any use?
edit: caller: did they have a control of nongamers to compare? If so then they aren't retarded!
no you misunderstand
People tend to be outgoing or not outgoing. People who stay inside and play games are apparently depressed and overweight. People who are outgoing are not as depressed and overweight.
Maybe a reason why people are depressed is because their overweight. Mayber a reason why they're playing video games and not outgoing is because nobody wants to hangout with overweight people. As a result, they are depressed.
Females who play video games are even more depressed. Obviously, because if they are overweight and not that outgoing, they are not likely to want to go out as they would be shunned. This would of course make them play video games and make them depressed.
This is as bad as saying oh, those school shooters play Grand Theft Auto, therefore video games turn people into murderers! There are too many variables and they fail to establish casuality.
So wait, an insanely small sample study (less than 1,000 people??) in a concentrated area, namely one that houses an overall depressed area (Seattle has one of the highest suicide rates in the nation I believe, namely due to the weather).
I didn't read the whole study, as that line was enough for me. If I missed something crucial point it out to me .
Reach can bench more than any scientist that researched that bullshit. I fail to believe that gaming specifically screws you up. Go outside for 1 hour/day and you're not going to be depressed or overweight, unless something else causes it.
And I bet whoever made this study never passed statistics II in high school.
On August 19 2009 09:42 DM20 wrote: No researcher worth their salt would have used BMI.
Except BMI is perfect for statistical uses.
What do you mean it's perfect for statistical uses? It's a bad indicator of health... so how is it perfect for any use?
edit: caller: did they have a control of nongamers to compare? If so then they aren't retarded!
no you misunderstand
People tend to be outgoing or not outgoing. People who stay inside and play games are apparently depressed and overweight. People who are outgoing are not as depressed and overweight.
Maybe a reason why people are depressed is because their overweight. Mayber a reason why they're playing video games and not outgoing is because nobody wants to hangout with overweight people. As a result, they are depressed.
Females who play video games are even more depressed. Obviously, because if they are overweight and not that outgoing, they are not likely to want to go out as they would be shunned. This would of course make them play video games and make them depressed.
This is as bad as saying oh, those school shooters play Grand Theft Auto, therefore video games turn people into murderers! There are too many variables and they fail to establish casuality.
First of all I don't see what I misunderstood. Your original complaint was that they didn't take into account the fact that region could cause people to be depressed anyway, to which I said they could use nongamers as a control.
You are right that there is much more to make their study reasonably valid, but I don't think what they concluded was retarded. They really didn't make any sweeping claims... just pointed out some connections that were apparent.
On August 19 2009 09:42 DM20 wrote: No researcher worth their salt would have used BMI.
Except BMI is perfect for statistical uses.
What do you mean it's perfect for statistical uses? It's a bad indicator of health... so how is it perfect for any use?
edit: caller: did they have a control of nongamers to compare? If so then they aren't retarded!
no you misunderstand
People tend to be outgoing or not outgoing. People who stay inside and play games are apparently depressed and overweight. People who are outgoing are not as depressed and overweight.
Maybe a reason why people are depressed is because their overweight. Mayber a reason why they're playing video games and not outgoing is because nobody wants to hangout with overweight people. As a result, they are depressed.
Females who play video games are even more depressed. Obviously, because if they are overweight and not that outgoing, they are not likely to want to go out as they would be shunned. This would of course make them play video games and make them depressed.
This is as bad as saying oh, those school shooters play Grand Theft Auto, therefore video games turn people into murderers! There are too many variables and they fail to establish casuality.
First of all I don't see what I misunderstood. Your original complaint was that they didn't take into account the fact that region could cause people to be depressed anyway, to which I said they could use nongamers as a control.
You are right that there is much more to make their study reasonably valid, but I don't think what they concluded was retarded. They really didn't make any sweeping claims... just pointed out some connections that were apparent.
yet they still published the results and misleaded their results to a much stronger and different conclusion than was truthful sorry, i just get pissed when this happens kind of like when you dodge sc 1v1
On August 19 2009 09:42 DM20 wrote: No researcher worth their salt would have used BMI.
Except BMI is perfect for statistical uses.
