Article Data

  • Views 370
  • Dowloads 142

Original Research

Open Access


  • Ji Young Lee1
  • Kyujin Lee2
  • Yong Chul Choi1

1Department of physical education, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangwon-do, Republic of Korea

2California State University, Northridge, USA

DOI: 10.22374/jomh.v15i4.182 Vol.15,Issue 4,November 2019 pp.47-57

Published: 01 November 2019

*Corresponding Author(s): Kyujin Lee E-mail:
*Corresponding Author(s): Yong Chul Choi E-mail:

PDF (510.08 kB)


Background and objective

The study aimed to analyze the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) according to the absolute and relative hand grip strength (HGS) in people aged >60 years.

Materials and methods

The participants included 2721 adults aged between 60 and 79 years (1589 men and 1132 women) who completed measurements of HGS and variables related to MetS. The MetS criteria were based on the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program; expert panel on detection, eval-uation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (NCEP-ATP III) guidelines; and waist circumference determined by the Korean Society for the Study of Obesity. HGS was measured three times for each hand and the highest value was retained. After dividing the HGS values into quar-tiles, the highest group was defined as G1 and the lowest as G4. The prevalence of MetS in each group was reported as an odds ratio (OR) calculated using logistic regression analysis. The absolute and relative HGS cut-off values were used for the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. 


Of the total participants, 695 men (43.7%) and 646 women (57.1%) were diagnosed with MetS. The absolute cut-off values for HGS were 36.0 kg (AUC 0.533, p=0.015) for men and 19.6 kg (AUC 0.506, p=0.017) for women. The relative cut-off values were calculated as 57.5% (AUC 0.633, p=0.014) for men and 38.9% (AUC 0.617, p=0.017) for women. The participants were divided into quartiles based on the relative HGS. The risk of MetS in the group with the lowest relative HGS (G4) was 5.00 (p<0.001) times greater for men and 2.74 (p<0.001) times greater for women than the highest relative HGS (G1).


The relative HGS value was higherin non-MetS subjects compared to the MetS subjects, and as the relative HGS value was lower, the prevalence of MetS increased to 5.00 times for men and 2.74 times for women.


elderly, grip strength, metabolic syndrome, prevalence

Cite and Share



1. Kassi E, Pervanidou P, Kaltsas G, et al. Metabolic syndrome: Definitions and controversies. BMC Med 2011;9:48.

2. Galassi A, Reynolds K, He J. Metabolic syndrome and risk of cardiovascular disease: A meta-analysis. Am J Med 2006;119:812–19. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.02.031

3. Mottillo S, Filion KB, Genest J, et al. The meta-bolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk: A system-atic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:1113–32. 2010.05.034

4. Muralidharan A, Chae J, Taylor D. Extracting attempted hand movements from EEGs in people with complete hand paralysis following stroke. Front Neurosci 2011;5:39.

5. Beltrán-Sánchez H, Harhay MO, Harhay MM, et al. Prevalence and trends of metabolic syndrome in the adult US population, 1999–2010. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:697–703. jacc.2013.05.064

6. Huh JH, Kang DR, Jang J-Y, et al. Metabolic syndrome epidemic among Korean adults: Korean survey of cardiometabolic syndrome (2018). Atherosclerosis 2018;277:47–52. 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2018.08.003

7. Hollingsworth JW, Hashizume A, Jablon S. Correlations between tests of aging in Hiroshima subjects—an attempt to define “physiologic age.” Yale J Biol Med 1965;38:11.

8. Chainani V, Shaharyar S, Dave K, et al. Objective measures of the frailty syndrome (hand grip strength and gait speed) and cardiovascular mor-tality: A systematic review. Int J Cardiol 2016;215:487–93. 2016.04.068

9. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al. Sarcopenia: Revised European consensus on defi-nition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 2018;48:16–31.

 10. Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Volland G, et al. Reliability and validity of grip and pinch strength evaluations. J Hand Surg 1984;9: 222–6. 80146-X

 11. Hulens M, Vansant G, Lysens R, et al. Study of differences in peripheral muscle strength of lean versus obese women: An allometric approach. Int J Obesity 2001;25:676.

 12. Rolland Y, Lauwers-Cances V, Pahor M, et al. Muscle strength in obese elderly women: Effect of recreational physical activity in a cross-sectional study. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;79:552–7. https://doi. org/10.1093/ajcn/79.4.552

 13. Grundy SM. Obesity, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004;89:2595–600. 2004-0372

 14. Johnson KM, Dowe DA. Accuracy of statin assignment using the 2013 AHA/ACC Cholesterol Guideline versus the 2001 NCEP ATP III guide-line: Correlation with atherosclerotic plaque imag-ing. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:910–9. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.056

 15. Park H, Park C, Oh S, et al. Prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome in Korean adults. Obesity Rev 2008;9:104–7. 2007.00421.x

 16. CDC. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) muscle strength procedures manual. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

 17. Grundy SM, Brewer Jr HB, Cleeman JI, et al. Definition of metabolic syndrome: Report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/American Heart Association conference on scien-tific issues related to definition. Circulation 2004;109:433–8. 0000111245.75752.C6

 18. Kumashiro N, Erion DM, Zhang D, et al. Cellular mechanism of insulin resistance in nonalco-holic fatty liver disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2011;108:16381–5. 1113359108

 19. Schinner S, Scherbaum W, Bornstein S, et al. Molecular mechanisms of insulin resistance. Diab Med 2005;22:674–82. 1464-5491.2005.01566.x

 20. Kahn BB, Flier JS. Obesity and insulin resistance. J Clin Invest 2000;106:473–81. 10.1172/JCI10842

 21. Lakka TA, Laaksonen DE, Lakka H-M, et al. Sedentary lifestyle, poor cardiorespiratory fitness, and the metabolic syndrome. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35(8):1279–86.

