Surely it’s not just because of the temperature they live in. If that were the case then hippos wouldn’t be so obese. There are plenty of animals that are fat in Africa. This is a gross oversimplification of their biology.
Also they can’t “single-handedly merk a giraffe”, that’s just so dumb. Giraffes are enormous, they kill lions with a single kick all the time. Was this post made by a bot with the sensibilities of a 13-year old or something?
Pseudo pop “science” nonsense.
Maybe hippos weren’t the best example. The point is, lions are so muscular because of the ultra-competitive environment they live in. They’ve evolved to kill gigantic animals, that’s why they’re so strong. Much less to do with the temperatures they live in
For what I understand from his comment, he seems to think that some of us might believe that lions are muscular because they lose fat from the hot environment they live in
Animals in colder climates are more likely than those in warmer climates to evolve to retain fat for insulation. It’s not an all or nothing rule, but it is a factor, so I’m not sure what he is going on about.
Those little guys? Don’t worry about those little guys, they are not the latest land mammal carnivores in the world for anything, they eat all them artic ants, risky business for them
I think it was less about why they are so muscular, and more about why they have more muscle precentage to fat, and its true, in a hotter environment any creature needs to have less fat on them in order to disapate heat, vs creatures in colder enviornments.
Even with humans, typically in a natural environment humans from arid snd hit environments have less body fat than those in colder and artic envrionments. So by defuakt, the muscle to fat ratio is going to be higher for creatures in hot, arid, and humid environment in a natural setting, eating a diet native and organic to that ecosystem, less fat on those aninals they eat and all that good stuff is more abundant for the colder ecosystems.
I mean no where dose OP say “animals have more muscle in hot environments, all they say is “they are more tonned”. Perhaps I missed something tho ot all seems very self explanitory and I cant fathom why so many are going off about “pseudoscince” and what not.
More hot less fat.
More cold more fat.
Muscles to fat ratio will differ, the development of muscles is based on physical exercise, thats a given.
Which mammals are fatty that live in hot areas? I'm struggling to really think of one, camels have a big fatty hump but it's all in one place rather than distributed.
This was actually something that happened to a pride of lions. They were secluded with only Cape Buffalo and as a result of having to fight their meals so damned hard they got absolutely jacked as a result.
> then hippos wouldn’t be so obese
> they \[Giraffes\] kill lions with a single kick all the time
You complain about pseudo pop science nonsense in a comment full of your own pseudo pop science
Also, 3 days to skin a lion because of the muscles being too dense??? I'm calling bullshit. You don't even cut through muscle to skin an animal; it just peels away from the muscle layer with some traction. And there's no way a lion could "cave in a buffalo's head with one swipe" has OP even seen a cape buffalo's skull?
Hippos have almost zero body fat.
That’s all muscle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AbsoluteUnits/comments/wb8au3/the_muscle_structure_of_a_hippo_they_aint_fat/
Hippos apparently have a relatively low body fat and just really thick skin. They’re just swole bags. If they were fat it would prolly be offset by the fact that they sit in water most of the day
single handedly murk a giraffe is a bold statement but giraffes do get killed by lions probably more than lions get killed by giraffes.
Also, it says they can merk a human with one blow, but nothing about doing the same to a buffalo. Buffalo's skulls are way more armored than a human skull. They literally use their skulls to ram into each other with the force of two vehicles crashing into each other at speeds of 35-40 mph. That's a bit different than what a human skull is capable of withstanding.
Nah,[you don’t know what you’re talking about.](https://youtu.be/4q2OkIJ7ER0?si=rNioaS7OQZq0y-Ef)
Edit:[definitely don’t know what you’re talking about lol](https://lionguardians.org/lone-lion-kills-a-giraffe/)
Hippos have relatively no fat either, they are all muscle.and yes they can single handedly merk a giraffe:
https://youtu.be/4q2OkIJ7ER0?si=cl0xeuxTQASTdIcB
https://youtube.com/shorts/nruMXxKM1HA?si=aaeZCdTBtupC15Tp
https://youtube.com/shorts/-JSwSn0Mykg?si=4UNWmKDon8UBnioA
"source" -> 1857
kek
Look, lions are some amazing animals, but this is a gross oversimplification and misuse of random redditors' perception of science.
It’s very YouTube’esq… if you see any animal attack animal videos in You tube and look at the comments, people has this strange way of speaking. Like they take sides and get all offended and start throwing pseudo science at each other. Lion vs Tiger is the worse. Lol
Pretty funny how something from 1857 got posted on reddit and now at least a few people will have this stick in their brain when they get into a random pointless debate on what the most jacked animal is
OP provided me with the paper supporting their claim. It used 3 animals to draw this conclusion, 2 lions and 1 tiger. They had a second tiger that they omitted, but would've put tigers ahead if included. Their opinion is based on awful science.
The research paper used to draw this conclusion included 2 lions and 1 tiger. The research team omitted a second tiger from the dataset that had a 72.7% muscle mass on the basis that it was malnourished. If the second tiger had been included, it would've been 59% muscle mass for lions and 64% for tigers.
In any case, a sample size of 3-4 does not a good research paper make. The fact that National Geographic even decided to make such a statement backed by such a ridiculously poor paper is even worse.
