Physical performance metrics of police officers in northeastern Mexico according to age groups and sex

Luis E. Carranza-Garcia; Isaac Garcia-Flores; Ricardo Navarro-Orocio; Jose O. Lagunes-Carrasco; Ricardo Lopez-Garcia; Maria C. Enriquez-Reyna

doi:10.35371/aoem.2025.37.e34

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Ann Occup Environ Med > Volume 37; 2025 > Article

Brief Communication Physical performance metrics of police officers in northeastern Mexico according to age groups and sex: Luis E. Carranza-Garcia, Isaac Garcia-Flores^,*, Ricardo Navarro-Orocio, Jose O. Lagunes-Carrasco, Ricardo Lopez-Garcia, Maria C. Enriquez-Reyna; Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2025;37:e34.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2025.37.e34
Published online: November 17, 2025

Faculty of Sports Organization, Autonomous University of Nuevo León (UANL), Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico

*Corresponding author: Isaac Garcia-Flores Faculty of Sports Organization, Autonomous University of Nuevo León, Av. Universidad S/N, Ciudad Universitaria, San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León, 66455, Mexico E-mail: isaak.igf619@gmail.com

• Received: June 18, 2025 • Revised: October 22, 2025 • Accepted: November 5, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

697 Views
66 Download

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
Abbreviations
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Normative values for the physical fitness of Mexican police officers (POs) by sex and age are scarce. This study describes physical performance percentiles by sex and age group and developed percentile values for POs of northeastern Mexico. A retrospective analysis was conducted on database of 7,519 men and 1,050 women aged 20–59 years. Fitness assessments included anthropometric measures, handgrip strength, Abalakov vertical jump, agility circuit, and 1,000-m run. Officers aged 20–29 outperformed other groups in all tests, except for grip strength, which peaked in the 30–39 group. In both sexes, fitness declined with age. Percentile tables by sex and age offer benchmarks to support performance standards, guide targeted physical activity programs and inform future research on Mexican POs.
Keywords: Occupational health; Motor activity; Work performance; Police

Background

Police officers (POs) play a critical role in maintaining public order and ensuring community safety. Their duties range from sedentary surveillance to high-intensity operations such as riot control and chases, requiring optimal physical fitness, including cardiovascular endurance and muscular strength.¹^,² Law enforcement agencies regularly conduct fitness evaluations to ensure POs meet occupational physical demands, typically assessing strength, agility, and cardiovascular endurance.²^-⁴

Factors such as age and sex influence physical performance. Despite non-discriminatory hiring practices, significant differences in fitness test results among age and sex groups have been reported.⁵^-⁷ Since job demands do not vary by demographic characteristics, all POs must meet the same physical standards.⁶^,⁸ Research shows men generally have greater muscular strength and cardiorespiratory capacity than women, and these abilities decline with age.⁹^-¹¹

Younger POs (20–29 years) typically outperform older colleagues in strength, power, and endurance tests.¹^,³^,¹⁰^,¹² Maintaining physical fitness throughout a PO’s career is essential for effective and safe job performance.¹³ However, data on Latin American POs—especially in Mexico—are scarce. Existing studies often exclude women or have narrow age ranges, limiting their applicability.⁴^,¹⁴ Therefore, this study aims to describe physical performance percentiles by sex and age group among Mexican POs.

Study design and participants

A retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed annual fitness evaluation records of 8,569 POs from the Monterrey metropolitan area, Nuevo León, Mexico, spanning 2013 to 2023. Participants included state (Fuerza Civil) and municipal police, aged 20–59 years with body mass index (BMI) between 18 and 34 kg/m². Data cleaning excluded statistical outliers (Z-score ≥ 2.5). Participants with missing data for any anthropometric or physical fitness variables were excluded from the analysis of the respective test. No data imputation was performed.

Prior to testing, all POs underwent medical screening including the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire.¹⁵ Anthropometric measurements (weight, height, BMI) were taken, followed by an 8-minute standardized warm-up. Physical fitness was assessed through four validated tests: handgrip strength,¹⁶^,¹⁷ vertical jump via the Abalakov method,¹⁸ agility using an obstacle course protocol⁴^,¹⁹ and a 1,000-m flat run.²⁰ These tests were selected for their demonstrated validity and reliability in assessing key fitness components relevant to police duties.

Data analysis

Data processing began with preliminary cleaning using Microsoft Excel software (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA), followed by statistical analysis performed in SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Non-normal distributions were addressed with non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis) to compare sex and age group differences. Percentile distributions (5th to 95th) were calculated for each test. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.

