
The 10-second fitness test you can do at home to predict your lifespan
Researchers in Brazil gave over 4,000 adults a flexibility test to lower themselves on to the floor from a standing position and then get back up.
They were asked to do so with as little assistance as possible, such as using their hands, furniture or other people around them for balance.
Participants were then scored on a scale of zero to five for both sitting down and standing up, starting with five points and then losing one for each type of support needed.
The team found people who needed no help to sit down or stand up were six times less likely to die of heart disease or other cardiac issues within the next decade than those who wobbled or had more trouble.
And each one-point decline in score was associated with a one-third greater chance of dying of heart disease or other natural causes like cancer.
The test may be a good approximation because muscle strength and flexibility are thought to lower blood pressure and resting heart rate and reduce full-body inflammation, which can lower the risk of heart disease.
Researchers said while other studies have used balance and flexibility tests to measure longevity, the new study is the first to measure 'muscle strength/power, flexibility, balance and body composition' all at once.
Claudio Gil Araujo, lead study author and research director at an exercise-medicine clinic in Rio de Janeiro, where the data was collected, told the Washington Post: 'What makes this test special is that it looks at all of them at once, which is why we think it can be such a strong predictor.'
The researchers looked at 4,282 adults in Brazil ages 46 to 75, two thirds of whom were men. The average age was 59.
After 12 years on average, 15.5 percent of participants died of natural causes. Of those, 35 percent died of cardiovascular disease, 28 percent of cancer and 11 percent of respiratory diseases like pneumonia.
At the outset of the research, each participant was asked to sit down from a standing position and then get back up after.
They started with five points for each test and lost one point for every level of support they needed. This could include using their knees, holding on to a chair or taking someone's hand.
Participants also lost half a point every time they lost their balance or seemed unsteady.
Researchers then combined each person's sitting and standing scores to get the final result, with a maximum of 10.
People who scored zero to four points total had a six-fold increased chance of dying from cardiovascular disease than those who got a perfect 10.
Half of those who scored a zero on the test to get up off the floor died during the follow-up period compared to four percent of those who got a perfect score, an 11-fold difference.
Additionally, participants who scored between 4.5 and 7.5 were two to three times more likely to die in the next decade from heart disease or other natural causes.
Each one-point score decrease was associated with a 31 percent increased risk of cardiovascular death and 31 percent greater chance of death in the next decade from other natural causes.
The researchers also found after adjusting for factors like age, sex and body mass index (BMI), people with a history of coronary artery disease were three times more likely to die from natural causes compared to healthy participants.
There were several limitations to the study, however, including all of the participants being from a private clinic in Brazil, leading to a less diverse sample size. There was also no data on smoking status, a leading cause of death from heart disease and lung cancer.
To try the test for yourself, Dr Araujo suggests finding a partner to score you and steady you if you start to fall. People with joint issues should avoid trying it due to the risk of unnecessary injury.
Clear space around you but ensure there is a wall, chair or other support object nearby. Remove your shoes and socks and consider putting a pad down on bare floors.
Stand with your feet slightly apart and cross one foot in front of the other. Lower yourself until you are sitting on the ground and then stand back up, trying not to use support.
