The NAPESS Journal of Physical Education & Sports Science, Under the aegis of NAPESS
ISSN 2229 – 7049 NAPESS – Journal Of Physical Education And Sports Science (Print)
ISSN 2229 – 7316 NAPESS – Journal Of Physical Education And Sports Science (Online)
12010 Vol: 1 Issue: 2010

Selected Physiological Parameters of Obese and Non-Obese College Women

Author: Dr. Gill, Jagtar Singh —  Co-Author: Dr. Indu Bala —  Date: 2010-01-01

Abstract: Obesity threatens to become the 21st century’s leading health problem. As more Nations become industrialized and urbanized, the prevalence of obesity would inevitably rise. The rapidly increasing prevalence of obesity has led to obesity being characterized as an epidemic. According to the World Health Organization, obesity and its complications are the leading health threat globally problem and India would be its epicenter.

-*-*-*-

1 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Physical Education & Sports, PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh www.pec.ac.in

2 Lecturer, Education Department, Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh

Introduction:

Obesity threatens to become the 21st century’s leading health problem. As more Nations become industrialized and urbanized, the prevalence of obesity would inevitably rise. The rapidly increasing prevalence of obesity has led to obesity being characterized as an epidemic. According to the World Health Organization, obesity and its complications are the leading health threat globally problem and India would be its epicenter.

Obesity has also been experimentally and clinically linked with both physiological and psychological trauma. Hormonal imbalances, emotional trauma, and alterations in basic homeostatic mechanisms have all been shown to be either directly or indirectly related to the onset of obesity. Environmental factors, such as cultural habits, inadequate physical activity, and improper diets, are major cause of obesity (Wilmore and Costill, 1999). Xavier and Sunyer (1991) observed that health risk of obesity increases with its severity. Risk factors include hypertension, hypertriglycemia cemia, low high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL – C) and in some high total and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL – C). Chronic hypoxia and hypercania, Sleep, apnea, gout and degenerative joint diseases can occur with more severe obesity. The distribution of body fat is directly related to these health risks. Abdominal obesity is more dangerous than gluteal form obesity: therefore risk of CVD, stroke, hypertension, diabetes increases with abdominal obesity, even independently of total fat mass. Obesity is also frequently associated with dyslipidemian, hypertension and hyperinsulinemia and is consequently a risk for coronary heart disease (Banoro et al., 1992). Obesity is not only a disease in the medical sense, but also a serious social, psychological and economic problem. It diminishes the efficiency and happiness of those affected. Obesity has long been recognized as an important aspect of human health and the AAHPER has included body composition assessment in its health oriented physical fitness test. High percentage of body fat decrease the ability of cardio respiratory system to supply oxygen to various parts of the body, thereby lowering one’s cardio respiratory endurance capacity. Fat causes poor performances in the area of cardio respiratory endurance because it not only places an over load on the circulatory system and heart to have pump more blood to a large vascular system, but fat also acts as dead weight in the body (thus offering extra resistance to movement) while contributing nothing to muscle contraction (Shaver, 1982).

While fat may be detrimental to most physical activities that require either horizontal or vertical type of movements on land, It is apparently an asset to swimmers, who need the fat for insulation purposes (specially channel swimmers) and for buoyancy purposes. The increased buoyancy and decreased heat loss due to the subcutaneous fat more than off set the disadvantage of the greater weight to be moved (Krishna, 1988). Evidence suggests that physical activity confers health benefits that are largely or entirely independent of changes in body composition. These findings suggest that overweight and obese individuals can obtain the same benefits of physical activity as lean individuals. While the overall health benefits of physical activity have become well accepted, the general assumption (even among many within the scientific community) has been that the benefits are contingent or dependent on corresponding changes in body composition. While physical activity can lead to changes in body composition, the amount of change depends on an individual’s variability in metabolism and possibly other lifestyle behaviors. The cellular and metabolic adaptations occurring as a result of physical activity appear to be independent of these changes. Therefore, an overweight or obese person can have good cardiovascular health as long as she remains active and possesses a reasonable level of fitness. (President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, 2000). Keeping in view the direct link between one’s health and quality of life that may be in terms of total personality or fitness or efficiency/performance, it was pertinent to explore the various aspects of human beings which are the key factors for good health. Thus, the present study was designed to investigate selected physiological parameters of obese and non-obese college women.