Ethics statement

This study is a retrospective analysis of anonymized secondary data collected through routine institutional physical evaluations of POs. No identifiable personal information was accessed or used. The study protocol complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León Ethics Committee. The requirement for informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee because the data were retrospective and anonymized.

Main results

Some POs were excluded from the analysis owing to incomplete test protocols or injuries sustained during testing. The 20–29 age group showed the best overall performance (p < 0.01) (Table 1), except in grip strength, where no advantage was found compared to the 30–39 and 40–49 age groups.

No statistically significant differences were found in height (p > 0.05) or grip strength (p > 0.05) across different age groups. Percentile ranking tables were created separately for male and female officers, showing grip strength, vertical jump, agility test, and 1,000-m run performance (Tables 2 and 3).

Interpretation

This study assessed physical fitness in Mexican POs by sex and age, generating percentiles to support targeted interventions. The test battery, based on Mantilla-Rodriguez et al.,⁴ included strength, agility, and aerobic capacity assessments. Annual data over 10 years allowed for 10-year stratified percentile development, per previous recommendations.²^,³^,¹⁴^,¹⁹ Men showed higher weight, BMI, and height, consistent with prior research on POs.³^,²¹ Body weight and BMI increased with age in both sexes, echoing trends in the general Mexican population.²² These changes may reflect physiological and lifestyle factors, though not all studies agree on this pattern.¹^,²¹ While body composition was not assessed, its role in fitness and job performance is well documented.²^,¹²^,²³

Performance differences between sexes were significant in all tests. Male POs had better upper/lower body strength, agility, and endurance—findings consistent with literature.¹^,³ This is largely attributed to higher male muscle mass.²³^,²⁴ Body composition strongly correlates with physical performance,²³^,²⁵ justifying sex-specific percentiles for accurate assessment and long-term monitoring.²^,³^,⁸ These benchmarks can guide training programs, maintenance initiatives, and incentive strategies.²^,¹⁹

Mexican POs’ mean grip strength was 46.0 ± 7.9 kg, below the international average of 52.6 kg from Marins et al.,² which included data from North America, Europe, Oceania, and Asia. Peak grip strength was found in the 30–39 age group, consistent with other studies,¹^,³^,⁸ though differences from the 20–29 group were not always significant.¹⁶^,²¹ Strength generally declines with age,²^,¹⁴ although findings vary.¹^,³^,¹² Peak strength typically occurs around 27–30 years,²⁶^,²⁷ after which it declines due to reduced activity or sarcopenia.²⁶^,²⁸ These trends mirror those of the general population.¹^,⁸

Our results show that the 30–39 age group had the highest handgrip strength in both sexes, although this capacity declines with age, consistent with previous studies.¹^,³^,¹² However, other research reports greater strength in younger groups,⁸^,²¹ though differences are not always significant. Age-related strength decline in POs is generally observed,²^,¹⁴ but not universal, and comparisons are limited by different assessment methods. The higher strength in the 30–39 group may be explained by the peak of muscle mass and strength occurring between 27 and 30 years.²⁶^,²⁷

For vertical jump performance, the average result was 31.1 ± 6.4 cm. According to international data from Marins et al.,² the global average is 48.3 cm, with a range between 34.9 and 64.5 cm. This suggests that although the Mexican POs' jump performance is competitive, it falls slightly below international standards for lower-body strength.

Regarding agility, similar patterns were observed, with significant differences between men and women and across age groups. Men tended to have better agility performance, and age-related declines were also evident in both sexes. However, there are few studies evaluating agility in POs, and various testing methods exist.² Some research suggests that agility performance may be influenced by previous injuries, lack of specific training, and the additional weight of tactical equipment.¹⁹ To date, studies have not specifically analyzed how sex and age influence agility in POs, so future research should explore this topic.

The 1,000-m run has been used in few studies,⁴ especially with percentile data for women. This study is the first to offer endurance benchmarks for Mexican POs. The 20–29 group performed best in both sexes, with significant declines in older groups, aligning with prior research.⁴^,¹⁴^,²¹ These findings highlight age-related aerobic decline,²¹ underlining the importance of sustained endurance training among aging POs.

Practical applications

Sex- and age-specific percentile tables offer a valuable resource for recruitment, retention, and promotion decisions. They also inform training design aimed at enhancing health and operational readiness. Moreover, this study underscores the need for continued research on populations with similar sociocultural contexts to develop effective health maintenance and performance strategies for law enforcement personnel.

Additionally, these results highlight the need for continued research on this population to establish a more effective approach for implementing policies focused on maintaining and improving the health and operational effectiveness of police forces with similar sociocultural characteristics to those in this study.