While there was a correlation between the scores and mortality, it is important to visit a doctor to get a full picture of health, as well as risk factors for different diseases.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Geeky Gadgets
7 hours ago
- Geeky Gadgets
Kimi K2 Agent Researcher for Deep Reasoning Research Tasks
What if you could delegate your most complex research tasks to an AI that not only understands the intricacies of your work but also evolves with every challenge it faces? Enter the Kimi K2 Agent Researcher, a new single-agent system designed to redefine how we approach deep reasoning and long-term problem-solving. Unlike traditional tools that falter under the weight of extended tasks or lose focus in the noise of irrelevant data, the Kimi K2 thrives in complexity, offering precision, adaptability, and unparalleled efficiency. Imagine a system that can sift through hundreds of sources, refine hypotheses on the fly, and deliver actionable insights—all while maintaining a laser-sharp focus on your objectives. It's not just a tool; it's a partner in innovation. Prompt Engineering explores the fantastic potential of the Kimi K2 Agent Researcher, delving into its innovative functionalities like iterative hypothesis refinement, real-time internal search, and automated coding. You'll discover how its single-agent architecture eliminates inefficiencies common in multi-agent systems, making sure consistency and clarity even in the most demanding research environments. Whether you're a data scientist navigating complex datasets or an academic pushing the boundaries of your field, the Kimi K2 promises to elevate your research process. But how does it compare to other AI models, and what makes its design uniquely suited for global, multilingual challenges? The answers lie in its seamless integration of technology and purpose—a design philosophy that might just change the way we think about research forever. Kimi K2 Research Overview Core Features of the Kimi K2 Agent Researcher At the foundation of the Kimi K2 Agent Researcher lies its ability to handle complex research tasks with exceptional accuracy and efficiency. Its single-agent architecture incorporates three primary tools that work in tandem to optimize performance: Real-time internal search: This feature enables the system to swiftly retrieve relevant information from internal datasets, making sure rapid access to critical data and minimizing delays in research workflows. This feature enables the system to swiftly retrieve relevant information from internal datasets, making sure rapid access to critical data and minimizing delays in research workflows. Text-based browser: Equipped to conduct extensive web-based research, this tool can explore up to 200 URLs per task, allowing comprehensive data collection from diverse online sources. Equipped to conduct extensive web-based research, this tool can explore up to 200 URLs per task, allowing comprehensive data collection from diverse online sources. Automated coding tool: Designed to generate and refine code, this tool supports technical aspects of research, streamlining processes that would otherwise require significant manual effort. By combining these tools, the system synthesizes information from multiple sources, delivering thorough analyses and highly accurate results. This integration ensures that users can rely on the system for both breadth and depth in their research endeavors. Training Methodology and Advanced Functionalities The Kimi K2 Agent Researcher is trained using an end-to-end reinforcement learning approach, allowing it to refine its strategies through iterative trial and error. This training methodology underpins several advanced functionalities that set the system apart: Iterative hypothesis refinement: The system evaluates conflicting information, adjusts hypotheses, and self-corrects to enhance the accuracy of its conclusions. The system evaluates conflicting information, adjusts hypotheses, and self-corrects to enhance the accuracy of its conclusions. Information validation: It verifies the reliability and accuracy of data before presenting results, making sure that conclusions are based on credible sources. It verifies the reliability and accuracy of data before presenting results, making sure that conclusions are based on credible sources. Context management: By retaining relevant information and filtering out irrelevant data, the system maintains clarity and focus during extended research tasks. These capabilities make the Kimi K2 Agent Researcher particularly effective for scenarios requiring deep reasoning, such as scientific research, data analysis, and solving complex problems. Its ability to adapt and refine its approach ensures consistent performance, even in dynamic or uncertain research environments. Kimi K2 Agent Researcher Watch this video on YouTube. Take a look at other insightful guides from our broad collection that might capture your interest in Kimi K2 . Performance Metrics and Comparative Benchmarks The Kimi K2 Agent Researcher delivers impressive performance metrics, particularly in tasks requiring deep reasoning and extended focus. It can execute up to 23 reasoning steps within a single task and supports up to 50 iterations without experiencing 'context rot,' a common issue in prolonged tasks where systems lose track of relevant information. This resilience ensures that the system maintains accuracy and coherence, even in demanding scenarios. While the Kimi K2 Agent Researcher outperforms most comparable models in terms of versatility and integration, it does fall slightly behind the Gro 4 model in specific benchmarks. However, its ability to incorporate diverse data sources, including Chinese web links, gives it a distinct advantage for global research applications. This