Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?

[brotherbear]

Well, a bear has plantigrade hind-feet and lacks the "dog-leg" of a runner with short thigh and long shin. They do not run on their toes. A bear is surprisingly fast for such a heavy-built animal who is not ( or so it appears ) designed to run. But big cats, all of them, are faster still. Pound-for-pound, are herbivores stronger than carnivores? Its a rather silly question to begin with. Among herbivores, the gazelle and the elephant. Among predators, the cheetah and the polar bear. Reply

[Panther]

(12-26-2018, 06:42 PM)Shadow Wrote: If getting real here, then there is no point to argue about irrelevant issues. Tigers, lions and bears all hunt big bovines, like moose, buffalo etc. So they have to be strong able to do that. They have to be fast able to do that. If any of these animals would be weak, they simply wouldn´t be able to hunt anything big. So all of these animals are built for strength and also in speed to some level. If not, they would be hunting smaller and slower animals.

What comes to speed, there are no big differences, bears can run also up to 60 km/h, about 37-38 mph, so quite comparable with tiger. Lion too isn´t so far away. There are cases, where bears have run after horses and able to maintain almost same speed as a horse with rider in full speed. Bear can maintain quite high speed for some time, so it has better stamina, than big cats though.

What comes to big cats, cheetah is maybe only one, which can be considered as pursuit hunter. Able to run about 400 meters before it has to give up. Other big cats like tigers, lions, leopards etc. usually have short chases like 20-40 meters.... if really motivated like lion after hyena up to 100 meters. But if comparing to wolves and wild dogs able to run after prey for kilometers... only cheetah is in some way comparable, other big cats are robust animals and not long distance runners. They need that ambush/surprise advantage to be able to hunt successfully. 

No-one here has solid proof which one is stronger, bear, lion or tiger, so that is pointless to argue about that nonsense all the time if nothing concrete and solid to put on table. I have never heard about any test, which would have done to all of these animals, which would have been comparable. That is the reason why debates about these things are mostly debates about opinions and hopes, not debates based on undeniable facts.

It would be far more interesting (IMO) to see real cases and what information can be found from those than debating about only opinions. This thread is about carnivores and herbivores and now debate is going to sidetrack and fast. Aren´t here enough threads for tigers and bears already or what is the reason to bring that issue everywhere? Especially when no new information, just old information all over again.

Give some real cases to look, there are bulls, gaurs, water buffalos, leopards etc. There is life outside bears and tigers too

You're right! Grizzly bears are capable of reaching 30-40mph. 
Also I'm under impression of them running long distances like wolves and wild dogs. Because of their stamina. 

Actually lions are said to be pursuit predators. But maybe you're right, they can't run as long as cheetahs. 

I'm studying about this subject actually. Strengths of bears and bigcats, I'm almost got enough data. But I need info like how much percentage of slow twitch (type 1) muscle fibers are present in Brown bears as compared to lions and tigers,etc... To complete it. Oh believe me, my data and argument is often undeniable. 

Also, I'm not the one who pulled "bear Vs tiger" here. 
Bovines like Gaurs and bisons are often stronger than Brown bears at parity... Reply

[Panther]

(12-26-2018, 08:28 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Well, a bear has plantigrade hind-feet and lacks the "dog-leg" of a runner with short thigh and long shin. They do not run on their toes. A bear is surprisingly fast for such a heavy-built animal who is not ( or so it appears ) designed to run. But big cats, all of them, are faster still. Pound-for-pound, are herbivores stronger than carnivores? Its a rather silly question to begin with. Among herbivores, the gazelle and the elephant. Among predators, the cheetah and the polar bear.

Well, all bigcats aren't built for speed. But they're just faster in their reflexes. 
Speed built animals aren't that explosive. 

Pound for pound, I'm not sure all herbivores are stronger than all Carnivores... Reply

[Spalea]

Cheetahs can run over 500 meters, lions seldom more than 100 meters. Obviously these two predators are not in the same category. Lions are ambush predators like tigers. But because they often hunt in more open spaces and in pride they can combine their efforts and thus, be more efficient over a bigger area than a solitary felid hunter.

Bears don't run as fastly as the felids but yes, despite their weight and morphology, they don't lack stamina and can run over longer distances.

