3 ms·

Define "physically weak". Chimpanzees are certainly better climbers, but we can run for hours on end, far longer and further than any other land animal. Not a

by luma 2y ago

Define "physically weak". Chimpanzees are certainly better climbers, but we can run for hours on end, far longer and further than any other land animal. Not all physical strength is just lifting heavy things.

jerf 2y ago
Physically weak, as in, what people expect when people say physically weak. We do not have good strength. We do, or at least can, as you say, have best-in-class endurance, but that's endurance, not strength.
- autokad 2y ago
  I get your point, but I also still think you are wrong. there is no one measure for 'strength'. humans can throw a punch much harder than a chimp even though a chimp's arm is stronger. humans can kick harder, etc, even though a chimp would usually tear a person up in a 'fight'. humans can throw a ball faster and harder than any other primate, likewise we can swing a stick harder and with more precision. some people will play down human skills saying, 'thats because they are trained and specialized, the average human cant do that'. THATS LITERALLY OUR SPECIAL ABILITY. Humans are adaptable both physically and mentally to do virtually any task. adaptability means we aren't inherently good at any one of those tasks without training and practice. Its a feature, not a bug.
pixl97 2y ago
I mean a chimp the same size as you would rip your arms off and beat you to a pink mist with them and barely break a sweat. Endurance is typically not counted as a strength Stat, but on its own metric.
- Retric 2y ago
  The difference isn’t quite that extreme. Pound per pound “chimpanzee muscle exceeds human muscle in maximum dynamic force and power output by ∼1.35 times” they are strong largely because they are extremely muscular not simply stronger on a pound per pound basis. However, there’s inherent strength vs endurance tradeoffs involved. Space taken up by mitochondria is in direct competition with the cellular machinery that turns ATP into motion. Similarly, increased capillary density can supply more nutrients and oxygen, but again displaces more directly useful muscle tissue.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think there is more to it than just the muscle pull force. My understanding is that the chimpanzee muscle skeleton system is configured for much greater leverage for many motions and this is a much larger Factor.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Leverage is another trade-off. Humans are well adapted to throwing a baseball sized rock, spear, or javelin much farther than a gorilla can, but a gorilla can throw a 200kg stone farther.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Maybe that's the same as what I'm saying but it strikes me differently. As I understand it, the trade-off is between range and diversity of motions versus strength in one specific set of circumstances. The further your muscle Anchor Point is from the pivot, the greater the mechanical lever. For example, the human bicep anchors only inch or two from our elbow pivot. You could anchor twice as far and double the resulting Force, and in fact many animals do exactly that. It's hard for me to imagine the comparative kinematics in your example, but I would think throwing a baseball and a heavier Rock would go through essentially the same motion. Attempt might be far better at an overhand throw than a human, but a temp might be simply incapable of performing an underhanded or side pitch
        Retric 2y ago
        > range and diversity of motion versus strength Not what I’m talking about. > You could anchor twice as far and double the resulting force > throwing a baseball and a heavier Rock would go through the same range of motion I think you’re missing a key detail here. Muscles can only contract at a finite percentage of their total length per given unit of time even with near zero load. This is mostly irrelevant when lifting something, but means very fast motions want the anchor point near the point of rotation. People are really quite extraordinary in how far the can throw light objects but it’s a real tradeoff.

by luma 2y ago

jerf 2y ago

Physically weak, as in, what people expect when people say physically weak. We do not have good strength. We do, or at least can, as you say, have best-in-class endurance, but that's endurance, not strength.

autokad 2y ago
I get your point, but I also still think you are wrong. there is no one measure for 'strength'. humans can throw a punch much harder than a chimp even though a chimp's arm is stronger. humans can kick harder, etc, even though a chimp would usually tear a person up in a 'fight'. humans can throw a ball faster and harder than any other primate, likewise we can swing a stick harder and with more precision. some people will play down human skills saying, 'thats because they are trained and specialized, the average human cant do that'. THATS LITERALLY OUR SPECIAL ABILITY. Humans are adaptable both physically and mentally to do virtually any task. adaptability means we aren't inherently good at any one of those tasks without training and practice. Its a feature, not a bug.

pixl97 2y ago

I mean a chimp the same size as you would rip your arms off and beat you to a pink mist with them and barely break a sweat. Endurance is typically not counted as a strength Stat, but on its own metric.

Retric 2y ago
The difference isn’t quite that extreme. Pound per pound “chimpanzee muscle exceeds human muscle in maximum dynamic force and power output by ∼1.35 times” they are strong largely because they are extremely muscular not simply stronger on a pound per pound basis. However, there’s inherent strength vs endurance tradeoffs involved. Space taken up by mitochondria is in direct competition with the cellular machinery that turns ATP into motion. Similarly, increased capillary density can supply more nutrients and oxygen, but again displaces more directly useful muscle tissue.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think there is more to it than just the muscle pull force. My understanding is that the chimpanzee muscle skeleton system is configured for much greater leverage for many motions and this is a much larger Factor.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Leverage is another trade-off. Humans are well adapted to throwing a baseball sized rock, spear, or javelin much farther than a gorilla can, but a gorilla can throw a 200kg stone farther.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Maybe that's the same as what I'm saying but it strikes me differently. As I understand it, the trade-off is between range and diversity of motions versus strength in one specific set of circumstances. The further your muscle Anchor Point is from the pivot, the greater the mechanical lever. For example, the human bicep anchors only inch or two from our elbow pivot. You could anchor twice as far and double the resulting Force, and in fact many animals do exactly that. It's hard for me to imagine the comparative kinematics in your example, but I would think throwing a baseball and a heavier Rock would go through essentially the same motion. Attempt might be far better at an overhand throw than a human, but a temp might be simply incapable of performing an underhanded or side pitch
      - Retric 2y ago
        > range and diversity of motion versus strength Not what I’m talking about. > You could anchor twice as far and double the resulting force > throwing a baseball and a heavier Rock would go through the same range of motion I think you’re missing a key detail here. Muscles can only contract at a finite percentage of their total length per given unit of time even with near zero load. This is mostly irrelevant when lifting something, but means very fast motions want the anchor point near the point of rotation. People are really quite extraordinary in how far the can throw light objects but it’s a real tradeoff.