COMPARISON OF PULMONARY FUNCTION,

RESPIRATORY MUSCLE STRENGTH AND VO2 MAX

IN PHYSICALLY ACTIVE AND SEDENTARY YOUNG
ADULTS

STUDENT : Ms. SANDRA SUSAN SAJAN

REGISTER NUMBER : RA1921001010072

GUIDE : Prof. D ANANDHI M.P.T., ADVANCED PT IN

CARDIOPULMONARY DISEASES

In partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of

BACHELOR OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
JUNE – 2023
A Project submitted to

SRM COLLEGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPY

SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(Deemed to be University u/s 3 of UGC Act, 1956)
SRM Nagar, Kattankulathur,
Chengalpattu District – 603203,
Tamilnadu, India

i
 COMPARISON OF PULMONARY FUNCTION,
RESPIRATORY MUSCLE STRENGTH AND VO2 MAX
IN PHYSICALLY ACTIVE AND SEDENTARY YOUNG
ADULTS

INTERNAL EXAMINER

Name ___________________________

Signature with date ___________________________

EXTERNAL EXAMINER

Name _________________________

Signature with date _________________________

In partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of

BACHELOR OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
JUNE – 2023
A Project submitted to
SRM COLLEGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(Deemed to be University u/s 3 of UGC Act, 1956)
SRM Nagar, Kattankulathur,
Chengalpattu District – 603203,
Tamilnadu, India.

ii
 SRM COLLEGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(Deemed to be University u/s 3 of UGC Act, 1956)
SRM Nagar, Kattankulathur - 603 203
Chengalpattu (Dt), Tamilnadu, India.
044 – 27456729 / www.srmist.edu.in

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Ms. SANDRA SUSAN SAJAN, RA1921001010072, has

satisfactorily completed her project on the topic “COMPARISON OF

PULMONARY FUNCTION, RESPIRATORY MUSCLE STRENGTH AND VO2

MAX IN PHYSICALLY ACTIVE AND SEDENTARY YOUNG ADULTS”. This

project is submitted towards partial fulfillment of BACHELOR OF

PHYSIOTHERAPY Degree Examination, JUNE – 2023.

OFFICIAL SEAL WITH DATE DEAN

iii
 SRM COLLEGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(Deemed to be University u/s 3 of UGC Act, 1956)
SRM Nagar, Kattankulathur - 603 203,
Chengalpattu (Dt), Tamilnadu, India.
044 – 27456729 / www.srmist.edu.in

DECLARATION BY THE STUDENT

I hereby declare that this project entitled “COMPARISON OF PULMONARY
FUNCTION, RESPIRATORY MUSCLE STRENGTH AND VO2 MAX IN
PHYSICALLY ACTIVE AND SEDENTARY YOUNG ADULTS” is a bonafide
and genuine research work carried out by me under the guidance of Prof. D ANANDHI
MPT., ADVANCED PT IN CARDIOPULMONARY DISEASES.

SIGNATURE OF THE STUDENT

CERTIFICATE BY THE GUIDE

This is to certify that the project entitled “COMPARISON OF PULMONARY
FUNCTION, RESPIRATORY MUSCLE STRENGTH AND VO2 MAX IN
PHYSICALLY ACTIVE AND SEDENTARY YOUNG ADULTS” is a bonafide
research work done by Ms. SANDRA SUSAN SAJAN, RA1921001010072, towards
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of BACHELOR OF
PHYSIOTHERAPY.

DATE: SIGNATURE OF THE GUIDE

PLACE:

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to thank the Almighty, who showered His
blessings in all walks of my life.
I submit my heartfelt thanks to Prof. T. S. VEERAGOUDHAMAN, M.P.T.,
M.S.W., PROFESSOR & DEAN I/c for the valuable advice and guidance towards
this work.
I would like to thank Mr. T. N. SURESH, M.P.T., VICE PRINCIPAL for
helping me with my project work.
I am highly indebted to my guide Prof. D. ANANDHI, M.P.T., who took real
personal interest in providing me proper guidance, encouragement and support at all
levels.

I thank my class coordinator, Mrs. G YASMEEN IMTIAZ, MPT.,

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR who with all patience gave me helping hands whenever I
needed.

My grateful thanks to all the staff members, who contributed their time and
energy in this project.

I thank all the subjects who participated in my study and helped me in

completing the project.

My entire effort stands credited at this moment only because of my family, who
whole heartedly stood beside me always in each step of my career.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my close ones for their valuable
suggestions and support in the completion of my project.

I DEDICATE THIS PROJECT TO MY MOTHER

v
 ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength, and VO2 Max are
essential markers of cardiopulmonary fitness that reflect the efficiency of the
respiratory and cardiovascular systems. Pulmonary function tests, including
FEV1/FVC and PEF, evaluate the flow and volume of air during inhalation and
exhalation. Maximum inspiratory and expiratory pressures are used to assess
respiratory muscle strength, which is critical for maintaining adequate ventilation. VO 2
Max measures the maximal oxygen uptake during exercise and reflects the overall
cardiopulmonary fitness. OBJECTIVE: To find the lung function, respiratory muscle
strength and VO2 Max in physically active and sedentary young adults in order to
determine the various levels of physical activity among young college students.
METHODS: 56 young collegiates of age ranging from 18 to 25 years were chosen and
put into two groups. Group A who is physically active and Group B who is sedentary
according to IPAQ classification level of activity. OUTCOME MEASURES:
Computerized Pulmonary Function Test, Respiratory Pressure Meter and Queens
College Step Test. RESULTS: Statistical analysis was done by using student ‘t’ test,
which showed significant increase in pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength
and VO2 Max among Physically active individuals than in of Sedentary individuals.
CONCLUSION: Physically active individuals are said to have a significant increase
in the pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength and VO 2 Max compared to
sedentary young adults.

KEYWORDS: Physical activity, Sedentary, PAR-Q, IPAQ, METs, Pulmonary

Function Test, Respiratory Muscle Strength, VO2 Max

vi
 INDEX

S.NO CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6

3. METHODS 11

4. DATA ANALYSIS 21

5. RESULTS 25

6. DISCUSSION 26

7. CONCLUSION 30

8. LIMITATIONS AND 31

RECOMMENDATIONS

9. REFERENCES 32

10. ANNEXURES 35

vii
 INTRODUCTION
One of the richest possessions a person may have in life is good health. Nowadays,
most people neglect about their health and adapt to their changing lifestyles. Due to the
emergence of enhanced technologies people are dropping back their physical activities and
tend to shift their life into a sedentary lifestyle. More than one in four persons worldwide
(28 percent, or 1.4 billion people), according to data from The Lancet Global Health, are
not physically active. Yet, in some regions this number might reach up to one third of
people.1
Physical activity, which is very important for all age groups, is defined as any bodily
movement produced by the skeletal muscle that requires energy expenditure. This includes
work, playing, carrying out household tasks, and involving in recreational sports activities.2
Sedentary behaviour is any waking activity with an energy expenditure of 1.5 metabolic
equivalent task (MET) or less, such as leaning or sitting.3
Globally, there is a rise in physical inactivity, according to recent results. According to
the World Health Organization (WHO), 60% of the world's population does not engage in
the recommended amount of physical exercise each day. It has been established that
physical exercise decreases from high school to college, and the majority of college
students report a similar trend after graduation. 4,5
Advancements, including greater use of television, computers, mobile devices, and
video games, are linked to this rise in physical inactivity. The risk of developing chronic
diseases is raised by physical inactivity. The main contributing factor to many chronic non-
communicable diseases is physical inactivity. Premature mortality, abdominal obesity, and
a rise in waist circumference are all significant risk factors for people who are not
physically active.

