| Literature DB >> 22577578 |
Ravi S Kudesia1, Matt T Bianchi.
Abstract
This pilot study evaluated the impact of Bikram Yoga on subjective and objective sleep parameters. We compared subjective (diary) and objective (headband sleep monitor) sleep measures on yoga versus nonyoga days during a 14-day period. Subjects (n = 13) were not constrained regarding yoga-practice days, other exercise, caffeine, alcohol, or naps. These activities did not segregate by choice of yoga days. Standard sleep metrics were unaffected by yoga, including sleep latency, total sleep time, and percentage of time spent in rapid eye movement (REM), light non-REM, deep non-REM, or wake after sleep onset (WASO). Consistent with prior work, transition probability analysis was a more sensitive index of sleep architecture changes than standard metrics. Specifically, Bikram Yoga was associated with significantly faster return to sleep after nocturnal awakenings. We conclude that objective home sleep monitoring is feasible in a low-constraint, real-world study design. Further studies on patients with insomnia will determine whether the results generalize or not.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22577578 PMCID: PMC3345216 DOI: 10.5402/2012/153745
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Neurol ISSN: 2090-5505
Subject characteristics.
| Age | 35 median (Range 22–43) |
| Sex | 7 males, 6 females |
| ESS | 6 median (Range 2–10) |
| Bikram experience | 4 experienced, 9 novice |
| Nights of sleep data | 13 median (Range 9–14) |
| Number of Bikram days | 4 median (Range 2–11) |
| PSQI | 8 median (Range 3–14) |
| Chronotype score | 50 median (Range 41–70) |
Figure 1Total sleep time and sleep latency. (a) Total sleep time is shown by objective measurement (TST) and by subjective diary (s-TST) on nonyoga nights (open boxes) and on Bikram Yoga nights (gray boxes). Each plot shows the median, 25% and 75% quartiles (boxes), mean (plus sign), and 95% confidence range (whiskers). There were no significant differences in subjective or objective TST on yoga or nonyoga days. (b) Sleep latency is shown by objective measurement (SL) and by subjective diary (s-SL) on nonyoga nights (open boxes) and on Bikram Yoga nights (gray boxes). Box and whisker plots are as in (a). There were no significant differences in subjective or objective latency on yoga or nonyoga days.
Figure 2Sleep-wake architecture. (a) The percentage of time spent in wake after sleep onset (W), REM, light NR (L-NR), and deep NR (D-NR) sleep are shown in box and whisker plots (median, 25–75% quartiles, and 95% confidence interval whiskers; mean indicated by plus sign). The values of each sleep-wake stage for nonyoga nights (open boxes) were not different than nonyoga nights (gray boxes). (b) Survival curves for bouts of wake after sleep onset (WASO) were significantly different for nonyoga (black line) and yoga (gray line) nights. The survival curves show the normalized relative frequency of observing bouts of WASO of different durations. The inset shows the absolute number of awakenings per hour of sleep for nonyoga (open) and yoga (gray) nights, which were not different. (c–e) There were no differences in the survival curves between yoga and nonyoga nights for REM, L-NR, or D-NR sleep-stage-bout distributions.