The Impact of Yoga and Pranayama on Health-Related Physical Fitness

Abstract

90 (Ninety) college male students were taken as subjects for the study. The experimental treatments were given to two groups (yoga and pranayama) and one group served as the control. The analysis of data revealed that the two experimental groups administered with yogic asanas and pranayama showed significant gains in performance of many health related fitness components after administration of pranayamas and asanas for duration of 6 weeks.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

Yoga was selected as the focus of this research based on the claims that have been made regarding yoga’s benefits for college students and its unique coupling of pranayama and physical activity. In addition to the apparent positive influence that yoga has on physical health and many recent studies have investigated its influence on cognitive function. The current study is aimed to examine the immediate effects of short-term instructional yoga and pranayama practices on selective health related fitness college students. The purpose of this study was to know the effect of regular participation in yoga and pranayama programme on health related physical fitness. Health related physical fitness is the minimum level of fitness that is required for everyone to perform daily tasks efficiently and effectively and to resist disease. Health-related components of physical fitness include body-composition, cardiovascular fitness, flexibility, muscular endurance, and strength.

II. METHODOLOGY

Total of 90 (Ninety) college male students were taken as subjects for the study. Their age ranged from 20 to 25 years. The average age of the subjects was 22.3 year. Random group design was adopted for the study and equal numbers of subjects were assigned at random to three groups of thirty subjects each. The experimental treatments were given to two groups and one group served as the control. All the groups underwent the pre-test on all the health related physical fitness components. Then yoga group and pranayama group underwent the scheduled yoga and pranayama programmes, respectively for a period of 6 weeks. The group C served as control and was not allowed to undergo the yoga and pranayama programme at all. After the end of six weeks of yoga and pranayama programmes of concerned groups, the three groups including control group underwent post-test on all the variables on which pre-test was made. Yoga group was administered with the scheduled selected yogic asanas while Pranayama group was administered with the scheduled pranayamas for duration of 6 weeks and five days in a week in the morning from 6 am to 7 am.

III. FINDINGS

For each of the chosen variables, the results pertaining to significant difference, if any, between the pre-test and post-test means for the three groups after six weeks of yoga and pranayama programmes, were submitted to analysis of variance and covariance and are stated below.

Table – 1: Significance of Difference between Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Bent Knee Curl Up

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence,‘t’ 0.05 (29) = 2.045

Table 1 clearly revealed that the yoga and pranayama groups improved significantly yielding ‘t’ value of 13.542 and 19.705, respectively, where as the control group did not show any significant improvement in bent knee curl up performance of subjects indicating ‘t’ values of 1.394.

Table – 2: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Bent Knee Curl Up.

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence, N = 90, B = Between group variance,

W = Within group variance

The analysis of covariance for bent knee curl up showed that the resultant ‘F’ ratio of 0.240 was not significant in case of pre-test means. The post test means yielded ‘F’ ratio of 21.976, which was found to be significant.  The adjusted final means yielded the ‘F’ ratio of 113.234 and was found significant. The ‘F’ ratio, needed for significance at 0.05 level of confidence (df 2, 87) was 3.07.

Table – 3: Paired Adjusted Final Means and Differences between Means for the Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Bent Knee Curl Up

* Significance at 0.05 level

It was clear from the Table 3 that the mean differences with respect to performance in bent knee curl up of both the yoga group and pranayama group were found to be significantly greater than that of control group. No significant difference between yoga and pranayama groups was found with respect to bent knee curl up performance.

Table – 4: Significance of Difference between Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit Up

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence, ‘t’ 0.05 (29) = 2.045

Table 4 revealed that both the experimental groups improved significantly yielding ‘t’ value 10.834 and 9.127, where as control group did not show any significant improvement in sit up performance of subjects indicating ‘t’ values of 1.034.

Table – 5: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit Up

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence , N = 90, B = Between group variance,

W = Within group variance

The analysis of covariance for sit up showed that the resultant ‘F’ ratio of 0.009 was not significant in case of pre-test means. The post test and adjusted final means yielded the ‘F’ ratio of 13.790 and 95.793, respectively, which were found to be significant. The ‘F’ ratio, needed for significance at 0.05 level of confidence (df 2, 87) was 3.07.

Table – 6: Paired Adjusted Final Means and Differences between Means for the Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit Up

* Significant at 0.05 level

It was very much clear from the Table 6 that the mean differences with respect to performance in sit up of both yoga and pranayama groups were found to be significantly greater than that of control group. No significant difference between yoga and pranayama groups was observed in respect of sit up performance.

Table – 7: Significance of Difference Between Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Harvard Step Test

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence,  ‘t’ 0.05 (19) = 2.045

Table 7 clearly showed that both yoga and pranayama groups improved significantly yielding ‘t’ value of 5.037 and 6.070, respectively, where as control group did not show any significant improvement in Harvard step test performance of subjects indicating ‘t’ values of 0.226. In Harvard step test, it was noted that the differences between the means existed and the experimental groups improved, where as no significant change was observed in the control group.

Table – 8: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Harvard Step Test

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence, N = 90, B = Between group variance,

W = Within group variance

The analysis of covariance for Harvard step test showed the resultant ‘F’ ratio of 0.097, which was not significant in case of pre test means. The post test means and adjusted final means yielded the ‘F’ ratio of 26.793 and 27.161 and were found significant. The ‘F’ ratio, needed for significance at 0.05 level of confidence (df 2, 87) was 3.07.

