Key numbers
3,889
Participants aged 46 to 75 (CLINIMEX cohort)
5.88
Men: lowest vs highest relative power, adjusted mortality hazard ratio (95% CI 2.28 to 15.17)
6.90
Women: same comparison (95% CI 1.61 to 29.58)
Who was studied and what was compared
The study was a prospective cohort of 3,889 participants aged 46 to 75. It looked at relative muscle power and relative strength separately, rather than treating one as a stand-in for the other.
What the study found
In the CLINIMEX prospective cohort of 3,889 adults aged 46 to 75 (median follow-up 10.8 years), the lowest versus highest relative-power groups had adjusted all-cause mortality hazard ratios of 5.88 (95% CI 2.28 to 15.17) in men and 6.90 (1.61 to 29.58) in women. For relative strength the corresponding hazard ratios were 1.62 (0.89 to 2.96) and 1.71 (0.61 to 4.80), neither statistically conclusive.
Power was measured with an upper-body movement and strength with handgrip, not with standing broad jumps. The wide intervals limit precision, and the gain in predictive accuracy from power over strength was not statistically confirmed for women.
Systematic cites this study as outcome evidence for why muscle power matters, behind its Standing Broad Jump. The study itself did not use standing broad jumps.
What it does not show
Power and strength are not interchangeable, but that does not make strength unimportant: strength was still studied as its own measure. The study is underlying-capacity evidence for power, not a test or validation of the Systematic Standing Broad Jump.
The evidence
Each cited source is labeled according to how it supports the particular claim on this page. Direct test evidence, underlying-capacity findings and population reference values are distinguished from Systematic-defined protocols and standards. Historical development notes are retained internally rather than presented as public evidence. A study of an underlying capacity is never presented as validation of the Systematic test itself.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence
Araújo et al. (2025). Muscle Power Versus Strength as a Predictor of Mortality in Middle-Aged and Older Men and Women. Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
What it found. In 3,889 adults aged 46 to 75, lowest versus highest relative power had adjusted mortality hazard ratios of 5.88 in men and 6.90 in women; the relative-strength estimates (1.62 and 1.71) were not statistically conclusive.
What it does not show. It did not use standing broad jumps, does not show that strength or muscle mass is irrelevant, and does not show cause or predict an individual's risk.
The Systematic Healthspan Assessment is a physical baseline. It is not a diagnosis, and it does not estimate a biological age, a disease risk or a lifespan.