Authors: Ganesh Chandra Bauri, Dr. Manjulata Nayak, Md. Julfikar , Prof. (Dr.) Sakti Ranjan Mishra
DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.42144
Certificate: View Certificate
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.
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 shortterm 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. Healthrelated components of physical fitness include bodycomposition, 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 pretest 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 posttest on all the variables on which pretest 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 pretest and posttest 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 PreTest and PostTest Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Bent Knee Curl Up
Groups 
Pretest mean 
Posttest mean 
Difference between mean 
SE 
‘t’ ratio 
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
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 group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Sum of squares 
df 
Mean square 
F ratio 
Pretest means 
17.367 
17.533 
17.567 
B 0.689 W 1229.800 
2 87 
0.344 14.136 
0.240 
Posttest means 
22.867 
22.767 
17.867 
B 490.200 W 970.300 
2 87 
245.100 11.153 
21.976* 
Adjusted posttest 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 pretest 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 group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Difference between means 
Critical differences for 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 PreTest and PostTest Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit Up
Groups 
Pretest mean 
Posttest mean 
Difference between mean 
SE 
‘t’ Ratio 
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.
Table – 5: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit Up

Yoga group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Sum of squares 
df 
Mean square 
F ratio 
Pretest means 
24.633 
24.767 
24.633 
B 0.356 W 1753.3 
2 87 
0.178 20.153 
0.009 
Posttest means 
28.067 
28.567 
24.367 
B 315.800 W 996.200 
2 87 
157.900 11.451 
13.790* 
Adjusted posttest means 
28.098 
28.504 
24.398 
B 307.184 W 137.890 
2 86 
153.592 1.603 
95.793* 
* 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 pretest 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 group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Difference between means 
Critical differences for 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 PreTest and PostTest Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Harvard Step Test
Groups 
Pretest mean 
Posttest mean 
Difference between mean 
SE 
‘t’ 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.
Table – 8: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Harvard Step Test

Yoga group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Sum of squares 
df 
Mean square 
F ratio 
Pretest means 
75.000 
75.133 
75.133 
B 0. 356 W 158.933 
2 87 
0.178 1.827 
0.097 
Posttest means 
73.133 
73.000 
75.167 
B 88.467 W 143.633 
2 87 
44.233 1.651 
26.793* 
Adjusted posttest means 
73.149 
72.992 
75.159 
B 87.536 W 138.582 
2 86 
43.768 1.611 
27.161* 
* 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 group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Difference between means 
Critical differences for adjusted mean 
73.149 
72.992 

0.157 
0.232 
73.149 

75.159 
2.010* 
0.232 

72.992 
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 PreTest and PostTest Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in One Mile Run/Walk
Groups 
Pretest mean 
Posttest mean 
Difference between mean 
SE 
‘t’ Ratio 
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.
Table – 11: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in One Mile Run/Walk

Yoga group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Sum of squares 
df 
Mean square 
F ratio 
Pretest means 
12.855 
12.877 
12.980 
B 0.268 W 128.409 
2 87 
0.134 1.476 
0.091 
Posttest means 
10.170 
9.891 
12.896 
B 165.368 W 83.990 
2 87 
82.684 0.965 
85.647* 
Adjusted posttest means 
10.206 
9.912 
12.839 
B 155.628 W 13.423 
2 86 
77.814 0.156 
498.557* 
* 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 pretest means. The posttest 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 group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Difference between means 
Critical differences for adjusted mean 
10.206 
9.912 

0.294 
0.372 
10.206 

12.839 
2.633* 
0.372 

9.912 
12.839 
2.927* 
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 PreTest and PostTest Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Triceps Skin Fold Measurement
Groups 
Pretest mean 
Posttest mean 
Difference between mean 
SE 
‘t’ 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.
Table – 14: Analysis of Variance and Covariance of the Means of Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Triceps Skin Fold Measurement

Yoga group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Sum of squares 
df 
Mean square 
F ratio 
Pretest means 
14.600 
14.600 
14.633 
B 0.022 W 409.367 
2 87 
0.011 4.705 
0.002 
Posttest means 
14.367 
14.667 
14.400 
B 1.622 W 644.833 
2 87 
0.811 7.412 
0.896 
Adjusted posttest means 
14.374 
14.674 
14.386 
B 1.728 W 484.992 
2 86 
0.864 5.639 
0.153 
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 pretest 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 group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Difference between means 
Critical differences for 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 PreTest and PostTest Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in SubScapular Skin Fold Measurement
Groups 
Pretest mean 
Posttest 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 subscapular 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 group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Sum of squares 
df 
Mean square 
F ratio 
Pretest means 
14.667 
14.000 
14.400 
B 1.156 W 651.067 
2 87 
0.578 7.484 
0.077 
Posttest means 
14.600 
14.633 
14.367 
B 1.267 W 403.133 
2 87 
0.633 4.634 
0.137 
Adjusted posttest means 
14.518 
14.600 
14.482 
B 0.222 W 46.001 
2 86 
0.111 0.535 
0.207 
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 pretest 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 SubScapular Skin Fold Measurement
Yoga group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Difference between means 
Critical differences for 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 subscapular skin fold measurement of subjects in two experimental and control group were not significant in any case.
Table – 19: Significance of Difference between PreTest and PostTest Means of the Two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit And Reach
Groups 
Pretest mean 
Posttest 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 group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Sum of squares 
df 
Mean square 
F ratio 
Pretest means 
25.800 
25.800 
25.867 
B 0.089 W 729.067 
2 87 
0.044 8.380 
0.005 
Posttest means 
29.633 
29.833 
25.833 
B 304.800 W 469.300 
2 87 
152.400 5.394 
28.252* 
Adjusted posttest means 
29.649 
29.849 
25.802 
B 312.169 W 103.910 
2 86 
156.085 1.208 
129.182* 
* 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 group 
Pranayama group 
Control group 
Difference between means 
Critical differences 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
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.
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.
[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), 225228. [2] Gharote, M. L. (1974). Effect of yogic training on physical fitness. Yogamimamsa, 15, 1, 3135. [3] Gharote, M. L. (1976). Effect of yoga exercises on failures on the KrausWeber tests. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 43, 654.
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.
Paper Id : IJRASET42144
Publish Date : 20220502
ISSN : 23219653
Publisher Name : IJRASET
DOI Link : Click Here