Latest news with #sittingrisingtest
Medscape
3 days ago
- Health
- Medscape
Where Do You Stand on the Sitting-Rising Test?
Medscape recently published an article mentioning our latest research on physical fitness and overall health. In this paper, we described significant association between low scores on the sitting-rising test (SRT) and higher mortality due to natural and cardiovascular causes in men and women aged 46-75 years. Medscape readers posted several interesting and pertinent comments about the findings, which deserve a response. But before providing my thoughts about these comments, let's go back in time for a bit of context. The Evolution of Fitness Metrics I was a teenager when I first read the book Aerobics , by Dr Kenneth Cooper. Motivated to try out what I had learned, I convinced our high-school PE teacher to apply Cooper's 12-minute test to our class by running laps around the basketball court to estimate aerobic fitness. A few years later (1974), when entering medical school, I was fortunate to have my VO 2 effectively measured in a maximal test undertaken in the university's exercise physiology laboratory. Soon I was working in the same lab as a research assistant. It did not take too long to realize that fitness involved more than 'just' aerobic capacity. I first studied flexibility and proposed the Flexitest as an assessment tool to evaluate the maximal physiologic passive range of motion in several joint movements. But it was only in the late 1990s, after several brainstorming sessions with my wife, Denise Sardinha (who holds a PhD in physical education), and many trials, that the SRT became ready for application. For scientific purposes, my 1999 publication describing the SRT established its birth date. Anatomy of the Sitting-Rising Test Teaching and mentoring graduate students and practicing sports and exercise medicine in CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, has provided me with the opportunity to experiment with the SRT in different scenarios and types of populations, and to formally determine its concurrent validity and interobserver/intraobserver reliability. In July 1998, we formally introduced the assessment as part of the CLINIMEX evaluation protocol and, since then, we have safely applied it to over 9000 individuals ranging in age from 6 to 102 years with a wide variety of clinical and fitness-related conditions. The CLINIMEX exercise cohort has provided us the opportunity to propose sex- and age-reference data from our assessment tools and, in combination with the official data from the state, to conduct several observational studies on nonaerobic fitness and mortality. From its birth in 1999 to now, the SRT has emerged as a tool to simultaneously assess all nonaerobic fitness components — muscle strength and power, flexibility, balance, and body composition — and SRT performance across these components has proven to be a significant predictor of mortality. The main features of the SRT are: It's safe, simple, and quick to apply. The protocol of evaluation is well standardized. The evaluator has standardized verbal instructions to present to test-takers. Scoring is simple (0-10 scale), and even self-scoring can be reliable for many adults. Scores are easily understood by the individual being tested. Scores are reliable and validly assess nonaerobic fitness. No equipment is needed to perform the test or assess the result. Time does not need to be measured and speed of execution is not a factor. The test can be performed by people of any age, from preschoolers to the super-aged. The limitations and contraindications for its application are clearly specified. Good scientific evidence supports its association with mortality. Traditionally, men have had greater strength and power than women, but women tend to be more flexible than men, which somewhat balances scores for men and women in similar age groups. Responding to Reader Reactions I'll now address some additional issues brought by Medscape readers. 