What do you mean it's perfect for statistical uses? It's a bad indicator of health... so how is it perfect for any use?
edit: caller: did they have a control of nongamers to compare? If so then they aren't retarded!
no you misunderstand
People tend to be outgoing or not outgoing. People who stay inside and play games are apparently depressed and overweight. People who are outgoing are not as depressed and overweight.
Maybe a reason why people are depressed is because their overweight. Mayber a reason why they're playing video games and not outgoing is because nobody wants to hangout with overweight people. As a result, they are depressed.
Females who play video games are even more depressed. Obviously, because if they are overweight and not that outgoing, they are not likely to want to go out as they would be shunned. This would of course make them play video games and make them depressed.
This is as bad as saying oh, those school shooters play Grand Theft Auto, therefore video games turn people into murderers! There are too many variables and they fail to establish casuality.
First of all I don't see what I misunderstood. Your original complaint was that they didn't take into account the fact that region could cause people to be depressed anyway, to which I said they could use nongamers as a control.
You are right that there is much more to make their study reasonably valid, but I don't think what they concluded was retarded. They really didn't make any sweeping claims... just pointed out some connections that were apparent.
yet they still published the results and misleaded their results to a much stronger and different conclusion than was truthful sorry, i just get pissed when this happens kind of like when you dodge sc 1v1
How did they mislead people? I didn't read it that carefully, but it didn't specify what were causes and what were effects. If people choose to misread a study, then blame those people.
On August 19 2009 09:42 DM20 wrote: No researcher worth their salt would have used BMI.
Except BMI is perfect for statistical uses.
What do you mean it's perfect for statistical uses? It's a bad indicator of health... so how is it perfect for any use?
edit: caller: did they have a control of nongamers to compare? If so then they aren't retarded!
no you misunderstand
People tend to be outgoing or not outgoing. People who stay inside and play games are apparently depressed and overweight. People who are outgoing are not as depressed and overweight.
Maybe a reason why people are depressed is because their overweight. Mayber a reason why they're playing video games and not outgoing is because nobody wants to hangout with overweight people. As a result, they are depressed.
Females who play video games are even more depressed. Obviously, because if they are overweight and not that outgoing, they are not likely to want to go out as they would be shunned. This would of course make them play video games and make them depressed.
This is as bad as saying oh, those school shooters play Grand Theft Auto, therefore video games turn people into murderers! There are too many variables and they fail to establish casuality.
First of all I don't see what I misunderstood. Your original complaint was that they didn't take into account the fact that region could cause people to be depressed anyway, to which I said they could use nongamers as a control.
You are right that there is much more to make their study reasonably valid, but I don't think what they concluded was retarded. They really didn't make any sweeping claims... just pointed out some connections that were apparent.
yet they still published the results and misleaded their results to a much stronger and different conclusion than was truthful sorry, i just get pissed when this happens kind of like when you dodge sc 1v1
How did they mislead people? I didn't read it that carefully, but it didn't specify what were causes and what were effects. If people choose to misread a study, then blame those people.
well, having looked at the journal, i will just say that it's a long reach from
"correlation between higher bmi in males and more depression in females that play video games" to "average gamer is 35, fat, and depressed."
On August 19 2009 09:21 pencilcase wrote: Both male and female video game players spend more time than nonplayers seeking friendship and support on the Internet, the study found, "a finding consistent with prior research pointing to the willingness of adult video-game enthusiasts to sacrifice real-world social activities to play video games."
...what? That makes no sense. This sentence at once highlights an important benefit of video games (friendship and support) and then denigrates video games by implication.
On August 19 2009 09:26 GhostKorean wrote: While it is true that some gamers need to exercise more often, they shouldn't stereotype all gamers like this.
On August 19 2009 09:26 GhostKorean wrote: While it is true that some gamers need to exercise more often, they shouldn't stereotype all gamers like this.
yeah just look at INC...
Inc's BMI is probably massive.
A good indicator of how stupid BMI is as an indicator.
On August 19 2009 09:26 GhostKorean wrote: While it is true that some gamers need to exercise more often, they shouldn't stereotype all gamers like this.
