Skip to main content
← All metrics

Grip strength as a marker of whole-body strength

A weaker grip is associated with a higher risk of dying. That is a marker of whole-body strength, not a training result that has been shown to lower the risk of death.

Where you stand

Wu 2017 pooled 42 studies and landed on the same per-5 kg slope Leong found in PURE. Enter the stronger hand. Do not add both hands together.

Each row is one study of death risk from grip strength. The bright line is what that study found. The band around it is the range the data still supports — it fades where the evidence thins. Left of the centre line is lower risk.

what the study foundstill plausibleno change
each 5 kg lower grip strength
Leong et al. (PURE study) 2015
16% higher
range 13–20% higher
each 5 kg lower grip strength
Wu et al. 2017
16% higher
range 12–20% higher

What it is

How hard the stronger hand can squeeze a dynamometer, in kilograms or pounds. Enter one hand. Do not add both hands together.

How it is modeled (not scored)

Technical notes

Grip is not a scored input. The curve is constructed (40 kg men / 25 kg women = HR 0.8, not 1.0; below that, additive +0.16 per 5 kg; at and above the cut, flat at 0.8). The old high-side decline (−0.005/kg down to 0.7) was removed. The slope comes from Leong 2015 PURE (139,691 adults, 17 countries, ages 35–70): all-cause mortality HR 1.16 (1.13–1.20) per 5 kg lower grip — an association, not a treatment effect. Main source: Leong. Supporting: López-Bueno 2022 ARR (kg-range spline, all-cause mortality inverse 26–50 kg, not 16%/5 kg) / Wu 2017 (pooled per-5 kg HR 1.16, 42 studies / 3.0 million) / Celis-Morales 2018 (UKB mean of both hands; FNIH <26 / <16 kg is not this 40/25; observational, not a training trial). The calculator does not print 1.16 at 5 kg below target; that point is 0.96 because the zero is 0.8.

How to improve it

  • Train with loaded carries (farmer’s walks)
  • Add rows, deadlifts and pull-ups
  • Use direct grip work (dead hangs) 2–3x/week

Grip strength by age and sex

These norms come from Dodds et al. (2014, PLoS ONE), which pooled 60,803 grip-strength readings from 49,964 people (28,257 male, 32,546 female observations) across 12 British population studies, ages 4 to 90+. It reports five centiles (10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th) at every 5-year age point -- the table below always snaps to the closest one of those reported ages rather than guessing a number in between.

Sex
Units

Men, age 45 (n=798 observations within ±2.5 years) -- reported centiles in kg

10th36
25th42
50th49
75th56
90th61

Enter a reading above to see where it falls against these centiles.

How to test at home

  1. Use a hand dynamometer (a Jamar-type squeeze gauge is the most common device in this dataset and in clinical use).
  2. Sit with your elbow bent at 90°, upper arm against your side, forearm and wrist in a neutral (not bent) position.
  3. Squeeze as hard as you can for about 2-3 seconds. Rest, then repeat for 3 trials on that hand.
  4. Record your single best (highest) trial, not the average. Dodds et al. also used the single best reading, because a maximum depends less on how many trials were done than an average does.

MarkerScore’s calculator asks for one hand’s reading. This norm table is also one reading per hand, but some of the mortality studies cited on this page (e.g. Leong 2015, Celis-Morales 2018) instead used the mean of each hand’s own best trial -- test both hands if you want to compare against those.

Different dynamometers give different numbers. Mostly a Jamar dynamometer (7 of 12 studies); also Smedley (ELSA, UKHLS), Nottingham electronic (ADNFS, NSHD), Takei digital (N85), and Harpenden (HAS, first wave). The majority of studies (8 of 12) measured grip seated, as the intended protocol; some (e.g. UKHLS, ELSA, T-07) measured most participants standing. Sensitivity checks in the source paper found differences of roughly 10% or less between dynamometer types and between seated and standing measurement -- real, but usually smaller than the gap between two adjacent centile bands above.

A percentile is not a verdict, and grip is a marker, not a treatment target. Studies on this page show weaker grip is associated with higher mortality risk in large populations -- they do not show that training your grip itself extends life. No trial in this metric’s evidence set assigned people a grip target and then counted deaths.

Grip isn’t part of your MarkerScore -- it’s one of the extra markers we track on /more. Your score is built from eight everyday markers.

Open the calculator

Norms last reviewed 12 October 2026.

