WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Questions
Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?
Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?
|
Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?
|
Muscle production can be achieved by proteins. So, protein synthesis is the process responsible for muscle production. If we calculate the ease or efficiency of absorption of proteins or amino acids in both herbivores and carnivores, perhaps we can find which is stronger pound for pound. But of course, i accept it varies from one animal to other irrespective of herbivore or carnivore but i am stating this in general, means most of the animals under this group.
You would also then have to look at "physical exertion requirements" in each animals lifestyle.
Nutrients are not the only contributer to muscle growth, when you build muscle you essentially cause micro tears in the muscle which then repairs it self stronger than before. If an animal lives a relatively low impact lifestyle compared to the opposite, the animal that is forced to exert it self more often should be the stronger one lb for lb. Lastly would be anatomical difference and muscle distributions.
Dietary proteins are divided into two kinds of proteins: complete proteins, which include all essential amino acids in the exact amounts required by the body for growth and incomplete proteins, which are deficient in one or more essential amino acids.
Essential amino acids play major roles in performance, recovery and reactions to stress. Complete proteins supply the correct ratio of amino acids needed to promote muscle synthesis. The ratios are important because in order for the body to build muscle, all the essential amino acids must be available at the same time. A deficiency of even one essential amino may suppress critical metabolic functions, which are necessary for the repair and buildup of tissues including muscles. Moreover, it has been assumed that a deficiency of essential amino acids would limit protein synthesis (and growth) proportionally to the extent of deficiency. Protein that comes from animal sources contains all of the essential amino acids that we need. The obvious problem with animal proteins is that they can also contain large amounts of saturated fats, which can not only make you fat but put you at risk for heart disease and stroke. Fortunately, fat from animal proteins can easily be avoided proper food education that will help you make the right choices. However, among plant proteins, most legumes with the exception of soy are not complete proteins (i.e., they do not contain all of the essential amino acids that we need) which are why they are not preferred by bodybuilders. Beans, for example, are very high in total protein with about 12 -15 grams per cup, however, beans do not contain the essential amino acid methionine. Similarly, grains are lack the essential amino acid lysine. Because protein from most plants lacks certain amino acids, it has a lower biological value than protein from animal sources.
(My own words) This is just my wild assumption. Please do not spam regarding this. Just a crazy wild assumption. Herbivores must have been struggling to synthesize required proteins since ancient times due to unavailability of essential amino acids. They must have synthesized random proteins than essential proteins. They must have been the first to evolve than carnivores. Due to non availability of required amino acids for protein synthesis they must have been hungry for some thing (essential amino acids). They must have evolved to consume their own species when they are dead and hence gradually turn into carnivores. Then herbivores must have copied stuff like running and other behavioural traits from carnivores and must have dumbly lived since then
 .
That theory is quickly becoming outdated. You now have numerous vegan athletes at the highest levels of any sport. The real problem is discipline, cooked meat tastes better than plant based food as well as the education involved with becoming vegan. Most people just prefer to avoid it and don't really look past that.
(12-01-2016, 08:16 PM)Pckts Wrote: That theory is quickly becoming outdated. You now have numerous vegan athletes at the highest levels of any sport. The real problem is discipline, cooked meat tastes better than plant based food as well as the education involved with becoming vegan. Most people just prefer to avoid it and don't really look past that. You can see i bolded the traits that are unseen in those which do not consume essential amino acids. So they obviously do not have discipline and other things. They have to eat combined stuff from vegetarian sources or plants. For example, legumes if consumed with grains give all essential amino acids. But herbivores that time should have lacked that ability to distinguish these must be taken combinedly for our requirement and all.
But they have a diverse diet, they obviously receive essential nutrients for muscle growth. Whether that is better or worse than animal protein muscle growth is unknown.
During those times when herbivores must have evolved the vegetation should not have been as diverse as today. But ofcourse they must have had better protein yield than today's plants. Even then at least some of the herbivores did not seem to have met the requirements of essential amino acids. They must have randomly and voraciously fed on these plants. Point number one, they must have evolved as carnivores after feeding on their dead counterparts in hunger of obtaining essential amino acids. Point number two, those who got essential amino acids must have developed instincts to kill the now weak improperly nourished counterparts and hence gradually evolving as carnivores.
