Physical strength of other Primates

Dustin Kesselberg

Illuminator
D
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
4,669
Chimpanzees are up to 8 times stronger than the average adult human male. Chimpanzees can lift nearly 8 times as much. An average human male would have trouble dead lifting 250lbs but a chimp could dead lift 600lbs with one hand without a problem.

Scientists have shown that the actual muscles of chimps aren't that different than our own.

So what is the cause of this strength difference?
Could it be the neocortex?

How about Gorillas? Do they have the same superior strength relative to bodyweight? Some gorillas weigh several hundred pounds. They should be able to lift thousands of pounds if a 130lb chimp can lift several hundred. No?



Discuss.
 
Dustin said:
Post the article here...
Click to expand...

Can't do that. The key bit appears to be
The answer isn't just sheer muscle bulk. It's also to do with that fact that their muscles work around five to seven times more efficiently than ours. Studies of human and other primates' jaw muscles show that our muscle fibres are far smaller and weaker than those of our cousins - roughly an eighth the size of those seen in macaques, for example.
The reasons for this remain poorly understood, but one contributing factor is the genes that encode myosin, the protein fibres from which muscles are made. Comparison of human and ape sequences for a myosin gene called MYH16 show that all humans have a mutant version of this gene.
Some have even credited the more diminutive muscles in human jaws for our larger intelligence. One theory says that these smaller muscles gave our skulls the room to grow rounder, allowing for a bigger brain cavity1.
Click to expand...

Also it's probably a mistake to compare the average human male to a chimp anyway. Most chimps spend their entire lives lifting themselves up with their arms and swinging around, which would build up some impressive upper body strength, even without the larger muscle fibre size.
 
Last edited:
The reasons for this remain poorly understood, but one contributing factor is the genes that encode myosin, the protein fibres from which muscles are made. Comparison of human and ape sequences for a myosin gene called MYH16 show that all humans have a mutant version of this gene.
Click to expand...

I should of figured it had something to do with the Myosin gene.


So if Humans figure a way to change our Myosin gene to be similar to that of Chimps...We should become several times stronger?
 
I recall reading (I have no cite) a long time ago that the ligaments and sinews are attached differently in their arms compared to ours. It's something to the effect that ours are attached right on the end of the bone, and make a right angle through the elbow, resulting in poor leverage, whereas the other primates the attachment point is different and doesn't run through the elbow the same way, so they get greater leverage, and less chance of damaging themselves under high loads. Kind of like the hydraulics are connected to a backhoe.

I don't know if it is true, but it sounds plausible.
 
In times of stress in humans when their neocortex shuts down they are able to do amazing feats of strength.

Could the neocortex play a role in the chimps strength?



And how about Gorillas? Do they share the same super-strength as chimps?
 
I was under the impression that the extreme feats of strength were due to an extreme fight-or-flight response, mainly a huge surge of adrenaline. This response is very short term and can cause serious muscle damage if it carries on for too long. Whether part of the brain is involved or not, it seems unlikely that the same mechanism can be involved with natural strength of other primates.

Humans seem to be the mutants and all other primates are proportionally much stronger. There is a theory that expanding brain power required cutbacks in other areas due to energy considerations, but I'm not sure how well accepted this theory is.
 
christ! An evil empire run by humanzees :jaw-dropp

Mr Ivanov's ideas were music to the ears of Soviet planners and in 1926 he was dispatched to West Africa with $200,000 to conduct his first experiment in impregnating chimpanzees.

Meanwhile, a centre for the experiments was set up in Georgia - Stalin's birthplace - for the apes to be raised.

Mr Ivanov's experiments, unsurprisingly from what we now know, were a total failure. He returned to the Soviet Union, only to see experiments in Georgia to use monkey sperm in human volunteers similarly fail.

A final attempt to persuade a Cuban heiress to lend some of her monkeys for further experiments reached American ears, with the New York Times reporting on the story, and she dropped the idea amid the uproar.
Click to expand...
 