Wild canids are pursuit predators par excellence. They are able to run and hunt over several kilometers and, in numbers, to kill an exhausted big prey.

IMO, "pound for pound" herbivores aren't stronger than predators. Of course, because of their weight (more than 600 kilos to 1200 kilos), big bovids are stronger, muscularly speaking, than any felid. But why would be they more performing "pound for pound" ? Reply

[Shadow]

(12-26-2018, 11:18 PM)Spalea Wrote: Cheetahs can run over 500 meters, lions seldom more than 100 meters. Obviously these two predators are not in the same category. Lions are ambush predators like tigers. But because they often hunt in more open spaces and in pride they can combine their efforts and thus, be more efficient over a bigger area than a solitary felid hunter.

Bears don't run as fastly as the felids but yes, despite their weight and morphology, they don't lack stamina and can run over longer distances.

Wild canids are pursuit predators par excellence. They are able to run and hunt over several kilometers and, in numbers, to kill an exhausted big prey.

IMO, "pound for pound" herbivores aren't stronger than predators. Of course, because of  their weight (more than 600 kilos to 1200 kilos), big bovids are stronger, muscularly speaking, than any felid. But why would be they more performing "pound for pound" ?

I agree, but when bears run about 60 km/h and tigers are said to run 65 km/h, I think, that it is ok to say, that bears are comparable to slowest big cats in running speed even though with bear there is maybe a little illusion that it wouldn´t be able to run as fast, when looking them especially before hibernation. Their stamina is of course in totally different level than big cats.

Then again these comparisons pound to pound are really problematic without any reliable and comparable tests. If looking only muscle fibers, myocytes etc. there can be made claims and hypotheses. But far from simple and clear. There are so many variables with different species. I don´t remember seeing any real research about animals compared to pound to pound. Some articles based on pretty much... to nothing really :) One zoologist say something, another something else, then some reporter make an article like "top 10 strongest animals in the world pound to pound"... then when looking closer, just rubbish, but nice headline to sell or use as a "clickbait". Reply

[brotherbear]

Bears don't run as fastly as the felids but yes, despite their weight and morphology, they don't lack stamina and can run over longer distances. 
 
I agree, bears normally have good stamina. A grizzly was once witnessed to run at a good speed for 10 straight miles non-stop and then actively attempt to hide his trail while walking. Perhaps the big coastal bears and polar bears have less stamina; but on this matter I'm uncertain. But perhaps this is off topic. It has nothing to do with diet.  Reply

[Panther]

(12-27-2018, 01:20 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Bears don't run as fastly as the felids but yes, despite their weight and morphology, they don't lack stamina and can run over longer distances. 
 
I agree, bears normally have good stamina. A grizzly was once witnessed to run at a good speed for 10 straight miles non-stop and then actively attempt to hide his trail while walking. Perhaps the big coastal bears and polar bears have less stamina; but on this matter I'm uncertain. But perhaps this is off topic. It has nothing to do with diet. 

I need some info about the topic "Bear stamina". So, I'm asking you this..
What is the percentage of slow twitch (type 1) muscle fibers in adult male brown bears?
And what is it when compared with tigers and lions?
I'm asking this because, I think you know more about Grizzlies than anyone here.

Thank you... Reply

[Spalea]

(12-27-2018, 01:15 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-26-2018, 11:18 PM)Spalea Wrote: Cheetahs can run over 500 meters, lions seldom more than 100 meters. Obviously these two predators are not in the same category. Lions are ambush predators like tigers. But because they often hunt in more open spaces and in pride they can combine their efforts and thus, be more efficient over a bigger area than a solitary felid hunter.

Bears don't run as fastly as the felids but yes, despite their weight and morphology, they don't lack stamina and can run over longer distances.

Wild canids are pursuit predators par excellence. They are able to run and hunt over several kilometers and, in numbers, to kill an exhausted big prey.

IMO, "pound for pound" herbivores aren't stronger than predators. Of course, because of  their weight (more than 600 kilos to 1200 kilos), big bovids are stronger, muscularly speaking, than any felid. But why would be they more performing "pound for pound" ?

I agree, but when bears run about 60 km/h and tigers are said to run 65 km/h, I think, that it is ok to say, that bears are comparable to slowest big cats in running speed even though with bear there is maybe a little illusion that it wouldn´t be able to run as fast, when looking them especially before hibernation. Their stamina is of course in totally different level than big cats.