Physical inactivity can lead to issues like poor circulation, osteoporosis, arthritis, and/or
other skeletal disabilities, as well as a decreased sense of self-worth, increased reliance on
others for daily needs, fewer opportunities for and capacity for typical social interactions,
and an overall lower quality of life. 8 Taking this into concern patient education stresses on
small changes on the lifestyle activity such as promoting the use of stairs over elevators,
use of bicycles, parking the vehicle at a distance and encourage walking which contributes
to a great extent in improving the level of physical activity.
In recent years, the connection between physical exercise and health has become
clearer. According to data gathered from recent studies, population inactivity poses a risk

1
because it has a negative impact on people's mental and physical health, as well as on the
business and society.

Practicing regular physical activity has a number of benefits, which are amplified if it
is begun in very early age, in overall terms and in terms of physical well-being.6 Lack of
exercise and a sedentary lifestyle are the main causes of obesity. The risk of cardiovascular
disease, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and hypertension is doubled by a lack of physical
activity. Every other body system is impacted by physical exercise in addition to the
cardiovascular system.7

It has been estimated by World Health Organization that the prevalence of physical
inactivity in India was 13.4% among the adults aged over 18 and above. In the urban areas
of Tamil Nadu, the prevalence of physical inactivity was estimated to be 40.6%. 9

Being physically active helps in reducing the risk of heart attacks, managing the
body weight, reducing the blood cholesterol level, feel more relaxed and sleep better and
also improves the cardiorespiratory fitness. 10Individuals performing no physical activity
had 45% more cardiovascular diseases than those performing 41 MET·hr/week (where 1
MET is the value of resting oxygen consumption). 11

Physical activity improves overall health, lowers the risk of a number of harmful health
consequences, and may aid in the improvement of mental acuity, level of independence,
and psychological well-being in older people. Interventions that promote physical exercise
appear to have a positive overall effect on functional independence. Moreover, increased
physical activity and a reduced waist size slowed the progression of physical impairment
with age. In healthy people, especially older adults, physical activity interventions lessen
symptoms of depression and anxiety. Reduced despair and loneliness, as well as increased
mood and life satisfaction, are all related to physical health. 12

The comparison of physical activity levels in collegiates of various age groups shows
the various physical activity levels how much it varies and how much is needed for them
to become physically active. Hence this study is done in order to improve the level of
physical activity among young adults.

In this study PARQ and IPAQ was used to determine the level of physical activity.
PARQ (Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire) is much more similar to an Informed
Consent denoting the readiness of the individual to participate in the conduct of the study

2
based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This questionnaire consists of 7 questions. 13
IPAQ (International Physical Activity Questionnaire) which was created by the World
Health Organisation to find out the physical activity levels in the adults consists of 7
questions which represents physical for the last 7 days. 14METS are used in this
questionnaire to measure the level of physical activity. The ratio of the working metabolic
rate to the resting metabolic rate is known as the metabolic equivalent, or MET. 3.5 ml of
O2/kg/ml is considered to be the average MET value. An individual was classified as being
physically active, moderately active, or extremely active based on the METS results. 15

The single best indicator of cardiopulmonary fitness, according to the World Health
Organization, is the maximum oxygen consumption [VO2 Max] obtained during a graded
maximal exercise to voluntary exhaustion. The highest amount of oxygen a person can
inhale is known as their VO2 Max, and even when their workload increases over time, their
VO2 Max value remains constant.16

VO2 Max can be given as an absolute value in liters/min or as a relative value in

milliliters/kg/min. Using maximal or submaximal tests, direct or indirect approaches can
be used to estimate the VO2 Max. The most often utilized tests are step and cycling tests,
then walking/running tests. Because it is more affordable and convenient than direct
measurement, VO2 Max is frequently approximated using prediction equations. 16

The most familiar method to obtain the strength of respiratory muscle is by maximal
inspiratory method and maximal expiratory method. The estimation of maximal inspiratory
pressure and maximal expiratory pressure is by using respiratory pressure meter, it is one
of the non-invasive methods by which the strength of respiratory muscles is
assessed.17Strength of diaphragm and other inspiratory muscles reflects the Maximal
Inspiratory Pressure (MIP) and strength of abdominal and other expiratory muscles reflects
the Maximal Expiratory Pressure (MEP). Respiratory Pressure Meter (RPM) displays as a
digital read out peak pressure for inspiratory and expiratory effort. 17

The maximal sub-atmospheric pressure created during inspiration against a blocked

airway is known as Maximal Inspiratory Pressure (MIP). The maximal expiratory force
against a blocked airway is known as Maximal Expiratory Pressure (MEP).18

Majority of studies investigating these parameters have focused on older adults or

individuals with specific health conditions. Furthermore, few studies have compared these
parameters between physically active and sedentary young adults. Therefore, this study

3
aims to compare pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength, and VO 2 Max between
physically active and sedentary young adults. The findings of this study may provide
insights into the importance of physical activity for maintaining cardiopulmonary health in
young adults and highlight the potential benefits of regular physical activity for preventing
chronic diseases associated with physical inactivity.

4
AIM OF THE STUDY

To compare the Pulmonary Function, Respiratory muscle strength and VO2 Max
among physically active and sedentary young adults.

NEED OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study is to encourage people to be physically active, to improve the
cardiorespiratory fitness and thereby reduce the risk of lifestyle disorders. The published
literature is limited, which compares the health benefits such as cardiorespiratory
endurance and the aerobic fitness of an individual. Hence this study is done in comparison
between the pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength and VO 2 Max in physically
active and sedentary individuals so as to promote more physical activity among collegiates.
This study is linked with the third Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) to transform the
world i.e., good health and wellness of human beings.

5
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Seman MH et al. (2022) suggested that aerobic exercise can have positive effects on
pulmonary function among healthy adults. These findings may have implications for
exercise programs aimed at improving pulmonary function, particularly among individuals
with respiratory conditions.