Procedure:

For the purpose of this study five hundred students of Khalsa College for Women, Ludhiana studying in Degree classes were selected as subjects using random sampling technique. The age of the subjects ranged between 17 to 23 years. Body Mass Index of all the subjects was determined by dividing body weight in kilogram by the square of body height in meters and on the basis of Body Mass Index of the subjects three groups namely lean (BMI<25 kg/m2), average (BMI 30 to 34.5 kg/ m2) and obese (BMI ≥35 kg/m2) were formed out of five hundred subjects as study groups. Each group consisted of 50 subjects.Data for Physiological parameters of Haemoglobin (Hb), Blood sugar, Total Cholesterol, High Density Lipoproteins (HDL), Low Density Lipoproteins (LDL), Very Low Density Lipoproteins (VLDL), Triglycerides and Phospholipids Cholesterol 9PHOL CH) were measured through blood tests and standard equations in a Pathological Laboratory under standard set conditions by the qualified laboratory technologist. To compare the obese and non-obese subjects in their Physiological parameters the data were subjected to one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) through SPSS Software. Scheffe’s Post Hoc Test was applied to further see the differences between paired means, if F-ratio was found to be significant at .05 levels.

Results:

Analysis of variance(ANOVA) for the means of the lean, average and obese groups in Physiological variables namely Haemoglobin (Hb), Blood Sugar, Total Cholesterol (TC), High density lipoproteins (HDL), low density lipoproteins (LDL), very low density lipoproteins (VLDL), Triglycerides and Phol cholestrol has been presented in Table 1.

Table 1 : Analysis of Variance for the Means of Lean,

Average and Obese Groups in Physiological Variables

Variables

Variance

Df

SS

MS

F

Haemoglobin

Between

2

1.29

0.65

0.82*

Within

147

114.70

0.78

Blood Sugar

Between

2

557.05

278.52

5.87*

Within

147

6970.12

47.42

Total Cholesterol

Between

2

2982.20

1491.10

23.67*

Within

147

9257.50

62.98

HDL

Between

2

38.51

19.25

0.31*

Within

147

8864.09

60.30

LDL

Between

2

1495.47

747.73

9.55*

Within

147

11499.00

78.22

VLDL

Between

2

36.99

18.49

1.55

Within

147

1747.56

11.88

Triglycerides

Between

2

909.17

454.58

1.54

Within

147

43352.25

294.91

Phol Cholestrol

Between

2

4152.80

2076.40

23.67*

Within

147

12890.50

87.69

* Significant at .05 Level F.05 (2.147) = 3.06

Table 1 showed that there were no significant differences among lean, average and obese groups on haemoglobin, HDL, VLDL and Triglycerides as their respective F-ratios of 0.82, 0.31, 1.55 and 1.54 were less than the F-value of 3.06. But there were significant differences among lean, average and obese groups on Blood sugar, Total Cholesterol, LDL and Phol Cholesterol as their respective F-ratio of 5.87, 23.67, 9.55 and 23.67 were found to be more than the F value of 3.06 at .05 level of significant. As the obtained F-ratios for these Physiological variables were found to be significant the Scheffe’s Post Hoc test was applied to determine the significance of differences between the paired means on these variables. The Post Hoc analyses have given in Table 2, 3, 4 and 5 for Blood Sugar, Total Cholesterol, LDL and Phol Cholestrol.

Table 2 : Ordered Mean and Difference between paired Means for Lean,

Average and Obese Groups in Blood Sugar

Means (Mg/dl)

 

MD

Lean

Average

Obese

76.80

76.08

-

0.72

76.80

-

80.48

3.68*

-

76.08

80.48

4.4*

* Significant at .05 Level Scheffe’s Confidence Interval = 3.40

Table 2 showed that the difference between paired means for the average and obese groups (4.4), lean and obese groups (3.68), were found to be significant as the Scheffe’s Confidence Interval of 3.40 was less than these values. But the differences between average and lean groups (0.72) was not found to be statistically significant.This indicated that average and lean groups did not differ from each other significantly, where as the average and obese group and lean and obese groups showed significant differences from each other on the contents of Blood Sugar.

Table 3: Ordered Mean and Difference between paired Means for Lean,

Average and Obese Groups in Total Cholesterol

Means (mg/dl)

 

MD

Lean

Average

Obese

153.58

158.84

-

-5.26*

153.58

-

164.50

-10.92

-

158.84

164.50

-5.66*

* Significant at .05 Level Scheffe’s Confidence Interval = 3.92

It is evident from Table 3 that the difference between paired means for the lean and average groups (5.26), lean and obese groups (10.92), and average and obese groups (5.66) were found to be significant, as the Scheffe’s Confidence Interval of 3.92 was less than these values. This indicated that all three groups differed significantly from each other on the contents of Total Cholesterol.

Table 4 : Ordered Mean and Difference between paired Means for Lean,

Average and Obese Groups in Low Density Lipoproteins (Ldl)

Means (mg/dl)

 

MD

Lean

Average

Obese

98.30

99.40

-

-1.1

98.30

-

105.48

-7.15*

-

99.40

105.48

-6.08*

* Significant at .05 Level Scheffe’s Confidence Interval = 3.36

It may be observed from Table 4 that the difference between paired means for the lean and average groups (1.1) was not found to be statistically significant, where as the difference between paired means for the lean and obese groups (7.18), and average and obese groups (6.18), were found to be significant as the Scheffe’s Confidence Interval of 4.36 was less than these values. This indicated that the lean and average groups did not differ significantly, where as the lean and obese average and obese groups differed significant on the contents of low density lipoproteins (LDL).