First off, it doesn't make sense that our muscle cells are really weak compared to other animals. If they were, we should have gone extinct a long time ago. Pretty much all mamals should be operating near the biological limit, at least on the celular level. But there are two biological factors which can easily account for a difference in the "strength" of a human vs. other primates, both of them essentially issues of leverage.

In order to contract, muscle cells use pairs of fibers aligned with each other, which grab ob to each other and slide. If these fiber pairs are long, there will be many connecting points along the fiber, and the force exerted by them will be large. If the fibers are short, the force will be correspondingly smaller, BUT since you can have more pairs along the length of the muscle, and each pair contracts at a fixed rate, the DISTANCE that the entire muscle contracts in a given time will also be correspondingly larger. So there's a tradeoff even on the celular level between strength and speed.

Now, as mentioned above, you can also play this tradeoff game when connecting the muscles to the joints. Here the leverage issue is a little more obvious: if you connect the ligament near the joint you're bending, then the muscle doesn't need to contract very far in order to move that joint through a certain arc. If you attach the ligament farther out, you need to contract the muscle more to achieve the same movement (so the limb moves more slowly), but you again have correspondingly more torque applied to the joint and the limb can exert more pressure.

So, are other primates "stronger" than humans? I don't doubt that they can exert significantly more force with their arms than we can. But you'll never get a chimp to run a marathon either, or throw a 90 mph fastball. In terms of POWER output (basically, strength x speed) per pound, I would guess our muscles are probably pretty similar not only to chimpanzees but to most mammals. The human body is not some weak, pathetic thing: we're just built to do different things than other animals.
 
Every healthy human I know can lift twice their body weight.

You can climb a flight of stairs? So each leg can lift your own weight. So use both legs together, lift double your weight. The most I've knowingly lifted is 400#, but I had a bad back disc at the time. I don't know how much I had lifted before, engines and things. Maybe monkeys lift more out of stupidity- they just don't know when to quit? Anyhow, I'd like to study how/what they measured the monkeys lifting. Perhaps we only use 10% of our bodies as well as of our brains? ;)
 
Dustin said:
In times of stress in humans when their neocortex shuts down they are able to do amazing feats of strength.

Could the neocortex play a role in the chimps strength?



And how about Gorillas? Do they share the same super-strength as chimps?
Click to expand...

The neocortex has nothing to do with it. Chimp and Gorillas (yes they are similarly powerful, pound for pound, to chimps) have much larger bone structure than we do. The areas of their bones where the muscles attach are huge, permiting a lot of muscle mass. Don't forget that adult chimps are very large, about 200 lbs. It's not the materials, it's the construction. =0)

Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago had an adult male gorilla whom I used to go see often. He weighed 500 lbs., had a ten foot arm-span and a 36 inch neck. Truly awesome.

Steven
 
Perhaps it’s a trade off for endurance, young fit humans can walk/run for amazing distances if required. Saw a documentary where a Kalahari bushman (I think) ran down an antelope (the antelope basically overheated) took him all day to do it!
 
Foster Zygote said:
Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago had an adult male gorilla whom I used to go see often. He weighed 500 lbs., had a ten foot arm-span and a 36 inch neck. Truly awesome.
Click to expand...
Is that the one who would throw himself at the visitors w/ fangs bared and screaming until he hit the glass? Man, that was scary. Though I knew he couldn't break through the glass it was near impossible to stand still w/ that enraged ape coming at you like that. He must have gotten quite a kick out of scaring the visitors. They redid the ape house since so that doesn't happen any more, but it used to be one hell of a thrill!
 
WildCat said:
Is that the one who would throw himself at the visitors w/ fangs bared and screaming until he hit the glass? Man, that was scary. Though I knew he couldn't break through the glass it was near impossible to stand still w/ that enraged ape coming at you like that. He must have gotten quite a kick out of scaring the visitors. They redid the ape house since so that doesn't happen any more, but it used to be one hell of a thrill!
Click to expand...