Abbreviations

BMI

body mass index

police officer

NOTES

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Carranza-Garcia LE. Data curation: Garcia-Flores I. Methodology/Formal analysis: Lagunes-Carrasco JO, Enriquez-Reyna MC. Investigation: Navarro-Orocio R. Validation: Lopez-Garcia R. Supervision: Carranza-Garcia LE. Project administration: Carranza-Garcia LE, Enriquez-Reyna MC. Writing - original draft: Garcia-Flores I. Writing - review & editing: Navarro-Orocio R, Enriquez-Reyna MC, Carranza-Garcia LE, Lagunes Carrasco JO, Lopez-Garcia R, Garcia-Flores I.

Table 1.

Descriptive data and physical fitness test results by sex stratified by age

Age (years)	No.	Weight (kg)	Height (m)	Body mass index (kg/m²)
Total
20–29	2,455	78.3 ± 12.7	1.68 ± 0.06	27.4 ± 3.7
30–39	4,309	81.8 ± 13.2	1.68 ± 0.06	28.7 ± 4.0
40–49	1,531	84.9 ± 13.4	1.68 ± 0.06	30.0 ± 4.0
50–59	274	84.5 ± 11.9	1.67 ± 0.05	30.1 ± 3.8
Male
20–29	2,145	79.8 ± 12.1	1.70 ± 0.05	27.5 ± 3.6
30–39	3,760	83.4 ± 12.6^**	1.69 ± 0.05	28.9 ± 3.9^**
40–49	1,355	86.5 ± 12.9^**	1.69 ± 0.05^**	30.1 ± 4.0^**
50–59	259	85.2 ± 11.4^**	1.67 ± 0.05^**	30.2 ± 3.7^**
Female
20–29	310	67.3 ± 11.1	1.59 ± 0.05	26.4 ± 4.1
30–39	549	70.9 ± 12.0^**	1.59 ± 0.05	27.7 ± 4.3^**
40–49	176	73.1 ± 11.2^**	1.58 ± 0.04	28.9 ± 4.0^**
50–59	15	72.3 ± 13.1	1.59 ± 0.03	28.2 ± 4.2

Values are presented as number or mean±standard deviation

^**Significantly different from 20–29 years old at p < 0.01.

Table 2.

Percentile rankings of physical fitness test results for male police officers aged 20–59 years

	Handgrip strength test (kg)				Abalakov jump test (cm)				Agility test (seconds)				Endurance 1,000-m test
	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59
No.	2,111	3,700	1,333	256	2,115	3,705	1,338	257	2,108	3,699	1,331	255	2,085	3,675	1,325	254
M±SD	47.9 ± 6.7	48.1 ± 6.3	47.2 ± 6.4	44.3 ± 6.5	33.6 ± 5.1	33.0 ± 5.3	30.1 ± 5.3	27.2 ± 5.1	12.63 ± 1.33	13.13 ± 1.54	14.40 ± 1.92	15.83 ± 2.67	04:20 ± 00:32	04:34 ± 00:40	05:04 ± 00:51	05:39 ± 01:03
P₅	37.0	38.0	36.0	33.0	25.2	23.9	21.4	18.6	15.02	16.04	18.27	21.49	05:23	05:56	06:42	07:38
P₁₀	40.0	40.0	39.0	36.0	27.0	25.8	23.2	20.5	14.48	15.27	17.00	19.66	05:06	05:33	06:20	07:08
P₁₅	40.0	41.0	40.0	38.0	28.4	27.3	24.4	22.0	14.05	14.78	16.41	18.25	04:55	05:17	06:03	06:52
P₂₀	42.0	42.0	42.0	39.0	29.3	28.5	25.4	22.9	13.73	14.45	15.90	17.65	04:47	05:05	05:49	06:34
P₂₅	43.0	44.0	43.0	40.0	30.2	29.4	26.3	23.6	13.50	14.16	15.56	17.29	04:40	04:57	05:36	06:22
P₃₀	44.0	44.0	44.0	40.0	30.9	30.3	27.1	24.6	13.28	13.89	15.20	16.89	04:34	04:50	05:25	06:09
P₃₅	45.0	46.0	45.0	41.0	31.5	31.0	27.9	24.9	13.08	13.65	15.00	16.57	04:30	04:44	05:17	05:56
P₄₀	46.0	46.0	46.0	42.0	32.1	31.7	28.7	25.6	12.89	13.43	14.74	16.19	04:26	04:38	05:09	05:49
P₄₅	47.0	47.0	46.0	44.0	32.8	32.4	29.4	26.5	12.70	13.21	14.49	15.94	04:21	04:33	05:03	05:37
P₅₀	48.0	48.0	47.0	44.0	33.4	33.0	30.0	27.3	12.52	13.01	14.21	15.58	04:17	04:28	04:56	05:29
P₅₅	48.0	49.0	48.0	45.0	34.2	33.7	30.9	27.9	12.37	12.80	14.01	15.32	04:13	04:23	04:49	05:17
P₆₀	50.0	50.0	49.0	46.0	34.9	34.4	31.6	28.5	12.22	12.61	13.75	14.95	04:09	04:18	04:43	05:08
P₆₅	50.0	50.0	50.0	47.0	35.7	35.1	32.3	29.1	12.06	12.41	13.49	14.67	04:05	04:14	04:37	05:04
P₇₀	51.0	52.0	50.0	48.0	36.5	36.0	33.0	29.8	11.84	12.21	13.25	14.31	04:01	04:10	04:32	04:56
P₇₅	52.0	52.0	52.0	50.0	37.4	36.7	33.8	30.7	11.66	12.00	13.00	13.97	03:57	04:04	04:27	04:53
P₈₀	54.0	54.0	53.0	50.0	38.2	37.6	34.7	31.7	11.48	11.75	12.78	13.52	03:52	04:00	04:21	04:47
P₈₅	55.0	55.0	54.0	51.5	39.3	38.7	36.0	32.7	11.25	11.52	12.45	13.10	03:47	03:55	04:13	04:41
P₉₀	57.0	57.0	56.0	53.0	40.5	40.1	37.5	34.4	11.00	11.24	12.02	12.50	03:41	03:48	04:04	04:28
P₉₅	60.0	59.0	58.3	55.0	42.5	42.1	39.4	36.9	10.52	10.84	11.56	11.92	03:35	03:40	03:54	04:10