Then again these comparisons pound to pound are really problematic without any reliable and comparable tests. If looking only muscle fibers, myocytes etc. there can be made claims and hypotheses. But far from simple and clear. There are so many variables with different species. I don´t remember seeing any real research about animals compared to pound to pound. Some articles based on pretty much... to nothing really :) One zoologist say something, another something else, then some reporter make an article like "top 10 strongest animals in the world pound to pound"... then when looking closer, just rubbish, but nice headline to sell or use as a "clickbait".

As I already said I also have a problem with the "pound for pound" expression. Because the animals' psychology is quite different according the species. Bovids are able to achieve  some feats  at a sustained rate but slow. How can we compare them at their opposite pattern: the felids able to amazing feats during a very short moment ? We would like to discover a scientific criteria able to classify these animals according this famous "pound for pound" strength .

But I'm reading your arguments with pleasure and interest ! In the meantime, according physical reasons, in my mind the strongest animals "pound for pound" animals, and this by very far, remain the insects, that is animals weighing a tiny fraction of a pound. Reply

[Shadow]

(12-27-2018, 12:54 PM)Spalea Wrote:

(12-27-2018, 01:15 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-26-2018, 11:18 PM)Spalea Wrote: Cheetahs can run over 500 meters, lions seldom more than 100 meters. Obviously these two predators are not in the same category. Lions are ambush predators like tigers. But because they often hunt in more open spaces and in pride they can combine their efforts and thus, be more efficient over a bigger area than a solitary felid hunter.

Bears don't run as fastly as the felids but yes, despite their weight and morphology, they don't lack stamina and can run over longer distances.

Wild canids are pursuit predators par excellence. They are able to run and hunt over several kilometers and, in numbers, to kill an exhausted big prey.

IMO, "pound for pound" herbivores aren't stronger than predators. Of course, because of  their weight (more than 600 kilos to 1200 kilos), big bovids are stronger, muscularly speaking, than any felid. But why would be they more performing "pound for pound" ?

I agree, but when bears run about 60 km/h and tigers are said to run 65 km/h, I think, that it is ok to say, that bears are comparable to slowest big cats in running speed even though with bear there is maybe a little illusion that it wouldn´t be able to run as fast, when looking them especially before hibernation. Their stamina is of course in totally different level than big cats.

Then again these comparisons pound to pound are really problematic without any reliable and comparable tests. If looking only muscle fibers, myocytes etc. there can be made claims and hypotheses. But far from simple and clear. There are so many variables with different species. I don´t remember seeing any real research about animals compared to pound to pound. Some articles based on pretty much... to nothing really :) One zoologist say something, another something else, then some reporter make an article like "top 10 strongest animals in the world pound to pound"... then when looking closer, just rubbish, but nice headline to sell or use as a "clickbait".

As I already said I also have a problem with the "pound for pound" expression. Because the animals' psychology is quite different according the species. Bovids are able to achieve  some feats  at a sustained rate but slow. How can we compare them at their opposite pattern: the felids able to amazing feats during a very short moment ? We would like to discover a scientific criteria able to classify these animals according this famous "pound for pound" strength .

But I'm reading your arguments with pleasure and interest ! In the meantime, according physical reasons, in my mind the strongest animals "pound for pound" animals, and this by very far, remain the insects, that is animals weighing a tiny fraction of a pound.

Here is linked one book and I point out one interesting thing from there to give some reasoning why I keep this topic very complex. In many threads discussions concern muscle fibers and types. But look at that picture on page 115 and what is said about muscle attachments and what that means when talking about strength. If someone really is interested to make comparisons and trying to be credible, that is for sure quite a "jungle" of information to go through. 

Are we talking about how much animal can lift, drag or pull.... how much power can be in paw swipe? There are for sure some things, which could be compared in some relatively reasonable way. If someone would have time, money and expertise to make it happen. But at least I haven´t heard so far about any tests even between lions and tigers, which would have been made in same way to both to get some comparable data. 

