© Magnific
August 25, 2026
Marianne Waldenfels
A long-term study of more than 4,200 adults found a clear link between performance on the sitting-rising test and mortality risk. Here’s what this simple test can tell us about healthy aging
Find a DoctorSearch the network for suitable specialists and contact them directly
It takes just a few seconds and requires neither a wearable nor a gym: stand up straight, lower yourself to the floor, and then get back up — ideally without using your hands or knees for support.
What sounds like a simple mobility challenge is actually a scientifically studied fitness assessment. The Sitting-Rising Test, or SRT, measures several abilities at once: muscle strength, flexibility, balance, and coordination. A long-term study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology in 2025 found that performance on this simple test is linked to long-term health.
Each movement — sitting down and getting back up — is worth a maximum of five points, for a total of ten. Completing both movements without using the hands, knees, or any other support earns a full score. One point is deducted for each additional support used, and half a point for a noticeable loss of balance. Crossing the legs is permitted.
What makes the test interesting is that a single movement demands several physical abilities at once. The legs need strength, the hips and joints need flexibility, and balance and body control are essential too. The study's authors therefore regard the test as a straightforward marker of so-called non-aerobic fitness.
The study included 4,282 men and women between the ages of 46 and 75, who were then followed for more than twelve years. During that time, 665 participants died of natural causes.
A clear pattern emerged: the lower the score, the higher the mortality. Of those who achieved the maximum ten points, 3.7 percent died during the observation period. At eight points, the figure rose to 11.1 percent, and among those with the lowest scores — between zero and four points — it reached 42.1 percent.
These figures reflect observed mortality rates over a median follow-up period of more than twelve years — not any individual's risk of dying as a direct result of a poor test score.
Part of this large difference can be explained by the fact that people with lower test scores may, for example, be older or carry a greater burden of illness. Even so, after the researchers statistically accounted for factors including , sex, body mass index, and various medical conditions, the association held: those in the lowest-scoring group had approximately 3.8 times the risk of dying from a natural cause compared with participants who achieved a full score.
Unlike a conventional endurance test, the SRT simultaneously assesses multiple components of physical fitness, all of which have been linked to health and survival in older age. In this sense, the test distills them into a single everyday movement.
This also has a very practical dimension: anyone who falls needs to be able, ideally, to get back up from the floor on their own. The ability to do so is therefore also a measure of physical independence.
Striking as these differences are, no personal life expectancy can be derived from a test result. The study demonstrates an association, but does not prove that difficulty getting up is itself responsible for higher mortality.
The study's participants were also not representative of the general population. They came from a private clinic in Rio de Janeiro, around two-thirds were men, and most belonged to higher education and income groups. People with musculoskeletal complaints or limitations that would have affected their performance were excluded. Age also plays a role: earlier data show that average scores tend to decline over the years.
Anyone with knee or hip problems, dizziness, balance disorders, or other physical limitations should not feel compelled to attempt the test.
A low score can nonetheless serve as a signal that physical abilities such as strength, flexibility, or balance have declined — and these can be improved even in older age. Whether doing so would enhance not only the test result but also life expectancy, however, cannot be concluded from this study.
Perhaps that is precisely where the test's strength lies: it requires no equipment and reveals within seconds how well our bodies can still perform one of the most fundamental movements of everyday life — getting back up off the floor on our own.
Dark circles are often blamed on lack of sleep. But pigmentation, visible blood vessels, genetics, or facial anatomy may also play a role. Dermatologist Dr. Susanne Steinkraus explains why the cause matters when choosing the right treatment – and when caution is advised.
Christine Bürg & Marianne Waldenfels
An interview with
Dr. med. Susanne Steinkraus
"Feel Good, Live Better" – In this podcast episode, Prof. Dr. Carina Riediger explains why liver tumors can be cured more often than you might expect.
Christine Bürg
An interview with
Prof. Dr. med. Carina Riediger, MSc
Medfluencers enjoy a high level of trust and reach millions with health advice. But on social media, reach often counts for more than scientific evidence. Prof. Dominik Pförringer examines the troubling intersection of medicine, influence, and commercial interests.
Prof. Dominik Pförringer
By
Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Dominik Pförringer
Wegovy is now available as a pill. But how does it compare with the weekly injection? Prof. Uwe Nixdorff explains the key differences in effectiveness, use, and side effects.
Christine Bürg & Marianne Waldenfels
With
Prof. Dr. Uwe Nixdorff
