Indian J Physiol Phannacol 1993; 37(3): 225-228

BODY COMPOSITION, CARDIOVASCULAR ENDURANCEAND ANAEROBIC POWER OF YOGIC PRACTITIONER

T. K. BERA* AND M. V. RAJAPURKAR

Scientific Research Department,Kaivalyadhama, Lonavla - 410 403

(Received on September 12, 1992 )

Abstract: Forty male high school students, age 12-15 yrs, participated for a study of yogain relation to body composition, cardiovascular endurance and anaerobic power. Ths Sswere placed i.nto two subsets viz., yoga group and control group Body composition,cardiovascular endurance anaerobic power were measured using standard method. The durationof experiment was one year. The result of ANCOVA revealed that a significant improvementin ideal body weight, body density, cardiovascular endurance and anaerobic power wasobserved as a result of yoga training. This study could not show significant ehange in bodyfat (midaxillary), skeletal diameters and most of the body cirumferences. It was evident thatsome of the fat-folds (tricer, subscapular, suprailiac, umbilical, thigh and calf) and bodycircumferences (waist, umbilical and hip) were reduced significantly.

Key words:. yoga training anaerobic power cardiovascular endurance body [at

INTRODUCTION

Desirable changes in physiological andanthropological dimensions signify the improvementof sports performance (1, 2, 3). A number of studieshave revealed that school athletes who are proficientin specific sport event have specific body compositionand physiological characteristics (4, 5, 6). Althoughlillie information about physiological characteristics ofyogic practitioner is available (7,8), no information sofar has been reported about their morphologicalcharacteristics. The present study was undertaken toobserve the difference, if any, in body composition,cardiovascular endurance and anaerobic power, as aresult of certain yogic practices.

MEHTODS

Subjects consisted of 40 healthy high schoolboys, aged 12 to 15 years, assigned randomly into twoequal sub-sets: practitioners of yoga (Group A) andnon-yogic controls (Group B). Cardiovascular and

. respiratory disorders were clinically ruled oul. Thosehaving prior exposure to yoga, were excluded. Therewere no significant differences between two-subsetsfor age, height and weight (P>0.05). Group A was

*Ccrresponding Author

given a full course yoga training (9) for 45 mins. day!,from 5 : 00 to 5 : 45 p.m. on 3 days. week' for a totalperiod of one year. The training consisted of yogicpostures, pranayamas, bandhas, mudras and sodhanakriyas. Group B served as sedentary control. All theSs of both Group A and Group B were residing in thehostel of Gurukul High School (Lonavla, India). TheSs were given same food in the hostel and no out sidefood was allowed during the experimental period.

The following investigations were carried outon the Ss before and after completing the total durationof the experiment:

Body weight was measured on a ToledoBeam Balance Scale to the nearest 50 gms.

Body height was assessed with a stadiometerto the nearest 0.5 em.

For assessing body composition, the bodydensity was calculated by skinfold predictionequation (10), the body fat% was estimatedusing revised formula of Brozek et al (11),the absolute fat weight was determined bySiri's equation (12), and the lean bodyweight was assessed using Montoy's

226 Bera and Rajapurkar

equation (13). All these measurements wererecorded hy a skin fold caliper nearest to ].0mm.

Girth measurements included the neck,shoulders, chest, waist, thigh, knee, cal f,ankle, abdomen (at the umbilicus), hips,biceps (relaxed and Dexed) and wrist (14).Measurements of girths and skeletaldiameters were taken from the right side ofthe body by the same investigator and thetcst-retest reliabilities were found significant(r = 0.94 for all grith and r = 0.96 for alldiameter measurements with the error ofestimate not greater than ± 1.0 mm).

Cardiovascular endurance was measuredusing Hardvard Step Test (15). The scoresof Hardvard Step Test were correlated withthe scores of Bicycle Ergometer. Thecoefficient of correlation was foundstmistically significant (r =0.82, P < 0.0 1).This showed that the scores of Hardvard

Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 1993; 37(3)

Step Test are reliable. Each subject completed'Up &- Down' task (24 steps/min.) on an 18inches bench for 3 minutes duration.

