Five-times sit-to-stand: normal times by age, including under 60

Two papers by Richard Bohannon supply most of the reference times in use. For people aged 60 and over, a 2006 meta-analysis of 13 papers (14 studies) gives these times, slower than which is worse than average:

• 60–69: 11.4 s
• 70–79: 12.6 s
• 80–89: 14.8 s

For younger adults, a 2010 study of 181 community-dwelling NIH Toolbox enrollees gives means and standard deviations by decade:

• 20–29: 6.0 ± 1.4 s
• 30–39: 6.1 ± 1.4 s
• 40–49: 7.6 ± 1.8 s
• 50–59: 7.7 ± 2.6 s

The standard deviation describes spread. If times are roughly bell-shaped, about two-thirds of a group falls within one standard deviation of the mean, so most people in their 40s in that sample took somewhere between about 6 and 9.5 seconds.

The 2010 study also tested older people. Its means were 7.8 s at 60–69, 9.3 s at 70–79 and 10.8 s at 80–85: 3–4 seconds faster than the 2006 meta-analysis for the same decades. On a test where a few seconds separate average from poor, that is a large gap.

The methods differ. The 2006 figures pool studies that varied in chair height, in whether people could use their arms, and in whether the clock stopped on the fifth stand or the fifth sit. The 2010 study used one protocol throughout: a 43 cm armless chair, arms folded, timed from "go" until sitting after the fifth stand, best of two trials. Its volunteers were healthy and few, 15 to 36 people per decade.

Neither source is wrong. They describe different samples measured in different ways, and the choice between them changes a percentile a lot. That is the main reason to keep your own protocol fixed and compare yourself with yourself.

We have not read the full text of the 2006 meta-analysis, so its confidence intervals and spread are not verified here.

Fifteen seconds appears in two places, both about older adults. In a prospective study of 1,618 people over 65, taking more than 15 seconds doubled the risk of recurrent falls among those at moderate risk. The sit-to-stand was the only one of three balance tests that added predictive value; the others were one-leg balance and the Timed Up and Go. Falls were recalled once, 18 to 36 months later.

The European sarcopenia consensus (EWGSOP2) also uses more than 15 seconds for five chair rises as a sign of low strength, alongside grip under 27 kg for men and under 16 kg for women.

Neither is a target for someone of 45. They are thresholds for spotting risk or diagnosing a condition in older people. At 45, 15 seconds would be about twice the 2010 sample’s average for your decade.

Across pooled cohorts, the slowest quarter on chair-rise tests had about twice the mortality of the fastest (hazard ratio 1.96, five studies, 28,036 people), and people unable to do chair rises had about four times (4.09). In words: at any point during follow-up, the slowest group was dying at roughly twice the rate of the fastest. Those cohorts averaged over 70, the results varied a lot between studies, and all of it is observational.

The test is timed, so it measures leg power as well as strength, and power fades faster. Across ages 65–89, differences between age groups equalled losses of about 3.5% a year in leg extensor power against 1–2% a year for strength. In a Copenhagen cohort of 1,305 adults, relative sit-to-stand power was roughly flat from 30 to 50 and then fell. Both are comparisons of different people at different ages, not one person tracked over time.

In the 2010 study, knee-extension strength explained more of the variation in times than anything else, and sex added nothing once strength was in the model.

Use a chair that cannot slide, pushed against a wall. Sit with your back off the backrest and your arms crossed over your chest. Stand fully and sit fully five times as fast as you safely can, and stop the clock when you sit after the fifth stand. Stop if a knee or hip hurts. Use the same chair every time. This is a benchmark, not medical advice.

Longstanding’s sit-to-stand follows that protocol with a 45 cm chair, close to the 2010 study’s 43 cm. From 60, it scores your time against the 2006 reference times exactly; the spread around them, which sets the percentile, is our estimate, and the app labels it so.

Under 60, the app scores your time against the 2010 means and standard deviations, assumes a normal spread around them, and labels the reference a small sample. That choice has a known cost: the 2006 times are 3–4 seconds slower, so the same time ranks higher on your 60th birthday than the day before. The backcast line does not follow that jump; before 60 it holds the value it has at 60. Your own trend on a fixed protocol stays the most reliable number.

The app’s "get out of a low chair without hands" goal targets 12 seconds for men and 12.5 for women at 85. That is faster than the 2006 reference of 14.8 s for people in their 80s, and under the 15-second fall and sarcopenia cut-offs. The small sex difference in that target is our choice; the 2010 study found sex added nothing once strength was accounted for. You can see the line it implies for your age in the calculator.