'What information does the score add? Compared to vital signs, clinical impressions, medical history, executive function, and other clinical measures, is there additional value in the score? Compared to grip strength, serum albumin, or creatinine, does the new score improve reliable estimation of mortality risk? I would like to know more before I ask my patients to sit on the floor.' Nonaerobic fitness does have prognostic implications for survival in middle-aged and older adults who were able to be evaluated by the SRT, even after controlling for several clinical covariates, such as presence of coronary artery disease, arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, and diabetes. The hazard ratio obtained with SRT scores exceeds those obtained with each one of the components of nonaerobic fitness in our other studies, and it is by far higher than those relating to many of the classical risk factors or basic clinical signs (eg, resting heart rate), making the SRT a very powerful clinical tool. Indeed, I have suggested several times in lectures and interviews that the SRT can be easily incorporated into all health consultations. "None had physical or clinical limitations that restricted their participation in the fitness tests." As with most studies using fitness tests (eg, treadmill studies), we have excluded those with major locomotor or neurologic limitations from our mortality studies. However, other researchers found the SRT clinically useful for some specific cases, such as post-total knee arthroplasty, multiple sclerosis, or chronic stroke. Although we have not specifically studied healthspan, health-related quality of life, or autonomy, in my clinical experience scores on the SRT are strongly related to a better or positive profile in these areas. "I think that cultures where people squat often would excel at this. Not so much for people who were raised to sit in chairs their entire lives." Of course, our latest study has several limitations, as it was a single-center study and restricted to a specific population. Crossing the legs (or ankles) to sit and to rise is not mandatory, but most individuals feel that this is the best way to perform the SRT. Some individuals, especially young children, can prefer to sit down without crossing their legs and do very well with it; this is perfectly OK with the protocol. I agree that people in Asian cultures will likely have more facility to obtain comparable higher SRT scores. Squatting and sitting on the floor seems to be much easier and common to some specific populations in Asia and, coincidentally or not, they tend to live longer. "Yet another 'test' which proves that physically fit people tend to live longer — something doctors haven't known for the past 100 years!" A final thought about how the SRT compares with other 'similar' fitness tests. The 'five times sit-to-stand test' (FTSTS test), presumably first proposed in 1985, is quite well known and similar assessments have been advocated by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, several relevant issues differentiate the two tests. The FTSTS test requires a 'standard height' chair and an evaluator trained to adequately and precisely time the execution of the tasks with a stopwatch, which makes it more complicated to administer and introduces potential for error. The SRT is also much simpler to score and interpret, as the FTSTS depends on mean power in five executions. The FTSTS does not depend much on body flexibility or balance, while SRT scoring is very much influenced by these components of nonaerobic fitness. And importantly, no situation in daily life demands an individual stand and sit in a chair five times as fast as possible, while sitting and rising from the floor at 'natural speed' is a common action that we learn early and routinely practice over the course of our life. Beauty in Simplicity We all know physicians have a large array of advanced clinical tools at their disposal, including imaging, laboratory testing, and genetic testing. Over the years, I have studied, admired, and used sophisticated technology, as appropriate, for diagnosing and prognosing in my medical practice. I am fully receptive to these concerns and understand how challenging it can be to recognize that a simple test requiring zero equipment has significant utility in identifying middle-aged and older individuals who are at higher risk for premature death. However, I urge readers to remember the amazing (and likely unreplaceable) merits of observing and examining the patient. These "basics" are a foundational pillar of medicine. The SRT is another great example of how a simple, yet science-backed, test can be so informative and powerful. So, why don't you try it? What is your SRT score? Get your friends and family to join in and compare their SRT scores to sex- and age-reference values. Perhaps after getting acquainted with the SRT, you will consider including it as an assessment tool in your daily clinical practice.
