Using robust science to demonstrate the superior benefits of VR fitness (FitXR) versus standard exercise
In todays Blog post, we cover Dr Stubbs' leadership for the first Randomised Control Trial to investigate the effects of FitXR Virtual reality (VR) fitness versus matched non-immersive exercise.
So why does this matter?
Well, in order to test if a product or service is really making a difference, it is essential that we test our well-meaning assumption with as robust and impartial data collection as possible. The most iconic way to do this is a Randomised Control Trial (RCT) whereby a group of similar people are randomly allocated to the active intervention versus a non-active intervention. This type of study design allows us to make causal assumptions about our service/product & is the gold standard.
In this study, a group of healthy adults were randomised to complete 15 minutes of a FitXR workout or a non-immersive but identical workout. The only difference is the introduction of the VR element. Both groups did the exact same exercises for the same amount of time.
Robust measures of energy expenditure, effort and mental health were measured before, during and after the study and differences compared between the groups.
So what did we find?
The study found that the immersive VR resulted in people working harder when they exercise (i.e having more energy expenditure), greater enjoyment and improving their mental health substantially compared to those who exercised the same amount of time in a non-immersive environment.
This is the first RCT of its kind and puts FitXR in a place to be a position leader to be the first company to demonstrate the health and wellbeing benefits of their product.
Comments