This table presents performance data (5th–95th percentiles) for male police officers aged 20–59 years across four physical fitness tests: handgrip strength (kg), Abalakov vertical jump (cm), agility test (seconds), and 1,000-m endurance run (mm:ss). Data are stratified by age group and include sample size (No.), mean (M), and standard deviation (SD) for each test. Time values for the 1,000-m run are reported in minutes and seconds (mm:ss).

Table 3.

Percentile rankings of physical fitness test results for female police officers aged 20–59 years

	Handgrip strength test (kg)				Abalakov jump test (cm)				Agility test (seconds)				Endurance 1,000-m test
	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59
No.	303	539	172	15	306	539	176	14	301	537	171	15	301	543	171	15
M±SD	32.9 ± 4.6	33.5 ± 4.8	33.5 ± 4.8	31.4 ± 6.4	23.0 ± 4.2	21.4 ± 4.3	19.9 ± 4.3	16.7 ± 3.7	16.13 ± 2.48	16.77 ± 2.52	17.86 ± 2.91	18.6 ± 2.47	05:36 ± 0.49	05:54 ± 0:55	06:24 ± 1:03	06:36 ± 1:21
P₅	25.0	26.0	26.0	20.0	15.8	14.3	12.4	9.1	20.90	21.51	23.14	-	07:11	07:41	08:27	-
P₁₀	27.0	28.0	27.3	23.0	17.3	15.7	14.3	11.4	19.61	20.20	22.47	22.72	06:48	07:18	07:56	08:57
P₁₅	28.0	29.0	28.0	25.4	18.3	16.7	15.4	13.8	18.50	19.38	21.20	21.49	06:30	07:02	07:38	08:02
P₂₀	29.0	30.0	30.0	26.2	19.2	17.3	16.1	14.1	17.90	18.74	20.07	20.31	06:17	06:47	07:12	07:18
P₂₅	30.0	30.0	30.0	27.0	20.1	18.3	16.9	14.4	17.48	18.29	19.31	20.24	06:06	06:29	07:05	07:13
P₃₀	30.0	31.0	30.0	27.8	20.6	19.0	17.5	14.6	17.10	17.89	19.10	20.18	05:58	06:15	07:00	07:06
P₃₅	31.0	32.0	31.0	28.0	21.4	19.6	18.0	14.9	16.70	17.49	18.55	19.81	05:51	06:09	06:50	06:59
P₄₀	32.0	32.0	32.0	28.0	22.1	20.2	18.8	15.5	16.49	17.19	18.29	19.30	05:43	05:59	06:35	06:54
P₄₅	32.0	33.0	33.0	28.4	22.5	20.7	19.2	16.1	16.08	16.86	17.88	18.82	05:37	05:51	06:28	06:48
P₅₀	33.0	34.0	34.0	31.0	23.0	21.3	19.8	16.6	15.81	16.56	17.56	18.53	05:29	05:44	06:21	06:34
P₅₅	34.0	34.0	34.0	31.6	23.6	22.0	20.4	17.2	15.42	16.21	17.09	18.29	05:22	05:37	06:11	06:27
P₆₀	34.0	35.0	34.0	32.0	24.2	22.7	20.7	17.9	15.20	15.87	16.90	17.92	05:16	05:32	06:00	06:10
P₆₅	35.0	35.0	35.0	33.2	24.6	23.1	21.3	18.3	14.93	15.58	16.52	17.56	05:10	05:25	05:47	05:56
P₇₀	36.0	36.0	36.0	35.2	25.0	23.7	22.1	18.7	14.75	15.31	16.21	17.29	05:07	05:19	05:42	05:50
P₇₅	36.0	37.0	37.0	36.0	26.0	24.4	23.3	19.0	14.43	15.01	15.83	17.07	05:02	05:12	05:32	05:46
P₈₀	36.2	38.0	38.0	39.2	26.8	25.3	24.1	19.1	14.10	14.65	15.39	17.07	04:54	05:08	05:24	05:36
P₈₅	38.0	38.0	39.0	41.2	27.5	26.2	24.5	19.3	13.74	14.14	14.70	16.95	04:47	05:00	05:14	05:29
P₉₀	39.0	40.0	40.0	42.0	28.6	27.0	25.7	22.4	13.27	13.80	14.26	14.97	04:37	04:52	05:07	04:47
P₉₅	40.8	41.0	42.0	-	30.3	28.6	27.8	-	12.96	13.30	13.75	13.58	04:25	04:40	04:55	03:48

