| Literature DB >> 31183215 |
Shirley Telles1, Sachin Kumar Sharma1, Alok Singh1, Niranjan Kala1, Vikas Upadhyay1, Jaideep Arya2, Acharya Balkrishna1.
Abstract
Background: Obesity adversely affects quality of life which then acts as a barrier to weight loss and weight loss maintenance. Hence, those interventions which positively influence the quality of life along with weight reduction are considered useful for sustained weight loss in persons with obesity. An earlier study showed better quality of life in obese adults who had experience of yoga compared to yoga naïve obese adults. However, the main limitation of the study was the small sample size (n=20 in each group). Objective: The present study aimed to determine whether with larger sample sizes the quality of life would differ in yoga experienced compared to yoga naïve adults with obesity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31183215 PMCID: PMC6515061 DOI: 10.1155/2019/9895074
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Obes ISSN: 2090-0708
Baseline characteristic profile of participants: yoga experienced and yoga naïve group.
| Characteristics of participants | Yoga group | Yoga naïve group |
|---|---|---|
| Number ( | 298 | 298 |
|
| 44.0 ± 9.8 | 43.8 ± 10.0 |
| 20 to 30 years, | 35 (11.7) | 34 (11.4) |
| 31 to 50 years, | 175 (58.7) | 175 (58.7) |
| 51 to 59 years, | 88 (29.5) | 89 (29.9) |
|
| ||
|
| 20–59 | 20–59 |
| BMI (kg/m2): mean ± SD | 32.1 ± 4.5 | 32.3 ± 4.5 |
| 25.0 to 32.4 kg/m2: | 178 (59.7) | 163 (54.7) |
| ≥32.5 kg/m2: | 120 (40.3) | 135 (45.3) |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Male : female | 144 : 154 | 144 : 154 |
| Percentage values | 48.3 : 51.7 | 48.3 : 51.7 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| <10 years | 50 (16.8) | 78 (26.2) |
| 10–12 years | 43 (14.4) | 41 (13.8) |
| >12 years | 205 (68.8) | 179 (60.0) |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Married | 264 (88.6) | 262 (87.9) |
| Unmarried | 29 (9.7) | 23 (7.7) |
| Widow/widower | 3 (1) | 8 (2.7) |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Business | 87 (29.2) | 82 (27.5) |
| Agriculture | 7 (2.3) | 19 (6.4) |
| Household | 81 (27.2) | 71 (23.8) |
| Professionals | 52 (17.4) | 40 (13.4) |
| Secretarial/clerical/officers | 43 (14.4) | 47 (15.8) |
| Self-employed | 14 (4.7) | 21 (7) |
| Skilled labour | 1 (0.3) | 2 (0.7) |
| Not mentioned | 13 (4.4) | 16 (5.4) |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Low income | 43 (14.4) | 52 (17.4) |
| Pre-middle income | 98 (32.9) | 103 (34.6) |
| Middle income | 91 (30.5) | 83 (27.9) |
| High income | 52 (17.4) | 48 (16.1) |
| Not mentioned | 14 (4.7) | 12 (4.0) |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Vegetarian | 211 (70.8) | 187 (62.8) |
| Nonvegetarian | 87 (29.2) | 111 (37.2) |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Yes | 26 (8.7) | 39 (13.1) |
| No | 253 (84.9) | 248 (83.2) |
| Not mentioned | 19 (6.4) | 11 (3.7) |
Figure 1Graphical presentation of adjusted mean scores of quality of life of the yoga experienced and yoga naïve obese adults. Error bar showing the standard deviation of the quality of life scores.
Details of the regression analyses adjusted for the three covariates (age, gender, and BMI) for overall quality of life and six subdomains.
| Quality of life |
| df | Adjusted | Related to covariates | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covariates |
|
| ||||
| Total quality of life | 8.547 | 1, 590 | 0.048 | Age | 0.024 | 0.557 |
| Gender | −0.029 | 0.479 | ||||
| BMI | −0.116 | 0.005 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Enjoying physical activities | 5.253 | 1, 591 | 0.001 | Age | 0.007 | 0.869 |
| Gender | 0.015 | 0.727 | ||||
| BMI | −0.074 | 0.072 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Ability to work | 7.970 | 1, 591 | 0.045 | Age | −0.075 | 0.066 |
| Gender | 0.046 | 0.269 | ||||
| BMI | −0.109 | 0.008 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Self-esteem | 4.953 | 1, 591 | 0.026 | Age | 0.070 | 0.090 |
| Gender | −0.020 | 0.641 | ||||
| BMI | −0.104 | 0.012 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Social satisfaction | 3.634 | 1, 591 | 0.017 | Age | 0.052 | 0.211 |
| Gender | −0.026 | 0.532 | ||||
| BMI | −0.039 | 0.350 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Sexual pleasure | 8.986 | 1, 591 | 0.051 | Age | −0.810 | 0.418 |
| Gender | −5.435 | <0.001 | ||||
| BMI | −1.232 | 0.218 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Approach towards food | 4.237 | 1, 591 | 0.021 | Age | 0.095 | 0.021 |
| Gender | 0.090 | 0.032 | ||||
| BMI | −0.085 | 0.041 | ||||
Quality of life scores in yoga experienced and yoga naïve persons with obesity.
| Group as a whole | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall quality of life and subdomains | Yoga ( | Yoga naïve ( | Cohen's | Mean difference |
|
| ||
| Mean ± SD | 95% CI# | Mean ± SD | 95% CI# | |||||
| Total quality of life | 1.5 ± 0.94 | 1.39, 1.61 | 1.1 ± 1.05@ | 0.98, 1.22 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 4.82 | <0.001 |
| Enjoying physical activities | 0.27 ± 0.24 | 0.24, 0.3 | 0.18 ± 0.27 | 0.15, 0.21 | 0.35 | 0.09 | 4.17 | <0.001 |
| Ability to work | 0.34 ± 0.2 | 0.32, 0.36 | 0.26 ± 0.23 | 0.23, 0.29 | 0.37 | 0.08 | 4.46 | <0.001 |
| Self-esteem | 0.25 ± 0.25 | 0.22, 0.28 | 0.19 ± 0.25 | 0.16, 0.22 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 2.98 | 0.003 |
| Social satisfaction | 0.29 ± 0.22 | 0.27, 0.32 | 0.23 ± 0.26 | 0.2, 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 3.29 | 0.001 |
| Sexual pleasure | 0.15 ± 0.3 | 0.12, 0.18 | 0.13 ± 0.28 | 0.1, 0.16 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.87 | 0.384 |
| Approach towards food | 0.25 ± 0.3 | 0.22, 0.28 | 0.19 ± 0.26 | 0.16, 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.06 | 2.32 | 0.021 |
@ p < 0.001 at the two-tailed level, level of statistical significance between the groups was analysed using separate least squares regression. p < 0.008 and p < 0.001 at the two-tailed level, level of significance between the groups was analysed using separate least squares regression. #95% CI was Bonferroni adjusted for the six subdomains of quality of life scores (i.e., 99.2%); ##Bonferroni adjusted statistical significance level for the six subdomains of quality of life scores (α = 0.008). Values are group mean ± SD.