How Strong Is a Chimp Compared to a Human? Unveiling the Science Behind Chimpanzee Strength

For decades, the incredible strength of chimpanzees compared to humans has been the stuff of legends. Tales of their “super strength” have circulated since the early 20th century, painting a picture of primates vastly more powerful than ourselves. But is this perception accurate, or is it an exaggeration? This article delves into the scientific research comparing chimpanzee and human muscle strength, exploring the biological factors that contribute to their physical capabilities. We will examine the findings of a detailed study that measured the muscle properties of chimpanzees, contrasting them with those of humans and other mammals to answer the question: How Strong Is A Chimp Compared To A Human?

Debunking the Myth of “Super Strength”: What Does the Research Say?

Initial reports and anecdotal evidence certainly suggested a significant strength advantage for chimpanzees. However, a critical review of scientific data reveals a more nuanced picture. While chimpanzees are undeniably strong, the notion of “super strength” is not entirely supported by rigorous scientific investigation. Studies focusing on tasks like pulling and jumping have indicated that, when adjusted for body mass, chimpanzee muscular performance is approximately 1.5 times greater than that of humans on average. This is a notable difference, but it’s far from the exaggerated claims of several times stronger.

Researchers have long sought to understand the underlying reasons for this performance gap. Early hypotheses pointed towards differences in isometric force generation (static strength), faster muscle contraction speeds, or variations in the types of muscle fibers (myosin heavy chain isoforms) between chimpanzees and humans. To investigate these theories, scientists conducted direct measurements of chimpanzee skeletal muscle properties at a cellular level and compared them to human muscle.

Inside the Muscle Fiber: Unpacking the Biological Differences

The groundbreaking study directly measured the maximum isometric force (force generated at a fixed length) and maximum shortening velocity (speed of muscle contraction) of single muscle fibers from chimpanzees. These measurements were taken at 15°C and categorized by the type of myosin heavy chain (MHC) isoform present in the fiber: MHC I, MHC IIa, and MHC IId.

Fig. 1. Muscle contractile properties of chimpanzee skeletal muscle fibers compared to humans and other mammals. (A) Sampled chimpanzee muscle fibers from m. vastus lateralis and m. gastrocnemius lateralis with MHC isoform identification. (B) Effect of MHC isoform on single-fiber Po (maximum isometric force). (C) Effect of MHC isoform on single-fiber Vo (maximum shortening velocity). (D and E) Comparison of mean Po and Vo between chimpanzee and human muscle. (F and G) Size scaling of Po and Vo across mammals.

The results were revealing. The study found that at the single-fiber level, chimpanzee muscle is remarkably similar to human muscle in terms of its fundamental contractile properties. There was no significant difference in maximum isometric force or maximum shortening velocity between chimpanzee and human muscle fibers when comparing fibers of the same MHC isoform type. This suggests that the basic machinery of muscle contraction is very similar in both species. In fact, the isometric force and shortening velocity of chimpanzee muscle were consistent with what would be expected based on general body size scaling across mammals.

The Key Difference: Fast-Twitch Muscle Fiber Dominance

While single-fiber properties were similar, a major difference emerged when examining the distribution of MHC isoforms, which dictates the type of muscle fibers. The study analyzed 35 different muscles from chimpanzees and found a balanced distribution of MHC I, IIa, and IId isoforms. This contrasts sharply with humans, who exhibit a significant bias towards MHC I fibers (slow-twitch fibers) in the same muscles and throughout the body.

Fig. 2. MHC isoform distributions and average fiber length comparison between chimpanzee and human skeletal muscles. (A) Balanced MHC isoform distribution in chimpanzee muscles. (B) Human muscles show a bias towards slow-twitch fibers (MHC I). (C) Chimpanzee muscle fibers have a greater percentage of total muscle–tendon unit length than human muscle fibers.

Approximately 67% of chimpanzee muscle fibers are fast-twitch fibers (MHC IIa and IId), compared to a significantly lower percentage in humans. Fast-twitch fibers are known for generating high force and power rapidly, but they fatigue more quickly than slow-twitch fibers (MHC I). The prevalence of fast-twitch fibers in chimpanzees provides a crucial clue to their strength advantage in dynamic, powerful movements.

Furthermore, the study highlighted another architectural difference: chimpanzee muscle fibers are longer, both in absolute and relative terms, compared to humans. Longer muscle fibers can contribute to enhanced dynamic force and power output by influencing the force-length relationship of the muscle.

Muscle Modeling: Simulating Strength Differences

To understand how these cellular and architectural differences translate to overall muscle performance, the researchers developed computer models of “chimpanzee muscle” and “human muscle.” These models incorporated the measured differences in isometric force, shortening velocity, MHC isoform distribution, and muscle fiber length.

Simulations of maximal contractions against a heavy load predicted that chimpanzee muscle would exhibit a 1.35 times higher maximum dynamic force and power output compared to human muscle of similar size. Similarly, simulations of cyclical contractions, mimicking repetitive movements, showed a 1.34 times higher maximum power output for chimpanzee muscle.

Fig. 3. Muscle model simulations comparing chimpanzee and human muscle performance. (First column) Single-burst maximal accelerations of an inertial load. (Second and third columns) Controlled cyclical contractions. Chimpanzee muscle model demonstrates higher maximum dynamic force and power outputs.

These simulation results closely align with the 1.5 times average performance differential observed in experimental studies, suggesting that muscle mechanics, particularly MHC isoform content, plays a significant role in the strength difference between chimpanzees and humans.

