In adults aged 51–80, the lowest sit-and-rise scores went with five times the mortality of the highest
Does the sitting-rising test predict mortality?
The finding
Against a score of 8–10, hazard ratios adjusted for age, sex and BMI were 5.44 (3.1–9.5) for 0–3, 3.44 (2.0–5.9) for 3.5–5.5 and 1.84 (1.1–3.0) for 6–7.5. Each extra point went with 21% better survival.
- Authors
- Brito LB, Ricardo DR, Araújo DS, Ramos PS, Myers J, Araújo CG
- Published
- European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 21(7):892–8 (2014; online Dec 2012) · 2012
- Evidence
- Read in the primary source; numbers checked.
- Source
- doi.org/10.1177/2047487312471759
How it was studied
Retrospective cohort at an exercise-medicine clinic in Rio de Janeiro: 2,002 adults aged 51–80, 68% men. Median follow-up 6.3 years; 159 deaths (7.9%). Each action (sitting down, standing up) scored 0–5, one point off for each support.
The numbers
The press release at the time gave the lowest band as 0–2.5; the paper’s abstract says 0–3, which is the figure used here.
What it does not show
Observational, in a self- or physician-referred clinic sample, ages 51–80 only. No trial shows that raising your score changes survival.
What Longstanding does with it
The floor sit-and-rise is one of the ten tests, and two of the sixteen age-85 goals use it (score 8 for getting up with one hand, 6 for getting down to play and back up). The site says "linked with", never "adds years".