The Longevity Index

Functional Benchmarks

The TL;DR

Simple functional tests---the Sit-Rise Test, grip strength, dead hang duration, and farmer’s carry capacity---are among the most powerful predictors of all-cause mortality and biological age. These assessments require no laboratory equipment, cost nothing, and provide actionable data on musculoskeletal health, neuromuscular function, and overall physiological reserve.

Why Functional Benchmarks Matter

The ability to perform basic physical tasks predicts survival better than many traditional biomarkers. While blood panels and wearable devices offer valuable insights, functional capacity tests assess the integrated output of multiple physiological systems: muscular strength, neuromuscular coordination, balance, flexibility, and cardiovascular reserve.

These tests matter because they measure physiological reserve---the body’s capacity to respond to stressors ranging from acute illness to the demands of daily living. As we age, the decline in functional capacity often precedes and predicts the onset of disability, frailty, and death (Studenski et al., 2011).

The Hierarchy of Physical Decline

Functional decline follows a predictable pattern: first, high-intensity activities become difficult (climbing stairs, carrying groceries), then moderate activities (walking, rising from chairs), and finally basic self-care. Early detection through functional benchmarks allows intervention before disability sets in.

The Sit-Rise Test (SRT)

What It Measures

The Sit-Rise Test, developed by Brazilian physician Claudio Gil Araujo and colleagues, assesses the ability to sit down on the floor and rise back to standing without using hands, knees, or other supports. This deceptively simple task integrates muscular strength, flexibility, motor coordination, and balance---all of which decline with age and predict mortality.

The Protocol

Starting position: Stand barefoot on a flat surface with adequate space around you.

The descent (5 points maximum):

  1. Lower yourself to a seated position on the floor
  2. Cross your legs if comfortable
  3. Avoid using hands, knees, forearms, or the side of your leg for support

The ascent (5 points maximum):

  1. Rise from the floor to standing
  2. Again, avoid using any supports

Scoring:

  • Start with 10 points (5 for sitting, 5 for rising)
  • Subtract 1 point for each hand, knee, forearm, or side of leg used for support
  • Subtract 0.5 points for loss of balance at any point
  • Maximum score: 10; Minimum score: 0

The Evidence: Mortality Prediction

The landmark study by Brito et al. (2012) followed 2,002 adults aged 51-80 years for a median of 6.3 years. The results were striking:

SRT ScoreMortality Risk (vs. score 8-10)95% CI
0-35-6x higher mortality2.8-9.7
3.5-5.53.4x higher mortality1.8-6.6
6-7.51.8x higher mortality0.9-3.6
8-10Reference group---

Each 1-point increase in SRT score was associated with a 21% reduction in all-cause mortality, independent of age, sex, and body mass index.

Important Limitations

The original study population was predominantly Brazilian, and participants were referred to an exercise medicine clinic, potentially introducing selection bias. Subsequent validation studies have been smaller, though they generally confirm the predictive value (Bergland et al., 2019).

Age-Stratified Standards

While the original study did not publish detailed age-stratified norms, subsequent research provides guidance:

Age GroupExcellent (Top 20%)GoodBelow AverageConcerning
50-599-107-8.55-6.5<5
60-698-106-7.54-5.5<4
70-797-105-6.53-4.5<3
80+6-104-5.52-3.5<2

Note: These ranges are approximations based on available data and should be interpreted in clinical context.

Mechanisms Linking SRT to Longevity

The SRT correlates with mortality through several pathways:

  1. Sarcopenia detection: The test requires adequate lower limb and core strength (Cruz-Jentoft et al., 2019)
  2. Balance and fall risk: Loss of points for instability reflects vestibular and proprioceptive decline
  3. Flexibility: Hip, knee, and ankle mobility are required for a smooth descent and ascent
  4. Neuromuscular coordination: The complex motor pattern requires intact neural pathways

Grip Strength

The Gold Standard Functional Biomarker

Grip strength, measured using a handheld dynamometer, is arguably the single most validated functional biomarker in geroscience. Its predictive power extends far beyond hand function to reflect whole-body muscle mass, nutritional status, and even cognitive function (Bohannon, 2019).