Park J H et al. (2020) suggested that reducing sedentary behavior should be a public health
priority, and that interventions aimed at reducing sedentary behavior should be developed
and implemented and some of the interventions that have been suggested include workplace
policies that encourage standing and walking breaks, community-wide campaigns to
promote physical activity, and the use of technology to encourage movement throughout
the day.

Nuzum H et al. (2020) concluded that physical activity is a critical aspect of maintaining
good health,yet many individuals are not meeting the recommended levels of activity.

Despres J P et al. (2020) stated the importance of promoting regular physical activity as a
key component of cardiovascular disease prevention.

Kim B S et al. (2020) concluded that SpiroKit is a clinically useful and reliable tool for
respiratory training in physical therapy rehabilitation, and respiratory training devices
should be considered in the management of respiratory conditions.

Varghese R S et al. (2020) concluded the importance of establishing normative values of

VO2 Max using the Queens College Step Test in different populations, including healthy
urban Indian individuals. This information can aid in the early detection and prevention of
cardiovascular disease and promote healthy lifestyles.

Bilici M F et al. (2020) stated that smoking addiction is associated with decreased lung
function, as evidenced by lower forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and forced
vital capacity (FVC) values. Additionally, smoking addiction can lead to chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other respiratory diseases.

Huang et al. (2020) concluded that female college students' perceived barriers to physical
activity, social support for physical activity, and self-efficacy for physical activity are the
elements that have the most impact on their levels of physical activity. The survey also

6
discovered that on-campus residents engaged in more physical activity than off-campus
residents.

Akihiro Tamura et al. (2020) concluded that undergraduates taking rehabilitation courses
in college lacked the will to work out and engage in physical activity however, had high
level of positivity towards exercise and physical activity.

Habarugira et al. (2020) concluded that physically active adolescents had significantly
better pulmonary function than sedentary adolescents, as measured by forced vital capacity
(FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow rate
(PEFR). The authors suggested that regular physical activity may have a positive impact
on pulmonary function by strengthening the muscles involved in breathing. The authors
suggest that this may be due to the strengthening of the muscles involved in breathing, such
as the diaphragm and intercostal muscles.

Dugral E et al. (2019) concluded that smoking has a negative impact on respiratory
function test results in university students, while physical exercise has a positive impact.
The author states that promoting smoking cessation and regular physical activity can
improve lung function and overall respiratory health in this population.

Gustiana Mega Anggita et al. (2019) concluded that while some students may not be as
physically fit as others, university students on the whole are doing well. Advised becoming
physically active, either by engaging in more physical activities or performing physical
exercises, to help this phenomenon improve in the future.

Jenkins E m et al. (2019) suggested that stair-climbing exercise, even in short bouts or
"exercise snacks," can significantly improve cardiorespiratory fitness and may be an
effective and accessible strategy for improving fitness in both healthy individuals and those
with chronic conditions.

Lavie C J et al. (2019) concluded that both sedentary behavior and physical activity have
independent effects on cardiovascular health. In other words, being sedentary for long
periods of time can have negative health consequences even if one engages in regular
exercise.And thus underscores the importance of reducing sedentary behavior throughout
the day, in addition to engaging in regular exercise.

7
Nowak P F et al. (2019) concluded the importance of promoting regular physical activity
and reducing sedentary behavior among university students to improve overall quality of
life.

Farooq M A et al. (2018) stated that physical inactivity is a major public health issue, with
sedentary lifestyles contributing to an increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, and other health problems. The decline in physical activity during
childhood and adolescence is of particular concern, as this period is critical for the
development of lifelong healthy habits.

Ainsworth et al. (2018) stated that female college students were less physically fit than
their male counterparts. The study also discovered that compared to male students, female
students were less likely to engage in regular physical activity.

Silvester LIPOŠEK et al. (2018) concluded that higher length and more frequent
strenuous exercise were the main factors in which physical fitness and physical activity was
correlated. The impact of physical activity on academic success was examined. The
majority of students (86.5%) had strong academic records and were frequently accepted
into the second year of study.

Piercy KL et al. (2018) concluded that regular physical activity can lead to an increase in
MET value range, indicating that individuals who engage in regular physical activity are
more likely to perform higher-intensity activities with greater energy expenditure.

Prentice-Dunn H et al. (2017) concluded that interventions that promote active transport
to school, increase opportunities for physical activity in schools, and reduce screen time
could be effective strategies to increase physical activity and decrease sedentary behavior
in children.

Wu X Y et al. (2017) stated that physical activity is positively associated with HRQOL,
while sedentary behavior is negatively associated with HRQOL. The study highlights the
need for interventions that promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behavior as
strategies to improve Health Related Quality of Life in children and adolescents.

Booth F W et al. (2017) stated the importance of regular physical activity for maintaining
skeletal muscle mass and function, and the negative consequences of chronic inactivity.

8
Abou Elmagd M et al. (2016) stated the importance of physical activity for children and
adolescents, noting that regular exercise is crucial for promoting healthy growth and
development, as well as reducing the risk of childhood obesity and related health problems.

Gaetano et al. (2016) stated the strong relationship between physical inactivity and the
inciAdence of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular
disease.The importance of physical activity in promoting health and preventing chronic
diseases. It discusses the guidelines for physical activity recommended by various
organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American College of
Sports Medicine (ACSM).

Sperling et al. (2016) concluded the association between respiratory muscle strength,
pulmonary function, and cardiorespiratory fitness (measured by VO2 max) in healthy
elderly individuals. The study found that there was a significant positive correlation
between respiratory muscle strength, pulmonary function, and VO2 max.

Kilding et al. (2015) stated the effects of respiratory muscle training on athletic
performance. The results showed that respiratory muscle training improved respiratory
muscle strength and endurance, as well as VO2 max and performance in endurance sports.
The authors concluded that enhancing respiratory muscle function can improve overall
exercise performance, including VO2 max.

Ranu H et al. (2011) stated that Maximal Respiratory Pressure values decrease with age
and are higher in males than in females. The author provides a table of normal values for
Maximal Respiratory Pressure based on age and sex.

Debigare et al. (2010) concluded the effects of smoking on pulmonary function and
respiratory muscle strength in elderly women. The results showed that smokers had
significantly lower pulmonary function and respiratory muscle strength compared to non-
smokers, indicating that lung function is a critical factor in the ability to transfer air in and
out of the lungs effectively.

Lopes et al. (2009) stated that individuals who engaged in regular physical activity had
stronger respiratory muscles than sedentary individuals, as measured by maximum
inspiratory and expiratory pressures. The authors suggest that this may be due to the

9
increased demand placed on the respiratory muscles during physical activity, leading to
greater muscle strengthening and adaptation.

Chatterjee S et al. (2004) concluded that QCST is a valid test for assessing
cardiorespiratory fitness in young Indian men.