'Digital self-medication'? One interpretation of the findings, researchers said, is that among women, video-game playing "may be a form of 'digital self-medication.' Evidence shows that women are effective at mood management through their media content choices, so some women may immerse themselves in cognitively engaging digital environments as a means of self-distraction; in short, they can literally 'take their minds off' their worries while playing a video game."
That's what people do with fucking anything!
Yeah i found that supprising myself. Is that really a response mostly women have? I honestly feel this way when i play any games. Even real sports, its an escape for a short time. I never thought of that line of thinking as a chick thing.
On August 19 2009 09:26 GhostKorean wrote: While it is true that some gamers need to exercise more often, they shouldn't stereotype all gamers like this.
yeah just look at INC...
Inc's BMI is probably massive.
A good indicator of how stupid BMI is as an indicator.
I'm glad people on this forum finally agree with me on this (not that I was the first to come up with it). I've been told so many times by people here that it's a good measure.
On August 19 2009 09:26 GhostKorean wrote: While it is true that some gamers need to exercise more often, they shouldn't stereotype all gamers like this.
While I'm overweight and should exercise more, this study just seems like something made to give "proof" to an agenda. I'd actually be depressed if I didn't have games to play during these boring summer weeks. On the other hand I do like to grab a bit of chocolate after failing on the internet or failing in general but that probably has something to do with my long lasting chocolate addiction.
On August 19 2009 10:49 StorrZerg wrote: btw since when is this news worthy? south park nailed this stereo type years ago
Rofl, so true.
They always try to make stupid studies that'll try to convince people that games are bad, which applies differently to every person. Still gave a good laugh I might say
correlation caveat: either gaming makes you fat and depressed, or fat and depressed people tend to like gaming.
I'm a fan of the later hypothesis... people that suck at the real world love fake ones where people can't judge their appearance. Of course, sitting around all day doesn't help that appearance but hey.
Seriously, this doesn't say much at all. Similar studies show that the average North American is overweight and depressed, and I'm guessing their mean age is around 40 as well. In this respect, gamers mirror the general population. Boo hoo.
On August 19 2009 09:21 pencilcase wrote: Investigators from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Emory University and Andrews University analyzed survey data from 552 adults in the Seattle-Tacoma area. The subjects ranged in age from 19 to 90, according to the study, published in the October issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine."
I wondered why the average age was as high as 35.... Maybe they shouldn't make conclusions when they left out the huge section of gamers who are 18 and under. I mean I bet it is more likely that those who still play games when they are older may be more likely to be depressed if they play games instead of having friends/family/a job but this study is just makes ALL gamers look bad.
who knows if video games cause introversion and high BMI, or if people who are introverted and fat tend to play more video games. or perhaps that there is a confounding variable C that causes both video game usage, and introversion and high BMI.
essentially, the researchers are obviously quoted as trying to point out the study is only correlational while the press is trying to turn it into a causal high-profile sort of thing. typical of the media.
To be honest my experience is probably the reverse. Compulsive gamers are monomaniacs who usually under-eat as well as under-exercise. They are certainly not the most healthy people, but obesity is not the first problem which came to mind.
Bmi does not accout for people with high fat percentages, that are still underweight or average weighted. (Don't exersize but eat only a little food). It's common knowledge that fat weighs less than muscle? Expect some gamers to carry more fat than is healthy for their weights and for it to show as they age.
And whether or not these findings can prove a causation one way or another between depression and gaming is unknown. What is known is that if you spend 2.5 hours playing games, and 16 hours awake, then your overall efficiency in how much work you can do is decreased from its maximum.
Here's a calculator:
24 hours - number of hours asleep/eating/showering/other maintenance = "A" ( # of hours playing)*100/"A" = The amount of efficiency you lose in being able to do work.
Of course everyone needs some hobby or activity to keep them sane and well.. just to have fun.
If the average is overweight, when you factor in all the really skinny nerds (another common nerd phenotype), it means the heavier ones are even heavier D:
On August 19 2009 09:42 DM20 wrote: No researcher worth their salt would have used BMI.
Except BMI is perfect for statistical uses.