The Protocol

Equipment: Jamar or similar hydraulic hand dynamometer (the research standard)

Procedure:

  1. Sit with elbow bent at 90 degrees, forearm in neutral position
  2. Squeeze the dynamometer with maximum effort for 3-5 seconds
  3. Perform three trials with each hand, alternating hands
  4. Rest 30-60 seconds between trials
  5. Record the highest value for each hand

The Evidence: A Window Into Systemic Health

All-Cause Mortality: Leong et al. (2015) analyzed data from 139,691 participants across 17 countries in the PURE study. For every 5 kg decrease in grip strength:

  • All-cause mortality increased 16% (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.13-1.20)
  • Cardiovascular mortality increased 17% (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11-1.24)
  • Non-cardiovascular mortality increased 17% (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.12-1.21)

Grip strength was a stronger predictor of mortality than systolic blood pressure.

Cardiovascular Disease: In the same study, each 5 kg decrease in grip strength increased:

  • Myocardial infarction risk by 7%
  • Stroke risk by 9%

Cognitive Decline: A meta-analysis by Fritz et al. (2017) found that lower grip strength was associated with greater cognitive decline and higher dementia risk (pooled OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.15-1.53).

Surgical Outcomes: Grip strength predicts postoperative complications and length of stay across multiple surgical specialties (Bohannon, 2019).

Age- and Sex-Stratified Normative Data

The following values represent population norms from multiple large-scale studies, including the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) and European studies (Dodds et al., 2014; Steiber, 2016):

Men (Dominant Hand, kg)

AgeWeak (<P10)Below Avg (P10-25)Average (P25-75)Strong (P75-90)Very Strong (>P90)
20-29<4242-4849-6061-68>68
30-39<4343-5051-6263-70>70
40-49<4141-4849-5960-67>67
50-59<3737-4445-5556-63>63
60-69<3333-4041-5152-58>58
70-79<2828-3435-4546-52>52
80+<2222-2728-3839-44>44

Women (Dominant Hand, kg)

AgeWeak (<P10)Below Avg (P10-25)Average (P25-75)Strong (P75-90)Very Strong (>P90)
20-29<2424-2829-3637-42>42
30-39<2525-2930-3738-43>43
40-49<2424-2829-3536-41>41
50-59<2121-2526-3233-37>37
60-69<1818-2223-2930-34>34
70-79<1515-1920-2627-31>31
80+<1111-1415-2122-26>26

Clinical Cutoffs for Sarcopenia

The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP2) recommends the following cutoffs for probable sarcopenia (Cruz-Jentoft et al., 2019):

  • Men: <27 kg
  • Women: <16 kg

The Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) uses slightly different cutoffs accounting for smaller body size:

  • Men: <28 kg
  • Women: <18 kg

Why Grip Strength Works as a Systemic Biomarker

Grip strength reflects more than hand muscles. It correlates with:

  • Total body muscle mass (r = 0.69-0.80)
  • Protein nutritional status
  • Inflammatory burden (inverse correlation with CRP, IL-6)
  • Hormonal status (testosterone, IGF-1, growth hormone)
  • Neural integrity and motor unit recruitment

Dead Hang Duration

An Emerging Functional Metric

The dead hang---simply hanging from a pull-up bar with arms fully extended---tests grip endurance, shoulder stability, and overall upper body muscular endurance. While less studied than grip strength, it provides complementary information about functional capacity and may better reflect real-world demands like carrying groceries or catching oneself during a fall.

The Protocol

Equipment: Stable pull-up bar or similar overhead support

Procedure:

  1. Grasp the bar with overhand grip (palms facing away), hands shoulder-width apart
  2. Lift feet off the ground, hanging with arms fully extended
  3. Maintain the hang as long as possible without kicking or swinging
  4. Time ends when any part of the hand loses contact with the bar

Variations:

  • Active hang: Shoulders engaged, slight lat activation (harder, more functional)
  • Passive hang: Shoulders relaxed, full hang from joints (easier, good for beginners)

The Evidence Base

Unlike grip strength and the SRT, dead hang duration lacks large-scale epidemiological studies directly linking it to mortality. However, its physiological correlates suggest predictive value:

Grip Endurance and Mortality: Metter et al. (2002) from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging found that grip strength decline rate predicted mortality independent of baseline strength, suggesting endurance metrics may add prognostic value.

