Key numbers
~12%
Men, per decade up to age 70: estimated absolute leg power, cross-sectional (Coelho-Junior)
~34%
Men, per decade after age 70
~11.4%
Women, per decade up to age 70
~35%
Women, per decade after age 70
What Systematic recommends
Where to start
- Bare feet, a firm surface, such as a wood floor or thin carpet.
- Stand with your feet about hip-width apart. Stand tall. Place your hands on your hips and keep them there throughout the exercise.
- Rise onto the balls of your feet with your heels elevated. Hop in place with both feet leaving the ground at the same time. Land softly on the balls of both feet. Keep the hops quick and continuous.
- 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 muscle power is
Strength is how much force you 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.
That difference shows up in health research. In a study of middle-aged and older adults by Araújo and colleagues, relative muscle power was more strongly associated with mortality than relative strength. It is an association, and the study did not use a standing broad jump.
Why speed of force matters
Producing force fast depends heavily on how quickly the nervous system can activate muscle. In the first 50 to 75 milliseconds of an effort, how fast force rises is strongly influenced by rapid voluntary activation and by how fast motor units fire.
Coelho-Junior and colleagues estimated lower-limb muscle power from the time to complete five sit-to-stands, together with body size and chair height, using previously validated equations. This cross-sectional study did not directly measure mechanical power with laboratory equipment, nor did it record standing broad jump distances. Comparing age groups, estimated absolute power in men was approximately 12 percent per decade lower up to age 70, then approximately 34 percent per decade after 70. In women the figures were approximately 11.4 percent per decade up to 70, then approximately 35 percent per decade after 70. These are differences between age groups, not standing broad jump norms.
How the Standing Broad Jump measures it
The Standing Broad Jump is a practical field measure of lower-body explosive performance and landing control. You jump forward from a standstill with a countermovement and arm swing, then hold a stable landing for two seconds.
A validation study of the standing long jump in 410 adults confirmed it as a practical adult measure of lower-body explosive muscular strength. Jump distance was associated with maximal horizontal power and force, sex, body-fat percentage and lean mass. Height did not remain an independent predictor once those were taken into account. That study did not include Systematic's two-second landing hold.
For reference, men aged 40 to 60 in a French adult dataset jumped a mean of 195.21 cm (the study's unit), with a standard deviation of 28.64, across 557 men. Systematic uses age-related power-decline rates to extend that measured French reference beyond age 60. The red, yellow and green bands are Systematic standards, not published clinical cutoffs.
What training research shows
Power training means lifting with the instruction to move the weight as fast as possible on the way up. One review of trials in older adults concluded that power training is feasible for elderly people and described a small advantage over conventional strength training for functional outcomes.
A later meta-analysis was more cautious. For self-reported function, 3 randomized trials with 85 participants gave a standardized mean difference of 0.38, with a 95% confidence interval from -0.62 to 1.37. That is low-certainty evidence, and the range includes no difference at all.
In this capacity
- What did Araújo et al. (2025) find? Muscle power versus strength and mortality in middle-aged and older men and women
- How does muscle power decline with age?
- What is the difference between muscle power and strength?
- Does power training help older adults more than strength training?
- What is rate of force development?
- Is the standing long jump a valid fitness test for adults?
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.
-
Normative/reference evidence
Coelho‐Junior et al. (2024; published online 2023). Sex‐ and age‐specific normative values of lower extremity muscle power in Italian community‐dwellers. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle.
What it found. Comparing age groups in a cross-sectional dataset, estimated absolute muscle power was approximately 12 percent per decade lower up to age 70 and approximately 34 percent per decade lower after 70 in men, and approximately 11.4 and 35 percent in women.
What it does not show. Power was estimated from five sit-to-stands with validated equations, not measured directly, and the study recorded no standing broad jump distances.
-
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, especially in roughly the first 50 to 75 milliseconds.
What it does not show. It does not test mortality or validate a field jump test.
-
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. Relative muscle power and strength are not interchangeable; relative power was more strongly associated with mortality than relative strength.
What it does not show. It is an association, the study did not use a standing broad jump, and it does not show that power training prevents death.
-
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. In 410 adults the standing long jump was a practical measure of lower-body explosive muscular strength; distance tracked horizontal power and force, sex, body fat and lean mass.
What it does not show. It did not use Systematic's two-second landing hold, and height did not remain an independent predictor.
-
Normative/reference evidence
Nassif et al. (2012). Monitoring fitness levels and detecting implications for health in a French population: an observational study. BMJ Open.
What it found. Men aged 40 to 60 had a mean standing broad jump of 195.21 cm (standard deviation 28.64, n=557).
What it does not show. It measured French adults up to age 60; it gives no decline rates and no link to health outcomes.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence New source
Balachandran et al. (2022). Comparison of Power Training vs Traditional Strength Training on Physical Function in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA network open.
What it found. For self-reported function, 3 trials with 85 participants gave a standardized mean difference of 0.38 (95% confidence interval -0.62 to 1.37), low-certainty evidence.
What it does not show. It does not show power training is better for everyone, a mortality benefit, or anything about broad jump scores.
-
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. Power training was feasible for elderly people, with a small advantage over strength training for functional outcomes.
What it does not show. Its safety conclusions were not firm, and it does not show power training is better for everyone.
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.