That was him. I think he was named "Kundu". I understand that he was sent to another zoo in Ohio. He knew as well as anyone that he couldn't get through that armor-glass but he liked to get a rise out of people. He would get especially pissed-off when a crowd of adult men would stand around staring at him as this is considered very rude if you're a gorilla (or a human). He would pound that glass so hard that it would bow out and ring the structural framework of the building. That glass would stop a rifle round yet one of the keepers told me that they'd had to replace a couple of panes becouse he'd cracked them.

Steven
 
Ziggurat said:
First off, it doesn't make sense that our muscle cells are really weak compared to other animals. If they were, we should have gone extinct a long time ago. Pretty much all mamals should be operating near the biological limit, at least on the celular level. But there are two biological factors which can easily account for a difference in the "strength" of a human vs. other primates, both of them essentially issues of leverage.

In order to contract, muscle cells use pairs of fibers aligned with each other, which grab ob to each other and slide. If these fiber pairs are long, there will be many connecting points along the fiber, and the force exerted by them will be large. If the fibers are short, the force will be correspondingly smaller, BUT since you can have more pairs along the length of the muscle, and each pair contracts at a fixed rate, the DISTANCE that the entire muscle contracts in a given time will also be correspondingly larger. So there's a tradeoff even on the celular level between strength and speed.

Now, as mentioned above, you can also play this tradeoff game when connecting the muscles to the joints. Here the leverage issue is a little more obvious: if you connect the ligament near the joint you're bending, then the muscle doesn't need to contract very far in order to move that joint through a certain arc. If you attach the ligament farther out, you need to contract the muscle more to achieve the same movement (so the limb moves more slowly), but you again have correspondingly more torque applied to the joint and the limb can exert more pressure.

So, are other primates "stronger" than humans? I don't doubt that they can exert significantly more force with their arms than we can. But you'll never get a chimp to run a marathon either, or throw a 90 mph fastball. In terms of POWER output (basically, strength x speed) per pound, I would guess our muscles are probably pretty similar not only to chimpanzees but to most mammals. The human body is not some weak, pathetic thing: we're just built to do different things than other animals.
Click to expand...


Did you read about 140lb chimps being able to deadlift 600lbs with 1 arm?
 
casebro said:
Every healthy human I know can lift twice their body weight.

You can climb a flight of stairs? So each leg can lift your own weight. So use both legs together, lift double your weight. The most I've knowingly lifted is 400#, but I had a bad back disc at the time. I don't know how much I had lifted before, engines and things. Maybe monkeys lift more out of stupidity- they just don't know when to quit? Anyhow, I'd like to study how/what they measured the monkeys lifting. Perhaps we only use 10% of our bodies as well as of our brains? ;)
Click to expand...


"lift" is a very ambigious word. When we are walking up stairs we're 'lifting' but we aren't trully going through the full range of motion.

Most people can't do a full squat with 1 single leg. But most people can squat down maybe 1 or 2 inches with 1 leg.

Remember Pat Robertson claiming he lifted 2,000lbs on the smith machine? The range of motion was maybe 1 or 2 inches.

The same applies for walking.
 
Cuddles said:
I was under the impression that the extreme feats of strength were due to an extreme fight-or-flight response, mainly a huge surge of adrenaline. This response is very short term and can cause serious muscle damage if it carries on for too long. Whether part of the brain is involved or not, it seems unlikely that the same mechanism can be involved with natural strength of other primates.

Humans seem to be the mutants and all other primates are proportionally much stronger. There is a theory that expanding brain power required cutbacks in other areas due to energy considerations, but I'm not sure how well accepted this theory is.
Click to expand...
Heheh, or maybe we evolved a brain to compensate for our physical shortcomings?

Other than that, there is the issue of stamina, as others have mentioned. Humans can outrun all other primates, both in speed and distance. This is consistent with the assumption that early hominids evolved when geological changes forced them out of the woods and into open plains. In the plains, it doesn't matter how strong you are, if you cannot outrun that prey (or that predator).

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom