A popularly written article about gorilla strength

[sam1]

I imagine this kid of article recieving quite a bit of skepticism or even bashing on sites such as carnivora, but personally, it comes across as a believable and reasonable enough piece.
Thoughts?

www.animalwised.com/how-strong-are-gorillas-43.html

[theropod]

The article seems contradictory.
It first claims Gorillas to be "easily among the 10 strongest animals in the world, relative to their size and weight", which of course is itself wrong, since the 10 strongest animals relative to their size and weight are almost certainly all arthropods, or at least very small animals. But if, as they claim, silverback gorillas can lift 815kg and humans 410kg, that would actually make the Gorilla able to lift approximately the same relative mass as the human. Now you could say the were adjusting for scaling, but then once more it seems incredibly unlikely the Gorilla would make the top 10, as most likely the 10 strongest animals would have to be among the largest.

The problem with the whole gorilla strength discussion is a lack of a universally applicable definition of "strenght". This sort of favours the gorilla, as it’s morphology is sufficiently similar to ours to just transfer human measures of strength onto it (like weightlifting capacity), which aren’t applicable to most animals. And of course if your sample is limited to animals that can perform similar actions to a human, it’s not difficult for a gorilla to seem impressive. So any thorough article would first have to come up with a reasonable way to compare strength between animals of different body plans, before making hyperbolic claims about it.

Otherwise, my main thought is, reasonable or not, what relevance does such an article have? Besides citing the guinness book (which some still seem to equate to a scientific source), it mostly throws around with a bunch of unsourced statements, whether they are accurate or not.

[sam1]

As I noted, the "popularly written" means one should not expect much scientific quotes and references. But the overal tone, especially the notion of the body type specifics gives me the impression it just might be valid enough for casual readers.
The contradiction comes from using a "well trained" human for the comparison; the average human male can actually lift perhaps around 100kg's, which is four times lower than the stated weight.
Also the relative strength claim is surely a matter of a missed context. I'm guessing what they really had in mind were animals of a certain category.