Anaerobic power was determined for eachsubject using a reliable field method viz.,Sargent Jump (16). In this test the height ofspot jump was measured to the nearest 0.5em. on a scale attached with the wall.

On the basis of the nature of the experimentaldesign, ANCOV A-followed-by-studenLize rangestatistics was performed for analyzing the data.

RESULTS

The results of the experiment have beensummerized in the Table I and II. After yoga trainingthere was a significant improvement in body density,ideal body weight, cardiovascular endurance andanaerobic power. However, a significant reduction wasobserved in fat-folds (tricep, subscapular, suprailiae,umbilical, thigh and calf) and body circumferences.

TABU, I Pre-lo-post test change in body composition of yogic practitioners and non-yogic controls.

Variables of Adjusted mean Adusted mean MS Adjusted meanbody composilion Coni. Yoga error difference q-valUi!

Gr. Gr.Body fat% 10.0522 03.7103 1.1267 -6.3419 8.30"Body density (gm/cc) 1.0757 1.0938 0.00212 0.0182 7.82*Absolute fat Wt (kg) 4.0175 1.5986 0.4132 -2.4189 16.83*Ideal body Wt (kg) 40.2823 44.8090 8.5025 4.5267 14.61*Fat-fold (mm)TriceI' 12.56 7.32 0.96 -5.24 7.52"Subscapular 9.50 6.14 0.62 -3.36 6.93"Suprailiac 13.24 8.39 1.02 -4.85 7.26*Midaxillary 7.48 6.70 0.47 -0.78 2.51Umbilical 11.23 7.05 0.78 -4.18 6.96*Thigh 22.50 12.36 1.42 -10.14 8.52*Calf 13.21 10.50 0.98 -2.71 6.90*Skeletal Diameters (em)Elbow 1i.98 7.05 0.06 0.07 2.56Wnst 4.(\1 4.72 066 -0.09 1.93Knee 8.34 8.32 0.17 -0.02 0.98Ankle 759 7.52 0.13 -0.07 0.92Circumference (em)Neck 31.52 31.25 0.59 -0.27 1.08Shoulder 100.57 100.00 1.50 0.6\ 1.42Chest 9198 92.73 1.08 00.75 1.56Waist 63.20 60.29 0.81 -2.91 7.05*Umbilical 71.92 65.24 1.20 -6.68 9.33"Hips 86.21 80.45 1.57 -5.75 8.n*Biceps (relax) 27.93 27.28 0.48 -0.63 1.39Biceps (ncxed) 31.20 3139 0.71 0.19 0.98Wrist 15.21 15.37 0.14 0.16 0.85Thigh 69. i3 6882 1.54 -0.31 0.'16Knee 35.31 35.25 0.57 -0.06 1.19Calf 35.02 3492 0.38 -0.10 1.36Ankle 21.86 2153 0.30 0.33 0.85

"P < 0.01

Indian J Physiol Phannacol 1993; 37(3) Anaerobic Power of Yogic Practitioner 227

TABLE II: Physiologic.al variables of yogic practitioners and non-yogic controls.

Adjusted mEan Adjusted mEan MS MeanVariables yogic non-yogic error diff· q-vatue

practitioners con/rots

Cardiovascular 72.53 60.74 4.98 11.79 9.23*endurance (Pis.)

Anaerobic power 141.20 133.60 730 7.60 6.82*(kg-m sec')

*p < 0.01

DISCUSSION

The significant increase in ideal body weightand body density may be due to the fact that yogictraining reduced body fat (17, 18) which is inverselyproportional to ideal body weight and body density.Such finding intum suggests that as a result of yogatraining girth/circumference of fat deposited area willreduce. This was also observed in this experiment. Itappears from the result that leanness is one of thecharacteristics of yoga practitioner as (!aimed in thetraditional literature (19).

