Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 3:15:50 GMT 5
I can't see any way the Asian black bear would win this. A male Gigantopithecus was essentially an orangutan on steroids. Even a small specimen would be much, much stronger than the bear. Biological anthropologist and primatologist Richard Wrangham discusses the strength of chimpanzees in one of his books. He claims a chimpanzee weakened by captivity and inadequate nutrition is still roughly two to three times stronger than an adult male human. If that's the case, how strong do you think Gigantopithecus was? What method did he use for calculating this? If this was only an estimate you probably shouldn't take things too seriously. Several studies using reliable methods contradict this anyway. |
|
Borzaya
Junior Member Rank 1
Strange Horse
Posts: 10 
|
Post by Borzaya on Mar 3, 2017 3:35:18 GMT 5
He didn't give specifics, but he was referencing several estimates by other primatologists, so yes, it could be wrong. Still, a chimpanzee being two to three times stronger than a grown man sounds pretty conservative to me. Compared to humans, other great apes have extremely dense muscular tissue and activate more muscle fibers during periods of physical exertion. Can you show me the studies that contradict this? I'm not asking because I doubt their veracity; I'm actually just interested in what they have to say. EDIT: I've found some of the information Wrangham might have been referencing.  This was from an article in Slate, but it was written by anthropologist John Hawks: Save |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 8:15:18 GMT 5
A study from 1960 who conclude that chimps have pounds for pounds around 2 time the pulling strength of a human : The physical condition of the humans : ''The seven human subjects were all adult males in good health and with perhaps one exception at least somewhat active in physical sports. The three heaviest subjects had the highest proportion of adipose tissue, with the third lightest intermediate in this respect between the three
heaviest and the remainder. Although he manifested some excess adipose tissue, the heaviest subject was quite muscular despite his weight, largely through having just participated for one year...''There is description of each subjects at page 7, I somewhat doubt the physical condition of some of those subjects especially considering that one subject weighted nearly 250 pounds at 6 foot 1 which is obviously overweight. About the chimps, their physical descrition is at page 9, only one male was an adult but was he fully grown? I'm not sure, his weight look below average to me. The conclusion start at page 15. ''Inspection of the data presented evinces the finding that, despite the fact that all of the human subjects were adult males but 40 per cent of the chimpanzees were females and 80 per cent were pre-adolescent or earli- est-adolescent, chimpanzees are much stronger than humans per unit of body- weight. The outpulling by the largest chimpanzee of a human weight-lifter fully2\timesaslargeinbody-weightseemsespeciallynoteworthy.The striking average ratio of superiority of chimpanzees to humans is 2.681: 1 (2.410 to 0.899), approximating the ratio reported by Bauman (1923 and 1926). Much of this superiority is ascribable to geometrical similitude operating on the individuals of different body-size and to the proportion- ately heavier arms of the apes. For example, if a 64-pound chimpanzee, identical physiologically and in proportions to a 216-pound human, lifted 64 pounds, the human would lift 144 pounds, 33.3 per cent less than the 216 pounds which would have been lifted if strength were proportionate to the cube of a given dimension (or body-weight) instead of to the square of a given dimension (Edwards, 1963d). But general geometrical similitude provides only a very small factor in accounting for the 2.951: 1 superiority of the adult male fifth subject.'' The conclusion seems to be only about pulling strength though, and like I said the physical condition of the 250 pound man is doubtful. Link to the study : www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/469585.pdfTheir is also another study from 1948 which I cannot found right now. This is describe in this article : www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/02/how_strong_is_a_chimpanzee.htmlThey apparently conclude this : ''But the "five times" figure was refuted 20 years after Bauman's experiments. In 1943, Glen Finch of the Yale primate laboratory rigged an apparatus to test the arm strength of eight captive chimpanzees. An adult male chimp, he found, pulled about the same weight as an adult man. Once he'd corrected the measurement for their smaller body sizes, chimpanzees did turn out to be stronger than humans—but not by a factor of five or anything close to it.'' Also what do you mean when you say that apes have extremely muscular tissue (denser than human)? Do you have more information about this : ''activate more muscle fibers during periods of physical exertion.''? Btw, do you know how to upload picture from a computer? I would have like posting some screen shot but I don't know how to. |
|
Borzaya
Junior Member Rank 1
Strange Horse
Posts: 10
|
Post by Borzaya on Mar 3, 2017 10:20:25 GMT 5
