starting strength gym
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Chimp Strong

  1. #1

    Default Chimp Strong

    • starting strength seminar december 2024
    • starting strength seminar february 2025
    • starting strength seminar april 2025
    http://www.slate.com/id/2212232/

    [The "five times"] number entered the anthropology textbooks and made its way into the talking points of recent primatologists like Jane Goodall and Sue Savage-Rumbaugh.

    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.
    Repeated tests in the 1960s confirmed this basic picture. A chimpanzee had, pound for pound, as much as twice the strength of a human when it came to pulling weights. The apes beat us in leg strength, too, despite our reliance on our legs for locomotion. A 2006 study found that bonobos can jump one-third higher than top-level human athletes, and bonobo legs generate as much force as humans nearly two times heavier.

    So the figures quoted by primate experts are a little exaggerated. But it is a fact that chimpanzees and other apes are stronger than humans. How did we get to be the weaklings of the primate order? Our overall body architecture makes a difference: Even though chimpanzees weigh less than humans, more of their mass is concentrated in their powerful arms. But a more important factor seems to be the structure of the muscles themselves. A chimpanzee's skeletal muscle has longer fibers than the human equivalent and can generate twice the work output over a wider range of motion. In the past few years, geneticists have identified the loci for some of these anatomical differences. One gene, for example, called MYH16, contributes to the development of large jaw muscles in other apes. In humans, MYH16 has been deactivated. (Puny jaws have marked our lineage for as least 2 million years.) Many people have also lost another muscle-related gene called ACTN3. People with two working versions of this gene are overrepresented among elite sprinters while those with the nonworking version are overrepresented among endurance runners. Chimpanzees and all other nonhuman primates have only the working version; in other words, they're on the powerful, "sprinter" end of the spectrum.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    88

    Default

    This bit is especially interesting.

    "Many people have also lost another muscle-related gene called ACTN3. People with two working versions of this gene are overrepresented among elite sprinters while those with the nonworking version are overrepresented among endurance runners. Chimpanzees and all other nonhuman primates have only the working version; in other words, they're on the powerful, "sprinter" end of the spectrum."

    It'd be interesting to know whether this gene was active or not and then train more specifically towards your strength (or your weakness if you swing that way)...

    For instance, I'd imagine that those with the active ACTN3 would be better O-lifters where those who ACTN3 is inactive would be better powerlifters.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Good. Now I can be less fearful of a given chimp's strength, but just as fearful of their tendancy to bite my face and/or genitals off if they feel threatened.

    Interesting article. I wonder if someone can break down the evolutionary advantage that might have been gained in humans losing a gene that would potentially make them stronger. Am I reading the article correctly that the average human has only one working copy of the gene? Would this imply that the average human is, well, average - not an elite sprinter or an elite endurance athlete, and therefore more adaptable to a wider range of conditions?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    942

    Default

    Our ginormous brains already require an absurd amount of calories already. When you have pointy spears to kill and eat anything you don't like, such as chimps, neanderthals, lions and all those extinct large mammals that tasted delicious.... being even stronger is just a liability in surviving. Endurance is a more useful trait - think of strength as like having a bigger engine. More zoom, but more fuel is needed.

    Having a gun in a knife fight really lowers the need to be able to snap necks with our hands.
    Last edited by BryanM; 12-08-2009 at 08:19 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    302

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Sounds like a great web site for people like Gary. No need to be 70's Big when you can just be Chimp Strong.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by banthafodder View Post
    Sounds like a great web site for people like Gary. No need to be 70's Big when you can just be Chimp Strong.
    That's what I'm sayin'!

    Actually, I'm still wishing I were a lot bigger. 'Cause then I'd be a lot chimp stronger.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Get big. Get 70s big.

    Don't be a chump. Be a chimp!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,130

    Default

    On a related note: macaque strong.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    127

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Damn you, myostatin.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •