Study Shows TV Makes Kids Fat, Computers Don't

Xemu writes "Computers don't make children fat, but watching TV for the same length of time does. This is shown by a recent Swedish study of all school children in Lund's county conducted by RN Pernilla Garmy. The results were clear: The child's obesity was directly affected by placing a TV in the child's room, but placing a computer in the room had no effect at all. One theory is that it's common to have a snack in front of the TV, while a computer requires a more active user, for example when chatting or playing games."

Comments

I knew it

[raddan]

Computers are awesome.

Interesting

[Pojut]

The article is likely correct about the snacks and food. Also, no offense intended to anyone, but I've noticed that people who just zone out to television as compared to active computer users/gamers tend to be a bit...dumber.

Yes yes, I know, a generalization...but in my experience, it's the truth.

Re:Interesting

[Sarten-X]

Personally, I've noticed the same thing, and I think it's because of the interaction. A television simply feeds you information, and you accept it. That makes you quite adept at just accepting information. In contract, a computer, even used for only playing games, requires some critical thought to decide what to do next.

Re:Interesting

[2names]

That is EXACTLY the idea. "They" want to be able to feed information to you 24x7 wherever you are through your little mobile device that has your credit card number stored so you can instantly buy whatever crap "they" are currently selling. I do not like where this road takes us.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Brain activity does burn some calories. Perhaps not much, but it's still doing it. And TV watching does require less thinking.

A quick googling offered this as a starting point.

Re:Interesting

[mcgrew]

A television simply feeds you information, and you accept it.

So do books, but books don't make you fat.

Re:Interesting

[hairyfeet]

Well, let us take where you are for example. Sure we here on /. just like IRL have to deal with lamers, and trolls, and lamers that think they are trolls (Note: just saying nigger or Jew is NOT a troll, except maybe on Halo) but we can also have some pretty heavy discussions on a wide range of topics. I have personally had discussions go 10 to 12 posts deep as I debated the advantages or disadvantages of something like OSes or DRM. To have a debate go on that long both you and the one you are debating have to be making decent points worthy of debate, or else you wouldn't feel the need to respond.

So I would say due to the comment sections now prevalent on most sites one can get into some very interesting debates and that takes a lot more brains than just vegging in front of the tube.I also think ultimately PCs are better for kids than TVs as just like /. gives us geeks and Greybeards a place to talk about subject which interest us, so does various groups and boards give the kids a chance to learn and discuss subjects that interest them. For examples my oldest is into medicine and theology, and is talking to many at the local college through their discussion boards about their experiences with various classes, while my youngest is into graphic art and will hang out on boards discussing graphics and artwork and learning about various tools (right now he is learning Inkscape) so I would say that each of them having a PC and using it to explore their interests is better than them just sitting on their butts and watching MTV Cribs.

So for the TLDR types, PCs are better as they allow you to explore your interests and get into discussions, whereas TVs simply feed you mass marketed entertainment.

Re:Interesting

[Chris Burke]

So do books, but books don't make you fat.

Are you kidding? Those things are nothing but carbs. Well and fiber, so at least you'll be a regular fat-ass.

Apostrophe's

[operagost]

Abuse of apostrophe's make baby Je'su's cry.

Re:Apostrophe's

[rrohbeck]

You forgot two: "Abu'se" and "apo'strope's".
As somebody else mentioned some time ago, an apostrophe means "Caution, S ahead!"
After all, an S is difficult to navigate as we all know, and it's easy to fly off the track.

"Active"?

[IBBoard]

One theory is that it's common to have a snack in front of the TV, while a computer requires a more active user, for example when chatting or playing games.

Yeah, because sitting there and typing or moving the mouse is huge amounts of activity! I can eat a bag of M&Ms and drink coke while coding, and I'm sure there are plenty who can scoff pizza, coke and crisps without a problem!

You've got to lick your fingers well to make sure that you don't leave a mess on your keyboard, but other than that the computer "activity" isn't that much of an obstacle for eating.

Re:"Active"?

[Vanderhoth]

I could see Computers have having three distinct benefits over TV.

1) Moving the mouse and typing is more active then moving your thumb to change channels

2) Playing video games is more physically involved then watching TV. I care about how my character does so my body reacts in a similar manner as though I were getting exercise; heart racing, mild sweating, muscles tightening, etc... Albeit this isn't on the same level as if I were outside playing ball, but I still get a bit more of a workout then if I was watching something mildly or not particularly interesting on TV.

3) When I am eating or drinking while playing video games; I see computer interaction more engaging and thus kind of like putting down your fork between bites during a meal. You eat slower and digest what's eaten better. When watching TV it's easy to have one hand on the remote while the other is in a bag of chips or popcorn.

Of course this is my own opinion and based on my own experiences. I've only heard that putting your fork down between bites is good for loosing weight, I don't have a reference.

