Upper Arm Circumference and Handgrip Strength Differences in Male Badminton Athletes

Authors

  • I Komang Gede Artha Guna Author
  • I Made Yoga Parwata Physiotherapy Study Program, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Dhyana Pura, Bali, Indonesia Author
  • Ni Luh Made Reny Wahyu Sari Physiotherapy Study Program, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Dhyana Pura, Bali, Indonesia Author
  • Agung Wahyu Permadi Physiotherapy Professional Study Program, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Dhyana Pura, Bali, Indonesia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24843/

Keywords:

Badminton, Hand Strength, Anthropometry, Upper Arm, Muscle Strength, Athletic Performance

Abstract

Background: Badminton involves repeated unilateral upper limb use, which may be associated with side to side anthropometric and functional differences.
Objective: To compare upper arm circumference and handgrip strength between the dominant and non-dominant sides in male badminton athletes from Denpasar and Badung, Bali.
Methods: This quantitative observational comparative study used a within-subject cross-sectional design. Twenty-four male badminton athletes aged 18–25 years were recruited through purposive sampling. Dominance was defined as the hand routinely used to hold the racket during training and competition, based on self-report. Upper arm circumference was measured three times on each side at the midpoint between the acromion and olecranon, and the mean was analyzed. Handgrip strength was assessed three times per side using a Takei TKK 5401 dynamometer, with the highest value analyzed. The original analysis used paired sample t-tests.
Results: Mean upper arm circumference was 28.42 ± 2.23 cm on the dominant side and 26.27 ± 2.21 cm on the non-dominant side. Mean handgrip strength was 42.62 ± 3.73 kg and 36.05 ± 3.50 kg, respectively. Both comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Normality of paired difference scores, 95% confidence intervals, and paired effect sizes were unavailable.
Conclusion: Upper arm circumference and handgrip strength were significantly greater on the dominant side. These findings describe cross-sectional side to side differences and do not establish causation, longitudinal adaptation, clinical significance, or injury risk.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-30