Edited by Katie Barnes. Email:
katiebarnes@leisuremedia.com Research round-up
Testing a person’s ability to rise from a seated position on the fl oor is in an indication of their longevity, say Brazilian scientists
Rise above it A
group of researchers from Clinimex – an exercise and medical clinic in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – have
discovered that older adults who need help and support to stand up from a seated position on the floor are 6.5 times more likely to die over a course of six years than those who have less difficulty in performing the activity. The new test could be an effective
measure for doctors, physiotherapists and fi tness professionals to consider when assessing a person’s health and fi tness. Traditionally, health clubs have used
the ‘sit and reach’ test to defi ne how fl exible a person is, but in 2009, a study revealed that the test could also be used as an indicator of how stiff a person’s arteries are, and how likely they may be to suffer from a heart attack or stroke (see HCM Nov/Dec 10, p46). Now this sitting-rising test (SRT),
in addition to assessing how easily a person might be able to carry out important actions – picking up vital items such as medication or a phone that have fallen on the fl oor, for example, or getting up after a fall – could also be used to predict longevity.
Aiming for perfection The study* was based on 2,000 men and women aged 51–80 who were asked, in their own time and pace, to sit down on the floor from standing and then rise up straight again. They were assessed on the ease with which they could carry out the actions, aiming for a perfect score of 10: five for sitting down and five for standing back up. They were deducted points and half points if they needed support in the action, such as placing a hand or knee on the ground when pushing off or putting a hand on their knee to steady themselves.
Sitting-rising test: A one-point rise in score was linked to a 21 per cent drop in mortality
What’s the score? Unsurprisingly, how well someone did on the test was linked to how old they were. Over half the participants aged 76–80 failed the test, with a score of 0–3. In contrast, about 70 per cent of those aged 60 or below scored 8–10. However, even when scores were
moderated based on multivariate-adjusted (age, sex, BMI) hazard ratios, there was still a continuous trend for longer survival among those performing better in the SRT. Over the 6.3-year follow-up, a total of 159 study participants died, but those in the 0–3 group were 6.5 times more likely to pass away than people with a score of 8–10. Participants in the 3.5–5.5 range were 3.8 times more likely to die; those who scored between 6 and 7.4 were 1.8 times more likely.
Claudio Gil Soares de Araújo, who
worked on the study, was quoted on Yahoo! Health as saying: “Just two subjects who scored 10 died in the follow-up of about six years.” He explained that, if someone aged 51–80 scored a 10, their “chances of being alive in the next six years are quite good”, and added: “A one-point increment in the score was related to a 21 per cent reduction in mortality.” Araújo concludes: “It is well known
that aerobic fi tness is strongly related to survival, but our study also shows that maintaining high levels of body fl exibility, muscle strength, power-to- body weight ratio and co-ordination are not only good for performing daily activities, but have a favourable infl uence on life expectancy.”
*Soares de Araújo, CG et al. Ability to sit and rise from the fl oor as a predictor of all-cause mortality. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. December 2012 70 Read Health Club Management online at
healthclubmanagement.co.uk/digital February 2013 © Cybertrek 2013
© ILLUSIONSTUDIO/
SHUTTERSTOCK.COM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92