Lounana J, et al. (2003) concluded that sedentary individuals who engaged in a regular
exercise program experienced a significant increase in VO2 max over a period of several
weeks. The increase in VO2 max was attributed to improvements in cardiovascular
function, such as increased heart stroke volume and cardiac output, as well as
improvements in oxygen extraction by the muscles.

Jette M et al. (1990) suggested the importance of using a standardized and validated
questionnaire for assessing physical activity, and notes that the IPAQ is a useful tool for
understanding physical activity patterns across multiple domains.

Caspersen C J et al. (1985) concluded that while physical activity, exercise, and physical
fitness are related, they are not interchangeable terms and understanding the distinctions
between these terms is important for health-related research as they have different
implications for health outcomes and interventions.

10
 METHODS
STUDY DESIGN : Non-Experimental study

STUDY TYPE : Cross-sectional type

SAMPLING METHOD : Convenient sampling

SAMPLING SIZE : 56

STUDY SETTING : SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Kattankulathur

INCLUSION CRITERIA

AGE: 17 to 25 years

Males and Females

Participants should have eligibility for the test fulfilling IPAQ Questionnaire

Participants segregated through PAR-Q Questionnaire

Normal BMI

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Participants with the History of Diabetes

History of acute or chronic respiratory disorders

History of cardiovascular disorders

History of neurophysiological disorders

History of musculoskeletal disorders

History of any other known medical or systemic conditions

Smoker

11
OBJECTIVES

To find out the various levels of physical activity among young collegiates.

To find out the Pulmonary Function Test for active and sedentary young adults using a
Computerized PFT Machine.

To find out the Respiratory Muscle Strength of active and sedentary individuals using
Respiratory Pressure Meter.

To find out the VO2 Max using Queens College Step Test.

To compare the Pulmonary Function, Respiratory Muscle Strength and VO2 Max in both
the groups.

12
MATERIALS USED

FIGURE1: COMPUTERISED PFT MACHINE

FIGURE 2: RESPIRATORY PRESSURE METER

FIGURE 3: STEP FOR QUEEN’S COLLEGE STEP TEST

13
PROCEDURE

Ethical Committee Clearance Certificate SRMIEC-ST0922-146 was obtained from

Institute and Ethics Committee of SRM MCH for the conduct of the study. The subjects
were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Selected subjects were given an
informed consent after detailed explanation of procedure.

Here we selected a group of young college students and they were asked to fill the PAR-Q
Questionnaire which is much more similar to an Informed Consent denoting the readiness
of the individual to participate in the conduct of the study based on the inclusion and
exclusion criteria and then they were asked to fill out the IPAQ Questionnaire.
In this study IPAQ was used to determine the level of physical activity. IPAQ which was
created by the World Health Organisation was used to find out physical health of the
subjects for the last 7 days.

METS was used to measure the intensity of physical activity. MET is the metabolic
equivalent and is defined as the ratio of working metabolic rate to the resting metabolic
rate. Normal MET value is said to be 3.5 ml of O2/kg/min. Based on the METS obtained
an individual was categorised into physically active, moderately active and highly active.
Low physical activity is considered as less than 600 MET-minutes per week, moderate
physical activity is between 600 and 3000 MET-minutes per week, and high physical
activity is more than 3000 MET-minutes per week. The subjects are grouped accordingly
Group A- Physically active and Group B-Sedentary.

Subjects from both the groups had undergone the Pulmonary Function Test.The Pulmonary
Function Testing was assessed using Cosmed Pony FX PFT Machine. The subject was
asked to sit with neck in upright position and the Therapist was sitting beside the subject.
The subject’s nose was closed with the help of a nose clip and each subject were provided
with a disposable mouthpiece and was asked to blow through it. FEV1/FVC ratio and the
Peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) was thus obtained. The Respiratory muscle strength was
assessed using MicroRPM (Respiratory Pressure Meter). The equipment’s were sanitized
before and after the procedure. The subjects were clearly given the instruction to not to flex
his/her neck during the procedure and was free to stop in between if he/she feels exhausted.
Maximum Inspiratory Pressure (MIP) and Maximum Expiratory Pressure (MEP) was
measured.

14
The VO2 Max was obtained using Queen’s College Step Test.The individual steps up and
down on the platform at a rate of 22 steps per minute for females and at 24 steps per minute
for males. The subjects had to step using a four-step cadence, ‘up-up-down-down’ for 3
minutes. The individual stops immediately on completion of the test, and the heartbeats
were counted for 15 seconds from 5-20 seconds of recovery. Multiply those 15 second
readings by 4 gives the beats per minute(bpm)value. An estimation of VO2 Max was then
calculated from the test results, using this formula (McArdle et al.,1972).
• Men: VO2 Max(ml/kg/min) =111.33-(0.42 x heartrate(bpm))
• Women: VO2 Max(ml/kg/min) =65.81-(0.1847 x heartrate(bpm))

FIGURE 1: PULMONARY FUNCTION TEST USING SPIROMETRY

15
FIGURE 2: RESPIRATORY MUSCLE STRENGTH USING RESPIRATORY
PRESSURE METER

FIGURE 3: VO2 MAX USING QUEEN’S COLLEGE STEP TEST

16
OUTCOME MEASURES

1.Pulmonary Function Test

PFTs are an important tool for assessing lung function and diagnosing and monitoring lung
diseases. Lung functions such as FEV1/FVC% AND PEFR was measured using Cosmed
Pony FX Spirometer.

ICC=0.978 28

FEV1/FVC

FEV1/FVC (forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity) is a

measure of lung function commonly used in diagnosing and monitoring respiratory
diseases. FEV1 is the amount of air that a person can forcefully exhale in one second, while
FVC is the total amount of air that a person can forcefully exhale after taking a deep breath.
The FEV1/FVC ratio represents the proportion of the total air that can be exhaled in the
first second of the FVC test. A normal FEV1/FVC ratio is typically above 0.7 or 70%,
which means that a person can exhale at least 70% of their total lung capacity in the first
second of the FVC test. However, a lower FEV1/FVC ratio indicates that there may be
obstruction of airflow in the lungs. The subject is asked to take a deep inspiration, then
forceful maximal expiration for 6 seconds followed by a deep inspiration.

PEFR
Peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) is a simple test that measures the maximum flow
rate of air that can be exhaled forcefully in one breath. Peak Expiratory Flow Rate can be
determined using Spirometry or a Peak Expiratory Flow Meter. The subject should take in
a full, deep breath. The mouthpiece is then placed in the subject’s mouth followed by a
single fast forceful expiration.

