Search

Background. Yoga Empowers Seniors Study (YESS) quantified physical demands associated with yoga performance using biomechanical methods. This study evaluated the efficacy of the program on physical function outcomes.Methods. Twenty community-dwelling older adults aged 70.7 ± 3.8 years attended biweekly 60-minute Hatha yoga classes for 32 weeks. Four domains of the physical measurements including (1) functional performance, (2) flexibility, (3) muscle strength, and (4) balance were taken at the baseline, 16-week and 32-week time points. Repeated-measures ANOVA omnibus tests and Tukey’s post hoc tests were employed to examine the differences in each outcome variable across the 3 time points.Results. Improved timed chair stands (p<0.01), 8-foot up and go (p<0.05), 2-min step test (p<0.05), and vertical reach (p=0.05) performance were evident. Isometric knee flexor strength (p<0.05) and repetitions of the heel rise test (p<0.001) also increased following the 32-week intervention. Both flexibility and balance performance remained unchanged.Conclusions. Significant improvements in physical function and muscle-specific lower-extremity strength occur with the regular practice of a modified Hatha yoga program designed for seniors. These adaptations corresponded with the previously reported biomechanical demands of the poses.

Yoga is considered especially suitable for seniors because poses can be modified to accommodate practitioners’ capabilities and limitations. In this study, biomechanical assessments on healthy seniors ( 𝑛 = 2 0 ; 7 0 . 1 ± 3 . 8 yr) were used to quantify the physical demands, (net joint moments of force [JMOFs] and muscular activation in the lower extremities) associated with the performance of 3 variations (introductory, intermediate, advanced) of 2 classical Hatha yoga poses – Tree and One-Leg Balance (OLB). ANOVA and Cohen's- d were used to contrast the postural variations statistically. The advanced (single-limb, without additional support) versions were hypothesized to generate the greatest demands, followed by the intermediate (single-limb [Tree] and bilateral-limb [OLB] with support) and introductory (bilateral-limb) versions. Our findings, however, suggest that common, long-held conceptions about pose modifications can be counter-intuitive. There was no difference between the intermediate and advanced Tree variations regarding hip and knee JMOFs in both the sagittal and frontal planes ( 𝑃 = 0 . 1 3 –0.98). Similarly, OLB introductory and intermediate variations induced sagittal JMOFs that were in the opposite direction of the classic advanced pose version at the hip and knee ( 𝑃 . 0 0 1 ; 𝑑 = 0 . 9 8 –2.36). These biomechanical insights provide evidence that may be used by instructors, clinicians and therapists when selecting pose modifications for their yoga participants.