What do you mean it's perfect for statistical uses? It's a bad indicator of health... so how is it perfect for any use?
edit: caller: did they have a control of nongamers to compare? If so then they aren't retarded!
It's a pretty fucking great indicator of health for a population.
Stop trolling!
I don't think he is... I think he honestly thinks that a measurement which doesn't differentiate muscle mass from fat mass, varying skeletal structures, and other physiological differences is fine for comparing how healthy people are.
1)The sampling is too small only 552 individuals were examined and does therefor not produce anything conclusive or certain.
2)They used BMI which includes fat AND muscle. A group of pro body builder and people who natrually have large muscle mass also has a BMI that is above average. To be sure you have to measure the body fat under the skin and not the weight of the person. A person with a high BMI doesn not mean he has poor or good health.
3)They don't say anything about the cause-effect link. As in that it is video games that actually is causing the problems(the cause) and that the problems are the effect.
4)They have only concluded that people who have problems all owned a game and played it. I bet these all people also owned a toothbrush or watched TV or used a car, since they havn't really conluded any cause-effect link, these things could just as well be the cause of their problems. and not the videogames. Their whole proof is that they found a common variable in the sample and that is gaming. Therefor the thoothburs, TV, or the car etc is just as likley to be the cause.
The media has probably scewed this to make it more sensational. What I can tell from the results of this research is that ecessive videogaming problably is being used as medication to get away from personal problems. I can nowhere find any wording or texting claiming that Gaming is The actuall problem.
We need Kennegit on this stat. We know SC gamers have no problems with Kennegit in our ranks but we gotta show other gamers the light like WoW and WC3 and show how they can be almost as awesome and fit as us with him as our leader. Incontrol will be the right hand man of course. Who wouldn't be impressed with a SC gamer that goes to weight lifting competitions and have a pretty gf. SC will make people lose weight and happy/awesome! :D
Hm, well, i'm not overweight, but the gaming is more of substitute for a lack of social life (particularly during the summer), and the lack of a social life is more of a reason for my depression. Not the gaming (getting DT dropped is more a reason for rage than anything)
For some reason this enrages me. On any forum, there are threads where people talk about being "addicted" to a certain game for a period of time, and i'm sure all of the more frequent forum users have experienced that... however i've never known a person who was so "addicted" to a game that they literally couldn't leave their chair or stop playing. They are trying to make this connection that Video Games -> Introversion, Depression, when actually it is the other way around. A lot of people who don't integrate well with society and can't follow societal norms or are awkward around other end up as otaku, only because the internet is both a highly personal and highly social world, which is perfect for them. They get the social interactions they need without the terrifying feeling of "real life".
Could someone get on the site and get a link to the actuall study, I've tried everything from searching the authors to searching for different terms like Game, BMI etc and I havn't found squat.
If they included < 19 results would be a bit different, as Younger gamers tend to be able to balance lifestyles a bit more as gaming is a bit more common now (usually you have RL friends who are gamers when young).
On August 19 2009 09:26 GhostKorean wrote: While it is true that some gamers need to exercise more often, they shouldn't stereotype all gamers like this.
yeah just look at INC...
Inc's BMI is probably massive.
A good indicator of how stupid BMI is as an indicator.
I'm glad people on this forum finally agree with me on this (not that I was the first to come up with it). I've been told so many times by people here that it's a good measure.
On August 19 2009 09:26 GhostKorean wrote: While it is true that some gamers need to exercise more often, they shouldn't stereotype all gamers like this.
yeah just look at INC...
I exercise more than any other gamer probably lol
Purely out of curiosity, do you know your BF%?
Haven't been tested in a long while. Like several years.. I am leaner than I ever have been though. Still big but leaner for me
On August 19 2009 09:26 GhostKorean wrote: While it is true that some gamers need to exercise more often, they shouldn't stereotype all gamers like this.
they didn't say all gamers are overweight and depressed, just that on average they are.
While they themselves don't specifically say it, what would 90% of non-gamers think when they see this? They would think that most gamers are fat+depressed
Media distorts correlational study to imply causation and support sensationalist viewpoints. Sad, but this happens every fucking day. Sad thing is my mom e-mailed this article to me, maybe she's hinting at something.
