Key Takeaways
- Grip strength only means something next to people of your own sex and age. In the NIH Toolbox sample, men aged 40 to 44 had a median dominant-hand grip of 45.9 kg (101.2 lb) and women of the same age 30.4 kg (67.0 lb)[1].
- Sit, bend the elbow to 90 degrees, do one practice squeeze, then take one maximal squeeze per hand. That is how the reference group was tested[1].
- The European line for low grip strength is below 27 kg for men and 16 kg for women[3]. Other groups set higher lines, so passing this one does not clear you[11][12].
- In 139,691 adults across 17 countries, each 5 kg lower grip went with a 16% higher risk of death from any cause over a median 4 years. That is an association, not proof that weak hands cause early death[4].
- The dominant hand is not reliably 10% stronger. Studies put the average gap anywhere from about 0.1% to 12.7% in right-handers, and near zero in left-handers[5][6][7].
How Your Percentile Is Worked Out
Your sex, age and hand pick one of 52 published groups: two sexes, two hands and thirteen age bands from 18 to 85. Each group comes with five published cut points, the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles[1].
A percentile is a rank within the group. At the 46th percentile, about 46 of every 100 people in that group squeezed with less force than you did.
The paper publishes nothing between its five cut points, so the tool joins them with straight lines. That is a choice made by this tool, not a result from the study. Below the 10th or above the 90th percentile it gives no number at all.
Man, age 42 (band 40 to 44), dominant hand, reading 45 kg
25th percentile = 39.9 kg, 50th percentile = 45.9 kg
Position = 25 + (45 - 39.9) / (45.9 - 39.9) x 25
Grip Strength Chart by Age and Sex
These are the published percentiles for the dominant hand, in kilograms with pounds in brackets. The paper's own pound table agrees with a conversion at 2.20462 lb per kg to within 0.1 lb[1].
| Age | n | 10th | 25th | 50th | 75th | 90th |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 to 24 | 36 | 36.2 (79.8) | 41.4 (91.3) | 47.8 (105.4) | 51.2 (112.9) | 57.9 (127.6) |
| 25 to 29 | 35 | 33.7 (74.3) | 43.3 (95.5) | 49.3 (108.7) | 59.4 (131.0) | 66.2 (145.9) |
| 30 to 34 | 29 | 31.2 (68.8) | 36.4 (80.2) | 46.1 (101.6) | 56.4 (124.3) | 63.1 (139.1) |
| 35 to 39 | 41 | 30.3 (66.8) | 39.7 (87.5) | 50.1 (110.5) | 54.3 (119.7) | 60.8 (134.0) |
| 40 to 44 | 47 | 34.3 (75.6) | 39.9 (88.0) | 45.9 (101.2) | 54.4 (119.9) | 63.1 (139.1) |
| 45 to 49 | 32 | 31.1 (68.6) | 35.8 (78.9) | 40.7 (89.7) | 48.2 (106.3) | 59.2 (130.5) |
| 50 to 54 | 46 | 30.4 (67.0) | 39.0 (86.0) | 44.8 (98.8) | 52.3 (115.3) | 56.7 (125.0) |
| 55 to 59 | 27 | 28.2 (62.2) | 32.4 (71.4) | 38.7 (85.3) | 47.8 (105.4) | 56.3 (124.1) |
| 60 to 64 | 33 | 23.3 (51.4) | 30.4 (67.0) | 40.3 (88.8) | 44.9 (99.0) | 52.5 (115.7) |
| 65 to 69 | 22 | 17.8 (39.2) | 31.5 (69.4) | 36.6 (80.7) | 45.8 (101.0) | 50.1 (110.5) |
| 70 to 74 | 39 | 16.7 (36.8) | 29.3 (64.6) | 36.3 (80.0) | 41.2 (90.8) | 45.6 (100.5) |
| 75 to 79 | 24 | 18.4 (40.6) | 25.9 (57.1) | 33.5 (73.9) | 36.6 (80.7) | 43.5 (95.9) |
| 80 to 85 | 38 | 15.6 (34.4) | 21.5 (47.4) | 29.5 (65.0) | 34.6 (76.3) | 38.2 (84.2) |
Men, dominant hand: grip strength percentiles by age. Source: NIH Toolbox sample, n shows people in each band.
