The Effect of Hand Anthropometric Variables on Grip Strength in Grip Elite Athletes and Non-Athletes

Öz

In this study, we aimed to determine the anthropometric variables that affect grip strength and to investigate how and to what extent these variables change grip strength in elite athletes and non-athletes. Totally, 74 subjects aged between 18 and 27 participated in this study in two groups including: elite athletes (n=32), and non-athletes (n=42). In our study, 26 hand anthropometric variables were measured on each subject’s dominant hand. The selection of the anthropometric parameters was limited only to those that are considered to have an association with handgrip strength. Independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U Test was applied for group comparison. Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was utilized and Backward selection procedure was also performed to identify the relationship between handgrip strength and anthropometric measurements. Results revealed that some anthropometric measurements of hand significantly higher in elite athlete group than non-athlete group in males and females (p<0.05). In conclusion, we found that some hand anthropometric parameters are different in the grip sports and non-athletes, but we cannot exactly determine whether specific sport activities affect these differences or the inherent characteristics of athletes lead them to these sports. Also the handgrip strength of hand related athletes was more than that of non-athletes. This may be because of hand anthropometric parameters. Actually, good positive correlation between handgrip strengths and anthropometric characteristics of hand in grip athletes showed the effect of hand anthropometry on handgrip strength in athletes who use their hands for grasping a ball or opponent.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Anthropometry
• Handgrip strength
• Pinch strength

Öz

Bu çalışmada; kavrama kuvvetini etkileyen antropometrik değişkenleri belirlemeyi ve bu değişkenlerin elit sporcularda ve sporcu olmayan bireylerde kavrama kuvvetini nasıl ve ne ölçüde değiştirdiğini araştırmayı amaçladık. Çalışmaya yaşları 18-27 arasında değişen elit sporcular (n = 32) ve sporcu olmayanlar (n = 42) olmak üzere toplamda 74 denek katıldı. Çalışmamızda, 26 adet el antropometrik parametresi, her bir deneğin baskın elinden alındı. Antropometrik parametrelerin seçimi, yalnızca kavrama kuvveti ile bir ilişkisi olduğu düşünülen parametreler ile sınırlı olarak yapıldı. Grup karşılaştırmaları için bağımsız t-testi veya Mann-Whitney U Testi uygulandı. Aşamalı çoklu doğrusal regresyon analizi kullanıldı ve aynı zamanda, kavrama kuvveti ile antropometrik ölçümler arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemek için Backward seçim prosedürü uygulandı. El ile ilgili bazı antropometrik ölçümlerin elit sporcu grubunda sporcu olmayan gruba göre erkek ve kadınlarda anlamlı olarak daha yüksek olduğu görüldü (p <0.05). Sonuç olarak, bazı el antropometrik parametrelerinin kavrama sporlarında ve sporcu olmayanlarda farklı olduğunu bulduk, ancak belirli spor faaliyetlerinin bu farklılıkları etkileyip etkilemediğini veya sporcuların içsel özelliklerinin onları bu sporlara yönlendirip yönlendirmediğini tam olarak belirleyemedik. Ayrıca el ile ilgili sporcuların kavrama gücü, sporcu olmayanlara göre daha fazlaydı. Bunun nedeni el antropometrik parametreleri olabileceği kanısındayız. Aslında, kavrama kuvveti ile sporcuların antropometrik değişkenleri arasındaki iyi pozitif korelasyon, ellerini bir topu veya rakibi kavramak için kullanan sporcularda el antropometrisinin el kavrama gücü üzerindeki etkisini göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Antropometri
• El kavrama kuvveti
• Parmak kavrama kuvveti