Table 5: Ordered Mean and Difference between paired Means for Lean,

Average and Obese Groups in In Phol-Cholesterol

Means (Mg/dl)

 

MD

Lean

Average

Obese

181.22

187.43

-

-6.21*

181.22

-

194.11

-12.89*

-

187.43

194.11

-6.67*

* Significant at .05 Level Scheffe’s Confidence Interval = 3.62

Table 5 indicated that the difference between paired means for the lean and average groups (6.12), lean and obese groups (12.89), and average and obese groups (6.68) were found to be significant, as the Scheffe’s Confidence Interval of 4.62 was less than these values. This indicated that all three groups differed significantly from each other on the contents of phol-cholesterol.

Findings:

The results of the study indicted that in the variable of Blood Sugar, Total Cholesterol, Lower Density Lipoproteins (LDL) and Phospholipids Cholesterol significant differences existed among lean, average and obese study groups where as three groups did not show any significant differences in Haemoglobin (Hb), High Density Lipoproteins (HDL), Very Low Density Lipoproteins (VLDL) and Triglycerides. Obese group had significantly higher contents of Blood Sugar than lean and average groups. Similarly total cholesterol content was significant higher (though in normal range) obese group as compared to lean and average groups. Lean and average groups did not show any significant differences excited between lean and obese groups and average and obese groups on this parameters. All the three groups significantly differ on Phospholipids Cholesterol as in the case of total Cholesterol.

Discussions:

The physiological variables of Haemoglobin, Blood Glucose, Total Cholesterol, High Density Lipoproteins, Low Density Lipoproteins, Very Low Density Lipoproteins, Triglycerides and Phospholipids Cholesterol are directly related with the cardiovascular system of human body and play a key role in human performance and good health particularly cardiac fitness. Observation of this study indicated that the higher percentage of body fat contributes negatively to the Blood Sugar, Total Cholesterol, Low Density Lipoproteins and Phospholipids Cholesterol. Which may be because of increased responses of body fat to Lipoproteins lipase. Because of high Lipolytic activity, abdominal adiposities readily released free fatty acid (FFA) into the circulation. These FFA are carried directly to the liver through the portal circulation where they are converted into Very Low Density Lipoproteins (VLDL) and ultimately Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol. The high levels of FFA may also lead to enhanced lipid oxidation and reduced glucoyen oxydiation. These changes can result in high level of blood glucose (Present’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, 2000). Due to this fact the obese group may be carried higher level of Blood Glucose, Total Cholesterol, Low Density Lipoproteins and Phospholipids Cholesterol as compared to lean and average groups. Although all the values of these Physiological parameters were within the prescribed standardized normal range among three study groups. The findings in relation with total Cholesterol are in conformity with the findings of Lizeete (1993) and Kissebah, et al (1982). The hypothesis with regard to Physiological variables stated in this study was partially rejected.

Reference:

1. Ardle, William D., and Katch, A. (1991). Exercise physiology energy, Nutrition and human performance. 3rd ed. London : Lea and Febiger Publishers.

2. Banoro, E., et al (1992). Influence of body fat and its regional localization on risk factor for athersclerosis. American Journal of Epitome 135.

3. Fox, Edward L. (1983). Sports Physiology. Tokyo: Saunders College Publishing.

4. Kissebah, Ahmed H., et al (1982). Relation of body fat distribution to metabolic complications of obesity. Journal of Clinical Endoerinology and Metabolism 82:254.

5. Krishna, Gopal (1988). Multivariate analysis of obese and non-obese college men and its implication in training. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Jiwaji University, Gwalior

6. Lizette, Sanchez-Lugo (1993). The effects of a diet-exercise program on blood lipids, blood pressure, and diabetes indices in relation to body fat and body fat distribution. Dissertation Abstracts International 01:175-B.

7. Mathews, Donalk K., and Fox Edward, L. (1976). The Physiological basis of Physical Education. 2nd ed. New York: Saunder’s College Publishing.

8. President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports (2002). Physical activity protects against the health risk of obesity. Research Digest 3:12.

9. Rarick, L.G. (1971). Human Growth and Development. New York: H.B. Jounovich Publishers.

10. Shaver, Larry G. (1982). Essentials of Exercise Physiology. Delhi: Surjeet Publishers.

11. Singh, Jagtar (1992). Alterations in C-P index, body composition and anaerobic capacity as a result of similar training programme in males and females. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Jiwaji University, Gawalior.

12. Wilmore, Jack H., and Costill, Danid L. (1999). Physiology of sports and Edercise. 2nd ed. New York: Human Kinetics Publisher.

13. Xavier, F., and Sunyer, P. (1991). Health implication of obesity. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 53:159.


Back To Table of Content

Vol: 1 Issue: 2010