Like people have said one study is nothing. You can always play around with studies to make them more fitting towards what your goal is. The problem is that many regular people see a scientific study and auto think its means everything. Science in itself needs to do a better job of releasing information/studies so that people understand exactly what it means and that it would take several studies all supporting the same hypothesis to even begin to take it seriously.
On August 19 2009 15:23 keV. wrote: Why even do this study. What a waste of funding, go cure cancer you lazy ass, gamer hating scientists.
I really hate when people say this. Science doesn't advance itself solely to solve people's problems; that's just how you get funding (and cancer, probably 1000x as much funding). Scientists work because they're interested, not to be people's bezatches.
Tell businessmen to quit and start doing cancer research, or do it yourself.
1. Maybe fat, depressed people play games more, not the other way around. 2. What happened to the age group younger than 19? 3. Wasn't there a study that proved the opposite of what they're saying here?
Jesus Christ everyone is arguing over this when no one has read the actual peer-reviewed study. If the statistical correlation between depressed and overweight (which BMI is probably a good indicator of in a large sample, as I would posit that most high-BMI individuals are actually fat, not just heavily muscled or "big-boned") and video game player is strong enough, then scientifically the two are correlated. Deal with it. Stop crying over a study, if you feel that your experience with video games doesn't fit the conclusions of the study, then you're probably one of MANY people that don't.
Let's all take a minute to celebrate the fact that if the average age of gamers is 35, there should be a reduction of censorship in regards to videogames. I guess we all know that won't happen though, so who the hell cares about a study like this anyway?
Also most gamers I know are 20-24 and skinny so hey, I don't even know what to believe
On August 19 2009 09:30 micronesia wrote: People who like videogames become 'fat' and introverted? Or, people who tend to be 'fat' and introverted also like videogames? I see no reason to think it's one over the other, but the link isn't surprising.
Right, correlation does not equal causation.
On August 19 2009 09:55 Caller wrote:
You fucking retards.
Seattle has a really fucking high suicide rate because its rainy and depressing. learn to account for independent variables better you fucking shitty methodology morons. even if you "differentiated between players and nonplayers" isn't it obvious that the fact that the high internet usage in Seattle and Tacoma is because its rainy and miserable?
Actually this should not be a big problem: both the gamesrs and the non-gamers in their sample are from the same area, yet there is still a statistically significant difference.
Yeah having a golden mouse and being one of the best zerg gamers ever would suck balls.
Especially if you also were getting paid to play Starcraft because you were on a proteam in Korea and every July you could make a big OSL run because you just heatup in July since you are fucking JULYzerg. In addition you would have a crappy nickname like 'the God of War' which is just complete pussy shit and sounds really feminine.
On August 20 2009 04:31 heyoka wrote: This is really just a study to measure the effects an article can have on one demographic and their internet communities
y'all just got meta'd by msnbc.
Shush! Don't let them know we know. Our collective comments are a study conducted by TL to measure how nerd raging in response to a metastudy effects the medias coverage of gamers.
No shit, playing video games involves no physical activity. Obviously BMI's will be higher in people who game more. It doesn't surprise me at all that people who play video games are more introverted and use it to get their mind off things, It's the same with any vice such as TV, working out, sports etc. If you aren't a social person you are likely going to find ways to amuse yourself alone, such as gaming.
Pointless study is pointless. I am curious what effects gaming has on seratonin levels and whether it actually has significant effect on brain chemistry.
Btw if you are going to post a study, don't choose an idiotic title like this one. All this study proves is that gamers on average are more introverted and have higher body mass indexes. Something that can be derived from common sense. That is quite different from "ALL gamers".
Just coming back from Blizzcon I can make the observation that yes, on average gamers were fat. However, did anyone else notice that all the starcraft players/fans were underweight/average? I think we are superior to all the WoW players
On August 27 2009 23:47 puttputt wrote: Just coming back from Blizzcon I can make the observation that yes, on average gamers were fat. However, did anyone else notice that all the starcraft players/fans were underweight/average? I think we are superior to all the WoW players
wow, people are bad at interpreting science, and science is often bad at making correct, causal judgements.