What the studies found

EndpointGradeFinding
—METHOD
Curve is constructed (40/25 kg = 0.8)
Technical notes
Male 40 kg / female 25 kg = HR 0.8, not 1.0. Below: +0.16 per 5 kg (additive) — the sourced side, from Leong 2015. At or above optimal: flat at 0.8 (changed 2026-09-10; was a −0.005/kg decline to a 0.7 floor). Neither Leong nor Wu 2017 publishes a dose-response above the anchor — only a per-5kg-lower slope — so the decline was constructed, not sourced.
All-cause mortality (per 5 kg lower grip)B
Leong 2015 is HR 1.16 per 5 kg
Technical notes
PURE 139,691 adults: all-cause mortality HR 1.16 (1.13–1.20) per 5 kg lower. Stronger all-cause mortality predictor than systolic BP in that cohort. Wu 2017 pooled the same 1.16 (1.12–1.20). López-Bueno 2022 is a 26–50 kg spline, not 16%/5 kg.
All-cause mortality (per 5 kg lower grip)B
1.20 / 1.16 per 5 kg, Both Hands (Celis-Morales 2018)
Technical notes
UK Biobank, 502,293 adults, 13,322 deaths, mean of both hands (not this UI’s single hand). Per 5 kg lower grip, all-cause mortality HR was 1.20 (1.17–1.23) in women and 1.16 (1.15–1.17) in men, with splines showing no deviation from linearity. Marker, not a demonstrated training effect.
All-cause mortality (grip-strength threshold)B
42 kg / 25 kg, Almost the Curve’s Anchor points (López-Bueno 2022)
Technical notes
SHARE cohort of 121,383 adults (mean ~64) across 27 European countries and Israel, 896,836 person-years: top vs bottom grip tertile carried all-cause mortality HR 0.41 (0.34–0.50) in men and 0.38 (0.30–0.49) in women. The paper’s maximal-benefit threshold — 42 kg for men, 25 kg for women — sits close to, but is not identical to, this calculator’s constructed 40 kg / 25 kg anchor point.
All-cause mortality (per 5 kg lower grip)B
1.16 Per 5 kg, Independently Pooled (Wu 2017)
Technical notes
A separate meta of 42 studies (3,002,203 people) pooled the same per-5-kg-lower-grip all-cause mortality HR as Leong: 1.16 (1.12–1.20). Lowest vs highest grip carried all-cause mortality HR 1.41 (1.30–1.52), staying linear within a 56 kg range.
All-cause mortality (highest vs lowest grip tertile)C
OR 0.47 in Men, Not Significant in Women (Wang 2022)
Technical notes
CHARLS cohort of 11,618 Chinese adults 45+, roughly 8-year follow-up, 1,290 deaths: comparing the highest to lowest grip-strength tertile, all-cause mortality odds were 53% lower in men (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35–0.64) but only 49% lower and not statistically significant in women (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24–1.08).

What argues against this

No source in this metric's set contradicts the direction of the grip-mortality association. The closest disagreement is on shape/construction rather than sign: López-Bueno 2022 (Ageing Research Reviews, 48 cohorts, 3.14M people) finds a close-to-linear dose-response across 26–50 kg (I² 45.7%) rather than the curve's discrete 40/25 kg anchor point, and its own tertile forest puts the weakest-tertile HR at 1.58 and the middle tertile at 1.30 — a steeper near-linear gradient than the curve's additive segments imply, not a contradiction of direction.

Last reviewed 12 October 2026

Sources

6 cited
  1. Leong et al. (PURE study) (2015) — The Lancet
    Prognostic value of grip strength: findings from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study
    View source
  2. López-Bueno et al. (2022) — Ageing Research Reviews
    Thresholds of handgrip strength for all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality: A systematic review with dose-response meta-analysis
    View source
  3. Wu et al. (2017) — Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
    Association of Grip Strength With Risk of All-Cause Mortality, Cardiovascular Diseases, and Cancer in Community-Dwelling Populations: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies
    View source
  4. Celis-Morales et al. (2018) — The BMJ
    Associations of grip strength with cardiovascular, respiratory, and cancer outcomes and all cause mortality: prospective cohort study of half a million UK Biobank participants
    View source
  5. López-Bueno et al. (2022) — Age and Ageing
    Associations of handgrip strength with all-cause and cancer mortality in older adults: a prospective cohort study in 28 countries
    View source
  6. Wang et al. (2022) — Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
    Association of handgrip strength with all-cause mortality: a nationally longitudinal cohort study in China
    View source

Not part of your score
Grip Strength is tracked here for its research. It does not count toward the 8-marker MarkerScore. See what does in the calculator.
Open calculator

Educational content only — not medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Not a medical device; not FDA evaluated. Consult a qualified healthcare professional about your own health, and call emergency services for urgent symptoms. Full medical disclaimer →