| Age | n | 10th | 25th | 50th | 75th | 90th |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 to 24 | 54 | 17.6 (38.8) | 22.4 (49.4) | 28.4 (62.6) | 33.8 (74.5) | 38.0 (83.8) |
| 25 to 29 | 102 | 20.2 (44.5) | 25.4 (56.0) | 29.6 (65.3) | 33.6 (74.1) | 39.7 (87.5) |
| 30 to 34 | 109 | 20.5 (45.2) | 23.9 (52.7) | 29.8 (65.7) | 33.0 (72.8) | 37.1 (81.8) |
| 35 to 39 | 90 | 20.0 (44.1) | 24.5 (54.0) | 30.3 (66.8) | 33.0 (72.8) | 38.0 (83.8) |
| 40 to 44 | 88 | 22.8 (50.3) | 26.5 (58.4) | 30.4 (67.0) | 33.8 (74.5) | 37.4 (82.5) |
| 45 to 49 | 52 | 17.7 (39.0) | 25.2 (55.6) | 28.7 (63.3) | 34.4 (75.8) | 37.6 (82.9) |
| 50 to 54 | 65 | 19.7 (43.4) | 24.6 (54.2) | 28.2 (62.2) | 32.7 (72.1) | 35.2 (77.6) |
| 55 to 59 | 30 | 16.9 (37.3) | 20.7 (45.6) | 24.1 (53.1) | 30.2 (66.6) | 32.2 (71.0) |
| 60 to 64 | 58 | 15.9 (35.1) | 19.2 (42.3) | 24.4 (53.8) | 28.1 (61.9) | 31.8 (70.1) |
| 65 to 69 | 29 | 11.7 (25.8) | 19.3 (42.5) | 22.2 (48.9) | 25.0 (55.1) | 31.2 (68.8) |
| 70 to 74 | 43 | 15.2 (33.5) | 19.5 (43.0) | 22.5 (49.6) | 23.9 (52.7) | 27.5 (60.6) |
| 75 to 79 | 17 | 12.6 (27.8) | 15.7 (34.6) | 18.2 (40.1) | 22.4 (49.4) | 27.8 (61.3) |
| 80 to 85 | 46 | 14.5 (32.0) | 16.6 (36.6) | 19.5 (43.0) | 21.8 (48.1) | 27.0 (59.5) |
Women, dominant hand: grip strength percentiles by age. Source: NIH Toolbox sample, n shows people in each band.
The median for each hand, side by side, shows how far the non-dominant hand trails in the same sample.
| Age | Men, dominant | Men, non-dominant | Women, dominant | Women, non-dominant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 to 24 | 47.8 (105.4) | 44.5 (98.1) | 28.4 (62.6) | 24.7 (54.5) |
| 25 to 29 | 49.3 (108.7) | 47.2 (104.1) | 29.6 (65.3) | 27.5 (60.6) |
| 30 to 34 | 46.1 (101.6) | 45.0 (99.2) | 29.8 (65.7) | 27.6 (60.8) |
| 35 to 39 | 50.1 (110.5) | 47.2 (104.1) | 30.3 (66.8) | 27.6 (60.8) |
| 40 to 44 | 45.9 (101.2) | 42.7 (94.1) | 30.4 (67.0) | 29.3 (64.6) |
| 45 to 49 | 40.7 (89.7) | 40.4 (89.1) | 28.7 (63.3) | 26.9 (59.3) |
| 50 to 54 | 44.8 (98.8) | 44.3 (97.7) | 28.2 (62.2) | 26.4 (58.2) |
| 55 to 59 | 38.7 (85.3) | 37.2 (82.0) | 24.1 (53.1) | 23.5 (51.8) |
| 60 to 64 | 40.3 (88.8) | 37.1 (81.8) | 24.4 (53.8) | 22.6 (49.8) |
| 65 to 69 | 36.6 (80.7) | 37.5 (82.7) | 22.2 (48.9) | 21.4 (47.2) |
| 70 to 74 | 36.3 (80.0) | 34.5 (76.1) | 22.5 (49.6) | 20.9 (46.1) |
| 75 to 79 | 33.5 (73.9) | 30.2 (66.6) | 18.2 (40.1) | 18.6 (41.0) |
| 80 to 85 | 29.5 (65.0) | 27.3 (60.2) | 19.5 (43.0) | 19.3 (42.5) |
Median grip strength by age band, kilograms with pounds in brackets.
The groups are small, from 17 to 109 people, so neighbouring bands can run out of order. The median for men aged 45 to 49 is lower than for men aged 50 to 54, which is a sampling quirk rather than a real rise with age.
The 2011 to 2014 NHANES survey measured more people, but allowed three trials and handle adjustment. Its best-of-three values ran higher[10].
The authors of that comparison do not recommend the NHANES values, because the protocol differs considerably from those recommended by the American Society of Hand Therapists and by Roberts and colleagues[10].
What Grip Strength Is Measured In
The studies cited here report kilograms. The NIH Toolbox read its dynamometer in pounds and converted[1], and the Canadian survey recorded kilograms to the nearest whole number[9].
lb = kg x 2.20462
kg = lb / 2.20462
45 kg = 99.2 lb
100 lb = 45.4 kg
Use the unit printed on your device and switch the calculator to match. Results show both.
