Amazing Strength!

[mightyjoe]

Here's some links to a couple of pics to put human strength in perspective compared to that of an ant!!!

http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users16/audrey/default/msg-13506683066.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-1vb76ZMV0FE/UN3ACGFee2I/AAAAAAAA2Qg/IWQ0cXCNRuA/w497-h373/photo.jpg

ENJOY!!!

Edited April 13, 2013 by Mighty Joe

[EricMilfeld]

That log lift is insane!

[tja]

Cool pictures!

[patrickmeniru]

The feats that ants can perform are very cool, although they aren't really especially strong. Physics dictate that the smaller an organism is the greater the potential for it to be extremely strong in relation to its own bodyweight. A flea can jump dozens of times its own length, a human can manage a couple of times its length, and larger animals like elephants or hippos, despite being very powerful cannot jump at all. Hence most gymnasts tend to be fairly short. Interesting photos nevertheless!

[Cannon]

Is that log picture real? Not photoshopped? It's really cool.

[mightyjoe]

The feats that ants can perform are very cool, although they aren't really especially strong. Physics dictate that the smaller an organism is the greater the potential for it to be extremely strong in relation to its own bodyweight. A flea can jump dozens of times its own length, a human can manage a couple of times its length, and larger animals like elephants or hippos, despite being very powerful cannot jump at all. Hence most gymnasts tend to be fairly short. Interesting photos nevertheless!

With this type of thinking would this mean that when Lamar Gant lifted over 5 times his BW in the dead lift

that due to his smaller size that he really wasn't that strong? Lamar just had a greater potential to be extremely strong in relation to

his own body weight? Yeah right!

I don't buy your logic here!

On your elephant analogy I find it interesting you mention a power movement (jumping) and not a strength movement like

pulling logs or pushing down trees that would normally take a small bull dozer.

This is why they have power to weight ratio formulas Patrick!

[mightyjoe]

Is that log picture real? Not photoshopped? It's really cool.

Not photoshopped Matt.

I know this photographer from 1X and I've viewed the original and it's not PS.

There's many more ant photos doing incredible things all over the internet on some of the more

popular macro sites!

[Ivarboneless]

With this type of thinking would this mean that when Lamar Gant lifted over 5 times his BW in the dead lift

that due to his smaller size that he really wasn't that strong? Lamar just had a greater potential to be extremely strong in relation to

his own body weight?

The pound for pound efficiency of the lift was due in part to his smaller size. He was "really that strong" in the sense that he lifted 630 something pounds, but the efficiency was certainly aided by his size.

We are all made of the same material and that material has limits. Tendons, bones, muscle, etc. all have a limit. It's not really fair to say "If an ant were 150lb then it could lift a tank!" If an ant were 150lb something would probably give out if it tried to lift a tank....a tank is damn heavy...like 60 tons. I think it's questionable whether the segmented sections of the ant would hold together, whether their muscles would even be able to handle that strain, whether the chitin exoskeleton itself would be crushed from the steel of the tank....I mean 60 tons is HEAVY. I don't think everything in the ant would necessarily increase in the same proportions as the size of the ant increased. For example, increasing the specs on objects may have different net effects on surface area and volume.

Human wise, the training and strain it takes to deadlift say 1250lb for 5X BW of a 250lb man is more than it is to get to 630 for a 123/132lb man.

Physics definitely play a major role. The phenomenal strength/power to weight ratios will almost always be dominated by smaller men/organisms in general....I think that is almost an incontrovertible. I for one am not overly impressed by insect feats, but I will admit that sometimes they can do some pretty cool stuff.

[patrickmeniru]

The feats that ants can perform are very cool, although they aren't really especially strong. Physics dictate that the smaller an organism is the greater the potential for it to be extremely strong in relation to its own bodyweight. A flea can jump dozens of times its own length, a human can manage a couple of times its length, and larger animals like elephants or hippos, despite being very powerful cannot jump at all. Hence most gymnasts tend to be fairly short. Interesting photos nevertheless!

With this type of thinking would this mean that when Lamar Gant lifted over 5 times his BW in the dead lift

that due to his smaller size that he really wasn't that strong? Lamar just had a greater potential to be extremely strong in relation to

his own body weight? Yeah right!

I don't buy your logic here!

On your elephant analogy I find it interesting you mention a power movement (jumping) and not a strength movement like

pulling logs or pushing down trees that would normally take a small bull dozer.

This is why they have power to weight ratio formulas Patrick!

I take your point - In human terms, I would of course never degrade a feat of strength based on smaller size, because the proportions of humans are so similar, and plus nobody chooses their height - we have to work with what we're given!

In terms of the general size debate, there is a fantastic explanation in a BBC documentary recently, if you have 20 minutes or so to watch it then I would recommend (start at the 30 minute mark): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuhEHxtEdqA

Essentially, the larger an organism, the smaller its muscle mass in relation to its overall mass due to the fact that the skeleton has to become exponentially larger as size increases. Vital organs also tend to become proportionally larger, with the net result that more and more of the organism becomes 'dead weight' from a strength perspective as size increases. This relates to both strength and power, given that power is essentially strength + speed.