feature broadens its utility for users who require access to multilingual or region-specific data. Single-Agent Design and Its Advantages Unlike multi-agent systems, which distribute tasks among specialized agents, the Kimi K2 Agent Researcher employs a holistic single-agent design. This approach simplifies coordination and enhances the system's ability to manage large observation contexts. By focusing on a unified problem-solving strategy, the system reduces redundancy and ensures a streamlined research process. The single-agent architecture also allows for greater consistency in reasoning and decision-making. It eliminates the potential for miscommunication or inefficiencies that can arise in multi-agent setups, making it particularly well-suited for tasks that require sustained focus and comprehensive analysis. API Hosting Options and User Accessibility The Kimi K2 Agent Researcher offers flexible API hosting options, allowing users to select configurations that align with their specific needs and budgets. These options include variations in quantization levels, token processing speeds, and pricing structures, making sure that the system can accommodate a wide range of use cases. Beyond its technical capabilities, the system enhances user accessibility through its reporting and visualization features. It generates detailed reports and interactive websites to summarize findings, simplifying the interpretation and application of results. This functionality is particularly valuable for professionals who need to present their research in a clear and actionable format. Additionally, the system provides a limited number of free searches per month, allowing users to explore its capabilities before committing to a subscription. Its balanced interaction style ensures that information is delivered accurately and without unnecessary bias, fostering a productive and engaging research experience. Why the Kimi K2 Agent Researcher Stands Out The Kimi K2 Agent Researcher distinguishes itself as a powerful tool for addressing complex research challenges. Its advanced reasoning capabilities, rigorous validation processes, and robust context management make it a reliable choice for professionals seeking precision and adaptability. Whether you are conducting academic research, analyzing large datasets, or exploring new hypotheses, this single-agent system provides the tools and efficiency necessary to achieve your objectives with confidence. By combining innovative technology with user-centric design, the Kimi K2 Agent Researcher offers a comprehensive solution for modern research needs. Its ability to integrate diverse data sources, adapt to evolving tasks, and deliver actionable insights ensures that it remains a valuable resource for professionals across industries. Media Credit: Prompt Engineering Filed Under: AI, Top News Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.


The Guardian
17 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘A disaster for all of us': US scientists describe impact of Trump cuts
'Our ability to respond to climate change, the biggest existential threat facing humanity, is totally adrift,' said Sally Johnson, an Earth scientist who has spent the past two decades helping collect, store and distribute data at Nasa (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and Noaa (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Donald Trump's assault on science – but particularly climate science – has led to unprecedented funding cuts and staff layoffs across federally funded agencies and programs, threatening to derail research tackling the most pressing issues facing Americans and humanity more broadly. A generation of scientific talent is also on the brink of being lost, with unprecedented political interference at what were previously evidence-driven agencies jeopardizing the future of US industries and economic growth. Johnson was among scores of scientists conducting vital research across a range of fields from infectious diseases, robotics, education, computer science and the climate crisis, who responded to a Guardian online callout to share their experiences about the impact of the Trump administration's cuts to science funding. Many said they had already had funding slashed or programs terminated, while others fear that cuts are inevitable and are beginning to search for alternative work – either overseas or outside science. So far, the cuts have led to a 60% reduction in Johnson's team, and fear is mounting over the future of 30 years of climate data and expertise as communities across the country are battered by increasingly destructive extreme weather events. 'We won't be able to afford to continue providing the free and quality tools and services to make our data stores searchable, viewable, usable, and accessible. We might not even be able to afford to keep all the data … this will mean worse forecasts and less effective search and rescue responses leading to unnecessary and avoidable loss of life,' said Johnson (not her real name). Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Obbba) calls for a 56% cut to the current $9bn National Science Foundation (NSF) budget, as well as a 73% reduction in staff and fellowships – with graduate students among the hardest hit. The NSF is the premier federal investor in basic science and engineering, and more than 1,650 grants have also been terminated, according to Grant Watch, a non-profit tracking federally funded research grants under the Trump administration. At the behest of Trump, the hardest hit are studies aimed at addressing the unequal impact of the climate crisis and other environmental hazards, as well as any projects perceived to have a connection to diversity, equity or inclusion (DEI). An anthropologist who researches the impact of floods and cyclones on public health and food supplies in Madagascar, which is among the most vulnerable nations in the world to the climate crisis but contributed virtually nothing to the catastrophe, is leaving Johns Hopkins for Oxford University after funding for the remainder of her fellowship was threatened. 