How to Measure Grip Strength
You need a hand dynamometer. This is the protocol behind the US norms[1]:
- Sit upright with the arm by your side, the elbow bent to 90 degrees and the forearm in a neutral position.
- Set the handle to the second position, as the study did with a calibrated digital Jamar.
- Do one practice squeeze, hard but not as hard as you can, then rest for 30 seconds.
- Squeeze as hard as you can for 3 to 4 seconds while someone encourages you.
- Repeat with the other hand.
This protocol is very similar to the one recommended by the American Society of Hand Therapists and by Roberts and colleagues[10]. Posture, arm position, handle position and the type of dynamometer can all change the number, so re-test the same way each time[10].
If you squeezed more than once, enter the average. Across the NHANES and NIH Toolbox samples, the single-squeeze values did not differ overall from NHANES mean-of-three values, but they were lower than NHANES best-of-three values[10]. So the best of several squeezes can place you higher than one squeeze would.
Studies also differ in whether they report the maximum or the mean of one, two or three attempts, which makes tables hard to compare[8]. The Canadian reference uses a standing test with a Smedley dynamometer and takes the highest value from either hand[9], so it answers a different question.
How to Calculate Percent Loss of Grip Strength
Percent loss compares a current reading with a reference: an earlier reading of the same hand, or the uninjured hand. Step 4 of the calculator does this for you.
Percent loss = (reference - current) / reference x 100
Reference 50 kg, current 40 kg
(50 - 40) / 50 x 100
A negative answer means the current reading is above the reference. None of the sources cited here says how big a change has to be to count as real. One reading also moves with effort, time of day and device.
The British centile authors advise against using cross-sectional centiles to follow one person over time[2].
Low Grip Strength Lines
The European sarcopenia consensus (EWGSOP2) sets low grip strength at below 27 kg for men and below 16 kg for women. Low strength means probable sarcopenia, and confirming it needs low muscle quantity or quality[3].
Other groups publish different lines, because they use different populations and methods. SDOC chose its lines by how well grip strength picked out slow walkers[11], and AWGS set its lines for Asian populations[12].
SDOC notes that the right line can vary with age, race and disease[11]. EWGSOP2 recommends regional reference data where it exists[3].
| Consensus and group | Men | Women |
|---|---|---|
| EWGSOP2 2019, European, older adults[3] | 27 (59.5) | 16 (35.3) |
| SDOC 2020, older adults[11] | 35.5 (78.3) | 20 (44.1) |
| AWGS 2025, ages 50 to 64, Asian populations[12] | 34 (75.0) | 20 (44.1) |
| AWGS 2025, ages 65 and over, Asian populations[12] | 28 (61.7) | 18 (39.7) |
Published lines for low grip strength, in kilograms with pounds in brackets. A reading below the line counts as low.
No newer European consensus than EWGSOP2 could be confirmed. AWGS published its update in 2025[12].
The EWGSOP2 lines cite the British centile paper[3]. They match that paper's peak mean minus 2.5 standard deviations, rounded[2].
Line = peak mean - 2.5 x peak SD (peak at age 32)
Men: 51.9 - 2.5 x 9.9 = 27.15 kg
Women: 31.4 - 2.5 x 6.1 = 16.15 kg
At -2 standard deviations the lines would be about 32 kg for men and 19 kg for women. By age 80, 23.0% of men and 26.6% of women were at or below the -2.5 line[2].
What a line can and cannot tell you
Grip Strength and Health
The PURE study followed 139,691 adults in 17 countries, enrolled through households with a member aged 35 to 70. Each 5 kg lower grip strength went with a hazard ratio of 1.16 for death from any cause (95% CI 1.13 to 1.20). Only 2% of participants died during the median 4 years of follow-up[4].
The ratios were 1.17 for cardiovascular death, 1.07 for heart attack and 1.09 for stroke. Grip strength predicted all-cause and cardiovascular death better than systolic blood pressure did[4].
The study found no significant link between grip strength and new diabetes, hospital admission for pneumonia or COPD, injury from a fall, or fracture. It was observational, so it shows a link and not a cause, and its authors say further research is needed to test whether improving strength lowers risk[4].
Dominant and Non-Dominant Hand
A common belief is that the dominant hand is 10% stronger. A study of 310 people found 12.72% in right-handed people and -0.08% in left-handed people, and concluded the rule holds for right-handers only[5].
Another study measured three strength tests, including grip, and found 0.1 to 3% in right-handers and none in left-handers, with large differences between individuals[6]. Data from 13,653 NHANES and 3,571 NIH Toolbox participants gave 5.0 to 5.6% overall[7].
