Miranda Edwin, Overstreet Brittany S, Fountain William A, Gutierrez Vincent, Kolankowski Michael, Overstreet Matthew L, Sapp Ryan M, Wolff Christopher A, Mazzetti Scott A
Laboratory for Human Performance, Department of Health and Sport Sciences, Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD, USA.
Department of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA.
Int J Exerc Sci. 2017 Nov 1;10(7):1038-1050. doi: 10.70252/VNZL2696. eCollection 2017.
To compare energy expenditure during and after active and handheld video game drumming compared to walking and sitting. Ten experienced, college-aged men performed four protocols (one per week): no-exercise seated control (CTRL), virtual drumming on a handheld gaming device (HANDHELD), active drumming on drum pads (DRUM), and walking on a treadmill at ~30% of VO (WALK). Protocols were performed after an overnight fast, and expired air was collected continuously during (30min) and after (30min) exercise. DRUM and HANDHELD song lists, day of the week, and time of day were identical for each participant. Significant differences (p < 0.05) among the average rates of energy expenditure (kcal·min) during activity included WALK > DRUM > HANDHELD. No significant differences in the rates of energy expenditure among groups during recovery were observed. Total energy expenditure was significantly greater (p < 0.05) during WALK (149.5 ± 30.6 kcal) compared to DRUM (118.7 ± 18.8 kcal) and HANDHELD (44.9±11.6 kcal), and greater during DRUM compared to HANDHELD. Total energy expenditure was not significantly different between HANDHELD (44.9 ± 11.6 kcal) and CTRL (38.2 ± 6.0 kcal). Active video game drumming at expert-level significantly increased energy expenditure compared to handheld, but it hardly met moderate-intensity activity standards, and energy expenditure was greatest during walking. Energy expenditure with handheld video game drumming was not different from no-exercise control. Thus, traditional aerobic exercise remains at the forefront for achieving the minimum amount and intensity of physical activity for health, individuals desiring to use video games for achieving weekly physical activity recommendations should choose games that require significant involvement of lower-body musculature, and time spent playing sedentary games should be a limited part of an active lifestyle.
为比较与步行和静坐相比，主动式和手持式电子游戏击鼓过程中及之后的能量消耗情况。十名有经验的、大学年龄的男性进行了四项实验方案（每周一项）：无运动的坐姿对照（CTRL）、在手持式游戏设备上进行虚拟击鼓（HANDHELD）、在鼓垫上进行主动击鼓（DRUM）以及在跑步机上以约30%的最大摄氧量步行（WALK）。实验方案在过夜禁食后进行，运动期间（30分钟）和运动后（30分钟）持续收集呼出气体。每个参与者的DRUM和HANDHELD歌曲列表、星期几以及一天中的时间均相同。活动期间能量消耗平均速率（千卡·分钟）的显著差异（p < 0.05）包括WALK > DRUM > HANDHELD。恢复期间各实验组之间的能量消耗速率未观察到显著差异。与DRUM（118.7 ± 18.8千卡）和HANDHELD（44.9±11.6千卡）相比，WALK期间的总能量消耗显著更高（p < 0.05）（149.5 ± 30.6千卡），且DRUM期间的总能量消耗高于HANDHELD。HANDHELD（44.9 ± 11.6千卡）和CTRL（38.2 ± 6.0千卡）之间的总能量消耗无显著差异。与手持式相比，专家级别的主动式电子游戏击鼓显著增加了能量消耗，但几乎未达到中等强度活动标准，且步行期间的能量消耗最大。手持式电子游戏击鼓的能量消耗与无运动对照无差异。因此，传统有氧运动在实现健康所需的最低身体活动量和强度方面仍处于前沿地位，希望通过电子游戏实现每周身体活动建议的个人应选择需要下半身肌肉大量参与的游戏，且久坐游戏的时长应是积极生活方式的有限组成部分。