Evolutionary Perspective: Strength vs. Endurance

The study proposes that the observed differences in muscle composition reflect distinct evolutionary paths for chimpanzees and humans. Chimpanzees, with their arboreal lifestyle and reliance on climbing and powerful bursts of movement, have evolved muscles optimized for maximum dynamic force and power. The high proportion of fast-twitch fibers and longer muscle fibers are adaptations that support these activities.

In contrast, human evolution, particularly with the advent of bipedalism and endurance hunting, favored muscles adapted for repetitive, low-cost contractile behavior and endurance. The higher proportion of slow-twitch fibers in human muscles, along with shorter fiber lengths, enhances metabolic efficiency, reduces fatigue, and supports prolonged activities like walking and running. This shift towards endurance may have come at the cost of maximal dynamic force and power output.

Conclusion: Strength is Not So Super, But Still Significant

In conclusion, while chimpanzees are not “super strong” in an exaggerated sense, they are demonstrably stronger than humans in terms of dynamic muscle force and power. This strength advantage, estimated to be around 1.35 times greater based on muscle mechanics and approximately 1.5 times in performance tasks, is primarily attributed to their higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers and longer muscle fiber lengths.

However, it’s crucial to understand that this is not a simple case of chimpanzees being universally stronger. Humans have evolved muscles optimized for different purposes, prioritizing endurance and metabolic efficiency. The differences in muscle composition highlight how evolution has shaped the physical capabilities of both species in response to their unique ecological niches and behavioral demands. So, how strong is a chimp compared to a human? Stronger in bursts of power, but human muscles are built for a different kind of strength – the strength of endurance.

References

1. Crompton RH (1994) Curr Anthropol 35:1–21.
2. benefit of increased meat consumption. J Hum Evol 51:409–421.
3. Foley RA, Lee PC (1991) Evol Anthropol 1:3–16.
4. Ambrose SH (2001) J Hum Evol 41:403–424.
5. Richerson PJ, Boyd R, Bettinger RL (2001) Evol Hum Behav 22:353–389.
6. Nissen HW, Yerkes R (1943) Yale Sci Mag 17:15–18.
7. Finch GE (1941) Am J Physiol 133:P248–P249.
8. Bauman J (1925) Science 62:305–306.
9. Bingham HC (1927) Am Nat 61:376–378.
10. Smith RJ, Savage RJM (1956) J Anat 90:161–167.
11. Heglund NC, et al. (2003) Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 284:R705–R713.
12. Gilmore DP (1992) Hum Evol 7:181–199.
13. Brunet M, et al. (2002) Nature 418:133–135.
14. Tirrell PC, et al. (2012) J Exp Biol 215:827–834.
15. Johnson J, et al. (1986) J Neurol Sci 73:185–192.
16. Schiaffino S, Reggiani C (2011) Physiol Rev 91:1447–1531.
17. Saltin B, Gollnick PD (1983) Am J Physiol 248:R163–R168.
18. Trappe S, et al. (2000) J Appl Physiol (1985) 88:1100–1106.
19. Burkhart BW, et al. (2011) J Hum Evol 60:749–758.
20. Lieber RL, Baskin RJ (2000) J Biomech 33:925–934.
21. Behm DG, St-Pierre DM (1997) J Appl Physiol (1985) 83:1983–1991.
22. Pontzer H, et al. (2014) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:1819–1827.
23. Zimmermann E, Köhler M, Müller RM, Fischer MS (2013) PLoS One 8:e77753.
24. Arnold EM, Hamner SR, Seth A, Delp SL (2010) J Biomech 43:2498–2503.
25. Steudel-Numbers KL, Tilkens MJ, Olsson CJ, Weber JM (2007) J Hum Evol 53:447–456.
26. Lovejoy CO, et al. (2009) Science 326:73, 73e1–73e8.
27. Leakey MG, et al. (1995) Nature 376:565–571.
28. Haile-Selassie Y (2001) Nature 410:705–709.
29. benefit of increased meat consumption. J Hum Evol 51:409–421.
30. Bramble DM, Lieberman DE (2004) Nature 432:345–352.
31. Lieberman DE, Bramble DM, Raichlen DA, Shea JJ (2009) Philos Trans R Soc B 364:3041–3055.
32. Aagaard P, et al. (2002) Med Sci Sports Exerc 34:115–125.
33. Moss RL (1986) J Gen Physiol 88:797–815.
34. Edman KA (1979) J Physiol 291:131–145.
35. Burkholder TJ, Lieber RL (2001) J Physiol 537:937–947.
36. Talmadge RJ, Roy RR (1993) J Appl Physiol (1985) 75:2337–2340.
37. Thelen DG (2003) J Biomech Eng 125:251–259.
38. Delp SL, et al. (2007) IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 54:1940–1950.
39. Stevens ED, Syme DA (2008) J Exp Biol 211:1339–1346.
40. Josephson RK (1993) Annu Rev Physiol 55:527–546.
41. Griffiths RI (1991) J Physiol 435:583–599.
42. Hoffer JA, Caputi AA, Posey JY, Griffiths RI, Pratelli M (1989) J Exp Biol 143:425–447.
43. Ker RF, Bennett MB, Bibby SR, Kester RC, Alexander RM (1988) J Exp Biol 138:283–293.
44. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Jr, Vecchi MP (1983) Science 220:671–680.
45. Bininda-Emonds OR, et al. (2007) Nature 446:507–512.
46. Meredith RW, et al. (2011) Science 334:521–524.
47. O’Leary MA, et al. (2013) Science 342:1238537.
48. Revell LJ (2012) Methods Ecol Evol 3:25–32.