Yahoo
31-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
This mobility test takes just seconds — and it could predict how well you'll age
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. A recent study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology has brought a surprisingly simple test into the spotlight. It is called the sitting-rising test. Can you sit down on the floor and then stand back up again, without using your hands, arms, knees or the nearest bit of furniture for support? Researchers found that people who could do this with little to no assistance were more likely to live longer than those who struggled. The test gives you a score out of 10, taking away points each time you use a hand or knee to steady yourself. Scoring low was associated with a greater risk of earlier mortality during the study period. But before you start stretching on the living room rug, let's break down what this test is really measuring and how it could help you take stock of your overall health. Why this matters to you The sitting-rising test measures more than just mobility. It also challenges your strength, balance, and coordination, which are important movement skills you use every day without perhaps realizing. Whether you have stood up while holding a toddler or gotten up after working on flat-pack furniture, your whole body needs to work smoothly together. As we get older, moving with confidence and control becomes more and more important. Good balance and strength help reduce the risk of falls, make it easier to stay active, and help you maintain your independence. So, how easily you can get off the floor now could give you a glimpse of how capable and mobile you are likely to be in the years ahead. How to try the test Clear a bit of floor space and begin by standing. You will then cross one leg behind the other and lower yourself down to a seated position on the floor. Then return to standing the same way. Try not to use your hands, knees or arms for support. Each time you do, subtract one point from your score out of 10. Scoring seven or above is considered good. While anything lower might suggest an area worth improving. But don't panic if you don't pass with flying colors. This test is based on just one study, and while the results are interesting, it is not the be all and end all of your health. This is simply a quick way to spot potential areas to work on so you can move more comfortably and feel stronger as you age. How to improve your score If your hips feel stiff, your balance is a little off, or your legs don't feel as strong as they used to, that can be a helpful place to begin. You are not alone in feeling that way, and the good news is that there are gentle ways to rebuild strength and confidence in how you move. Functional strength workouts that focus on the legs and core can gradually help you feel more stable and supported. Likewise, adding short mobility sessions may ease stiffness and make everyday movement feel more comfortable. You might also find that something like yoga works well, as it combines balance, flexibility and strength in a way that can be adapted to your needs. We have tested some of the best yoga mats to help make getting started a little easier. They are, of course, great for yoga practice, but also provide a comfortable and supportive base for all kinds of workouts and floor exercises. More from Tom's Guide Do ginger shots actually work? I took one every day for a week to find out How running for 75 minutes a week could help you live longer — and feel younger Forget hour-long workouts — new study says this 5-minute routine improves your strength and mental health
Yahoo
07-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
This Viral, At-Home Fitness Test Claims to Predict Longevity—but There's a Catch
Dimensions/Getty Images New blood tests, scans, and fitness trackers that purport to predict longevity are rolling out all the time, but if you've scrolled TikTok recently, you might be surprised to see a much lower-tech way getting some buzz: how well you fare in simply trying to haul your butt off the floor. It's all based on the takeaway from a study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology that's been making the rounds. In it, researchers had more than 4,000 people do something they dubbed the 'sitting-rising' test and then followed up with them for over a decade. They found a link between how easily people were able to get up off the floor and how long they lived. The task sounds simple, but, as I learned firsthand, it's really not. To get a perfect score on the test, you need to be able to get from a position on the floor—usually cross-legged—to standing without using a hand, elbow, or knee to help. As a former competitive athlete who can't say no to a challenge, I needed to try this (and gain a perfect score) once it came across my FYP. To my surprise, it was hard. While I was able to get it done, I had to give myself a mental pep talk before each attempt. Pulling this test off is trickier than it sounds—it requires a combination of strength, balance, and flexibility, and I struggle to even touch my toes. So that made me wonder: How legit is it, really, in predicting your, um, ultimate demise? Does bombing the test mean you're going to keel over any second? I checked in with longevity experts and fitness pros to find out. One of the benefits of the sitting-rising test is you can do it right at home: Sit on the floor with your legs crossed in front of you and then try to get back up unassisted. The goal is to do this with as little support as possible, test inventor and lead study author Claudio Gil S Araújo, MD, a sports and exercise physician from the Exercise Medicine Clinic Clinimex in Rio de Janeiro, tells SELF. (Check out this handy YouTube video Dr. Araújo and his fellow researchers created to break it down in more detail.) The test is scored from zero to 10, with points assigned for sitting and rising added together. You'll be docked a point for each knee, hand, or forearm you use during the test, along with half-points if you're unsteady (say, you stumble when you get up). 