This table presents performance data (5th–95th percentiles) for female police officers aged 20–59 years across four physical fitness tests: handgrip strength (kg), Abalakov vertical jump (cm), agility test (seconds), and 1,000-m endurance run (mm:ss). Data are stratified by age group and include sample size (No.), mean (M), and standard deviation (SD) for each test. Time values for the 1,000-m run are reported in minutes and seconds (mm:ss).

REFERENCES

1. Lockie RG, Dawes JJ, Orr RM, Stierli M, Dulla JM, Orjalo AJ. Analysis of the effects of sex and age on upper- and lower-body power for law enforcement agency recruits before academy training. J Strength Cond Res 2018;32(7):1968–74.Article PubMed
2. Marins EF, David GB, Del Vecchio FB. Characterization of the physical fitness of police officers: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 2019;33(10):2860–74.Article PubMed
3. Dawes JJ, Orr RM, Flores RR, Lockie RG, Kornhauser C, Holmes R. A physical fitness profile of state highway patrol officers by gender and age. Ann Occup Environ Med 2017;29:16.Article PubMed PMC PDF
4. Mantilla-Rodriguez JP, Hernandez-Cortes PL, Enriquez-Reyna MC, Carranza-Garcia LE. Proposal of normative values for the physical evaluation of police officers. J Hum Sport Exerc 2021;16(4proc):S1587–96.
5. Lockie RG, Dawes JJ, Dulla JM, Orr RM, Hernandez E. Physical fitness, sex considerations, and academy graduation for law enforcement recruits. J Strength Cond Res 2020;34(12):3356–63.Article PubMed
6. Tzemah-Shahar R, Hochner H, Iktilat K, Agmon M. What can we learn from physical capacity about biological age? A systematic review. Ageing Res Rev 2022;77:101609.Article PubMed
7. Orr R, Pope R, Stierli M, Hinton B. Grip strength and its relationship to police recruit task performance and injury risk: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017;14(8):941.Article PubMed PMC
8. Lockie RG, Dawes JJ, Orr RM, Dulla JM. Recruit fitness standards from a large law enforcement agency: between-class comparisons, percentile rankings, and implications for physical training. J Strength Cond Res 2020;34(4):934–41.Article PubMed
9. Dawes JJ, Lindsay K, Bero J, Elder C, Kornhauser C, Holmes R. Physical fitness characteristics of high vs. low performers on an occupationally specific physical agility test for patrol officers. J Strength Cond Res 2017;31(10):2808–15.Article PubMed
10. Korhonen MT, Cristea A, Alen M, Hakkinen K, Sipila S, Mero A, et al. Aging, muscle fiber type, and contractile function in sprint-trained athletes. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2006;101(3):906–17.Article PubMed
11. Teixeira J, Monteiro LF, Silvestre R, Beckert J, Massuca LM. Age-related influence on physical fitness and individual on-duty task performance of Portuguese male non-elite police officers. Biol Sport 2019;36(2):163–70.Article PubMed PMC
12. Lockie RG, Orr RM, Stierli M, Cesario KA, Moreno MR, Bloodgood AM, et al. Physical characteristics by sex and age for custody assistants from a law enforcement agency. J Strength Cond Res 2019;33(8):2223–32.Article PubMed
13. Rhea MR. Needs analysis and program design for police officers. Strength Cond J 2015;37(4):30–4.Article
14. Marins EF, Dawes JJ, Del Vecchio FB. Age and sex differences in fitness among Brazilian federal highway patrol officers. J Strength Cond Res 2023;37(6):1292–7.Article PubMed
15. Rodriguez FA. Physical activity aptitude questionnaire (C-AAF), Catalan/Spanish version of the revised PAR-Q. Apunts Med Esport 1994;31(122):301–10.
16. Lockie RG, Orr RM, Dawes JJ. Slowing the path of time: age-related and normative fitness testing data for police officers from a health and wellness program. J Strength Cond Res 2022;36(3):747–56.Article PubMed