'I am devastated to leave family, friends and the grad students I am mentoring in the US, but this seemed like the only way to continue work I've been pursuing for 10+ years. I am working on improving climate mitigation and adaptation in an African country. After Trump was elected, the writing was on the wall. There is no way I can write grant applications that will be acceptable to this government.' A veteran infectious diseases researcher at Ohio State University was forced to abandon a clinical trial for a new medication to treat hypoxemic respiratory failure in Covid patients after the National Institute of Health (NIH) terminated funding midway through the study. The decision will save $500,000, but $1.5m had already been spent on the trial which researchers hoped would lead to new treatment options for the million or so people hospitalized with respiratory failure each year as a result of flu, Covid and other infections. The trial would have to be repeated from the start, in order to seek approval from the FDA. 'This is a disaster for all of us. We're all depressed and living on a knife-edge, because we know we could lose the rest of our grants any day. These people really hate us yet all we've done is work hard to make people's health better. A flu pandemic is coming for us, what's happening in cattle is truly scary and all we have is oxygen and hope for people,' said the Ohio scientist. Between 90 and 95% of their lab work is funded through the NIH. So far, more than 3,500 grants have been terminated or frozen by the NIH. Trump's budget proposes slashing NIH funding by more than 40%. The majority of scientists who got in touch described feeling anxious and despondent – about their own work if the cuts continue, but also about what seems an inevitable loss of talent and knowledge which could upend the US position as a global leader in scientific endeavors and ricochet for years to come. The brain drain is real. The Australian Academy of Science is leading the country's efforts to proactively recruit top US-based scientists, creating a new global talent program that includes research funding, access to Australian research infrastructure, fast-track visas and a relocation package. At least 75 scientists applied in the first three months of the program, the AAS told the Guardian. The Trump administration has accused universities, without evidence, of promoting leftwing radical thinking and research, but federal funds train scientists who go on to work for the oil and gas, mining, chemical, big tech and other industries. Several respondents said the private sector was also starting to feel the knock-on effect of Trump's cuts and tariffs. Wessel van den Bergh, a materials scientist with a PhD, was working on battery storage technology for a Chinese-owned renewable energy company in Massachusetts. He was laid off in early June amid Trump's tariff chaos and attacks on science and renewables, and is struggling to find work. 'When I started my PhD program, America was at the leading edge of batteries/energy storage but this is no longer true due to tariffs, funding cuts, and aggression towards green alternatives. Rather, the US has ceded its hard-earned expertise to other countries such as Korea, Japan and China,' Van den Bergh said. Trump supports the expansion of fossil fuels and has received millions of dollars in campaign donations from the oil, gas and coal industry, while his budget legislation terminated incentives for solar and wind energy. 'It's crushing, I don't see a clear path ahead any more. I no longer feel this country values science. It's genuinely heartbreaking to build your vocation to something that could genuinely benefit the world for it to be quashed for imagined political victories … especially at a time where these kinds of technologies are the only way out of the climate crisis,' said Van den Bergh. Separately, the Nuclear Physics Laboratory (NPL) at the University of Illinois got in touch after the Guardian's recent investigation into the chaos at the NSF. For almost 100 years the NPL has been at the forefront of cutting-edge science in drug discovery, cancer treatments, PET scans and other medical diagnoses, and semiconductor testing, with researchers playing a key role in world-renowned institutions like Cern and Los Alamos. It's a major hub for nurturing and training future talent, and at least 50 students have graduated with PhDs in the past 20 years. It was here that Rosalind Yalow got her PhD in nuclear physics in 1945, and then went on to invent radioimmunoassay – a technique to detect minute amounts of hormones, viruses and drugs in the blood which revolutionized medical testing for conditions such as diabetes. Yalow was awarded the Nobel prize in 1977, only the second woman to win it. The lab was recently informed that the NSF will reduce funding that supports graduates students from $15m for four years to $1m for one year. 'Our group in nuclear physics at Illinois actually predates the founding of the NSF in 1950, and we have a long history of both producing scientists and accelerator technologies that have had an impact on huge numbers of people,' said Anne M Sickles, professor of nuclear physics. 'If you cut the funding to the people who are doing the work right now, you don't know what they would have innovated in 10 years or 15 years or 32 years like Rosalind Yalow. We don't know what we're losing.' The NFS declined to comment, while the office of management and budget and NIH did not respond.