I don't think vegetation was any less diverse back then, it might even have been more diverse due to the non-existance of human habitation.
Herbivores didn't simply change into carnivores either. Carnivores came from an extremely specific ancestor, either herbivorous (not resembling today's herbivores for sure) or omnivorous, millions of years ago in the Cretaceous, while today's herbivores (bovids and cervids) evolved less than 40 million years ago. But, anyway, let's get back to topic: Suppose that herbivores really do get easier muscular regeneration and growth due to essential amino acids found in some vegetation (look at gorillas and gaur): this doesn't account for the individual differences in tiger muscle compared to gaur muscle. It seems that, for the same muscle weight and muscle fiber type, tiger muscle is still stronger. There has been a study that proves my point, mainly about the differences between a trained human's, lion's, and caracal's muscles. For the same fiber type and same muscle weight, the two cats' muscles were almost three times greater in force production than those of trained humans.
The case of humans is entirely different. Herbivores is different. Anyways I FOUND the answer. I will post as soon as I get onto my pc with full details.
Herbivores consume lot of carbohydrates from plants. These carbohydrates in one way promote insulin secretion. Insulin in turn helps in protein synthesis. Other nutrients like vitamins also play a major role in the protein synthesis. Where as in meat, the carbohydrate content is very minimal. Meat is the chief source of carnivores like cat. It does not contain minimal carbohydrate. It mainly contains protein, fats, minerals etc but not carbohydrates. So, protein synthesis in one way is inhibited. This seems to be the reason why big cats go for intestinal feed as soon as they hunt as all the carbohydrates in intestine must be present for absorption. Even then the carbohydrates in plants are much more in quantity than in animal's. Hence as per this point, herbivores must be stronger than carnivores.
Muscle build in carnivores seem to be secondarily because of their life style. They seem to struggle for survival as they have to hunt prey, they seem to be exercising a lot for their body unlike herbivores which can freely graze the plants they find though they do move from one place to another in search of food they do not seem to be as strained as carnivores except for escaping from predators. Life style seems to be secondary factor in muscular development. Carnivores seem to have developed extra muscles through this factor.
@parvez said, "Herbivores consume lot of carbohydrates from plants. These carbohydrates in one way promote insulin secretion. Insulin in turn helps in protein synthesis. Other nutrients like vitamins also play a major role in the protein synthesis. Where as in meat, the carbohydrate content is very minimal. Meat is the chief source of carnivores like cat. It does not contain minimal carbohydrate. It mainly contains protein, fats, minerals etc but not carbohydrates. So, protein synthesis in one way is inhibited. This seems to be the reason why big cats go for intestinal feed as soon as they hunt as all the carbohydrates in intestine must be present for absorption. Even then the carbohydrates in plants are much more in quantity than in animal's. Hence as per this point, herbivores must be stronger than carnivores."
I see a contradiction within the bold part, is that a typo? There are also carbohydrates in fat, and compared to most vegetation that I come in experience with, I doubt that plants in general have more carbs than an equally-weighted fat portion of a let's say, gaur. Big cats can't finely separate muscle from fat, so at some point, they will consume a slight portion of fat by the end of their meal. Meat and fat do contain the nutrients and substances you mentioned, but I doubt that herbivores have more protein synthesis due to insulin: in fact, the carnivores should have similar levels of protein synthesis due to amino acid completion and large amount of meaty protein.
@parvez said, "Muscle build in carnivores seem to be secondarily because of their life style. They seem to struggle for survival as they have to hunt prey..."
This is correct. "they seem to be exercising a lot for their body unlike herbivores which can freely graze the plants they find though they do move from one place to another in search of food they do not seem to be as strained as carnivores except for escaping from predators." Some herbivores (gaurs) look like pro-bodybuilders in terms of muscle appearance, and they can probably compete with big cats in terms of muscle mass percentage. "Life style seems to be secondary factor in muscular development. Carnivores seem to have developed extra muscles through this factor." Herbivores also developed extra size, which gives "extra" muscles due to them being hunted by carnivores. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 9 Guest(s) |