Despite greater lean body weight, it wassurprising that the yoga practitioners had smallercircumferences than the controls at those sites viz.,shoulders, biceps and calf which might be expected tobe larger and perhaps indicative of greater lean bodyweight. This may be due to the fact yoga gives more

exercise to the trunk region and reduces the excessivelydeposited fat (17,18) by enhancing body density. Thisfurther suggests incrense in strength and endurance ofabdominal muscle (20). It is evident that yogicpractitioners have lesser abdominal circum ference andhigher body density.

Cardiovascular endurance varies with differentsports. However, yogic practitioners appear to rely moreon parasympathetic, neur

228 Bera and Rajapurkar

REFERENCES

Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 1993; 37(3)

I. Hirata KI. Selection of Olympic champions. Toyota, ChukyoUniversity 1979 : I.

2. Malina RJ\1, Harper AB, Avant HH. Physique of track andfield female athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports 1971;3: 32-37.

3. Tanner IM. The physique of olympic athlete. London, GeorgeAllen and Unwin Ltd. 1964 : 13.

4. Burke E, Brush F. Physiological and anthropometricassessment of successful teenage female distance runners.Research Quarterly 1979; 50 : 180-187.

5. Dill D, Myhre L, Greer S, Richardson J, Singleton K. Bodycomposition and anaerobic capacity of youth of both sexes.Medicine and Science in Sports 1972; 4 : 198-204.

6. Sinning W. Body composition, cardiorespiratory functionand rule changes in women's basketbaU. Research Quarterly1973; 44: 313-321.

7. Gharote ML. A psychophysiological study of the effect ofshort term yogic training on adolescent high school boys.Yoga-Mimamsa 1971; 14 (1&2): 92-99.

8. Gore MM. Effect of yogic training on neuro-muscularefficiency in normal and stressful conditions. Yoga-Mimamsa1987-88; 26 (3 & 4) : 15-24.

9. Kuvalayananda S. Asanas. Bombay, Popular Prakashana1982.

10. Kirkendall D. Figure finder fat-o-meter skin caliper. LACrosse, WS, Research Unit, University of Sisconsin 1982.

II. Brozek J, Grande JT, Anderson T, Keys A. Densitometricanalysis of body composition: revision of some quantitativeassumptions. Ann NY Acad Sci 1963; 110 : 113-140.

12. Siri WE. Gross composition of the body. In Lawrence JH,Tobias CA, eds. Advance in biological and medical physics.New York, Academic Press, Inc 1956; IV.

13. Montoye n. An introduction to measurement in physicaleducation. Boston, Allyn & Bacon, Inc 1978.

14. Behnke A, Wilmore J. Evaluation and regulation of bodybuild and composition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall1974.

15. Johnson BL, Nelson JK. Practical mea~urement for evaluationin physical education. New Delhi, Surjeet Publication 1982.

16. Fox EL, Mathcws DK. The physiological basis of physicaleducation and athletics. Philadelphia, CBS College Publishing1981.

17. Bera TK, Rajapurkar MY, Ganguly SK. Effect of yogictraining on body density in school going boys. NIS ScientificJournal 1990; 13(2) : 23-35.

18. Gharote ML. An evaluation of thc cffect of yogic treatmenton obesity - a report. Yoga-Mimamsa 1977; 19 (I): 13-37.

19. Hathapradipika In yoga-mimamsa 1928; 30; 3 & 4: 69.

20. Gharote ML. Effect of yogic exercises on the strength andendurance of the abdominal muscles of the females. VyayamVidnyan 1970; 4(1): 11-13.

21. Balasubramanian B, Pansare MS. Effcct of yoga on aerobicand anaerobic power of muscles. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol1991; 35(4): 281-282.

22. Ganguly SK. Effect of short term yogic training programmeon cardiovascular endurance. SNIPES Journal 1981 ; 4(2) :45-51.

23. Ganguly SK, Gharote ML. Cardiova~cularefficiency beforeand after yogic training. Yoga-Mimamsa 1974; 17 (I): 89-97.

24. Karambelkar PY, Deshpande RR, Bhole MY. Oxygenconsumption during ujjayi pranayama Yoga-Mimamsa 1985;21 (3&4) : 7-13.