The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Scientific publishing needs urgent reform to retain trust in research process
The dysfunctions of scientific publishing that your article so aptly captured derive from two forces (Quality of scientific papers questioned as academics 'overwhelmed' by the millions published, 13 July) – researchers are incentivised to publish as much as possible and publishers make more money if they publish more papers. Artificial intelligence will not fix this. Churning out more papers faster has got us to this place. Given current incentives, AI will mean churning them out even faster. A paper written by AI, peer-reviewed by AI and read only by AI creates a self-reinforcing loop that holds no real value, erodes trust in science and voids scientific inquiry of meaning. Research is driven by our wonder at the world. That needs to be central to any reform of scientific publishing. Instead, the driving forces can be addressed by two measures. Incentives for researchers can and should prioritise quality over quantity, and meaning over metrics. And publishers' extortionate fees (fuelling profits of more than 30%) can and should be refused by those who pay them. Both the incentives and publishers' contracts are governed by the funders of research – universities, research councils and foundations. Their welcome attempts to engage with these problems through Plan S, which aims to make research publications open access, have not succeeded because these have been captured by publishers that twisted them to their advantage, making yet more profits. There are examples, often beyond the global north, of scientific publishing that is not geared towards generating profits for publishers. SciELO (which is centred on Latin America) is one, and the Global Diamond Open Access Alliance champions many others. We have much to learn from them. Research is in a parlous state in the English-speaking world – at risk for the truths it tells in the US, and for its expense in Britain. Funders have the power radically to alter the incentives scientists face and to lower the rents extracted by BrockingtonIcrea (Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies)Paolo CrosettoGrenoble Applied Economics LaboratoryPablo Gomez BarreiroScience services and laboratories, Kew Gardens Your article on the overwhelming volume of scientific papers rightly highlights a system under pressure. But the deeper dysfunction lies not only in quantity, but in the economics of scholarly publishing, where publishers cash in on researchers' dependence on journals for academic careers. The academic publishing market systematically diverts public research funds into shareholder profits. Open access was meant to democratise knowledge, but its original vision has been co-opted by commercial publishers. It was BioMed Central (now Springer-Nature) that first introduced the 'author pays' model to secure revenue streams. With article processing charges (APCs) now being the dominant open-access model, authors routinely pay between £2,000 and £10,000 to publish a single article, even if the cost of producing it does not exceed £1,000. Some of us attended the recent Royal Society conference on the future of scientific publishing, where its vice-president, Sir Mark Walport, reminded the audience that academic publishing isn't free and that if we want to remove paywalls for both authors and readers, someone must pay the bills. We argue that there is already enough money in the system, which allows leading publishers such as Elsevier to generate profit margins of 38%. Our most recent estimates show that researchers paid close to $9bn in APCs to six publishers in 2019-23, with annual amounts nearly tripling in these five years. These most recent estimates far exceed the $1bn estimated for 2015-18 that your article cites. As further emphasised at the Royal Society meeting, publishers monetise the current role that journal prestige plays in hiring, promotion and funding. Therefore, in order to make open access sustainable and to put a stop to these extractive business practices, it is essential to reform academic assessment and decouple it from knowledge HausteinAssociate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa; Co-director, Scholarly Communications LabEric ScharesEngineering and collection analysis librarian, University Library, Iowa State UniversityLeigh-Ann ButlerScholarly communication librarian, University of OttawaJuan Pablo Alperin Associate professor, School of Publishing, Simon Fraser University; Scientific director, Public Knowledge Project Academic publishing is creaking at the seams. Too many articles are published and too many journals don't add real value. Researchers are incentivised to publish quantity over quality, and some journal publishers benefit from this. This detracts from the excellent, world-changing and increasingly open-access research that we all need to flourish – and that quality publishers cultivate. Generative AI only scales up these pressures, as your article shows. Something has to change. That's why Cambridge University Press has spent the last few months collaborating with researchers, librarians, publishers, funders and learned societies across the globe on a radical and pragmatic review of the open research publishing ecosystem, which we will publish in the autumn. Focusing on generative AI or on low-quality journals alone is insufficient. We need a system-wide approach that reviews and rethinks the link between publishing, reward and recognition; equity in research dissemination; research integrity; and one that takes technological change seriously. The system is about to break. We need creative thinking and commitment from all players to fix it and to build something HillManaging director, Cambridge University Press