Association of Body Size and Muscle Grip Strength With Hypertension: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background Hypertension is a major contributor to global cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Emerging evidence suggests that reduced hand grip strength (HGS) might be linked to elevated blood pressure and adverse cardiometabolic outcomes. Anthropometric measures like body mass index (BMI) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) have been recognized as potential markers of cardiometabolic risk. However, the combined influence of body size parameters, muscle strength, and hypertension in the rural Indian population remains underexplored. Objective Aiming to fill the research gap, the study’s objective was to compare anthropometric parameters and handgrip strength between hypertensive and normotensive adults residing in rural central India and to evaluate their associations with hypertension. Methods This comparative, cross-sectional, analytical study was conducted at a rural medical college of central India. The study sample consisted of 100 participants divided into 50 cases (hypertensive) and 50 age- and sex-matched controls (normotensive). Standardized protocols were followed while measuring HGS and anthropometric data. Maximum and mean HGS assessed by the grip force transducer were compared between the groups. Blood pressure measurements were recorded before and after the handgrip exercise protocol. Differences between groups were analyzed using the independent samples Student’s t-test, and Pearson correlation analysis was performed to evaluate associations between HGS, WHtR, and blood pressure. Results The mean age of 50 controls was 48.90 ± 10.68 years, and that of 50 hypertensives was 49.33 ± 10.97 years. There was no significant difference in height and weight between hypertensive cases and normotensive controls. WHtR was found to be significantly higher in hypertensive individuals (0.587 ± 0.11 vs. 0.49 ± 0.10, p = 0.0067), suggesting an association between central adiposity and hypertension. Hypertensive participants showed significantly (p < 0.001) lower mean HGS (58.32 ± 14.19 N) and maximum HGS (215.26 ± 58.95 N) compared to normotensive controls (77.25 ± 20.64 N and 335.06 ± 113.22 N, respectively). A statistically significant, strong negative correlation (r = -0.32, p = 0.020) was seen between maximum HGS and WHtR, and a statistically significant positive relation (r = 0.24, p = 0.044) between maximum HGS and heart rate. Conclusion The study aimed to reveal the inter-relationships of body size parameters like WHtR, muscle grip strength, and hypertension. The patients had significantly lower mean HGS and maximum HGS values as compared to normotensive controls and a higher WHtR, which underpins the role of muscle function and central adiposity in cardiovascular risk assessment and screening.