Issuu

https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.42144

May 2022

The Impact of Yoga and Pranayama on HealthRelated Physical Fitness Ganesh Chandra Bauri1, Dr. Manjulata Nayak2, Md. Julfikar3, Prof. (Dr.) Sakti Ranjan Mishra4 1

Chettana PTTI, Bishpuria, Purlia, W.B., Govt. College of Physical Education, Kulundi, Sambalpur Odisha, 3 Research Scholar, Baliapal College of Physical Education, Baliapal, Balasore, Odisha, 4 Dept.of Phy. Edn. and Sports Science, Panskura Banamali College (Autonomous), Panskura, W.B. 2

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. Keywords: Yogic Asanas, Pranayama and Health related Physical Fitness 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 Groups Pre-test Post-test Difference between SE ‘t’ ratio mean mean mean Yoga. 17.367 22.867 5.500 0.406 13.542* Pranayama 17.533 22.767 5.233 0.266 19.705* Control 17.567 17.867 0.300 0.215 1.394 * Significant at 0.05 level of confidence,‘t’ 0.05 (29) = 2.045

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 |

188

International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue V May 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com 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. Yoga Pranayama Control Sum of squares df Mean F ratio group group group square Pre-test means

17.367

17.533

17.567

B 0.689 W 1229.800

2 87

0.344 14.136

0.240

Post-test means

22.867

22.767

17.867

B 490.200 W 970.300

2 87

245.100 11.153

21.976*

Adjusted post-test means

22.964

22.731

17.805

B 509.269 W 193.392

2 86

254.634 2.249

113.234*

* 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 Yoga Pranayama Control Difference between Critical differences for group group group means adjusted mean 22.964 22.731 0.233 0.274 22.964 17.805 5.159* 0.274 22.731 17.805 4.926* 0.274 * 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 Groups Pre-test Post-test Difference between SE ‘t’ Ratio mean mean mean Yoga.

24.633

28.067

3.433

0.317

10.834*

Pranayama

24.767

28.567

3.800

0.416

9.127*

Control

24.633

24.367

0.266

0.258

1.034

* 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.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 |

189

International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue V May 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com Table – 5: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit Up Yoga Pranayama Control Sum of squares df Mean F ratio group group group square Pre-test B 0.356 2 0.178 24.633 24.767 24.633 0.009 means W 1753.3 87 20.153 Post-test B 315.800 2 157.900 28.067 28.567 24.367 13.790* means W 996.200 87 11.451 Adjusted B 307.184 2 153.592 post-test 28.098 28.504 24.398 95.793* W 137.890 86 1.603 means * 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 Yoga Pranayama Control Difference between Critical differences for group group group means adjusted mean 28.098 28.504 0.406 0.431 28.098 24.398 3.700* 0.431 28.504 24.398 4.142* 0.431 * 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 Groups Pre-test Post-test Difference between SE ‘t’ mean mean mean Ratio Yoga.

75.000

73.133

1.867

0.371

5.037*

Pranayama

75.133

73.000

2.133

0.351

6.070*

Control

75.133

75.167

0.033

0.148

0.226

* 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.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 |

190

International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue V May 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com Table – 8: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Harvard Step Test Yoga Pranayama Control Sum of squares df Mean F ratio group group group square Pre-test B 0. 356 2 0.178 75.000 75.133 75.133 0.097 means W 158.933 87 1.827 Post-test B 88.467 2 44.233 73.133 73.000 75.167 26.793* means W 143.633 87 1.651 Adjusted B 87.536 2 43.768 post-test 73.149 72.992 75.159 27.161* W 138.582 86 1.611 means * 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 Yoga Pranayama Control Difference Critical differences for group group group between means adjusted mean 0.157 0.232 73.149 72.992 73.149 72.992

75.159

2.010*

0.232

75.159

2.167*

0.232

* 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 Groups Pre-test Post-test mean Difference between SE ‘t’ Ratio mean mean

Yoga.

12.855

10.170

2.685

0.102

26.451*

Pranayama

12.877

9.891

2.985

0.056

53.738*

Control

12.980

12.896

0.084

0.109

0.773

* 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.