Upper Body Function and Fall Prevention: The ability to catch and support one’s weight---simulated by the dead hang---is protective against fall-related injuries, a leading cause of death in older adults (Ambrose et al., 2013).

Shoulder Health: Dead hang capacity reflects rotator cuff integrity and shoulder mobility, which decline with age and predict functional disability (Minagawa & Yamamoto, 2013).

Proposed Age- and Sex-Stratified Standards

The following standards are derived from fitness industry norms, athletic testing protocols, and physiological principles. They should be considered provisional pending epidemiological validation:

Men (seconds)

AgePoorBelow AverageAverageGoodExcellent
20-29<3030-4445-7576-100>100
30-39<2525-3940-6566-90>90
40-49<2020-3435-5556-80>80
50-59<1515-2930-4546-70>70
60-69<1010-2425-4041-60>60
70+<55-1920-3536-50>50

Women (seconds)

AgePoorBelow AverageAverageGoodExcellent
20-29<1515-2930-5051-75>75
30-39<1212-2425-4243-65>65
40-49<1010-1920-3536-55>55
50-59<88-1415-2829-45>45
60-69<55-1112-2223-38>38
70+<33-89-1819-30>30

Evidence Level

These standards are based on limited data and should be interpreted cautiously. They are useful for tracking individual progress but not yet validated as mortality predictors.

Training Implications

Dead hang performance can be improved through:

  • Progressive hang duration training (accumulate 2-3 minutes total daily)
  • Grip strength exercises (see above)
  • Shoulder mobility work
  • Lat and core strengthening

Farmer’s Carry Standards

Loaded Locomotion as a Longevity Marker

The farmer’s carry---walking while holding heavy weights in each hand---is a compound functional test assessing grip strength, core stability, hip function, cardiovascular endurance, and postural control. This pattern mirrors essential daily activities: carrying groceries, luggage, or grandchildren.

The Protocol

Equipment: Dumbbells, kettlebells, farmer’s walk handles, or any heavy objects with handles

Standard Test Protocol:

  1. Select a weight (bodyweight percentage varies by standard)
  2. Stand tall, weights hanging at sides
  3. Walk a set distance (typically 20-40 meters) or for maximum duration
  4. Maintain upright posture---no excessive lean or shuffling

Common Test Variations:

  • Distance-based: Walk 40m with 50% bodyweight (25% each hand)
  • Duration-based: Carry 75% bodyweight for maximum time
  • Combined: Maximum distance with specified weight

The Evidence Base

The farmer’s carry integrates multiple functional domains studied independently in mortality research:

Gait Speed and Mortality: Studenski et al. (2011) demonstrated that gait speed strongly predicts survival. Among adults 75+, each 0.1 m/s increase in gait speed reduced mortality risk by 12%. The farmer’s carry combines gait with load-bearing capacity.

Functional Mobility: The ability to carry loads while walking reflects hip and trunk stability, which decline with age and predict falls, fractures, and institutionalization (Granacher et al., 2013).

Core Strength: The anti-lateral flexion demand of the farmer’s carry requires oblique and quadratus lumborum strength---muscles critical for spinal health and functional independence (McGill, 2010).

Proposed Standards

The following standards synthesize strength and conditioning literature with functional fitness norms. They represent carrying capacity for 40 meters without rest:

Men (Total Weight as % of Bodyweight)

AgeBelow AverageAverageGoodExcellentElite
20-29<50%50-74%75-99%100-124%>125%
30-39<45%45-69%70-94%95-119%>120%
40-49<40%40-64%65-89%90-114%>115%
50-59<35%35-54%55-79%80-99%>100%
60-69<30%30-49%50-69%70-89%>90%
70+<25%25-39%40-59%60-79%>80%

Women (Total Weight as % of Bodyweight)

AgeBelow AverageAverageGoodExcellentElite
20-29<35%35-54%55-74%75-99%>100%
30-39<30%30-49%50-69%70-94%>95%
40-49<28%28-44%45-64%65-84%>85%
50-59<25%25-39%40-59%60-79%>80%
60-69<22%22-34%35-49%50-69%>70%
70+<18%18-29%30-44%45-59%>60%

Practical Longevity Targets

Drawing from the work of Dr. Peter Attia and principles of functional aging, consider these benchmarks for maintaining independence into advanced age:

The "Centenarian Decathlon" Concept

Peter Attia proposes training for the physical demands you want to meet at age 100, then working backward. If you want to carry two 15-pound grocery bags at 90, you should be able to carry 30+ pounds per hand at 60.