'If you're an eight, why did you lose a point? It may mean that you used one hand to sit and one hand to rise,' Dr. Araújo says. In the study, the researchers discovered a link between how well people scored on the test and their risk of dying during a follow-up of about 12 years. In all, about 16% of the participants died during that period—but only 4% of folks who aced the test with a perfect 10 did so. (On the other end of the spectrum, people who got a four or less had a death rate of 42% during that time.) Okay, but…why? The test measures a few different things that are linked to better health and longevity, study co-author Jonathan Myers, PhD, a clinical professor at Stanford University and a health research scientist at the Palo Alto VA Health Care System, tells SELF. 'When we think of 'fitness,' people usually think of 'aerobic' or cardiorespiratory fitness,' he says. 'Over the last three decades or so, cardiorespiratory fitness has become recognized as a powerful predictor of health outcomes—in many studies, it is even more powerful than the traditional risk factors such as smoking, hypertension, or [high cholesterol].' Cardiorespiratory fitness is important, sure—it's considered a strong indicator of overall health, along with being linked to a lower risk of developing certain diseases. But fitness is more broad than that, and includes things like strength and balance, Dr. Myers says. Strength has been shown to help with daily living (think: being able to carry your own groceries), while balance helps to protect against falls, Dr. Araújo explains. These skills are important for longevity, and they're something that Hannah Koch, PT, DPT, physical therapist at Michigan State University Health Care, tells SELF she checks with older patients, along with their range of motion. The sitting-rising test looks at strength, power, and balance, all in one move. So basically, you're getting more bang for your buck, looking at all of these factors at once. Added bonus: It can also give some insight on your cardiovascular health, Jennifer Wong, MD, cardiologist and medical director of Non-Invasive Cardiology at MemorialCare Heart and Vascular Institute at Orange Coast Medical Center in Fountain Valley, California, tells SELF. 'One could not do this after certain types of strokes or if too weak from poor overall health,' she adds. While the test is predictive, it's by no means perfect: There are some flaws with it. 'The test does not identify the underlying cause of poor performance,' Anna A. Manns, PT, DPT, lead physical therapist at University Hospital in New Jersey, tells SELF. Meaning, it can't tell if you struggle with getting up due to joint pain, an injury, or the fact that you went hard at the gym yesterday—and those factors don't necessarily have an impact on your longevity. It's also possible to game the test, say, by 'compensating with upper-body movement or momentum by using arm swings or trunk movement to 'cheat' the test,' Dr. Mann says, which would 'mask true lower-limb weakness.' The test also only looks at lower-body function and core strength, so it doesn't gauge your overall fitness, upper-body strength or endurance, 'all of which are important for full functional capacity,' she adds. While the sitting-rising test has a link with longevity, there are plenty of others that healthcare providers use regularly. Simple hand-grip tests, which measure grip strength, are a 'powerful predictor of mortality,' Dr. Myers says. Case in point: A 2015 study published in The Lancet found that grip strength was better at predicting someone's odds of dying from heart disease or other causes during the follow-up than systolic blood pressure, which is usually used to gauge cardiovascular health. Balance tests, like the ability to stand on one leg for 10 seconds or longer, can also be helpful, Dr. Myers says. Koch also flags the Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (5TSTS) as a useful way to check a person's lower-body strength and balance. It's similar to the sitting-rising test, but has people get up from a chair versus the floor five different times. The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, which has people get up from a chair, walk a short distance, turn around, walk back, and sit back down while being timed, is useful too, says Manns. 'Together, these tests provide a patient picture of overall physical function and longevity,' Manns says. That said, they're still only a part of the overall picture of your health. There's no reason to get down on yourself if you don't do well on the sitting-rising test—not getting a perfect 10 on the sitting-rising test certainly doesn't mean you're doomed. But it could clue you in on areas of fitness to work on, Dr. Araújo says. That may mean working on balance training, flexibility, or building power. 