So we have just endless argues here and there, where fanboys are using so much effort to practically nonsense. One example:"tiger can kill sometimes an adult elephant, so it has to be stronger than a lion".... I say just this much, it is impressive thing to do, but tiger for sure isn´t able to kill an elephant because of extraordinary strength compared to other big cats. If it would be about strength, every tiger attacking an elephant would be killed straight away and stomped to wet stain on ground which someone might remotely recognize to be something like maybe tiger remains.... I don´t dare to say which one of those animals really is stronger and so far I haven´t found anyone who would have been able to explain it in convincing way. I personally think, that bigger lion is stronger than smaller tiger and vice versa, but I can be wrong too :)

But anyway, before someone is able to do some serious testing in comparable way, we have just hypotheses and what can be or has been observed and maybe recorded in some way.

Here is that book and page 115 especially: https://books.google.fi/books?id=mTPI_d9...rs&f=false Reply

[Shadow]

(12-27-2018, 12:54 PM)Spalea Wrote:

(12-27-2018, 01:15 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-26-2018, 11:18 PM)Spalea Wrote: Cheetahs can run over 500 meters, lions seldom more than 100 meters. Obviously these two predators are not in the same category. Lions are ambush predators like tigers. But because they often hunt in more open spaces and in pride they can combine their efforts and thus, be more efficient over a bigger area than a solitary felid hunter.

Bears don't run as fastly as the felids but yes, despite their weight and morphology, they don't lack stamina and can run over longer distances.

Wild canids are pursuit predators par excellence. They are able to run and hunt over several kilometers and, in numbers, to kill an exhausted big prey.

IMO, "pound for pound" herbivores aren't stronger than predators. Of course, because of  their weight (more than 600 kilos to 1200 kilos), big bovids are stronger, muscularly speaking, than any felid. But why would be they more performing "pound for pound" ?

I agree, but when bears run about 60 km/h and tigers are said to run 65 km/h, I think, that it is ok to say, that bears are comparable to slowest big cats in running speed even though with bear there is maybe a little illusion that it wouldn´t be able to run as fast, when looking them especially before hibernation. Their stamina is of course in totally different level than big cats.

Then again these comparisons pound to pound are really problematic without any reliable and comparable tests. If looking only muscle fibers, myocytes etc. there can be made claims and hypotheses. But far from simple and clear. There are so many variables with different species. I don´t remember seeing any real research about animals compared to pound to pound. Some articles based on pretty much... to nothing really :) One zoologist say something, another something else, then some reporter make an article like "top 10 strongest animals in the world pound to pound"... then when looking closer, just rubbish, but nice headline to sell or use as a "clickbait".

As I already said I also have a problem with the "pound for pound" expression. Because the animals' psychology is quite different according the species. Bovids are able to achieve  some feats  at a sustained rate but slow. How can we compare them at their opposite pattern: the felids able to amazing feats during a very short moment ? We would like to discover a scientific criteria able to classify these animals according this famous "pound for pound" strength .

But I'm reading your arguments with pleasure and interest ! In the meantime, according physical reasons, in my mind the strongest animals "pound for pound" animals, and this by very far, remain the insects, that is animals weighing a tiny fraction of a pound.

One thing about insects and something to think about when looking at very small animals like mouse and then very big like elephant and then that pound to pound. Square cube law concerns animals too and has to be remembered when comparing some tiny creatures to big ones. It is so easy to say, that ant or spider is stronger than us, but totally different thing what would happen, if they suddenly would be as big as us. 

https://steemit.com/science/@pjheinz/inv...e-cube-law

Maybe many have sometimes seen this, but then forgetting often too :) Reply

[Panther]

(12-27-2018, 05:40 PM)Shadow Wrote: One example:"tiger can kill sometimes an adult elephant, so it has to be stronger than a lion".... I say just this much, it is impressive thing to do, but tiger for sure isn´t able to kill an elephant because of extraordinary strength compared to other big cats. If it would be about strength, every tiger attacking an elephant would be killed straight away and stomped to wet stain on ground which someone might remotely recognize to be something like maybe tiger remains....

I'm not sure what is your point to pull this "tiger killing Elephants" here. I don't understand what you trying to prove.
But one thing is important, the Tiger killing adult elephants is not related to strength. Tiger is not doing that like a bull, by ramming opponents with it's head.
Not like bear sizing it's opponent by pushing with it's arms and weight.
But, by jumping on back and mauling to death with it's claws and fangs.