Minimum Functional Standards for Independence:

  • Carry two 10-15 lb bags for 100m (grocery shopping)
  • Carry a 30-40 lb suitcase for 200m (travel independence)
  • Carry a 20-30 lb grandchild while walking (family engagement)

Integrated Testing Protocol

Quarterly Functional Assessment

Perform these tests every 3 months to track functional trajectory:

TestMetricTarget (Age 50-60)Target (Age 70+)
Sit-Rise TestScore (0-10)>7>5
Grip StrengthDominant hand (kg)Men >45, Women >28Men >35, Women >20
Dead HangDuration (seconds)Men >45, Women >25Men >20, Women >12
Farmer’s Carry40m @ % bodyweightMen >60%, Women >45%Men >40%, Women >30%

Testing Order and Recovery

  1. Sit-Rise Test (first, minimal fatigue)
  2. Grip Strength (3 trials each hand, 60s rest between)
  3. Dead Hang (after 3-5 minute rest)
  4. Farmer’s Carry (last, most demanding)

The Biological Basis: Why These Tests Predict Mortality

Muscle as an Endocrine Organ

Skeletal muscle secretes myokines---signaling molecules with systemic effects on metabolism, inflammation, and brain function (Pedersen & Febbraio, 2012). Higher muscle function correlates with:

  • Better glucose regulation (insulin sensitivity)
  • Lower systemic inflammation (reduced CRP, IL-6)
  • Enhanced immune function
  • Improved cognitive reserve

Neuromuscular Integrity

Functional tests assess not just muscle mass but the integrity of the neuromuscular system. Motor unit loss, impaired neural drive, and reduced muscle quality (increased fat infiltration) all contribute to declining function and are captured by these assessments (Mitchell et al., 2012).

Physiological Reserve

The capacity to perform at high levels reflects reserve---the margin between baseline function and the threshold of disability. Greater reserve buffers against acute stressors (infection, injury, surgery) that often precipitate decline in older adults (Varadhan et al., 2008).

Improving Your Functional Benchmarks

Training Recommendations

For Sit-Rise Test:

  • Practice the movement pattern regularly
  • Resistance training for lower body strength
  • Yoga or mobility work for hip and ankle flexibility
  • Balance exercises (single-leg stands, tandem walking)

For Grip Strength:

  • Dead hangs and pull-up progressions
  • Farmer’s carries and loaded carries
  • Direct grip work (gripper exercises, towel hangs)
  • Adequate protein intake (1.6-2.2 g/kg for active adults)

For Dead Hang:

  • Progressive duration training
  • Scapular strengthening (scapular pull-ups)
  • Shoulder mobility work
  • Active vs. passive hang practice

For Farmer’s Carry:

  • Progressive weight increases
  • Core stability training (anti-rotation, anti-extension)
  • Hip strengthening (deadlifts, lunges)
  • Posture awareness and correction

Connected Concepts

  • Exercise: The primary intervention for improving all functional benchmarks
  • Protein: Adequate intake essential for muscle maintenance
  • DEXA Scans: Quantify muscle mass and body composition
  • Wearables: Track activity levels that support functional capacity

Advanced Concepts

  • mTOR: The molecular pathway governing muscle protein synthesis
  • Autophagy: Muscle quality maintenance through cellular cleanup

Biomarkers

Common Pitfalls

Mistakes to Avoid

  1. Testing while fatigued: Perform assessments when rested for accurate baseline
  2. Ignoring technique: Poor form inflates scores but increases injury risk
  3. Infrequent testing: Quarterly assessments detect decline early
  4. Over-focusing on one metric: All four tests provide complementary information
  5. Comparing across populations: Use age- and sex-appropriate standards
  6. Neglecting training: Measurement without intervention is pointless

Implementation Checklist

  • Obtain a grip dynamometer (Jamar or equivalent)
  • Install or access a pull-up bar for dead hang testing
  • Acquire farmer’s carry equipment (dumbbells or kettlebells)
  • Perform baseline testing on all four benchmarks
  • Record results with date and conditions
  • Schedule quarterly re-testing
  • Implement training program targeting weakest areas
  • Track progress over 6-12 months minimum

References

Ambrose, A. F., Paul, G., & Hausdorff, J. M. (2013). Risk factors for falls among older adults: A review of the literature. Maturitas, 75(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.02.009

Bergland, A., Strand, B. H., & Sund, E. R. (2019). The sit-to-stand test is related to bone mineral density in elderly women. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 37(1), 28-40.