Table – 9: Paired Adjusted Final Means and Differences between Means for the Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Harvard Step Test

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence

It was clear from the Table 9 that the mean differences with respect to performance in Harvard step test of yoga and pranayama groups were found to be significantly greater than that of control group. No significant difference between yoga and pranayama groups was found in respect of Harvard step test performance.

Table – 10: Significance of Difference between Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in One Mile Run/Walk

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence,  ‘t’ 0.05 (29) = 2.045

Table 10 clearly revealed that yoga and pranayama groups improved significantly yielding ‘t’ value of 26.451 and 53.738, respectively. Further, control group did not show any significant improvement in one mile run/walk performance of subjects indicating‘t’ values of 0.773. The needed ‘t’ value for significance at 0.05 level of confidence with 29 degrees of freedom was 2.045.

Table – 11: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in One Mile Run/Walk

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence, N = 90, B = Between group variance,

W = Within group variance

The analysis of covariance for one mile run/walk showed that the resultant ‘F’ ratio of 0.091 was not significant in case of pre-test means. The post-test and adjusted final means yielded the ‘F’ ratio of 85.647 and 498.557, respectively and were found to be significant. The ‘F’ ratio, needed for significance at 0.05 level of confidence (df 2, 87) was 3.07.

Table – 12: Paired Adjusted Final Means and Differences between Means for the Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in One Mile Run/Walk

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence

It was very much clear from the Table 12 that the mean differences with respect to performance in one mile run/walk of both the experimental groups were found to be significantly lesser than that of control group. No significant difference between yoga and pranayama groups was found with respect to one mile run/walk performance.

Table – 13: Significance of Difference between Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Triceps Skin Fold Measurement

‘t’ 0.05 (29) = 2.045

Table 13 clearly revealed that yoga and pranayama and control groups showed no significant change with respect to tricep skin fold measurement yielding ‘t’ value of 0.447, 0.348 and 0.416, respectively.

Table – 14: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Triceps Skin Fold Measurement

N = 90, B = Between group variance, W = Within group variance,

The analysis of covariance for tricep skin fold measurement showed that the resultant ‘F’ ratio of 0.002, 0.896 and 0.153, respectively for pre-test means, post test means and adjusted final means were not significant. The ‘F’ ratio, needed for significance at 0.05 level of confidence (df 2, 87) was 3.07.

Table – 15: Paired Adjusted Final Means and Differences between Means for the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Triceps’ Skin Fold Measurement

It was evident from the Table 15 that the mean differences with respect to triceps’ skin fold measurement of subjects in two experimental and control group were not significant in any case.

Table – 16: Significance of Difference between Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sub-Scapular Skin Fold Measurement

‘t’ 0.05 (29) = 2.045

Table 16 clearly revealed that yoga and pranayama and control groups showed no significant change with respect to sub-scapular skin fold measurement yielding ‘t’ value of 0.348, 0.171 and 0.197, respectively.

Table – 17: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sub-Scapular Skin Fold Measurement

N = 90, B = between group variance, W = within group variance

The analysis of covariance for triceps’ skin fold measurement showed that the resultant ‘F’ ratio of 0.077, 0.137 and 0.207, respectively for pre-test means, post test means and adjusted final means were not significant.

Table – 18: Paired Adjusted Final Means and Differences between Means for the Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sub-Scapular Skin Fold Measurement

It was evident from the Table 18 that the mean differences with respect to in sub-scapular skin fold measurement of subjects in two experimental and control group were not significant in any case.

Table – 19: Significance of Difference between Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit And Reach

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence, ‘t’ 0.05 (29) = 2.045

Table 19 clearly revealed that yoga and pranayama groups improved significantly yielding ‘t’ value of 15.363 and 13.740, respectively, whereas, control group did not show any significant improvement in sit and reach performance of subjects indicating ‘t’ values of 0.162.

Table – 20: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit and Reach

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence, N = 90, B = Between group variance,

W = Within group variance

The analysis of covariance for sit and reach showed that the resultant ‘F’ ratio of 0.005, which was not significant in case of pre test means. The post test and adjusted final means yielded the ‘F’ ratio of 28.252 and 129.182, respectively and differences among means were found to be significant. The ‘F’ ratio, needed for significance at 0.05 level of confidence (df 2, 87) was 3.07.

Table – 21: Paired Adjusted Final Means and Differences between Means for the Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit and Reach

* Significant at 0.05 level of confidence

It was clear from the Table 21 that the mean differences with respect to performance in sit and reach of both yoga and pranayama groups were found to be significantly better than that of control group. No significant difference between yoga and pranayama groups was found with respect to sit and reach performance.

Conclusion

The analysis of data revealed that the two experimental groups administered with yogic asanas and pranayama showed significant gains in performance of many health related fitness components after administration of pranayamas and asanas for duration of six weeks. The control group did not show any significant improvement in the performance of any variable under study.

References

[1] Bera, T. K. and Rajapurkar, M. V., (1993). “ Body composition, cardiovascular endurance and anaerobic power of yogic practitioner”. Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 37(3), 225-228. [2] Gharote, M. L. (1974). Effect of yogic training on physical fitness. Yoga-mimamsa, 15, 1, 31-35. [3] Gharote, M. L. (1976). Effect of yoga exercises on failures on the Kraus-Weber tests. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 43, 654.

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Ganesh Chandra Bauri, Dr. Manjulata Nayak, Md. Julfikar , Prof. (Dr.) Sakti Ranjan Mishra. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.