17. Roberts HC, Denison HJ, Martin HJ, Patel HP, Syddall H, Cooper C, et al. A review of the measurement of grip strength in clinical and epidemiological studies: towards a standardised approach. Age Ageing 2011;40(4):423–9.Article PubMed
18. Healy R, Kenny IC, Harrison AJ. Assessing reactive strength measures in jumping and hopping using the optojump system. J Hum Kinet 2016;54:23–32.Article PubMed PMC
19. Massuca LM, Santos V, Monteiro LF. Identifying the physical fitness and health evaluations for police officers: brief systematic review with an emphasis on the Portuguese research. Biology (Basel) 2022;11(7):1061.Article PubMed PMC
20. Diaz FJ, Montano JG, Melchor MT, Guerrero JH, Tovar JA. Validation and reliability of the 1,000 meter aerobic test. Rev Invest Clin 2000;52(1):44–51.PubMed
21. Lockie RG, Dawes JJ, Kornhauser CL, Holmes RJ. Cross-sectional and retrospective cohort analysis of the effects of age on flexibility, strength endurance, lower-body power, and aerobic fitness in law enforcement officers. J Strength Cond Res 2019;33(2):451–8.Article PubMed
22. Barquera S, Hernandez-Barrera L, Trejo-Valdivia B, Shamah T, Campos-Nonato I, Rivera-Dommarco J. Obesity in Mexico, prevalence and trends in adults. Ensanut 2018-19. Salud Publica Mex 2020;62(6):682–92.Article PubMed PDF
23. Da Silva FC, Hernandez SS, Goncalves E, Arancibia BA, Da Silva Castro TL, Da Silva R. Anthropometric indicators of obesity in policemen: a systematic review of observational studies. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2014;27(6):891–901.Article PubMed
24. Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Wang ZM, Ross R. Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18-88 yr. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2000;89(1):81–8.Article PubMed
25. Violanti JM, Ma CC, Fekedulegn D, Andrew ME, Gu JK, Hartley TA, et al. Associations between body fat percentage and fitness among police officers: a statewide study. Saf Health Work 2017;8(1):36–41.Article PubMed PMC
26. Pasco JA, Stuart AL, Holloway-Kew KL, Tembo MC, Sui SX, Anderson KB, et al. Lower-limb muscle strength: normative data from an observational population-based study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020;21(1):89.Article PubMed PMC PDF
27. Vianna LC, Oliveira RB, Araujo CG. Age-related decline in handgrip strength differs according to gender. J Strength Cond Res 2007;21(4):1310–4.Article PubMed
28. Mitchell WK, Williams J, Atherton P, Larvin M, Lund J, Narici M. Sarcopenia, dynapenia, and the impact of advancing age on human skeletal muscle size and strength; a quantitative review. Front Physiol 2012;3:260.Article PubMed PMC
29. Jackson AS, Sui X, Hebert JR, Church TS, Blair SN. Role of lifestyle and aging on the longitudinal change in cardiorespiratory fitness. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(19):1781–7.Article PubMed PMC
30. Orr RM, Kukic F, Cvorovic A, Koropanovski N, Jankovic R, Dawes J, et al. Associations between fitness measures and change of direction speeds with and without occupational loads in female police officers. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16(11):1947.Article PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Physical performance metrics of police officers in northeastern Mexico according to age groups and sex

Ann Occup Environ Med. 2025;37:e34 Published online November 17, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2025.37.e34

XML Download

Physical performance metrics of police officers in northeastern Mexico according to age groups and sex

