Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?

[Polar]

Although the arguments presented here are of good quality, I would hint towards carnivores (especially felines/ursines) as being stronger pound-for-pound more often.

It is one of the reasons why a tiger will almost always (exceptions like that one sambar deer) be able to take down almost any kind of herbivore of its own or slightly greater weight class, not to mention carnivores usually have more fast-twitch fiber ratios than herbivores (with the possible exception of power-horses like Percherons), possibly greater bone density (my theory, not proven) due to the strenuous task of physically killing these creatures. Mating fights, territorial displays, and other common drama are shared by both herbivores and carnivores, but herbivores don't ambush/kill creatures to the extent that carnivores do, if at all.

But herbivores are almost always much larger than carnivores, so this discussion is almost quite pointless.

As some posters previously mentioned above, there are many factors including:

-Body mass.
-Total muscle mass and muscle mass relative to body mass.
-Muscle fiber distribution.
-Muscle mass distribution.
-Bone distribution.
-Mineral bone density.
-Bone diameter and mineral bone diameter.
-Cross-sectional bone density.
-Other factors not listed.

Me and @Pckts discussed this in "Human Strength", and we both agreed that although some humans can be ridiculously strong for their size, they don't compare much in that aspect to wild animals (as with many other aspects). As I suggested, there is something in a tiger's muscles that must make it ridiculously strong compared to even a strong, large primate such as a gorilla. Reply