And when it comes to strength, the elephant of course the strongest. It has lots of pounds on it's side, in both bone and muscle department as compared to tiger. Due to it's size.

But when it comes to pound for pound strength. What I mean at equal weights. The tiger is stronger between two... Reply

[Shadow]

(12-27-2018, 06:39 PM)Panther Wrote:

(12-27-2018, 05:40 PM)Shadow Wrote: One example:"tiger can kill sometimes an adult elephant, so it has to be stronger than a lion".... I say just this much, it is impressive thing to do, but tiger for sure isn´t able to kill an elephant because of extraordinary strength compared to other big cats. If it would be about strength, every tiger attacking an elephant would be killed straight away and stomped to wet stain on ground which someone might remotely recognize to be something like maybe tiger remains....

I'm not sure what is your point to pull this "tiger killing Elephants" here. I don't understand what you trying to prove.
But one thing is important, the Tiger killing adult elephants is not related to strength. Tiger is not doing that like a bull, by ramming opponents with it's head.
Not like bear sizing it's opponent by pushing with it's arms and weight.
But, by jumping on back and mauling to death with it's claws and fangs.

And when it comes to strength, the elephant of course the strongest. It has lots of pounds on it's side, in both bone and muscle department as compared to tiger. Due to it's size.

But when it comes to pound for pound strength. What I mean at equal weights. The tiger is stronger between two...

Shortly, I wasn´t trying to prove anything. I just gave one example about ridiculous reasoning, what can be found time to time in different places, there are many other examples too naturally. What comes to self-evident part of your message, I think, that I said same thing already in my posting. So no need to repeat that third time here now :)

And then what comes to tigers and lions, I said already what I think and you are free to believe what you like, I just am not sure, that you are right. Then again I would say the same anyone claiming, that lion is stronger :) I choose to wait some serious research from scientists with good reasoning and testing. That lion-tiger thing wasn´t important here, just one example about problems there are in these comparisons and maybe best example about topics loaded with nonsense in so many threads in internet. IMO. Reply

[Panther]

(12-27-2018, 08:23 PM)Shadow Wrote: Shortly, I wasn´t trying to prove anything. I just gave one example about ridiculous reasoning, what can be found time to time in different places, there are many other examples too naturally. What comes to self-evident part of your message, I think, that I said same thing already in my posting. So no need to repeat that third time here now :)

And then what comes to tigers and lions, I said already what I think and you are free to believe what you like, I just am not sure, that you are right. Then again I would say the same anyone claiming, that lion is stronger :) I choose to wait some serious research from scientists with good reasoning and testing. That lion-tiger thing wasn´t important here, just one example about problems there are in these comparisons and maybe best example about topics loaded with nonsense in so many threads in internet. IMO.

The reason I asked you is why you criticising "tiger killing adult elephants" accounts by using it as an example. Where it's irrelevant.

And I understand, you trying to prove something here. So, I made it clear.

You can't say something not stronger, without providing otherwise. If I disagree with someone, I'll show the reason. Not like "I disagree, I don't know why" like you always did. 

Also what you meant by "What comes to self-evident part of your message"?
I just explained you that it's not strength related. 

And it's clear, that at equal weights compactly built animal like tiger is stronger than a elephant. I have proves.
But if you gonna discuss about this. Bring up facts, not "i disagree" to everything I said. Reply

[brotherbear]

We just don't happen to find very many 400 pound elephants ( neither in Asia or Africa ). Reply

[Spalea]

@Shadow:

About #159 and #160: Thank you for the links you gave ! Very interesting (I only regret to be not as good in english comprehension...).

Yes, agree with you when you speak about a tiger killing an adult elephant. I believe we often confuse strength with ability to kill. I said at a previous thread that a plow horse, muscularly speaking, is probably stronger than any lion and tiger (no one big cat could accomplish the same physical feats during whole a day), but if this horse was cornered against a wild big cat it would be killed for sure.

Physically speaking the strength is the amount of energy expended during an intensiv effort. This intensiv effort is very short as concerns the big cats, more longer for the bears,  canids, the antelopes, the bovids. Probably an antelope escaping from its natural predator expends as much energy as its pursuer. But the farmer is a predator, thus more powerful and  the latter the prey thus...

The second link you gave will never make me compare very very small animals (insects) with big animals (mammals) ! Reply