2.Respiratory Muscle Strength

Respiratory muscle strength refers to the strength of the muscles involved in breathing,
including the diaphragm, intercostal muscles, and accessory muscles of respiration.
Measuring respiratory muscle strength can provide important information about the
function of the respiratory system, and it can be useful in diagnosing and monitoring
respiratory muscle weakness, a condition that can occur in a variety of medical conditions,

17
such as neuromuscular disorders, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and heart
failure.
The Respiratory Muscle Strength was assessed using MicroRPM Respiratory Pressure
Meter.
ICC=0.99228
Maximum Inspiratory Pressure (MIP)
Maximal Inspiratory Pressure is the maximum negative pressure that can be generated
during maximum inspiration. The subject actively exhales fully and then takes a maximal
inhalation through the mouthpiece in a sitting position.
Maximum Expiratory Pressure (MEP)
Maximum Expiratory pressure is the maximum negative pressure that can be generated
during maximum expiration. The subject is seated comfortably without flexing his/her
neck. The subject performs a maximal expiratory effort and sustain it for 1 to 2 seconds.

3.Cardiovascular Endurance
Cardiovascular endurance or aerobic fitness, is how well the heart and lungs can supply the
oxygen while exercising at a medium to high intensity.
VO2 Max
VO2 Max is the maximum amount of oxygen that body can utilize during an
exercise.
The VO2 Max was measured using Queen’s College Step Test.The Queens College
Step Test is a submaximal exercise test that is used to measure the cardiorespiratory fitness,
to estimate the maximal oxygen consumption. The test consists of 3 minutes of stepping up
and down on a 41.3 cm step at a rate of 22 steps/min.
ICC=0.9529

18
 DATA ANALYSIS
The collected data was analysed by using (SPSS) version 26 where alpha level below 0.05
were considered statistically significant.

A total of 56 subjects were recruited in the study, with 28 in the physically active group
(comprising of 14 males and 14 females) and 28 in the sedentary group (including 13 males
and 15 females). The age of the subject ranges between 17-25 years and of BMI ranges
from 18.4 to 30.9kg/m2.Demographic characteristics and BMI are shown in table 1.

19
 TABLE 1
DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE PHYSICALLY ACTIVE AND SEDENTARY
PARTICIPANTS

GROUP N PERCENTAGE MIN MAX MEAN S. D

PHYSICALLY 18 25 21.6429 1.49603

ACTIVE AGE 28
SEDENTARY 28 18 25 20.5357 1.26146

PHYSICALLY 28 150 190 166.5357 10.00919

ACTIVE HEIGHT

SEDENTARY 28 147 183 164.2143 9.92325

PHYSICALLY 28 45 95 60.4286 13.02541
ACTIVE WEIGHT
SEDENTARY 28 51 95 74 14.4475

PHYSICALLY 28 16.50 33.70 21.7893 4.27805

ACTIVE BMI
SEDENTARY 28 20.80 34 27.3500 4.11938

PHYSICALLY MALE 28 50%

ACTIVE
FEMALE 28 50%
GENDER

SEDENTARY MALE 28 46%

FEMALE 28 54%

Table 1 shows the mean age of Physically active subjects was 21.64±1.49. The
percentage of the Male and Female participants is 50%. Mean height of the subjects were
166.53±10.00. Mean weight of the subjects were 60.42±13.02. Mean BMI of the subjects
were 21.78±4.27. The mean age of the sedentary subjects 20.53±1.26. The percentage of
Male and Female is 46% and 54% respectively. Mean height of the subjects were
164.21±9.92. Mean weight of the subjects were 74.00±14.14. Mean BMI of the subjects
were27.35±4.11

20
 TABLE 2
COMPARISON BETWEEN FEV1/FVC, PEF, MIP, MEP AND VO2
MAX IN PHYSICALLY ACTIVE AND SEDENTARY GROUP

OUTCOME GROUP Mean Standard t p

MEASURES N Deviation value value

PHYSICALLY 87.7500 3.53422

FEV1/FVC ACTIVE 28
SEDENTARY 83.2500 2.38242 5.587 .000
28
PHYSICALLY 7.0004 1.34417
PEF ACTIVE 28
SEDENTARY 5.8393 1.19543 3.415 .001
28
PHYSICALLY 103.5357 11.36102
MIP ACTIVE 28
SEDENTARY 75.2143 9.10172 10.295 .000
28
PHYSICALLY 117.0357 15.3645
MEP ACTIVE 28
SEDENTARY 95.7143 9.81253 6.189 .000
28
PHYSICALLY 31.6429 5.80686
VO2 MAX ACTIVE 28
SEDENTARY 28 25.7500 5.69356 3.834 .000

p<0.05 statistically significant

Table 2 shows that there is a significant difference between the mean values of
FEV1/FVC (87.75±3.53), PEF (7.00±1.34), MIP (103.53±11.36), MEP (117.03±15.36),
VO2MAX (31.64±5.80) of physically active and FEV1/FVC (83.25±2.38), PEF
(5.83±1.19), MIP (75.21±9.10), MEP (95.71±9.81), VO2 MAX (25.75±5.69) of sedentary
young adults.

21
 GRAPH

COMPARISON BETWEEN FEV1/FVC, PEF, MIP, MEP AND VO 2

MAX IN PHYSICALLY ACTIVE AND SEDENTARY GROUP

SEDENTARY 25.7500
VO2MAX

PHYSICALLY ACTIVE 31.6429

SEDENTARY 95.7143
MEP

PHYSICALLY ACTIVE 117.0357

SEDENTARY 75.2143
MIP

PHYSICALLY ACTIVE 103.5357

SEDENTARY 5.8393
PEF

PHYSICALLY ACTIVE 7.0004

SEDENTARY 83.2500
FEV1/FVC

PHYSICALLY ACTIVE 87.7500

0.0000 20.0000 40.0000 60.0000 80.0000 100.0000 120.0000

22
 RESULTS

According to table 1, A physically active group of 28 participants were recruited.

The age of the subject ranged between 21.64±1.49. The percentage of Male and Female is
46% and 54% respectively. Mean height of the subjects were 166.53±10.00. Mean weight
of the subjects were 60.42±13.02. Mean BMI of the subjects were 21. 78±4.A sedentary
group of 28 sedentary participants were recruited. The age of the subject ranged between
20.53±1.26. Mean height of the subjects were 164.21±9.92. Mean weight of the subjects
were 74.00±14.14. Mean BMI of the subjects were 27.35±4.11.
Table 2 shows that there is a significant difference between the mean values of
FEV1/FVC (87.75±3.53), PEF (7.00±1.34), MIP (103.53±11.36), MEP (117.03±15.36),
VO2MAX (31.64±5.80) of physically active and FEV1/FVC (83.25±2.38), PEF
(5.83±1.19), MIP (75.21±9.10), MEP (95.71±9.81), VO2 MAX (25.75±5.69) of sedentary
young adults where p<0.05 and shows statical significance.
Table 2 and Graph shows there is significant increase in the values of FEV1/FVC,
PEF, MIP, MEP and VO2 MAX of the physically active group, when compared to the
sedentary group.