Yes an elephant can knock over a tree, but it weights more than a ton, a smaller organism will often be capable of pushing over something that is proportionally heavier compared to its mass.

At any rate, I must admit that I am no expert on physics or this, I have to trust the conclusions of others - so it may be that my faith has been misplaced. But Dr Cox is quite a well respected physicist, so I am inclined to take his word for it, especially when it tallies with other research that I've done.

[mightyjoe]

The feats that ants can perform are very cool, although they aren't really especially strong. Physics dictate that the smaller an organism is the greater the potential for it to be extremely strong in relation to its own bodyweight. A flea can jump dozens of times its own length, a human can manage a couple of times its length, and larger animals like elephants or hippos, despite being very powerful cannot jump at all. Hence most gymnasts tend to be fairly short. Interesting photos nevertheless!

With this type of thinking would this mean that when Lamar Gant lifted over 5 times his BW in the dead lift

that due to his smaller size that he really wasn't that strong? Lamar just had a greater potential to be extremely strong in relation to

his own body weight? Yeah right!

I don't buy your logic here!

On your elephant analogy I find it interesting you mention a power movement (jumping) and not a strength movement like

pulling logs or pushing down trees that would normally take a small bull dozer.

This is why they have power to weight ratio formulas Patrick!

I take your point - In human terms, I would of course never degrade a feat of strength based on smaller size, because the proportions of humans are so similar, and plus nobody chooses their height - we have to work with what we're given!

In terms of the general size debate, there is a fantastic explanation in a BBC documentary recently, if you have 20 minutes or so to watch it then I would recommend (start at the 30 minute mark): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuhEHxtEdqA

Essentially, the larger an organism, the smaller its muscle mass in relation to its overall mass due to the fact that the skeleton has to become exponentially larger as size increases. Vital organs also tend to become proportionally larger, with the net result that more and more of the organism becomes 'dead weight' from a strength perspective as size increases. This relates to both strength and power, given that power is essentially strength + speed.

Yes an elephant can knock over a tree, but it weights more than a ton, a smaller organism will often be capable of pushing over something that is proportionally heavier compared to its mass.

At any rate, I must admit that I am no expert on physics or this, I have to trust the conclusions of others - so it may be that my faith has been misplaced. But Dr Cox is quite a well respected physicist, so I am inclined to take his word for it, especially when it tallies with other research that I've done.

Thanks for the link Patrick!!!

I will listen carefully and get back to you on this.

You and Michael both make good points!!!

[patrickmeniru]

Been thinking about this and thought that one relevant factor is thus:

The vast majority of animals need to perform to their genetic limit in order to survive certain situations - e.g. a cheetah needs to run at full speed to catch a gazelle, which also needs to run at 100% of it's genetic potential to escape. Those unable to do this perish, and hence natural selection and evolution of faster and faster predator and prey. A small animal or insect will always be as strong as it is genetically able to be, and therefore small organisms are going to be relatively stronger than larger ones most of the time.

HOWEVER

Modern humans on the other hand almost never need to perform physically at their limit and so the vast majority don't. Most of us training on this forum and other forums are trying to maximise our genetic potential, and very few people actually achieve this for a variety of reasons (other commitments, injury etc.). In humans therefore, being smaller may be a slight advantage in terms of strength/weight BUT it is still an extraordinary person who reaches that genetic limit regardless of size - hence people such as Lamar Gant may possess a slight advantage, but other genetics than just those that determine height come into play and most importantly any genetic advantage in size or otherwise is small in comparison to the work/effort/commitment that has taken him to maximise his potential.

Just some thoughts. Will be interested to hear what everyone else has to say!

[mightyjoe]

Been thinking about this and thought that one relevant factor is thus:

The vast majority of animals need to perform to their genetic limit in order to survive certain situations - e.g. a cheetah needs to run at full speed to catch a gazelle, which also needs to run at 100% of it's genetic potential to escape. Those unable to do this perish, and hence natural selection and evolution of faster and faster predator and prey. A small animal or insect will always be as strong as it is genetically able to be, and therefore small organisms are going to be relatively stronger than larger ones most of the time.

HOWEVER

Modern humans on the other hand almost never need to perform physically at their limit and so the vast majority don't. Most of us training on this forum and other forums are trying to maximise our genetic potential, and very few people actually achieve this for a variety of reasons (other commitments, injury etc.). In humans therefore, being smaller may be a slight advantage in terms of strength/weight BUT it is still an extraordinary person who reaches that genetic limit regardless of size - hence people such as Lamar Gant may possess a slight advantage, but other genetics than just those that determine height come into play and most importantly any genetic advantage in size or otherwise is small in comparison to the work/effort/commitment that has taken him to maximise his potential.