In the NIH Toolbox sample, dominance was self-reported and 93.4% of people were right-handed[1]. Since the gap varies so much, the calculator compares each hand with its own norms and reports your gap without judging it.
Expected Grip for Your Height and Weight
The NIH Toolbox paper fitted an equation for each sex and hand from age cubed, height in metres and weight in kilograms[1].
Height correlated with grip at r = 0.61, weight at 0.34 to 0.36 and age at -0.26 to -0.27. Body mass index added nothing once height and weight were in the equation[1].
Man, dominant hand: -29.959 - 3.095E-05 x age^3 + 38.719 x height + 0.113 x weight
Age 42, height 1.7 m, weight 67.1 kg
-29.959 - 3.095E-05 x 74088 + 38.719 x 1.7 + 0.113 x 67.1
The adjusted R squared was 0.44 for men and 0.36 for women on the dominant hand. Most of the difference between people is therefore not explained by size and age, so treat the expected value as a guide and not a target[1].
What This Page Does Not Cover
None of the sources cited here supports a number for the following, so the tool leaves them out:
- Children and teenagers under 18, and adults over 85.
- Ratings such as weak, average or excellent. Only percentiles and published cut-offs are shown.
- Grip strength divided by body weight, and standards for athletes.
- Conversion between dynamometer brands. British centiles were generally within 10% of each other across several types, but that is not a conversion factor[2].
- Training plans or targets for improvement.
For other ways to test fitness, see the Push-Up Test Calculator and the Physical Fitness Test Calculator.
Frequently Asked Questions
Sources & References
- Hand-Grip Strength: Normative Reference Values and Equations for Individuals 18 to 85 Years of Age Residing in the United States. Wang YC, Bohannon RW, Li X, Sindhu B, Kapellusch J. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 48(9):685-693 (2018)
- Grip strength across the life course: normative data from twelve British studies. Dodds RM, Syddall HE, Cooper R, Benzeval M, Deary IJ, Dennison EM, et al.. PLoS One 9(12):e113637 (2014)
- Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al.. Age Ageing 48(1):16-31 (2019)
- Prognostic value of grip strength: findings from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. Leong DP, Teo KK, Rangarajan S, et al.. Lancet 386(9990):266-273 (2015)
- Grip strength and hand dominance: challenging the 10% rule. Petersen P, Petrick M, Connor H, Conklin D. Am J Occup Ther 43(7):444-447 (1989)
- A comparison of dominant and non-dominant hand strengths. Armstrong CA, Oldham JA. J Hand Surg Br 24(4):421-425 (1999)
- Between-side differences in hand-grip strength across the age span: findings from 2011-2014 NHANES and 2011 NIH Toolbox studies. Wang YC, Bohannon RW, Kapellusch J, Washburn D, Li X, Yen SC, Rahman MH. Laterality 24(6):697-706 (2019)
- A review of the measurement of grip strength in clinical and epidemiological studies: towards a standardised approach. Roberts HC, Denison HJ, Martin HJ, Patel HP, Syddall H, Cooper C, Sayer AA. Age Ageing 40(4):423-429 (2011)
- Grip strength reference values for Canadians aged 6 to 79: Canadian Health Measures Survey, 2007 to 2013. Wong SL. Health Reports 27(10):3-10 (Statistics Canada) (2016)
- Handgrip Strength: A Comparison of Values Obtained From the NHANES and NIH Toolbox Studies. Bohannon RW, Wang YC, Yen SC, Grogan KA. Am J Occup Ther 73(2):7302205080p1-7302205080p9 (2019)
- Sarcopenia Definition: The Position Statements of the Sarcopenia Definition and Outcomes Consortium. Bhasin S, Travison TG, Manini TM, Patel S, Pencina KM, Fielding RA, Magaziner JM, Newman AB, et al.. J Am Geriatr Soc 68(7):1410-1418 (2020)
- A focus shift from sarcopenia to muscle health in the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2025 Consensus Update. Chen LK, Hsiao FY, Akishita M, Assantachai P, Lee WJ, Lim WS, Muangpaisan W, Kim M, et al.. Nat Aging 5(11):2164-2175 (2025)
Certified Personal Trainer & Sports Nutritionist
NASM-certified fitness and nutrition coach with over 10 years of hands-on experience helping people build strength, lose fat, and live healthier lives. Specializing in gym-based workouts with a strong focus on lifting technique, biomechanics, and practical exercise science. Through FitLifeRegime, sharing the tools, tips, and insights that have worked for hundreds of clients — helping you start your own fitness journey with confidence and clarity.
Learn more about Manish
NASM Certified
Certified Personal Trainer & Sports Nutritionist from the National Academy of Sports Medicine
Disclaimer: This tool is for informational and personal journaling purposes only. Results are estimates based on published formulas and may vary based on individual factors such as genetics, training history, and measurement technique.