Wii Fit Controversy: Who’s Lying?
So I’m browsing around on TV.com, adding episodes for Haruka -Beyond the Stream of Time-, when I catch this little nugget at the top of my screen. I’ll spare you from reading it (although the comments are amusing), and give you a brief synopsis:
A 10-year-old girl in England who is reportedly 4′9″ and 6 stone (84 lbs) was called “fat” by Wii Fit (even though that term is not used) in their BMI test. Her parents are pissed, and now the spokesperson from the National Obesity Forum (remember, it would be England’s National forum) wants to ban the game from children.
If you want more on what’s been said and everything, you can go ahead and read it, but here’s the reason I’m posting this:
Something in that article is wrong.
I went up to the CDC’s website and found these nifty little calculators. The first one is for adults, the second is for children. So, I assumed that maybe the game doesn’t have a separate calculator for children. So I did it in the adult calculator. And the result was a BMI of 18.2, which is underweight (18.5 is normal). So I did it again with the children’s calculator. I assumed that the test was done today, on the girl’s 10th birthday (giving it an exact 10 years). This time, the result of 18.2 put the girl in the 69th percentile for her age/weight/gender. The 5th through the 85th percentiles are healthy weight. Which means that, by the information given, the girl is not overweight.
This leads us to four options:
1) The game was wrong. Out of all the options, I find this one the least likely. I mean, if there were glitches in the game, surely we’d've heard about it by now, wouldn’t we? No, if it were an error in the game, this wouldn’t be an isolated incident.
2) The parents are lying. Everyone thinks that their child is “perfect,” and no parent would want to admit to their child’s actual weight, if they are overweight. So this option is a bit more likely than the first.
3) The newspaper purposefully changed the information. According to my roommate, the Daily Mail isn’t exactly know for it’s accuracy in reporting. Using the calculator, I found out that that same girl, if she were 93 lbs instead of 84 lbs, would be in the “at risk of becoming overweight.” Perhaps the step-father’s statement had been “six and a half stone” instead of “only six stone” (93 lbs would be approx. 6.6 stone), and the paper took some “liberties” in their reporting. I think this one’s a little more likely than the last.
4) User error. The pad could’ve been broken and not weight her correctly. Maybe the girl had her backpack on still, or was holding something that made the sensor think she weighed more. I highly doubt the paper would’ve checked on that, and the parents were probably too offended to think of testing it again to check it. This is probably tied with #3 on most likely.
So there you have it. Should children be “banned” from playing a fitness game? Especially one that, I believe, does denote itself as “for entertainment purposes only”? I’ll let you make your own decision.

