The Sit-Rise Test: How the Ability to Get Up from the Floor Predicts Mortality Risk

What is the SRT and how do you perform it?

The Sitting-Rising Test (SRT) was developed by Brazilian cardiologist Claudio Gil Araújo. From a standing position, the participant sits down on the floor — typically cross-legged — and then rises without using their hands, knees, forearms, or the sides of their feet. Each additional support point used deducts 1 point; each loss of balance deducts 0.5 points.

The maximum score is 10 points: 5 for lowering and 5 for rising. The test takes less than a minute and requires no equipment, trainer, or special facility. This combination — minimal measurement cost and high predictive value — is what made the SRT a subject of clinical interest.

What did the first Araújo study (2012) show?

In 2012, Araújo and colleagues published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology the results of a cohort study of 2,002 adults aged 51–80 years. The mean follow-up period was 6.3 years, during which 159 deaths (7.9% of the sample) were recorded.

The central finding: each additional one-point decrease in the total SRT score was associated with a 21% increase in all-cause mortality risk — after adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index. Participants with a score below 8 showed 2–5 times higher mortality over 6 years compared with those who scored 8 or above.

These are observational data from a single cohort drawn predominantly from a physically active Brazilian population. Generalizability to other groups is limited.

What did the 2025 study add?

In 2025, the same group published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology an expanded analysis. The sample grew to 4,282 participants (aged 46–75, 68% male), with a median follow-up of 12.3 years — twice as long as in the previous study. For the first time, the analysis separated mortality by cause: natural and cardiovascular.

Mortality by score group:

• Maximum score (10): mortality 3.7% over the entire follow-up period.
• Intermediate score (8): mortality 11.1%.
• Minimum score (0–4): mortality 42.1%.

Comparison of extreme groups (0 points vs. 5 points for rising): those who could not rise without support had a mortality rate of 49.5% vs. 4.4% for those scoring the maximum on rising — a roughly 11-fold difference.

Adjusted hazard ratios for the worst group compared with the best: risk of natural death — HR 3.84 (95% CI 2.25–6.97); risk of cardiovascular death — HR 6.05 (95% CI 2.29–20.94). The association persisted after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, and clinical variables.

What exactly does this test measure?

The SRT simultaneously engages four physiological components, each of whose deterioration is independently associated with increased mortality:

Lower limb and core muscle strength

Rising from the floor requires sufficient strength in the hip extensors, quadriceps, and core muscles. Sarcopenia — the progressive loss of muscle mass and strength — doubles mortality risk according to systematic reviews, and directly limits the ability to perform the test without additional support points.

Flexibility and joint mobility

Lowering into a cross-legged position requires external hip rotation, ankle dorsiflexion, and lumbar flexibility. Limited range of motion in these areas forces the use of a hand or knee as a support point — and deducts points.

Balance and proprioception

Transitioning between positions requires dynamic balance control. Decreased proprioceptive sensitivity — a typical consequence of a sedentary lifestyle and certain chronic diseases — is reflected in test performance before it becomes apparent in daily life.

Body weight control

Excess body weight mechanically hinders the lowering and rising movements and reduces the score. At the same time, the association between SRT and mortality in the 2025 study persisted after adjustment for BMI, indicating that the functional component of the test carries prognostic information independently of weight.