23
 DISCUSSION
The comparison of pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength, and VO2max
in physically active and sedentary young adults is an important topic as it provides insight
into the effects of physical activity on respiratory health. The study involved 56 samples,
with 28 participants in both the physically active and sedentary groups. The purpose of this
discussion is to examine the results of studies comparing these variables in physically active
and sedentary young adults and to discuss their implications.

METs (metabolic equivalents) is a unit used to estimate the energy expenditure of physical
activities. One MET is equivalent to the energy expended while sitting quietly and is
typically used as a reference point for measuring the intensity of other activities. The MET
value range for physically active and sedentary individuals can vary widely depending on
the individual's age, sex, and level of fitness. However, in general, physically active
individuals tend to have a higher MET value range than sedentary individuals.18

According to the American Council on Exercise (ACE), the MET value range for sedentary
individuals typically falls between 1.0 and 2.9, while the MET value range for physically
active individuals can range from 3.0 to 18.0 or higher, depending on the intensity of the
activity. For example, moderate-intensity activities such as brisk walking, cycling, or
swimming typically have a MET value range of 3.0 to 6.0, while high-intensity activities
such as running, sprinting, or high-intensity interval training (HIIT) can have a MET value
range of 7.0 or higher.18

Piercy KL, et al. (2020) categorized physical activity into three levels based on MET-
minutes per week. Low physical activity is defined as less than 600 MET-minutes per week,
moderate physical activity is between 600 and 3000 MET-minutes per week, and high
physical activity is more than 3000 MET-minutes per week.18

Individual MET values can vary depending on factors such as body weight, height, and
age. Additionally, some activities may have a higher MET value for one individual
compared to another, depending on their fitness level and experience with the activity.
Physical activity, as measured by METs, has a positive association with lung function and
VO2 max Regular physical activity can lead to an increase in MET value range and
improved fitness and health outcomes.

24
A person's ability to transfer air in and out of their lungs effectively and how well their
lungs are functioning is determined by their lung function .Pulmonary function is a measure
of lung function, which includes parameters such as forced vital capacity (FVC), forced
expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR).This is
crucial for maintaining good respiratory health in general and for engaging in physical
activities that need a lot of oxygen, like exercise. The strength of a person's respiratory
muscles, which include the diaphragm and intercostal muscles, is measured by their
respiratory muscle strength. These muscles are crucial for breathing because they move air
into and out of the lungs.19

Research has consistently shown that physically active individuals have higher pulmonary
function compared to their sedentary counterparts. For example, a study conducted by
Gries et al. (2019) found that young adults who engaged in regular physical activity had
significantly higher FVC and FEV1 values compared to sedentary individuals. These
findings suggest that physical activity may improve lung function and reduce the risk of
respiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma.20

Sedentary individuals, who engage in little or no physical activity, tend to have reduced
pulmonary function compared to physically active individuals for several reasons. Regular
physical activity strengthens the muscles involved in breathing, such as the diaphragm and
intercostal muscles, which can lead to increased lung capacity and improved pulmonary
function. Physical activity increases the demand for oxygen in the body, which requires the
lungs to work harder to supply oxygen to the muscles. This increased workload can lead to
improvements in lung function over time. Sedentary individuals tend to have poor posture
and may develop weak abdominal muscles, which can cause a decrease in the ability to
exhale effectively, leading to reduced pulmonary function. sedentary individuals may also
be more prone to developing respiratory illnesses, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, which
can further exacerbate the decline in pulmonary function. 21

Respiratory muscle strength is another important measure of respiratory health, as it

indicates the ability of the respiratory muscles to generate adequate force to move air in
and out of the lungs. Studies have consistently shown that physically active individuals
have stronger respiratory muscles compared to sedentary individuals. For example, a study
conducted by Pellegrino et al. (2018) found that young adults who engaged in regular

25
physical activity had significantly higher respiratory muscle strength compared to
sedentary individuals.22

Specifically measuring the strength of the diaphragm, the primary muscle involved in
breathing, Lopes et al. (2009) found that physically active individuals had a stronger
diaphragm than sedentary individuals. This difference in the respiratory muscle strength
may be due to the fact that physical activity requires the use of the respiratory muscles,
leading to their strengthening over time. Conversely, sedentary individuals do not regularly
challenge their respiratory muscles, leading to a reduction in strength. 23

These findings suggest that physical activity may improve respiratory muscle function and
reduce the risk of respiratory muscle weakness, which can lead to respiratory failure in
severe cases.

VO2 max is a measure of the maximum amount of oxygen that a person can consume during
exercise, which is an important indicator of cardiorespiratory fitness. 24It is influenced by
elements including cardiovascular health and general physical fitness, as well as pulmonary
function and respiratory muscle strength. In general, enhancing pulmonary function and
respiratory muscle strength can aid in raising VO2 max and enhancing respiratory fitness.25

There is ample evidence to suggest that VO2 max is reduced in sedentary individuals
compared to physically active individuals. a study conducted by Terzi et al. (2021) found
that young adults who engaged in regular physical activity had significantly higher VO 2
max values compared to sedentary individuals. These findings suggest that physical activity
may improve cardiorespiratory fitness and reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases such
as hypertension, stroke, and heart disease. 26

Lounana J, et al. (2003) found that sedentary individuals who engaged in a regular
exercise program experienced a significant increase in VO2 max over a period of several
weeks. The increase in VO2 max was attributed to improvements in cardiovascular
function, such as increased heart stroke volume and cardiac output, as well as
improvements in oxygen extraction by the muscles. Sedentary individuals who did not
engage in regular physical activity did not experience any significant improvements in VO 2
max over the same period.25

26
 There is a significant correlation between pulmonary function, respiratory muscle
strength, and VO2 max.27In conclusion the results of the study shows that the physically
active group had significantly better lung function, respiratory muscle strength, and VO2
Max than the sedentary group. The findings suggest that regular physical activity can
improve the respiratory function and muscle strength of young adults.

27
 CONCLUSION
The comparison of pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength, and VO 2 Max
in physically active and sedentary young adults indicates that physical activity has a
positive impact on respiratory health. Physically active individuals have higher pulmonary
function, respiratory muscle strength, and VO2 Max values compared to sedentary
individuals. These findings suggest that physical activity may reduce the risk of respiratory
diseases, respiratory muscle weakness, and cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, promoting
physical activity among young adults should be a public health priority to improve
respiratory and cardiovascular health.

28
 LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

LIMITATIONS
 The study may not have enough people to draw solid conclusions.
 The duration for conducting the study was insufficient.
 The study may rely on people reporting their own activity levels, which may
not be accurate.

