• Home
  • Submit Paper
  • Check Paper Status
  • Download Certificate/Paper
  • FAQs
  • Feedback
  • Contact Us
Email: ijraset@gmail.com
IJRASET Logo
Journal Statistics & Approval Details
Recent Published Paper
Our Author's Feedback
 •  ISRA Impact Factor 7.894       •  SJIF Impact Factor: 7.538       •  Hard Copy of Certificates to All Authors       •  DOI by Crossref for all Published Papers       •  Soft Copy of Certificates- Within 04 Hours       •  Authors helpline No: +91-8813907089(Whatsapp)       •  No Publication Fee for Paper Submission       •  Hard Copy of Certificates to all Authors       •  UGC Approved Journal: IJRASET- Click here to Check     
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Aim & Scope
  • Editorial Board
  • Impact Factor
  • Call For Papers
    • Submit Paper Online
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issue
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Paper
    • Download Certificates
    • Check Paper Status
    • Paper Format
    • Copyright Form
    • Membership
    • Peer Review
  • Past Issue
    • Monthly Issue
    • Special Issue
  • Pay Fee
    • Indian Authors
    • International Authors
  • Topics
ISSN: 2321-9653
Estd : 2013
IJRASET - Logo
  • Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Aim & Scope
  • Editorial Board
  • Impact Factor
  • Call For Papers
    • Submit Paper Online
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issue
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Paper
    • Download Certificates
    • Check Paper Status
    • Paper Format
    • Copyright Form
    • Membership
    • Peer Review
  • Past Issue
    • Monthly Issue
    • Special Issue
  • Pay Fee
    • Indian Authors
    • International Authors
  • Topics

Ijraset Journal For Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology

  • Home / Ijraset
  • On This Page
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Conclusion
  • References
  • Copyright

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

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

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

Groups

Pre-test mean

Post-test 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

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 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 Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Sit Up

Groups

Pre-test mean

Post-test 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

Pre-test means

24.633

24.767

24.633

B 0.356

W 1753.3

2

87

0.178

20.153

0.009

Post-test means

28.067

28.567

24.367

B 315.800

W 996.200

2

87

157.900

11.451

13.790*

Adjusted post-test 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 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 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 Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Harvard Step Test

Groups

Pre-test mean

Post-test 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

Pre-test means

75.000

75.133

75.133

B 0. 356

W 158.933

2

87

0.178

1.827

0.097

Post-test means

73.133

73.000

75.167

B 88.467

W 143.633

2

87

44.233

1.651

26.793*

Adjusted post-test 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 Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in One Mile Run/Walk

Groups

Pre-test mean

Post-test 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

Pre-test means

12.855

12.877

12.980

B 0.268

W 128.409

2

87

0.134

1.476

0.091

Post-test means

10.170

9.891

12.896

B 165.368

W 83.990

2

87

82.684

0.965

85.647*

Adjusted post-test 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 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 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 Pre-Test and Post-Test Means of the two Experimental Groups and the Control Group in Triceps Skin Fold Measurement

Groups

Pre-test mean

Post-test 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

Pre-test means

14.600

14.600

14.633

B 0.022

W 409.367

2

87

0.011

4.705

0.002

Post-test means

14.367

14.667

14.400

B 1.622

W 644.833

2

87

0.811

7.412

0.896

Adjusted post-test 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 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 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 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 Sub-Scapular Skin Fold Measurement

 

Yoga group

Pranayama

group

Control

group

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F ratio

Pre-test means

14.667

14.000

14.400

B 1.156

W 651.067

2

87

0.578

7.484

0.077

Post-test means

14.600

14.633

14.367

B 1.267

W 403.133

2

87

0.633

4.634

0.137

Adjusted post-test 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 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 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 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 group

Pranayama

group

Control

group

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F ratio

Pre-test means

25.800

25.800

25.867

B 0.089

W 729.067

2

87

0.044

8.380

0.005

Post-test means

29.633

29.833

25.833

B 304.800

W 469.300

2

87

152.400

5.394

28.252*

Adjusted post-test 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.

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.

ijraset42144ijraset42

Download Paper

Authors : SAKTI RANJAN MISHRA

Paper Id : IJRASET42144

Publish Date : 2022-05-02

ISSN : 2321-9653

Publisher Name : IJRASET

DOI Link : Click Here

About Us

International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology (IJRASET) is an international peer reviewed, online journal published for the enhancement of research in various disciplines of Applied Science & Engineering Technologies.

Quick links
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Shipping Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
Quick links
  • Home
  • About us
  • Editorial Board
  • Impact Factor
  • Submit Paper
  • Current Issue
  • Special Issue
  • Pay Fee
  • Topics
Journals for publication of research paper | Research paper publishers | Paper publication sites | Best journal to publish research paper | Research paper publication sites | Journals for paper publication | Best international journal for paper publication | Best journals to publish papers in India | Journal paper publishing sites | International journal to publish research paper | Online paper publishing journal

© , International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology All rights reserved. | Designed by EVG Software Solutions