'This helps a lot to get people motivated,' Dr. Araújo says. Dr. Myers agrees that your mobility, strength, flexibility, and balance can usually be improved with practice and training. 'Individuals who don't perform well on these tests can improve their performance by strengthening lower body muscles, and specific exercises can be targeted to improve flexibility, balance, gait, and mobility,' he says. Albert Matheny, CSCS, cofounder of SoHo Strength Lab, suggests focusing on things like squats, single-leg exercises like lunges, and even balancing on one leg to hit these areas. It's also important to remember that these tests are only part of the puzzle: There are a bunch of health-promoting behaviors out there that have nothing to do with how well you can get up off the floor—or even how well you move in general. While physical activity is important, other things, like eating a high-quality diet, minimizing stress, getting plenty of sleep, and adopting other healthy lifestyle habits like avoiding smoking and minimizing alcohol, also come in handy. Together, these can help you be your healthiest self. 'The sitting-rising test is a good screening tool,' Dr. Araújo says. 'There's a lot we can do to move forward after that.' Related: 6 Daily Habits Doctors Say Will Help You Live Longer 5 Ways Strong Friendships Can Benefit Your Health as You Get Older Exactly How Your Skin Changes in Your 40s, 50s, and 60s Get more of SELF's great fitness coverage delivered right to your inbox—for free. Originally Appeared on Self
The Independent
20-06-2025
- Health
- The Independent
The simple test that could predict how long you will live
A new study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology explored whether a simple sitting-rising test could predict premature deaths. Researchers tested 4,282 adults aged 46-75 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 1998 to 2023, to evaluate non-aerobic physical fitness, including muscle strength, flexibility, and balance. The test required participants to sit and rise from the floor without using support from hands, elbows, or knees, with points deducted for any assistance or loss of balance. The study concluded that non-aerobic physical fitness, as assessed by this test, was a significant predictor of natural and cardiovascular mortality. After about 12 years, participants with a perfect 10 score had a 3.7 per cent death rate, while those scoring 0-4 points showed a dramatically higher death rate of 42.1 per cent.
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Scientists Say This 10-Second Test May Predict How Long You'll Live
Our society is obsessed with longevity. Our cultural focus on working out, eating whole foods, and managing stress isn't just about improving our health now, it's about increasing lifespan and improving quality of life for years to come. And while some people turn to psychics or mediums to ask, 'When will I die?' a new study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology suggests there may be a simple, science-backed test to gain insight—one you can try at home. The sitting-rising test is simple. To complete it, study participants sat on a non-slippery flat surface barefoot with clothes that didn't restrict their movements. A researcher told the participants, "Without worrying about the speed of movement, try to sit and then rise from the floor, using the minimum support that you believe is needed." Basically, people were expected to go from standing to sitting down with their legs crossed, and back up again, while using as little support as possible. For the study, researchers at the Exercise Medicine Clinic in Rio de Janeiro enlisted 4,282 adults between the ages of 46 and 75. After evaluating participants' health markers, the researchers had them perform the sitting-rising test. Each person's performance was scored from zero to five for sitting and zero to five for rising (totaling up to 10), based on how easily and independently they could complete the participants could cross their legs while sitting, they couldn't use the sides of their feet, hands, forearms, knees, or the side of their leg for support as they lowered to the ground or stood up. Each time they did, one point was subtracted from their score. Participants also lost half a point for being wobbly. If the individual completely failed at sitting or rising from the floor without external help, they were given a 0. After 12 years, researchers followed up with participants and found that 665 had died. Death rates rose sharply among those with lower sitting-rising test (SRT) scores: just 3.7 percent of people who scored a perfect 10 died, compared to 42.1 percent of those who scored between 0 and 4. They also discovered that despite other health factors, low scorers had a 3.8 times higher risk of death from natural causes and were also six times more likely to die from heart-related issues. While the study doesn't directly prove that a perfect score guarantees longevity, the authors say that health professionals can use the SRT to tailor exercise plans and gain important insights into survival prospects for middle-aged and older adults, whether healthy or with medical conditions. Scientists Say This 10-Second Test May Predict How Long You'll Live first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 20, 2025