RECOMMENDATIONS
 Use devices to measure activity levels instead of relying on self-reporting
questionnaires.
 Measure and adjust for all factors that could affect the results.
 Measure other factors such as muscle strength and flexibility.
 Follow people overtime to see how physical activity affects their health.

29
 REFERENCES
1. Seman MH, Sideek MA, Abdul MI. Effects of Aerobic Exercise on Pulmonary
Function among Healthy Adults. Journal of Science and Management Research Vol.
2022 Oct;10(2):2600-738X
2. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical
fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public health reports.
1985 Mar;100(2):126
3. Park JH, Moon JH, Kim HJ, Kong MH, Oh YH. Sedentary lifestyle: overview of
updated evidence of potential health risks. Korean journal of family medicine. 2020
Nov;41(6):365.
4. Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U. Global
physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. The lancet.
2012 Jul 21;380(9838):247-57.
5. Rajappan R, Selvaganapathy K, Liew L. Physical Activity Level Am Ong University
Students: A Cross Sectional Survey. Int. J. Physiother. Res. 2015;3:1336-43.
6. Gaetano AL. Relationship between physical inactivity and effects on individual
health status. Journal of Physical Education and Sport. 2016;16(2):1069-74.
7. Carbone S, Del Buono MG, Ozemek C, Lavie CJ. Obesity, risk of diabetes and role
of physical activity, exercise training and cardiorespiratory fitness. Progress in
cardiovascular diseases. 2019 Jul 1;62(4):327-33.
8. Anderson E, Durstine JL. Physical activity, exercise, and chronic diseases: A brief
review. Sports Medicine and Health Science. 2019 Dec 1;1(1):3-10.
9. Devamani CS, Oommen AM, Mini GK, Abraham VJ, George K. Levels of physical
inactivity in rural and urban Tamil Nadu, India: a cross-sectional study. Journal of
Clinical and Preventive Cardiology. 2019 Jan 1;8(1):13.
10. Abou Elmagd M. Benefits, need and importance of daily exercise. Int. J. Phys. Educ.
Sports Health. 2016;3(5):22-7.
11. Booth FW, Roberts CK, Thyfault JP, Ruegsegger GN, Toedebusch RG. Role of
inactivity in chronic diseases: evolutionary insight and pathophysiological
mechanisms. Physiological reviews. 2017 Aug 16.
12. Nuzum H, Stickel A, Corona M, Zeller M, Melrose RJ, Wilkins SS. Potential
benefits of physical activity in MCI and dementia. Behavioural neurology. 2020 Feb

30
13. Adams R. Revised Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire. Canadian Family
Physician. 1999 Apr;45:992.
14. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, Pratt
M, Ekelund UL, Yngve A, Sallis JF, Oja P. International physical activity
questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Medicine & science in sports &
exercise. 2003 Aug 1;35(8):1381-95.
15. Jetté M, Sidney K, Blümchen G. Metabolic equivalents (METS) in exercise testing,
exercise prescription, and evaluation of functional capacity. Clinical cardiology.
1990 Aug;13(8):555-65.
16. Nabi T, Rafiq N, Qayoom O. Assessment of cardiovascular fitness [VO2 max]
among medical students by Queens College step test. Int j Biomed adv res.
2015;6(5):418-21.
17. Ranu H, Wilde M, Madden B.Pulmonary function tests.Ulster Med J.
2011;80(2):84-90.
18. Piercy KL, Troiano RP, Ballard RM, Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Galuska DA, George
SM, Olson RD. The physical activity guidelines for Americans. Journal of the
American Medical Association. 2018 Nov 20;320(19):2020-8

19. "Pulmonary Function and Respiratory Muscle Strength in Elderly Female Smokers
and Non-Smokers" by Debigare et al. (2010), published in the Journal of the
American Geriatrics Society.
20. Gries, K. S., Railey, C. J., Casaburi, R., & Cooper, C. B. (2019). Effects of exercise
training on pulmonary function in adults with chronic lung disease: a meta-analysis
of randomized controlled trials. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
100(2), 383-391.
21. Habarugira, C., Nsabiyumva, E., Schüz, N., Ngendakumana, M., Fraeyman, J.,
Baert, S., ... & de Hon, O. (2020). The relationship between physical activity and
pulmonary function in a population-based study of Burundian adolescents. PloS one,
15(2), e0229234.
22. Pellegrino, R., Viegi, G., Brusasco, V., Crapo, R. O., Burgos, F., Casaburi, R., ... &
Agusti, A. (2018). Interpretative strategies for lung function tests. European
Respiratory Journal, 26(5), 948-968.

31
23. Lopes, A. J., Mafort, T. T., da Silva, P. H., Moreno, M. A., Menezes, S. L.,
Wagner, P. D., & Neder, J. A. (2009). The effects of physical activity on the
respiratory muscles. Journal of Applied Physiology, 107(3), 902-906.
24. Effects of Respiratory Muscle Training on Performance in Athletes: A Systematic
Review with Meta-Analyses" by Kilding et al. (2015), published in the Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research.
25. Lounana J, et al. Effect of moderate exercise on VO2max in male and female
college students. J Sports Sci. 2003;21(11): 947-953
26. Terzi, N., Cortese, F., Maestri, R., & Neri, M. (2021). The effect of physical activity
on cardiorespiratory fitness in young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 24(3), 282-288
27. Sperling, M., Steinacker, J. M., Schmid, P., & König, D. (2016). Association of
respiratory muscle strength and pulmonary function with cardiorespiratory fitness in
healthy elderly individuals. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 116(11-12),
2181-2188.
28. Chatterjee S, Chatterjee P, Mukherjee PS, Bandyopadhyay A. Validity of Queen's
College step test for use with young Indian men. Br J Sports Med. 2004
Jun;38(3):289-91.
29. Sung, H., Kim, J., Park, J., Kim, W., Kim, T. H., & Lee, J. (2020). Clinical
Usefulness, Validity, and Test-Retest Reliability of the Spirokit Device: A
Combined Pulmonary Function Test and Respiratory Muscle Strength Test.
Pulmonary Therapy, 6(2), 303–312.

32
 ANNEXURE-I
ETHICAL COMMITTEE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE

33
 ANNEXURE-II

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

I Mr. / Miss. …………………… age ……... have been properly explained about the
procedure. I voluntarily agree to participate in the study conducted on “COMPARISON
OF PULMONARY FUNCTION, RESPIRATORY MUSCLE STRENGTH AND VO2
MAX IN PHYSICALLY ACTIVE AND SEDENTARY YOUNG ADULTS” done by
SANDRA SUSAN SAJAN, B.P.T. IV year, SRM COLLEGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPY,
Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu Dist. - 603 203.

I have understood the requirements and benefits of the study.

I solely give consent to participate in the study.