"Science" is not a superior truth or whatever. It's all about how you approach something and what method you use.
As we all know, there has also been alot of studies that show that gamers are competetive in alot of different fields (often sports) and are intelligent and driven.
Due to Macdonald's isn't the average american becoming more overweight. I don't think it's just people playing video games, I think on a whole, I've seen more and more people that are overweight. Oh and I'm on the msnbc website and in the article I'm looking at some woman named Suzanne Choney, who from her pic, isn't exactly model thin either.
While the study helps "illuminate the health consequences of video-game playing," it is not conclusive, its researchers say, but rather serves to "reveal important patterns in health-related correlates of video-game playing and highlights avenues for future research."
That is complete BS, how can something be not conclusive, yet reveals something. I've had it hammered into my brain by my teachers that evidence means nothing if it isn't conclusive. You can't use data thats inconclusive and make it support your hypothesis,
Both male and female video game players spend more time than nonplayers seeking friendship and support on the Internet
When did trying to find friends become a bad thing? Maybe I don't like the people that live where I do or I want to meet people from far away places like another continent. Maybe I don't want to be close-minded to the culture of another society, this is now a bad thing?
For children and adults, he writes, games that require physical exertion, such as "Hide and seek" and "Freeze tag" are "still probably what we need most."
Hide and seek? You sit in a corner and hope no one finds you... Freeze tag maybe, then again I do play tag a lot and i'm still overweight. Hide and seek basically turns into bullying when you go to schools. The children that are picked on hide in lockers while the bullies try to find them.
So what could be so useful about depression? Depressed people often think intensely about their problems. These thoughts are called ruminations; they are persistent and depressed people have difficulty thinking about anything else. Numerous studies have also shown that this thinking style is often highly analytical. They dwell on a complex problem, breaking it down into smaller components, which are considered one at a time.
This analytical style of thought, of course, can be very productive. Each component is not as difficult, so the problem becomes more tractable. Indeed, when you are faced with a difficult problem, such as a math problem, feeling depressed is often a useful response that may help you analyze and solve it. For instance, in some of our research, we have found evidence that people who get more depressed while they are working on complex problems in an intelligence test tend to score higher on the test.
Was there not a study or article recently that showed that gaming could help depression. This is alot like the newsflashes that everything causes cancer.
So the point of the research is essentially "an average gamer is more depressed than an average non-gamer because an average depressed person is more likely to resort to games (drugs, alcohol, insert anything addictive) as a way of escapism than an average happy person"?
Tell your wonderful retard researchers to go to hell and give their grant money to someone who actually does something useful.
On August 28 2009 07:35 BluzMan wrote: So the point of the research is essentially "an average gamer is more depressed than an average non-gamer because an average depressed person is more likely to resort to games (drugs, alcohol, insert anything addictive) as a way of escapism than an average happy person"?
Tell your wonderful retard researchers to go to hell and give their grant money to someone who actually does something useful.
Most of you guys are interpreting this in one of two ways:
1.) The article suggests fat and/or depressed people are more likely to play video games as a form of escapism from their fat and depression. 2.) The article suggests that gamers are more likely to become fat and/or depressed as a result of their gaming habit.
-- both of which are wrong. I was worried by reading the title that the study would be biased, but you can tell by reading the researchers' quotes that they performed the experiment with FLAWLESS SCIENCE (better than tl.net SCIENCE). The study acknowledges nothing more than the fact that there is a definite correlation between lard asses, depression, and gaming. It suggests no causation.
One researcher even (naively) suggested that a healthy lifestyle be promoted from within video games, which establishes the audience much in the same way that you might run a commercial aimed at black people on BET. Being black doesn't make you a BET viewer, nor does watching BET make you black, but you still know that the majority of that audience is black. Likewise, the researcher suggests that fat/depressed gamers are an established audience, wherein gaming can be used as a platform to communicate with that audience
For children and adults, he writes, games that require physical exertion, such as "Hide and seek" and "Freeze tag" are "still probably what we need most."
