Key numbers
410 adults
Validation sample size
83.96 inches
Men 18-39 reference mean
62.91 inches
Women 18-39 reference mean
59.11 inches
Women 40-60 reference mean
What Systematic recommends
Where to start
- 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.
- 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. Use bare feet on a firm surface, such as a wood floor or thin carpet. Keep your hands on your hips throughout the movement. 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 the adult validation showed
The Adult-Fit study tested the standing long jump in 410 adults. Jump distance was associated with maximal horizontal power and maximal horizontal force, and also with sex, body-fat percentage and lean mass. Together those explained approximately 78 percent of the variance in the final model.
Height did not remain an independent predictor once power, force, sex, lean mass and body-fat percentage were taken into account. The authors described the jump as a practical adult measure of lower-body explosive muscular strength.
Test-retest reliability was high (ICC 0.94), but the second test averaged 12.14 cm farther than the first, a learning effect; after a learning period, reliability improved. That is a reason to use the same familiarization and number of attempts every time.
Where the adult reference values come from
Systematic's reference values come from Nassif and colleagues (2012), who measured physical fitness directly, rather than asking people to report it, in 31,349 French volunteers overall. Systematic converted their measured distributions to inches.
The measured data run through age 60. For example, the mean jump was 83.96 inches for men aged 18 to 39, 62.91 inches for women aged 18 to 39, and 59.11 inches for women aged 40 to 60. These are reference values describing other adults, not Systematic scores.
How a jump is scored
A result is the single best valid jump from up to five attempts. A jump counts only if the landing is held completely still for two full seconds, and distance is measured from the baseline to the back of the nearest heel. These Systematic rules, the two-second landing hold, the best of five attempts and the age extrapolations, are not what Adult-Fit validated; its findings concern the study's own jump method, not Systematic's thresholds or any health outcome.
Systematic then compares the best valid jump with the reference for the person's age and sex: the jump minus the reference mean, divided by the reference standard deviation. Red, yellow and green are Systematic standards set on that comparison, not clinical cut-offs from the studies.
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.
-
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, jump distance was associated with maximal horizontal power and force (as well as sex, body fat and lean mass); the final model explained approximately 78 percent of variance, and height was not an independent predictor.
What it does not show. It did not test health outcomes and does not validate Systematic's red, yellow and green standards.
-
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. Measured standing broad jump distributions from 31,349 French volunteers overall, used by Systematic (converted to inches) as adult reference values through age 60.
What it does not show. It did not set Systematic's red, yellow and green standards, and its data stop at age 60.
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.