The relationship between low and asymmetric handgrip strength and low muscle mass: results of a cross-sectional study on health and aging trends in western China

Sha Huang,Xiaoyan Chen,Huaying Ding,Birong Dong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05199-4

2024-08-02

Abstract:Objective: The aim was to determine the relationship between low handgrip strength (HGS) only, asymmetric HGS only, and low HGS combined with asymmetric HGS and low muscle mass in the West China Health and Aging Trends Study (WCHAT) data. Study design: Individuals aged at least 50 years old were included in this cross-sectional study using WCHAT data. Demographic characteristics, such as age, marital status, education level, ethnicity, and drinking and smoking history, as well as chronic diseases, were recorded for all participants. The HGS of both hands was tested three times using a grip dynanometer with the participant in a standing position with arms extended, before recording the maximum value for both hands. The maximum value referred to values < 28 kg and < 18 kg for males and females, respectively. HGS ratios (non-dominant HGS/dominant HGS) of < 0.90 or > 1.10 suggest asymmetric HGS. The subjects were then allocated to the low HGS, asymmetrical HGS, and combined low and asymmetrical HGS (BOTH group) groups, and those with neither low nor asymmetric HGS (the normal group). The InBody 770 instrument was used for the analysis of muscle mass, with low muscle mass defined as a skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) of < 7.0 kg/m2 or < 5.7 kg/m2 for males and females, respectively. The associations between the different HGS groups and low muscle mass were assessed by logistic regression analysis. Results: The study included 1748 subjects, of whom 1272 (72.77%) were over the age of 60 years. The numbers of Han, Tibetan, and Qiang were 885 (50.63%), 217 (12.41%), and 579 (33.12%), respectively. A total of 465 individuals (26.60%) were classified as having low muscle mass, while 228 (13.04%), 536 (30.66%), and 125 (7.15%) participants were allocated to the low HGS, asymmetric HGS, and BOTH groups, respectively. The average SMI differed significantly between the normal group and the other groups (normal group vs. asymmetric HGS group vs. low HGS group vs. BOTH group: 6.627 kg/m2 vs. 6.633 kg/m2 vs. 6.492 kg/m2 vs. 5.995 kg/m2, respectively, P < 0.05). In addition, the prevalence of low muscle mass in the normal, asymmetric HGS, low HGS, and BOTH groups increased sequentially, with significant differences (normal group vs. asymmetric HGS group vs. low HGS group vs. BOTH group: 21.5% vs. 22.4% vs. 39.5% vs. 56%, respectively, P = 0.001). Further logistic regression analysis showed that the presence of low HGS (OR = 1.7, 95%CI: 1.203-2.402) and both low and asymmetric HGS (OR = 3.378, 95%CI: 2.173-5.252) were predictive of low muscle mass, with the chance being higher for the latter condition. Conclusion: The findings suggest that although asymmetrical HGS itself does not increase the chances of low muscle mass. When low HGS and a combination of both features (low HGS combined with asymmetric HGS) is present in subjects, the chance of low muscle mass increases.