191

International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue V May 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com Table – 11: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in One Mile Run/Walk Yoga Pranayama Control Sum of df Mean F ratio group group group squares square Pre-test B 0.268 2 0.134 12.855 12.877 12.980 0.091 means W 128.409 87 1.476 Post-test B 165.368 2 82.684 10.170 9.891 12.896 85.647* means W 83.990 87 0.965 Adjusted B 155.628 2 77.814 post-test 10.206 9.912 12.839 498.557* W 13.423 86 0.156 means * 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 Yoga Pranayama Control Difference between Critical differences for group group group means adjusted mean 10.206 10.206

9.912 9.912

12.839 12.839

0.294 2.633* 2.927*

0.372 0.372 0.372

* 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 Groups Pre-test Post-test Difference between SE ‘t’ mean mean mean Ratio

Yoga.

14.600

14.367

0.233

0.522

0.447

Pranayama

14.600

14.667

0.667

0.191

0.348

Control

14.633

14.400

0.233

0.561

0.416

‘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.

192

International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue V May 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com Table – 14: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Triceps Skin Fold Measurement Yoga Pranayama Control Sum of squares df Mean F ratio group group group square B 0.022 2 0.011 Pre-test means 14.600 14.600 14.633 0.002 W 409.367 87 4.705 B 1.622 2 0.811 Post-test means 14.367 14.667 14.400 0.896 W 644.833 87 7.412 Adjusted post-test B 1.728 2 0.864 14.374 14.674 14.386 0.153 means W 484.992 86 5.639 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 Yoga Pranayama Control Difference between Critical differences for group group group means adjusted mean 14.374 14.674 0.300 0.434 14.374 14.386 0.012 0.434 14.674 14.386 0.288 0.434 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 Groups Pre-test mean Post-test mean Difference between mean SE ‘t’ Ratio Yoga. 14.667 14.000 0.667 0.191 0.348 Pranayama 14.600 14.633 0.033 0.195 0.171 Control 14.400 14.367 0.033 0.169 0.197 ‘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 SubScapular Skin Fold Measurement Yoga Pranayama Control Sum of squares df Mean F ratio group group group square B 1.156 2 0.578 Pre-test means 14.667 14.000 14.400 0.077 W 651.067 87 7.484 B 1.267 2 0.633 Post-test means 14.600 14.633 14.367 0.137 W 403.133 87 4.634 Adjusted post-test B 0.222 2 0.111 14.518 14.600 14.482 0.207 means W 46.001 86 0.535 N = 90, B = between group variance, W = within group variance

193

International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue V May 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com 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 Yoga Pranayama Control Difference between Critical differences for group group group means adjusted mean 14.518 14.600 0.082 0.134 14.518 14.482 0.036 0.134 14.600 14.482 0.118 0.134 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 Groups Pre-test mean Post-test mean Difference between mean SE ‘t’ Ratio Yoga. 25.800 29.633 3.833 0.250 15.363* Pranayama 25.800 29.833 4.033 0.294 13.740* Control 25.867 25.833 0.033 0.206 0.162 * 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 Yoga Pranayama Control Sum of squares df Mean F ratio group group group square Pre-test B 0.089 2 0.044 25.800 25.800 25.867 0.005 means W 729.067 87 8.380 Post-test B 304.800 2 152.400 29.633 29.833 25.833 28.252* means W 469.300 87 5.394 Adjusted B 312.169 2 156.085 post-test 29.649 29.849 25.802 129.182* W 103.910 86 1.208 means * 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 Yoga Pranayama Control Difference Critical differences group group group between means for adjusted mean 29.649 29.849 0.200 0.201 29.649 25.802 3.847* 0.201 29.849 25.802 4.047* 0.201 * Significant at 0.05 level of confidence

194

International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue V May 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com 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. IV. 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. REFRENCES [1] [2] [3]

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. Gharote, M. L. (1974). Effect of yogic training on physical fitness. Yoga-mimamsa, 15, 1, 31-35. Gharote, M. L. (1976). Effect of yoga exercises on failures on the Kraus-Weber tests. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 43, 654.

195