Just some thoughts. Will be interested to hear what everyone else has to say!

Patrick, the video link you shared is really fantastic and full of scientific information that even

the layman can understand.

I did notice right off he said these insects have amazing strength relative to their size. He explained very well why this is the case

but he never claimed they were not indeed amazingly strong.

Thanks again for the link as I subscribed to his channel!!!

Brian Cox has a really brilliant mind indeed!!!

[Electron]

Been thinking about this and thought that one relevant factor is thus:

The vast majority of animals need to perform to their genetic limit in order to survive certain situations - e.g. a cheetah needs to run at full speed to catch a gazelle, which also needs to run at 100% of it's genetic potential to escape. Those unable to do this perish, and hence natural selection and evolution of faster and faster predator and prey. A small animal or insect will always be as strong as it is genetically able to be, and therefore small organisms are going to be relatively stronger than larger ones most of the time.

I don't think this is a correct statement. My reason is simply because in order to reach the genetic limit, there must be perfect circumstances.

I do agree that both the cheetah and the gazelle are maximizing their situational potential, but this is different from genetic potential.

While genetic potential is the ceiling of an organism's performance, what I mean here by situational potential is the animal's best action or reaction in a given scenario. Take an example:

The gazelle is running at full speed because its life depends on the outcome of the chase. It will do everything hardwired and learned in order to outrun the predator. The prey will do everything in its power and mind to live, within the situational limit.

The use of the word "situational" should be noted. If the same gazelle with the same genetic information was reared in a different way, if it had been through more chases such as this, was healthier with no injuries, and was not on a full stomach during the chase, this would possibly have an effect on the outcome.

Again, this is the same gazelle with the same genetic information.

In both cases, the gazelle will perform to the limit of its abilities that can be called upon in the given situation.

That being said, and because no animal has perfect circumstances, I don't think all animals live to their genetic potential like you suggested.

Although humans are getting more sedentary, this is also why I don't believe humans can train to their genetic potential.

Sure, you can get very close, and genetics do play a role. But never will all the conditions be perfect.

Also remember that like an animal, human can live to his situational potential, especially when threatened.

/End long rant with deterministic undertones.

[patrickmeniru]

Been thinking about this and thought that one relevant factor is thus:

The vast majority of animals need to perform to their genetic limit in order to survive certain situations - e.g. a cheetah needs to run at full speed to catch a gazelle, which also needs to run at 100% of it's genetic potential to escape. Those unable to do this perish, and hence natural selection and evolution of faster and faster predator and prey. A small animal or insect will always be as strong as it is genetically able to be, and therefore small organisms are going to be relatively stronger than larger ones most of the time.

I don't think this is a correct statement. My reason is simply because in order to reach the genetic limit, there must be perfect circumstances.

I do agree that both the cheetah and the gazelle are maximizing their situational potential, but this is different from genetic potential.

While genetic potential is the ceiling of an organism's performance, what I mean here by situational potential is the animal's best action or reaction in a given scenario. Take an example:

The gazelle is running at full speed because its life depends on the outcome of the chase. It will do everything hardwired and learned in order to outrun the predator. The prey will do everything in its power and mind to live, within the situational limit.

The use of the word "situational" should be noted. If the same gazelle with the same genetic information was reared in a different way, if it had been through more chases such as this, was healthier with no injuries, and was not on a full stomach during the chase, this would possibly have an effect on the outcome.

Again, this is the same gazelle with the same genetic information.

In both cases, the gazelle will perform to the limit of its abilities that can be called upon in the given situation.

That being said, and because no animal has perfect circumstances, I don't think all animals live to their genetic potential like you suggested.

Although humans are getting more sedentary, this is also why I don't believe humans can train to their genetic potential.

Sure, you can get very close, and genetics do play a role. But never will all the conditions be perfect.

Also remember that like an animal, human can live to his situational potential, especially when threatened.

/End long rant with deterministic undertones.

Fair point, I shouldn't have been so cavalier with the use of 100%, but I still maintain that wild animals need to maximise their genetic potential to a far, far greater extent than humans, perhaps not at 100% but certainly close to it, just as a guesstimate with no research to back it up.

I agree that both humans and animals are capable of maximising situational potential - but an animal will tend to do so better given that they operate at a higher level of their genetic potential and further that animals almost always obey instinct without thinking, wheras humans have learned to moderate their reactions, which is good for civilisation building but less good in other situations like fight or flight etc.

One certain exception to my theory (or the theory that I've adopted) I suppose would be animals that live in colder climates and bulk up for the winter by adding fat. I guess in this instance they would lose some power-weight in the short term in order to survive without adequate nutrition over the winter months.

MIghtyJoe: I'm glad you enjoyed it! I'm not sure how well known David Attenborough is outside of the UK, but he is a well known TV naturalist who has said that Brian Cox will be his successor - he definitely finds a way to explain things in a very clear and simple way, which is great for non-physicists and a rare skill!