Accounting for need is a perversion of the idea of a game in the first place...
the more time you spend on games = the less time you have spending doing things that you could relate to the average person at a workplace or social gathering.
I was pretty sure most people (at least who play SC) were underweight if anything. Depression is another story, but I'd assume depression would be based upon the individual, not on a group of people.
Oh and they had to choose the state where the hugest SC player of all time lives(ish...). They should have just done California.. I thought that was where a lot of gamers live anyway.
On September 01 2009 22:15 PobTheCad wrote: the more time you spend on games = the less time you have spending doing things that you could relate to the average person at a workplace or social gathering.
On August 19 2009 09:26 GhostKorean wrote: While it is true that some gamers need to exercise more often, they shouldn't stereotype all gamers like this.
I exercise quite a lot every day and I'm still overweight. GG me.
On August 19 2009 09:26 GhostKorean wrote: While it is true that some gamers need to exercise more often, they shouldn't stereotype all gamers like this.
I exercise quite a lot every day and I'm still overweight. GG me.
On September 01 2009 22:15 PobTheCad wrote: the more time you spend on games = the less time you have spending doing things that you could relate to the average person at a workplace or social gathering.
Wrong. What about gamers at work?
well i was talking about starcraft since this is a starcraft site don't know about you but SC isn't a popular topic at my workplace
On September 01 2009 22:15 PobTheCad wrote: the more time you spend on games = the less time you have spending doing things that you could relate to the average person at a workplace or social gathering.
Wrong. What about gamers at work?
well i was talking about starcraft since this is a starcraft site don't know about you but SC isn't a popular topic at my workplace
Yep.
Starcraft and videogames are for Nerds/Kids, don't try to talk about videogames with normal people : P
Gamers = Fat, No-lifers = I believe. Gamers = Median Age: 35 = Oh Hell No
Go play RuneScape for one day and the amount of 10-11 year olds you will encounter is enough to counterbalance the entire 50+ Year-Old Range of any game.
It's not like videogames make you fat and depressed, it's more like fat depressed teenagers find their opportunity to socialize by playing videogames over the internet. Dumb "study".
On September 02 2009 20:23 WeSt wrote: It's not like videogames make you fat and depressed, it's more like fat depressed teenagers find their opportunity to socialize by playing videogames over the internet. Dumb "study".
opportunity to socialize by playing videogames over the internet !?
On August 19 2009 09:42 DM20 wrote: No researcher worth their salt would have used BMI.
and why is that?
BMI is a flawed measure of healthy body composition because it relies only on weight which is too simplistic a measure to give an indication of a persons health. people with different body types may have very different BMIs for their ideal weights, many professional athletes would be considered obese on their BMIs alone for example, since muscle weighs more than fat
The hypothesis was that video-game players have a higher body mass index — the measure of a person's weight in relation to their height — and "a greater number of poor mental health days" versus nonplayers, said Dr. James B. Weaver III of the CDC's National Center for Health Marketing. The hypothesis was correct, he said.
It's been a while since my university stats courses but I seem to remember that you cannot confirm any hypothesis with empirical data - you can only fail to disprove it...
The study was done in 2006; the results analyzed in 2008.
I'd quite like to know when their hypothesis was drawn up in that case. Wouldn't it be convenient if they decided they wanted to "prove" that gamers are overweight and depressed in 2008 and picked out a study that "supported" the conclusion they wanted to reach? (I know they probably didn't do this but I'm in angry mode)
While the study helps "illuminate the health consequences of video-game playing," it is not conclusive, its researchers say, but rather serves to "reveal important patterns in health-related correlates of video-game playing and highlights avenues for future research."
Now I can't tell if the people who wrote the study were spinning it like this or if it's just journalists putting a ridiculous twist on it. Either way, attempting to claim that the overweightness and depression is caused by video games is just completely invalid.
...
I mean, I can just sit over here and say "I have a hypothesis that overweight, depressed people from Seattle are more likely to be gamers than average", pick up their results and all of a sudden by their (flawed) methods, I'm using the exact same study to claim that being overweight and depressed drives people to video games.
EPT
.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Rage_face.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.mymym.com/gfx/JulyZergOSLmym.jpg)