Re:"Active"?

[natehoy]

Yeah, but not to the extent that TV allows.

I'm nibbling on a snack right now, but I don't feel the "need" to eat all the time in front of a computer, because most of the time my hands are busy typing.

When I watched commercial TV, I tended to feel like I had to have something to do, and the TV stations set up time every (what is it now, ten minutes) where I can go get food. I'd graze almost constantly, because my hands were free. When I surf the Web, I will occasionally snack, but not nearly as often. Oddly enough, I still have a small snack in the evening around 8PM, which used to be the "sit down in front of the TV" time, and I think that snack is a carryover from that. But the snack is a lot smaller than it was when we had a TV (and I still watch recorded shows on the computer, but I keep my hands busy with my smartphone instead of food).

If commercials didn't exist, or were only run between shows rather than every few minutes, I don't think we'd eat as much either. Commercial break comes on, we go off and put together some food. Break is only 2-3 minutes long (or is it still that short?) so you can't really prepare anything even vaguely healthy. You go for prepared comfort foods that can be eaten easily.

I realize this is one person's anecdote, and this may only apply to me, but I strongly suspect that several important factors differentiate TV from computers,
  - TV is an almost completely passive activity, whereas the computer engages you and distracts you from thoughts of food.
  - With TV, your hands are completely or almost completely free so you can easily stuff food continuously, with a computer you might reach out to grab a handful of snack every few minutes.
  - Good-looking foods are shown to you every ten minutes or so on the TV, with enforced breaks to allow you the opportunity to get food. On a computer, you largely set your own breaks and people tend to get up less to get food. And when they do, there's no absolute rush to get back and beat the commercials so you might even get healthier foods.

If computing could be done while leaving the hands and mouth completely free, I'd suspect people would start munching more.

I'm not saying that everyone who watches TV is constantly stuffing their maw with junk food, or that computer users constantly starve themselves, but I think the differences between the activities can lead to very different eating behaviors.

And don't dismiss the calories burned by typing. :)

I'm writing a book

[DontBlameCanada]

"Gaming your way to weightloss!"

It works, I swear! I remember one particular weekend where I lost 5lbs working through raid encounters in Everquest 1. Who needs food when lewt is raining from the sky!

Re:CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION

[sakdoctor]

Repeating as needed, may reduce weight as part of a calorie controlled diet.

thinking calories

[Speare]

While shoving a mouse around and typing does not seem like significant exercise, I think there's a bigger energy expenditure in interactive thought. Zoning out at the television does not engage many areas of the brain, but chatting with friends or deciding where to browse next takes a bit more power. Brain activity burns calories. I've personally noticed that my head warms up more when I'm thinking, especially if the work or play is cerebral or there's a time pressure involved. It would be very cool to see a study on just how different these tasks are, with brain activity monitored objectively.

It is obvious

[spacepimp]

All the free porn is on the internet, that is a calorie burn when done properly.

Re:Not only that I bet many people loose weight...

[Krneki]

I found that I get caught up in the computer and what I'm working on and forget to stop and eat. When I get really focused on my work I'll forget to stop and eat and when I'm playing a new game I may only eat once a day for the first weekend.

A CIV player.

What about food commercials?

[CyberSlugGump]

How many ads for fast food, soft drinks, candy bar, restaurants, etc. do you see during an hour of watching TV versus during an hour of using the computer? Food cues might play a strong role, too.

IS there a link to the study?

[geekoid]

Previous studies showed that the TV made no difference at all. Kids who weren't active in the house, where no more active when they went outside.

The studies I have read based on TV obesity all showed that TV was not the cause, but just something people who were inactive happened to do.
Why the child was inactive turns out to be a number of other reasons. depression, stress, bad house hold habits. and so on.

What TV does seem to do is make people think they need to eat, vie food commercials.

Sadly, there are surprisingly few good* studies that try to tease apart the variables in TV watching. I would like to read the detail in this study.
How were the children selected? What where there daily activities before the study? Was the study done at a time of year that coincide with better weather? How where controls done? was diet monitored?

The reason given seems a little thin, since eating at the computer is as easy as the TV. OF course, there could be a cultural reason for not eating while on the computer.

Quite frankly, I would be for the removing of food commercials. It would never happen, but I would wager that after a year the obesity problem would start to slow down, if not stop.

*lots of bad studies.

Re:IS there a link to the study?

[actionbastard]

There is no 'study'. These 'results' are from a survey of primary school children conducted in one municipality by a school nurse. No scientists or researchers were involved. There is no empirical data at all. No experiments were conducted. More than likely the 'study' consists of anecdotal evidence such as; TV in room, check...fat child, check...TV caused fat child.

Might have phrased that differently

[Sockatume]

directly affected by placing a TV in the child's room

Immediate mental image: the child's weight changing instantly as the TV comes and goes.