Age (years)	No.	Weight (kg)	Height (m)	Body mass index (kg/m²)
Total
20–29	2,455	78.3 ± 12.7	1.68 ± 0.06	27.4 ± 3.7
30–39	4,309	81.8 ± 13.2	1.68 ± 0.06	28.7 ± 4.0
40–49	1,531	84.9 ± 13.4	1.68 ± 0.06	30.0 ± 4.0
50–59	274	84.5 ± 11.9	1.67 ± 0.05	30.1 ± 3.8
Male
20–29	2,145	79.8 ± 12.1	1.70 ± 0.05	27.5 ± 3.6
30–39	3,760	83.4 ± 12.6^**	1.69 ± 0.05	28.9 ± 3.9^**
40–49	1,355	86.5 ± 12.9^**	1.69 ± 0.05^**	30.1 ± 4.0^**
50–59	259	85.2 ± 11.4^**	1.67 ± 0.05^**	30.2 ± 3.7^**
Female
20–29	310	67.3 ± 11.1	1.59 ± 0.05	26.4 ± 4.1
30–39	549	70.9 ± 12.0^**	1.59 ± 0.05	27.7 ± 4.3^**
40–49	176	73.1 ± 11.2^**	1.58 ± 0.04	28.9 ± 4.0^**
50–59	15	72.3 ± 13.1	1.59 ± 0.03	28.2 ± 4.2

	Handgrip strength test (kg)				Abalakov jump test (cm)				Agility test (seconds)				Endurance 1,000-m test
	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59
No.	2,111	3,700	1,333	256	2,115	3,705	1,338	257	2,108	3,699	1,331	255	2,085	3,675	1,325	254
M±SD	47.9 ± 6.7	48.1 ± 6.3	47.2 ± 6.4	44.3 ± 6.5	33.6 ± 5.1	33.0 ± 5.3	30.1 ± 5.3	27.2 ± 5.1	12.63 ± 1.33	13.13 ± 1.54	14.40 ± 1.92	15.83 ± 2.67	04:20 ± 00:32	04:34 ± 00:40	05:04 ± 00:51	05:39 ± 01:03
P₅	37.0	38.0	36.0	33.0	25.2	23.9	21.4	18.6	15.02	16.04	18.27	21.49	05:23	05:56	06:42	07:38
P₁₀	40.0	40.0	39.0	36.0	27.0	25.8	23.2	20.5	14.48	15.27	17.00	19.66	05:06	05:33	06:20	07:08
P₁₅	40.0	41.0	40.0	38.0	28.4	27.3	24.4	22.0	14.05	14.78	16.41	18.25	04:55	05:17	06:03	06:52
P₂₀	42.0	42.0	42.0	39.0	29.3	28.5	25.4	22.9	13.73	14.45	15.90	17.65	04:47	05:05	05:49	06:34
P₂₅	43.0	44.0	43.0	40.0	30.2	29.4	26.3	23.6	13.50	14.16	15.56	17.29	04:40	04:57	05:36	06:22
P₃₀	44.0	44.0	44.0	40.0	30.9	30.3	27.1	24.6	13.28	13.89	15.20	16.89	04:34	04:50	05:25	06:09
P₃₅	45.0	46.0	45.0	41.0	31.5	31.0	27.9	24.9	13.08	13.65	15.00	16.57	04:30	04:44	05:17	05:56
P₄₀	46.0	46.0	46.0	42.0	32.1	31.7	28.7	25.6	12.89	13.43	14.74	16.19	04:26	04:38	05:09	05:49
P₄₅	47.0	47.0	46.0	44.0	32.8	32.4	29.4	26.5	12.70	13.21	14.49	15.94	04:21	04:33	05:03	05:37
P₅₀	48.0	48.0	47.0	44.0	33.4	33.0	30.0	27.3	12.52	13.01	14.21	15.58	04:17	04:28	04:56	05:29
P₅₅	48.0	49.0	48.0	45.0	34.2	33.7	30.9	27.9	12.37	12.80	14.01	15.32	04:13	04:23	04:49	05:17
P₆₀	50.0	50.0	49.0	46.0	34.9	34.4	31.6	28.5	12.22	12.61	13.75	14.95	04:09	04:18	04:43	05:08
P₆₅	50.0	50.0	50.0	47.0	35.7	35.1	32.3	29.1	12.06	12.41	13.49	14.67	04:05	04:14	04:37	05:04
P₇₀	51.0	52.0	50.0	48.0	36.5	36.0	33.0	29.8	11.84	12.21	13.25	14.31	04:01	04:10	04:32	04:56
P₇₅	52.0	52.0	52.0	50.0	37.4	36.7	33.8	30.7	11.66	12.00	13.00	13.97	03:57	04:04	04:27	04:53
P₈₀	54.0	54.0	53.0	50.0	38.2	37.6	34.7	31.7	11.48	11.75	12.78	13.52	03:52	04:00	04:21	04:47
P₈₅	55.0	55.0	54.0	51.5	39.3	38.7	36.0	32.7	11.25	11.52	12.45	13.10	03:47	03:55	04:13	04:41
P₉₀	57.0	57.0	56.0	53.0	40.5	40.1	37.5	34.4	11.00	11.24	12.02	12.50	03:41	03:48	04:04	04:28
P₉₅	60.0	59.0	58.3	55.0	42.5	42.1	39.4	36.9	10.52	10.84	11.56	11.92	03:35	03:40	03:54	04:10