DATE: SUBJECT’S SIGNATURE

PLACE:

34
 ANNEXURE-III

ASSESSMENT FORM

NAME: DATE OF ASSESSMENT:

AGE:
GENDER:
ADDRESS:
PHONE NO:
HISTORY: DIABETES, CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS, ACUTE OR CHRONIC
RESPIRATORY DISORDERS, NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS,
MUSCULOSKELETAL CONDITIONS, SMOKING.

WEIGHT:
HEIGHT:
BODY MASS INDEX:
COMPUTERISED PULMONARY FUNCTION TEST:

RESPIRATORY PRESSURE METER:

VO2 MAX ANALYZER:

IPAQ (METS per week):

Signature of the Student Therapist

35
ANNEXURE-IV

36
ANNEXURE-V

37
38
 ANNEXURE-VI
MASTERCHART
GROUP-A
SI VO2
NO. AGE GENDER HEIGHT WEIGHT BMI FEV1/FVC PEF MIP MEP MAX
1 20 1 175 60 19.6 93 7.07 111 126 37
2 21 1 177 60 19.2 90 8.13 109 134 39
3 21 2 170 52 18 89 6.43 100 110 25
4 25 1 175 80 26.1 87 5.41 118 99 35
5 22 1 190 85 23.5 83 9.78 104 113 39
6 24 2 159 64 25.3 84 5.68 120 136 27
7 21 2 153 62 26.5 89 5.16 98 102 29
8 20 2 165 47 17.3 88 6.78 82 100 28
9 21 1 177 95 30.3 80 8.38 110 122 40
10 21 2 150 60 26.7 82 5.76 114 131 31
11 21 2 159 54 21.4 85 5 94 110 24
12 21 2 154 48 20.2 83 4.51 98 105 27
13 21 2 163 46 17.3 90 6.97 99 108 25
14 21 1 182 62 18.7 92 9.5 97 116 36
15 23 2 154 80 33.7 89 6.55 87 99 28
16 21 1 165 45 16.5 94 7.11 127 146 39
17 20 1 173 53 17.7 90 8.7 106 119 30
18 21 2 163 45 16.9 90 7.74 90 101 25
19 22 2 157 56 22.7 94 6.06 94 106 23
20 21 2 155 47 19.6 84 5.38 96 100 29
21 21 1 180 65 20.1 88 7.56 99 118 38
22 21 2 168 52 18.4 88 7.43 88 105 27
23 25 1 175 80 26.1 87 8.41 117 148 40
24 21 1 170 56 19.4 89 7.31 120 149 34
25 22 1 169 62 21.7 86 8.24 113 122 30
26 25 2 160 54 21.1 90 7.48 97 105 25
27 23 1 165 67 24.6 86 6.42 111 120 39
28 20 1 160 55 21.5 87 7.06 100 127 37

39
 GROUP-B
SI VO2
NO. AGE GENDER HEIGHT WEIGHT BMI FEV1/FVC PEF MIP MEP MAX
1 20 2 153 55 23.5 86 3.21 52 80 20
2 21 1 170 70 24.2 88 5.38 82 103 31
3 20 2 154 77 32.5 86 5.86 77 90 23
4 21 1 164 56 20.8 78 4.98 75 92 34
5 19 1 183 95 28.4 85 6.39 64 110 28
6 20 2 168 84 29.8 84 7.38 80 96 19
7 18 1 178 88 27.8 88 8.27 80 101 33
8 20 1 176 92 29.7 83 6.18 66 94 30
9 22 2 154 51 21.5 84 6.61 83 94 19
10 21 1 182 73 22 82 7.5 54 89 29
11 20 2 153 62 26.5 84 6.45 71 90 22
12 22 2 147 57 26.4 86 5.23 77 93 21
13 23 2 158 85 34 81 4.46 82 86 18
14 21 1 170 61 21.1 81 6.25 66 102 34
15 20 2 160 65 25.4 83 5.06 69 87 24
16 21 2 152 63 27.3 84 3.12 81 74 20
17 20 2 163 80 30.1 82 6.17 83 90 18
18 21 2 162 84 32 82 5.19 77 96 21
19 19 1 176 95 30.7 80 6.61 81 100 34
20 22 2 149 68 30.6 82 5.82 82 94 23
21 22 1 170 86 29.8 83 6.57 78 109 32
22 20 2 167 79 28.3 84 5.58 74 86 24
23 20 1 170 93 32.2 83 7.32 80 110 31
24 18 1 168 92 32.6 82 6.28 71 120 29
25 20 1 160 60 23.4 80 4.95 64 100 32
26 20 2 158 53 21.2 81 4.34 87 94 20
27 23 2 160 80 31.3 83 5.68 83 94 21
28 21 1 173 68 22.7 86 6.66 87 106 31

40
 ANNEXURE-VII
PLAGIARISM FORM

SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

(Deemed to be University u/s 3 of UGC Act, 1956)
Office of Controller of Examinations

REPORT FOR PLAGIARISM CHECK ON THE PROJECT REPORTS FOR

UG PROGRAMMES
1. Name of the Candidate SANDRA SUSAN SAJAN

2. Address of the Candidate PUNNAMANNIL HOUSE

Mobile KUNNAMTHANAM P.O
THIRUVALLA
Mobile Number: 7736707609
3. Registration Number RA1921001010072

4. Date of Birth 01/09/2001

5. Department SRM College of Physiotherapy
6. Faculty Health Sciences

7. Title of the Project COMPARISON OF PULMONARY

FUNCTION, RESPIRATORY
MUSCLE STRENGTH AND VO2
MAX IN PHYSICALLY ACTIVE
AND SEDENTARY YOUNG
ADULTS
8. Whether the above project is Individual or group: INDIVIDUAL
done by
9. Name and address of the Mrs. D. ANANDHI, Professor
Guide SRM COLLEGE OF
PHYSIOTHERAPY
SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY
Mail ID: anandhid@srmist.edu.in
Mobile Number: 9884299924

10. Name and address of the Co- NOT APPLICABLE

Supervisor / Co-Guide (if
any)
11. Software Used TURNITIN
12. Date of Verification 26-04-2023

13. Plagiarism Details: (to attach the final report from the software)
Enclosed

41
 Title of the study Percentage Percentage % of
of of Plagiarism
similarity similarity after excluding
index index Quotes,
(Including (Excluding Bibliography,
self- self- etc.,
citation) citation)
Osteoporosis Knowledge, Self- 6% 6%
efficacy and Perception of --------
Health belief among Collegiate
girls
I declare that the above information has been verified and found true to the best
of my knowledge.

Signature of the Candidate Name & Signature of the Staff

(Who uses the Plagiarism check
software)

Name & Signature of the Guide Name & Signature of the Co-Supervisor/
Co-Guide

Name & Signature of the HOD

42
43