 22. Atlantis E, Martin SA, Haren MT, et al. Inverse associations between muscle mass, strength, and the metabolic syndrome. Metabolism 2009;58: 1013–22. 02.027

 23. Peterson MD, Sen A, Gordon PM. Influence of resistance exercise on lean body mass in aging adults: A meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exercise 2011;43:249. 0b013e3181eb6265

 24. Wind AE, Takken T, Helders PJ, et al. Is grip strength a predictor for total muscle strength in healthy children, adolescents, and young adults?Eur J Pediatr 2010;169:281–7. 10.1007/s00431-009-1010-4

 25. Buchman AS, Wilson RS, Boyle PA, et al. Grip strength and the risk of incident Alzheimer’s dis-ease. Neuroepidemiology 2007;29:66–73.

 26. Giampaoli S, Ferrucci L, Cecchi F, et al. Hand-grip strength predicts incident disability in non- disabled older men. Age Ageing 1999;28:283–8.

 27. Gale CR, Martyn CN, Cooper C, et al. Grip strength, body composition, and mortality. Int J Epidemiol 2006;36:228–35. 10.1093/ije/dyl224

 28. Brooks N, Layne JE, Gordon PL, et al. Strength training improves muscle quality and insulin sen-sitivity in Hispanic older adults with type 2 diabetes. Int J Med Sci 2007;4:19. 10.7150/ijms.4.19

 29. Hughes VA, Frontera WR, Wood M, et al. Longitu-dinal muscle strength changes in older adults: Influ-ence of muscle mass, physical activity, and health. J Gerontol Series A: Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:B209–

17. 56.5.B209

 30. Frimel TN, Sinacore DR, Villareal DT. Exercise attenuates the weight-loss-induced reduction in muscle mass in frail obese older adults. Med Sci Sports Exer 2008;40:1213.

 31. Lee W-J, Peng L-N, Chiou S-T, et al. Relative handgrip strength is a simple indicator of car-diometabolic risk among middle-aged and older people: A nationwide population-based study in Taiwan. PLoS One 2016;11:e0160876. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160876

 32. Sénéchal M, McGavock JM, Church TS, et al. Cut-points of muscle strength associated with metabolic syndrome in men. Med Sci Sports Exer 2014;46:1475. 00000000266

 33. Sallinen J, Stenholm S, Rantanen T, et al. Hand-grip strength cut points to screen older persons at risk for mobility limitation. J Am Geriatrics Soc 2010;58:1721–6. 0000000000000266

 34. Stensvold D, Tjønna AE, Skaug E-A, et al. Strength training versus aerobic interval training to modify risk factors of metabolic syndrome. J Appl Physiol 2010;108:804–10. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00996.2009

 35. Banz WJ, Maher MA, Thompson WG, et al. Effects of resistance versus aerobic training on coronary artery disease risk factors. Exp Biol Med 2003;228:434–40. 153537020322800414

 36. Günther CM, Bürger A, Rickert M, et al. Grip strength in healthy caucasian adults: Reference values. J Hand Surg 2008;33:558–65. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2008.01.008

 37. Han S-H, Nam K-S, Ahn T-K, et al. Analysis of grip and pinch strength in Korean people. J Kor Orthopaed Assoc 2009;44:219–25. https://doi. org/10.4055/jkoa.2009.44.2.219

 38. Shin HY, Kim SW, Kim JM, et al. Association of grip strength with dementia in a Korean older population. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2012;27: 500–505.

 39. Sun K, Ren M, Liu D, et al. Alcohol consump-tion and risk of metabolic syndrome: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Clin Nutr 2014;33: 596–602. 2013.10.003

 40. Buja A, Scafato E, Sergi G, et al. Alcohol con-sumption and metabolic syndrome in the elderly: Results from the Italian longitudinal study on aging. Eur J Clin Nutr 2010;64:297. https://doi. org/10.1038/ejcn.2009.136

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,200 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Social Sciences Citation Index Social Sciences Citation Index contains over 3,400 journals across 58 social sciences disciplines, as well as selected items from 3,500 of the world’s leading scientific and technical journals. More than 9.37 million records and 122 million cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in the social and behavioral sciences.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

SCOPUS Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

DOAJ DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.

CrossRef Crossref makes research outputs easy to find, cite, link, assess, and reuse. Crossref committed to open scholarly infrastructure and collaboration, this is now announcing a very deliberate path.

Portico Portico is a community-supported preservation archive that safeguards access to e-journals, e-books, and digital collections. Our unique, trusted process ensures that the content we preserve will remain accessible and usable for researchers, scholars, and students in the future.

Submission Turnaround Time