Differences in Physical Activity During Walking and Two Pokémon Go Playing Styles.

Objective: Two self-selected playing styles of Pokémon Go (PG) have been observed: intermittent and continuous. However, it is unknown how playing style impacts volume and pattern of physical activity (PA) compared with a traditional walking bout. Materials and Methods: Twenty experienced PG players followed a 1.77 km walking loop during two randomly ordered, 30-minute walking conditions: PG and traditional walking. Objective measurement tools (pedometer, accelerometer, heart rate monitor, GPS watch) were used to measure steps, caloric expenditure, intensity, heart rate, and distance traveled, and direct observation was used to determine number of stops and playing style. Results: Most PG players used the intermittent playing style (60%). Traditional walking resulted in significantly greater PA than PG. There was a significant interaction between the PG playing style (continuous, intermittent) and condition (PG, traditional walking). There was no difference in PA variables between continuous and intermittent PG during traditional walking; however, total steps (3394.3 ± 255.8 vs. 2779.1 ± 317.5), aerobic steps (3314.3 ± 318.9 vs. 2387.5 ± 771.8), caloric expenditure (146.00 [130.0-201.3] vs. 110.0 [89.3-132.3 Kcals]), distance (2.4 [2.3-2.6] vs. 2.0 [1.8-2.1 km]), and moderate minutes (29.7 [27.5-29.8] vs. 25.8 [23.1-27.1]) were significantly greater, while sedentary minutes (0.2 [0-1.0] vs. 2.7 [1.7-4.3]) and number of stops (0 [0-0.8] vs. 4.5 [2.3-7.0]) were less, for continuous compared with intermittent PG. There was a main effect of condition on PA for intermittent PG players, but not continuous PG players. Conclusion: Continuous PG produced similar PA to traditional walking, while intermittent PG reduced PA, nevertheless PG may be a strategy for increasing PA participation.

The Physical Activity Patterns of Greenway Users Playing Pokémon Go: A Natural Experiment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare objectively measured physical activity (PA) between greenway users playing and not playing Pokémon Go. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of 100 participants walking on a greenway wore an Omron pedometer and ActiGraph accelerometer and provided demographic data through an intercept survey during a natural experiment. Mann-Whitney U tests and multiple regression compared greenway PA variables between Pokémon Go (n = 13) and non-Pokémon Go (n = 87). RESULTS: Pokémon Go users were significantly younger (P < 0.01) than non-Pokémon Go users. Despite no differences in greenway walking time (42 ± 18 minutes), Pokémon Go users took fewer aerobic steps (2361 ± 1663 steps vs. 4144 ± 2591 steps; P = 0.03), walked shorter distances (1.38 ± 0.68 miles vs. 1.98 ± 1.05 miles; P = 0.049), burned fewer calories (119 ± 79 kcal vs. 202 ± 158 kcal; P = 0.04), spent more time in sedentary (16% ± 12% vs. 2% ± 7%; P < 0.01) and light (29% ± 24% vs. 15% ± 21%; P < 0.01) intensity activity, less time in moderate (52% ± 30% vs. 71 ± 29%; P = 0.02) and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) (55% ± 29% vs. 82% ± 23%; P < 0.01), and took fewer steps/min (67 ± 24 steps/min vs. 103 ± 23 steps/min; P < 0.01) than non-Pokémon Go users. Pokémon Go step rate rarely exceeded 100 steps/min for >5 minutes at a time. Multiple regression confirmed differences in sedentary, light, vigorous, MVPA, and steps/min between Pokémon Go and non-Pokémon Go users after controlling for covariates (P < 0.05). Age was significantly positively associated with aerobic steps, steps, walking distance and time, more light, but less vigorous, and MVPA (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: While playing Pokémon Go greenway users are likely stopping more and walking at a slower pace than walkers not playing Pokémon Go.