The material you quoted says that chimpanzees have about twice the strength of adult male humans, which is what I said. I never claimed that chimpanzees are five times stronger than humans like Bauman concluded. I stand corrected about Wrangham, however. I double-checked my source, because it's been some time since I read the book that I mentioned earlier. It it he claims chimpanzees are four to five times stronger than a human, drawing from Bauman's outdated research. I thought he had written that a chimpanzee was two to three times stronger than a grown man. Maybe I read a later edition in which this was corrected? What I mean by apes having denser muscular tissue is that they have more muscular tissue over smaller surface areas (i.e., their bones) than humans do. Their muscle fibers are longer and thicker than those of humans, generating much more strength. The difference is so great that zoologists and primatologists once believed humans to be the only great ape that was capable of swimming, and that chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas would sink and drown in water. We now know this to be untrue. As for apes using more muscular fibers during physical activity, Alan Walker hypothesizes it here: www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/592023?seq=1I believe you can post a photo by uploading it to a site like tinypic or dropbox, and then enclosing the link in image tags like this, but without the spaces: [ i m g ] [ / i m g ]. SaveSaveSave |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 21:19:43 GMT 5
Pound for pound as much as 2 time stronger than human when it come to pulling strength. This is important since humans are larger than chimpanzees.Three time is still a bit exaggerated and he should have written ''proportionally stronger''.Not sure if I understand. Do you mean their muscles are closer to each other? Not sure if the first sentence is correct. Apparently, chimps have higher proportion of fast twitchs muscle fibers than human. But from what I have seen, fast twitch muscles fibers tend to be smaller than slow twitch muscle fibers. However, this can support the chimp superior muscle strength, assuming similar muscle size, a muscle compose mostly of fast twitch would generate more force than a muscle compose mostly of slow twitch since fast twitch muscle fibers generate proportionally more force.As for apes using more muscular fibers during physical activity, Alan Walker hypothesizes it here: www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/592023?seq=1Oh ok, that's only a theory, this could very well be true but without a proper study on the subject we can't really tell for sure.Thanks. |
|
full
Junior Member
Posts: 104 
|
Post by full on Mar 10, 2017 1:27:54 GMT 5
I can't see any way the Asian black bear would win this. A male Gigantopithecus was essentially an orangutan on steroids. Even a small specimen would be much, much stronger than the bear. Biological anthropologist and primatologist Richard Wrangham discusses the strength of chimpanzees in one of his books. He claims a chimpanzee weakened by captivity and inadequate nutrition is still roughly two to three times stronger than an adult male human. If that's the case, how strong do you think Gigantopithecus was? While that figure may well be true, how does it affect this matchup? A black bear is undoubtedly more powerful than any chimp or most humans. You can't see "any way the bear could win this"? How about being wrestled down and getting your spine broken like these bears have been known to do to fully grown water buffalo? "The diet includes fruit, buds, invertebrates, small vertebrates, and carrion. Domestic livestock is sometimes taken, and animals as large as adult buffalo are killed by breaking their necks." Nowak RM. 1991. Walker ’s mammals of the world, Vol. I and II. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ Press. Or through sustained mauling as happens to us? Lets not forget the largest extant apes have, on occasion, fallen victims to smaller carnivorians:  Honestly, I see no reason why Giganto should be favoured in a parity match or anything close to it. It's only advantage is it can grow to be larger at max weights, but put it up against another bear species of similar stature and the outcome would be the same IMO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 14:01:48 GMT 5
Nope; Gigantopithecus is far bigger, faster and stronger too! He's the first member of the DK crew! |
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Mar 30, 2017 6:41:19 GMT 5
Nope; Gigantopithecus is far bigger, faster and stronger too! He's the first member of the DK crew! He's the first member of the DK crew Huh! DK! Donkey Kong! DK! Donkey Kong is here! |
|
|
|
Post by moldovan0731 on Jul 27, 2017 19:31:12 GMT 5
The point of that comparison was actually to show that the smaller model of the Gigantopithecus is accurate, not the taller one. I wasn't putting any authenticity in a very large Gigantopithecus at all. I agree that the 2016 Jungle Book's (awesome movie btw) rendition of Gigantopithecus was very cool, but don't put too much authenticity in it as a representation of how it actually looks like. What actual strong proof and evidence do you have to back up the fact that Gigantopithecus was any bigger than 200 kg? The Gigantopithecus restoration linked by jhg is not meant to be (a) King Louie (fanart), it's meant to be a restoration of (the real) Gigantopithecus. You can note differences between the two, for example King Louie is fatter and he doesn't have facial hair and a head hump like the Gigantopithecus restoration linked by him. Jhg is also correct that the restoration linked by him is better than the OP's image. Proof that the one linked by jhg is meant to be a Gigantopithecus restoration: kaek.deviantart.com/art/Gigantopithecus-blacki-600210095 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 7:53:02 GMT 5
He's the first member of the DK crew! He's the first member of the DK crew Huh! DK! Donkey Kong! DK! Donkey Kong is here! coconut gun. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 10, 2019 22:21:01 GMT 5
Mismatch in favor of the ABB. Gigantopithecus has been downsized to the size of an eastern gorilla.
|
|