Bohannon, R. W. (2019). Grip strength: An indispensable biomarker for older adults. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 14, 1681-1691. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S194543

Brito, L. B., Ricardo, D. R., Araújo, D. S., Ramos, P. S., Myers, J., & Araújo, C. G. (2012). Ability to sit and rise from the floor as a predictor of all-cause mortality. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 21(7), 892-898. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487312471759

Cruz-Jentoft, A. J., Bahat, G., Bauer, J., Boirie, Y., Bruyère, O., Cederholm, T., … & Zamboni, M. (2019). Sarcopenia: Revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age and Ageing, 48(1), 16-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afy169

Dodds, R. M., Syddall, H. E., Cooper, R., Benzeval, M., Deary, I. J., Dennison, E. M., … & Sayer, A. A. (2014). Grip strength across the life course: Normative data from twelve British studies. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e113637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113637

Fritz, N. E., McCarthy, C. J., & Adamo, D. E. (2017). Handgrip strength as a means of monitoring progression of cognitive decline: A scoping review. Ageing Research Reviews, 35, 112-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2017.01.004

Granacher, U., Gollhofer, A., Hortobágyi, T., Kressig, R. W., & Muehlbauer, T. (2013). The importance of trunk muscle strength for balance, functional performance, and fall prevention in seniors: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 43(7), 627-641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-013-0041-1

Leong, D. P., Teo, K. K., Rangarajan, S., Lopez-Jaramillo, P., Avezum, A., Orlandini, A., … & Yusuf, S. (2015). Prognostic value of grip strength: Findings from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. The Lancet, 386(9990), 266-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62000-6

McGill, S. M. (2010). Core training: Evidence translating to better performance and injury prevention. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 32(3), 33-46.

Metter, E. J., Talbot, L. A., Schrager, M., & Conwit, R. (2002). Skeletal muscle strength as a predictor of all-cause mortality in healthy men. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 57(10), B359-B365. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/57.10.B359

Minagawa, H., & Yamamoto, N. (2013). Epidemiology of shoulder injuries in the elderly. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 22(10), 1415-1420.

Mitchell, W. K., Williams, J., Atherton, P., Larvin, M., Lund, J., & Narici, M. (2012). Sarcopenia, dynapenia, and the impact of advancing age on human skeletal muscle size and strength: A quantitative review. Frontiers in Physiology, 3, 260. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2012.00260

Pedersen, B. K., & Febbraio, M. A. (2012). Muscles, exercise and obesity: Skeletal muscle as a secretory organ. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 8(8), 457-465. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2012.49

Steiber, N. (2016). Strong or weak handgrip? Normative reference values for the German population across the life course stratified by sex, age, and body height. PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0163566.

Studenski, S., Perera, S., Patel, K., Rosano, C., Faulkner, K., Inzitari, M., … & Guralnik, J. (2011). Gait speed and survival in older adults. JAMA, 305(1), 50-58. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1923

Varadhan, R., Seplaki, C. L., Xue, Q. L., Bandeen-Roche, K., & Fried, L. P. (2008). Stimulus-response paradigm for characterizing the loss of resilience in homeostatic regulation associated with frailty. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, 129(11), 666-670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mad.2008.09.013

Research Limitations and Future Directions

Current Evidence Gaps:

  • Dead hang and farmer’s carry lack direct epidemiological studies linking them to mortality outcomes
  • Most grip strength research comes from Western populations; more diverse data is needed
  • The Sit-Rise Test requires validation in larger, more diverse cohorts
  • Optimal frequency of testing and minimal clinically important differences remain undefined

Emerging Research:

  • Wearable-based functional assessments may enable continuous monitoring
  • Machine learning integration of multiple functional markers may improve predictive accuracy
  • The role of power (force x velocity) versus strength alone is under investigation

Last updated: 2026-01-01

Graph View