Key numbers
3,889
Adults aged 46 to 75 in the Araújo 2025 power and strength cohort
What Systematic recommends
Where to start
- Use bare feet on a firm surface, such as a wood floor or thin carpet.
- Stand with your feet about hip-width apart, stand tall, briefly lock your knees then soften them into an active position, keep the knees soft and active throughout the movement, place your hands on your hips and keep them there throughout.
- Rise onto the balls of your feet with heels elevated, hop in place with both feet leaving the ground at same time, land softly on the balls of both feet, keep the hops quick and continuous, cycle the hops as rapidly as you can while maintaining a soft landing, keep your hands on your hips throughout.
- Hop continuously for 10 seconds, rest for 10 seconds, repeat for 3 total rounds, stop and reassess if you feel pain, discomfort, or instability, or if you are no longer able to land softly and maintain control of the hopping pattern.
Condensed from the published Development Pathway (Standing Broad Jump: Elastic Pogo-Prep). This is a starting point, not a training program or medical advice.
What strength and power mean
Strength describes how much force the body can produce. Mechanical power is the rate of doing work; for motion in the direction of force, instantaneous power equals force × velocity. Rate of force development (RFD) describes how quickly force changes with time (change in force ÷ time). They are related but different measurements. A standing broad jump is a practical field performance measure influenced by lower-limb force, movement velocity, coordination, technique and landing control; jump distance is not a direct lab measurement of either power or RFD.
Training research draws the same line. A systematic review in older community-dwelling people defined power training as training with high movement velocity, and conventional resistance training as training with low movement velocity.
Why speed depends on the nervous system
Producing force quickly depends heavily on how fast the nervous system can activate muscle. In the first moments of a contraction, roughly the first 50 to 75 milliseconds, the rate of force development is strongly influenced by rapid voluntary activation and the rate at which motor units fire.
What a long-term study found
Araújo and colleagues followed a prospective cohort of 3,889 adults aged 46 to 75. Relative muscle power and relative strength were not interchangeable, and power was more strongly associated with mortality than strength.
That is an association, not evidence that power itself extends life. The study also did not use standing broad jumps.
What training studies compared
In the review of older community-dwelling people, power training was feasible and had a small advantage over strength training for functional outcomes. The review also looked at balance, gait, strength, power, muscle volume and adverse effects, and its safety conclusions were not firm.
A separate review of adults aged 50 or older found that resistance training had a small-to-moderate effect on lower-extremity muscle power (Hedges' d 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.43), which translated to 54.90 watts (95% CI 40.37 to 69.43). The power tasks it measured were not the Systematic broad jump.
How a jump ties the two together
A validity study of the standing long jump in adults found that jump distance was associated with maximal horizontal power, maximal horizontal force, lean mass, body-fat percentage and sex. Height did not remain an independent predictor once those were accounted for.
The authors describe the standing long jump as a practical adult measure of lower-body explosive muscular strength. It shows what the jump reflects, not a link to mortality.
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, relative muscle power and strength were not interchangeable, and power was more strongly associated with mortality than strength.
What it does not show. It is an association, not cause and effect, and the study did not use standing broad jumps.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence
Maffiuletti et al. (2016). Rate of force development: physiological and methodological considerations. European Journal of Applied Physiology.
What it found. Rapid force development depends heavily on how quickly the nervous system activates muscle; the earliest phase (roughly 50 to 75 milliseconds) is strongly influenced by rapid voluntary activation and motor-unit firing rate.
What it does not show. It does not predict mortality or set Systematic standards.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence New source
Tschopp et al. (2011). Is power training or conventional resistance training better for function in elderly persons? A meta-analysis. Age and ageing.
What it found. In older community-dwelling people, power training was feasible and had a small advantage over strength training for functional outcomes.
What it does not show. The advantage was small, not a general superiority, and safety conclusions were not firm.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence New source
Straight et al. (2016). Effects of Resistance Training on Lower-Extremity Muscle Power in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.).
What it found. In adults aged 50 or older, resistance training had a small-to-moderate effect on lower-extremity muscle power (Hedges' d 0.34), about 54.90 watts.
What it does not show. The power tasks were not the Systematic broad jump, and it does not show a mortality link or set scoring standards.
-
Direct test evidence
Marin‐Jimenez et al. (2024). Criterion‐related validity and reliability of the standing long jump test in adults: The Adult‐Fit project. European Journal of Sport Science.
What it found. Standing long jump distance in adults was associated with maximal horizontal power and force, lean mass, body-fat percentage and sex; height was not an independent predictor once those were included.
What it does not show. It does not show mortality outcomes.
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.