	Handgrip strength test (kg)				Abalakov jump test (cm)				Agility test (seconds)				Endurance 1,000-m test
	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59
No.	303	539	172	15	306	539	176	14	301	537	171	15	301	543	171	15
M±SD	32.9 ± 4.6	33.5 ± 4.8	33.5 ± 4.8	31.4 ± 6.4	23.0 ± 4.2	21.4 ± 4.3	19.9 ± 4.3	16.7 ± 3.7	16.13 ± 2.48	16.77 ± 2.52	17.86 ± 2.91	18.6 ± 2.47	05:36 ± 0.49	05:54 ± 0:55	06:24 ± 1:03	06:36 ± 1:21
P₅	25.0	26.0	26.0	20.0	15.8	14.3	12.4	9.1	20.90	21.51	23.14	-	07:11	07:41	08:27	-
P₁₀	27.0	28.0	27.3	23.0	17.3	15.7	14.3	11.4	19.61	20.20	22.47	22.72	06:48	07:18	07:56	08:57
P₁₅	28.0	29.0	28.0	25.4	18.3	16.7	15.4	13.8	18.50	19.38	21.20	21.49	06:30	07:02	07:38	08:02
P₂₀	29.0	30.0	30.0	26.2	19.2	17.3	16.1	14.1	17.90	18.74	20.07	20.31	06:17	06:47	07:12	07:18
P₂₅	30.0	30.0	30.0	27.0	20.1	18.3	16.9	14.4	17.48	18.29	19.31	20.24	06:06	06:29	07:05	07:13
P₃₀	30.0	31.0	30.0	27.8	20.6	19.0	17.5	14.6	17.10	17.89	19.10	20.18	05:58	06:15	07:00	07:06
P₃₅	31.0	32.0	31.0	28.0	21.4	19.6	18.0	14.9	16.70	17.49	18.55	19.81	05:51	06:09	06:50	06:59
P₄₀	32.0	32.0	32.0	28.0	22.1	20.2	18.8	15.5	16.49	17.19	18.29	19.30	05:43	05:59	06:35	06:54
P₄₅	32.0	33.0	33.0	28.4	22.5	20.7	19.2	16.1	16.08	16.86	17.88	18.82	05:37	05:51	06:28	06:48
P₅₀	33.0	34.0	34.0	31.0	23.0	21.3	19.8	16.6	15.81	16.56	17.56	18.53	05:29	05:44	06:21	06:34
P₅₅	34.0	34.0	34.0	31.6	23.6	22.0	20.4	17.2	15.42	16.21	17.09	18.29	05:22	05:37	06:11	06:27
P₆₀	34.0	35.0	34.0	32.0	24.2	22.7	20.7	17.9	15.20	15.87	16.90	17.92	05:16	05:32	06:00	06:10
P₆₅	35.0	35.0	35.0	33.2	24.6	23.1	21.3	18.3	14.93	15.58	16.52	17.56	05:10	05:25	05:47	05:56
P₇₀	36.0	36.0	36.0	35.2	25.0	23.7	22.1	18.7	14.75	15.31	16.21	17.29	05:07	05:19	05:42	05:50
P₇₅	36.0	37.0	37.0	36.0	26.0	24.4	23.3	19.0	14.43	15.01	15.83	17.07	05:02	05:12	05:32	05:46
P₈₀	36.2	38.0	38.0	39.2	26.8	25.3	24.1	19.1	14.10	14.65	15.39	17.07	04:54	05:08	05:24	05:36
P₈₅	38.0	38.0	39.0	41.2	27.5	26.2	24.5	19.3	13.74	14.14	14.70	16.95	04:47	05:00	05:14	05:29
P₉₀	39.0	40.0	40.0	42.0	28.6	27.0	25.7	22.4	13.27	13.80	14.26	14.97	04:37	04:52	05:07	04:47
P₉₅	40.8	41.0	42.0	-	30.3	28.6	27.8	-	12.96	13.30	13.75	13.58	04:25	04:40	04:55	03:48

Table 1. Descriptive data and physical fitness test results by sex stratified by age

Values are presented as number or mean±standard deviation

Significantly different from 20–29 years old at p < 0.01.

Table 2. Percentile rankings of physical fitness test results for male police officers aged 20–59 years

Table 3. Percentile rankings of physical fitness test results for female police officers aged 20–59 years