Kaynakça

1. Andria Y, Igoresky A. Contribution of grip strength and eye-hand coordination towards service accuracy in tennis athletes. Journal of Indonesian Physical Education and Sport, 2020; 6(1): 17-22.
2. Angst F, Drerup S, Werle S, Herren DB, Simmen BR, Goldhahn J. Prediction of grip and key pinch strength in 978 healthy subjects. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2010; 11: 94-100.
3. Assmann M, Steinmetz G, Schilling AF, Saul D. Comparison of Grip Strength in Recreational Climbers and Non-Climbing Athletes—A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020; 18(1): 129.
4. Barut C, Demirel P, Kiran S. Evaluation of hand anthropometric and grip strength in basketball, volleyball and handball players. International Journal of Experimental and Clinical Anatomy, 2008; 2: 55-59.
5. Chahal A, Kumar B. Relationship of hand anthropometry and hand grip strength in junior basketball boys. Int J Health Sci Res, 2014; 4(11): 166-173.
6. Everett P, Sills F. Relationship of grip strength to stature, somato-type components and anthropometric measurements of hand. Res Q, 1952; 23: 161-166.
7. Fallahi AA, Jadidian AA. The effect of hand dimensions, hand shape and some anthropometric characteristics on handgrip strength in male grip athletes and non-athletes. Journal of Human Kinetics, 2011; 29: 151-159.
8. Garrett JW. Anthropometry of the Air Force Female Hand. Ohio: Technical Report, 1970: 2-55.

9. Hager-Ross C, Schieber MH. Quantifying the independence of human finger movements: comparisions of digits, hands and movement frequencies. Neurosci, 2000; 20: 8542-8550.
10. Hall JG, Froster-Iskenius UG, Allanson JE. Handbook of Normal Physical Measurements. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989: 11-15.
11. Incel NA, Ceceli E, Durukan PB, Erdem HR, Yorgancioglu ZR. Grip strength: Effect of hand dominance. Singapore Med J, 2002; 43(5): 234- 237.
12. Jordre B, Schweinle W. Hand grip strength in senior athletes: Normative data and community-dwelling comparisons. The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 2020; 15(4): 519-525.
13. Koley S, Singh AP. An association of dominant hand grip strength with some anthropometric variables in Indian collegiate population. Anthropol Anz, 2009; 67: 21-28.
14. Mathiowetz Y, Kashman N, Volland G, Weber K, Dowe M, Rogers S. Grip and pinch strength: Normative data for adults. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1985; 66: 69-74.
15. Mullerpatan RP, Karnik G, John R. Grip and pinch strength: Normative data for healthy Indian adults. Hand Therapy, 2013; 18: 11-16.
16. Nag A, Nag PK, Desai H. Hand anthropometry of Indian women. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 2003; 117: 260-269.
17. Nicolay CW, Walker AL. Grip strength and endurance: influence of anthropometric variation, hand dimention and gender. Int J Ind Ergon, 2005; 35: 605-618.
18. Otterson R, DeBeliso M. Grip Strength and North American Collegiate Football Performance Indicators. Turk J Kinesiol, 2020; 6(1): 16-25.
19. Pheasant S. Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the Design of Work. 2nd ed. London: Taylor and Francis, 1996: 83-86.
20. Ruiz JR, España-Romero V, Ortega FB, Sjöström M, Castillo MJ, Gutierrez A. Hand span influences optimal grip span in male and female teenagers. J Hand Surg [Am], 2006; 31(8): 1367-1372.
21. Singh S. Relationship between selected anthropometric variables and performance of volleyball players. International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Health, 2016; 3(2): 22-24.
22. Torstveit MK, Sundgot-Borgen J. The female athlete triad exists in both elite athletes and controls. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2005; 37: 1449-1459.
23. Trivic T, Eliseev S, Tabakov S, Raonic V, Casals C, Jahic D, Jaksic D, Drid P. Somatotypes and hand-grip strength analysis of elite cadet sambo athletes. Medicine, 2020; 99 (3): 1-7.
24. Visnapuu M, Jürimäe T. Handgrip strength and hand dimensions in young handball and basketball players. J Strength Cond Res, 2007; 21(3): 923-929.
25. Visnapuu M, Jürimäe T. The influence of basic body and hand anthropometry on the results of different throwing tests in young handball and basketball players. Anthropol Anz, 2008; 66(2): 225-236.
26. Wagh PD, Birajdar G, Nagavekar M. Comparison Of Handgrip Muscle Strength In Sportsmen And Sedentary Group. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences, 2017; 16 (7): 62-65.
27. Westropp M, Gill T, Taylor A, Bohannon R, Hill C. Hand grip strength: age and gender stratified normative data in a population based study. BMC Res Notes, 2011; 4: 127-132.