(12-31-2018, 10:06 PM)Panther Wrote:

(12-31-2018, 09:44 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Quoted from a scientific analysis.

Yet, not explained the reason. Former russian biologist SP kuncherenko said the otherwise

(12-31-2018, 09:47 PM)brotherbear Wrote: In conclusion, no significant evidence provided any leads towards increased muscle
strength deterioration or muscle mass deterioration in post­prime brown bears, yet evidence had
been found of increased muscle volume deterioration in post­prime brown bears as. The brown
bears who were experimented on were shortly released back into their respective locations within
Yellowstone National Park after the study commenced. These findings suggest that brown bears,
if not all bear species as a whole, are able to retain their muscle mass and maximum muscle
strength well past their prime years, unlike most other animals. 
 

The muscle mass of the
three year old bear was relatively low due to its low total weight, and the muscle mass of the
oldest specimen concurred with the relatively high amounts of Ib fibres: the densest muscle
fibres discovered in mammalian and reptilian bodies so far. 

I read this study. This has nothing to do with what I said.

(12-31-2018, 09:55 PM)Shadow Wrote: I put only this here. Vegeta San once again has quite unique way to make calculations. That 835 lbs for Kodiak bears is obviously from Troyer-Hensel chart and that average weight was mainly from spring weights of bears age 8-9 years old.

Then here is calculated out of spring weight 40% as fat. Even everyone knows, who know brown bears, that in spring time such body fat is impossible.

Only three specimens are from spring. And you're not sure about it.
Apart from that, the other studies shown the otherwise.

(12-31-2018, 10:15 PM)Shadow Wrote: 3 from 5 and one was lighter, so probably end of mating season when bears can have even less body fat, than after hibernation. Anyone interested can check Troyer-Hensel chart and figures from you. 

I don´t bother to continue this now, Happy new year to everyone, who are reading this !!! :)

(12-31-2018, 10:14 PM)Panther Wrote:

(12-31-2018, 10:07 PM)brotherbear Wrote: #4....last but not least. Everland statement.

It is important that species such as lion's power, crocodile's strength, and strength of the rhino are important, but before it's big, the elephant stands out in that way." If you want to rank them, you can see 'Animal Combat Strength Ranking' in Elephant> Rhinoceros> Hippo> Bear Lion and Tiger. 

Yongin Everland Safari World is always a place where the attention of lions and tigers is focused on the 'sequence battle'. But true safari of this safari is in 'bear safari', said Young - joon Kohler, head of the zoo of Everland. "I can not score the game, but it's clear that the bears are advantageous enough to overpower." 

news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2008/12/26/2008122601098.html

Brotherbear, i read that already. But the thing is, they're not biologists or zoologists. And science doesn't supports it..

(12-31-2018, 10:18 PM)brotherbear Wrote: So, you know the folks at Everland?

(12-31-2018, 10:19 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Physical Description: 
Smilodon fatalis was about as long as the modern African lion, but unlike lions, it had short, powerful legs, a short tail, and a heavy muscular build. Whereas modern cats are typically built for speed and agility, Smilodon was built for strength and power. In fact, comparison of skeletal measurements indicates that Smilodon's body was built more like a bear than a modern cat (Wroe et al. 2008), although with more flexibility and agility than is seen in bears. Smilodon's most dramatic and well-known feature is its enlarged upper canines, which were roughly 18-25 cm (7-10 inches). As in other dirk-toothed cats, these upper canines were long and narrow, and they were flat in cross-section, rather than round like those of modern cats (Martin 1980). In order to accommodate the length of the canines, or sabers, Smilodon had a narrow lower jaw that allowed the canines to protrude beneath its chin when its jaw was closed.

(12-31-2018, 10:20 PM)Panther Wrote:

(12-31-2018, 10:18 PM)brotherbear Wrote: So, you know the folks at Everland?

No, I saw that on starfox's forum (where you get it from)..

(12-31-2018, 09:35 PM)Panther Wrote:

(12-31-2018, 09:22 PM)Rishi Wrote: "...of its size" is very important here! I'm inclined to believe that as size/weight (near)parity tigers' body would be capable of producing more muscular power, or something like that. It's not improbable... Chimps are quite smaller/lighter than humans, but atleast thrice as stronger.

@Rishi ! I'm not talking about size parity. I'm talking about at average sizes who is stronger. Which is scientifically, tigers!

(12-31-2018, 10:25 PM)brotherbear Wrote: OK fan-boy. You are in such a deep state of denial - good bye. 

(12-31-2018, 10:20 PM)Cryptoprocta Wrote: @Spalea I do not really know you but your comments are not necessary considering that they are not going to get anywhere.