The sit-to-stand test

From time to time I post something motivated by an article I found, dealing with exercise or fitness tests. Recently, I stumbled upon an article about the "sit to stand" test. In my article "Fitness for masters" I had given a battery of tests which included a "sitting-rising" test. But that test consisted in getting down on the ground and getting back up with as small a support from knees and arms as possible. In my article I was pointing out that the test in question was rather tricky. Indeed, its score is based on the appreciation of the person conducting it and, since any support subtracts one point from an initial total of just 10, even small differences in appreciation can result in a big divergence of results. 

When I read about the sit to stand test I realised that it was a much better choice: it is simpler, essentially objective and, despite the appearance, not trivially easy. In fact, I was shocked when, in some related article, I read about a study of a team of Duke University that was mentioning that 2 million persons in the US alone have trouble standing after sitting on a chair. 

So, what is the sit-to-stand test. To put it simply, it measures how many times within 30 seconds one can rise from seated to a standing position. One starts by siting in the middle of the chair. (Of roughly 45 cm height. No armrests!). The arms are crossed with the hands on the opposing shoulders. At the "go" signal one rises to a full standing position and immediately goes back to sitting again. This is repeated for 30 seconds, counting the number one did come to a standing position. (If one must use his arms to stand, the test is interrupted before the end time).

Despite its simplicity the test is a very good indicator of the lower limb muscle strength as well as the overall balance of the individual, according to a comprehensive study of a team of the University of Pusan (Korea). Used on older individuals its a good predictor of the frequency of falls, according to a study of a team of the University of Pennsylvania. It is even a good indicator of mortality risks.  The test is typically performed of senior subjects (but results on young adults and even children do exist). Below is a table with the average scores for subjects of ages from 60 to 95. 

A poor score on the test suggests that the heart may not be functioning well, which entails a higher risk for a heart attack or a stroke. A low score can also be an indication that the person is more prone to falls (which are the leading cause of accidental death and nonfatal injury in older adults). But does this mean that if one scores poorly the game is up? Not at all. Just making sure that one spends less time seated, stands up regularly, goes up and down the stairs can work miracles. Adding some stretching exercise to the daily routine will be most beneficial. And, as in all tests, re-doing regularly the test itself, will have a training effect, resulting in improved performances.