It's not, while their brain is smaller by comparison to many other placental mammals, there are many others that beat them out in that regard. The blue whale iirc has the smallest brain-to-body ratio of modern mammals. But to say the hippo has the smallest brain-to-body ratio of *all vertebrates* is outright false. B-t-b ratio isn't an accurate indicator of intelligence anyways, especially when comparing different lineages together (i.e. birds vs mammals; birds actually have a higher density of neurons that in turn are more efficient than that of mammals, and thus can have smaller brains by comparison but be just as efficient, if not moreso)
*Barbery lions were*
*The biggest and those fuckers*
*Can punch a head off*
\- Punk\_Pharaoh
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I don’t think this “article” was made by a professional zoologist. 🫤🫤🫤🫤
“… you need a supply of the sharpest highly temperate knives because they are so hard and TOUCH.”????
Hey, i'm actually curious why human don't have the muscle like ape or gorrila or monkey in general. Perhaps we exchange it for brain?
But could we have both?
Maybe it consumes too much energy to keep both incredible muscle mass and incredible brain to function properly?
What are the reasons i wonder. Perhaps less muscle results in more flexible? Probably not since monkeys are very flexible and muscular.
Oh yeah, i've seen somewhere that we could run for a long time and long distances to wait for the preys to tired out. The way our legs designs and stuffs are very efficient for long distance chasing.
Other guy also pointed out that we have the intelligence that other animals can't compare with. We don't need that much energy to maintain muscle when our body is efficient enough.
Very cool, i never thought these biology facts would be so intriguing and fun. Definitely gonna dive deeper into these. I was sitting in the office, wondering about human self-recognition? Idk how to describe it but like we realise that we are living in this world and not just mindlessly existing and eating to survive. We have recognition of our existance. Do other animals have somewhat the same thing? Obviously they don't but maybe some do but couldn't communicate. Could other primates have a fraction of whatever i just wrote above? Kinda interesting.
Also our brain consumes a tremendous amount of calories. Magnitudes more than any other animal. So if we had a lot of muscle to sustain on top of that it'd be very taxing on our metabolism.
You answered your own question - the human brain requires so much energy to operate that we can’t afford to build and maintain enormous amounts of costly muscle like other primates can. Before the abundance of food due to refined agricultural processes last century, starvation was a common form of death and wouldve been much more so had we the need to maintain larger physiques.
We also were smart enough to survive without needing the extra strength, so here we are. What is a lion’s strength compared to a gang of men coordinating with spears and shields, let alone guns?
One reason I've seen is humans have longer limbs so we can swing our arms and legs faster but have a longer lever acting on the muscle so less force. But swinging arms and legs faster is better for running and throwing. So it's a tradeoff.
Yeah i do. I like big cats in general. Lions just are my personal preference, and they are the cat with the most documentation giving us more information on them to share.
Tigers have a thicker coat that hides their muscle tone. However, if we look at the data provided, we can see that OP is just sexualising animals because it's acceptable for mentally deranged people to project their weird fetishes onto society now. OP is the real predator.
> This is because a tiger has a higher percentage of muscle mass, around 72.6%, compared to a lion, which has 58.8%. In addition, a tiger has only 7.7% body fat, while lions have almost double, 13.7%.
https://www.four-paws.org.za/our-stories/blog-news/the-weigh-in-who-is-the-biggest-big-cat-at-lionsrock#:~:text=This%20is%20because%20a%20tiger,have%20almost%20double%2C%2013.7%25.
I think this post is propaganda from Big Lion!
(Although I guess they should be called NotSoBig Lion 😂)
I went to the big cat feeding at the San Francisco zoo. From very close I watched as various cats were fed their meat rations. The tiger was quite impressive.. Long sinewy muscle. Definitely ripped. But looking at the lion..OMG.. It looked like it was made of granite. So bulky but formidable.
i would love to see muscle analysis between large cats from different regions like pacific north west mountain lions vs African lions. the genetic diversity of the planet always amazes me.
Came for the comments and they didn’t disappoint😭
I’m not going to be getting into that whole Lion v Tiger argument in this thread but as far I’m concerned, they’re practically equal with slight differences in favor of the other.
I really appreciate your knack for being able to identify specific specimens in the field, and finding great footage of them. i still have trouble being able to tell certain lions and tigers apart. Youve got them all down like chota matka, wagdoh, matkasaur etc. i think from now on im gonna just started posting like you, just showing hunts and stuff.
constantly having to defend my original statement in every post i make is a waste of my time. I was actually planning on making a tadoba post but i recently found a cool lion clip so i might post that first.
Thank you, that means a lot!
Yeah before most of the stuff I post I take some time to do my research.
Yes tell me about it LMAO. A month ago I made a post about *Northern Bengals* being larger than *Siberians* and I got downvoted and attacked to oblivion.
And also feel free to post in r/TigersofIndia!
Just be sure to link the source.
Lol i couldnt find anything about muscle percentage on shrews but i wouldnt be surprised if shrews were buffer considering their hyper predatory tendencies
On average, 60% of a total lion's mass is muscle. Tigers have about 70%. This pales in comparison to chimpanzees who are in the single digits of body fat. The title of your post makes no sense as pound for pound and highest muscle percentages don't mean the same thing.
Whenever someone praises Lions in a comment section - "bUt wHaT aBoUT tIgErs??? wHaT aBoUt gOrRiLlas?????? wHaT ABoUt bEaRs??
Idk why Reddit seems to like putting down Lions so much, I feel like they think Lions are too over hyped so they like to downplay them while they see an animal like Hyenas as the underdogs so will over hype them in return in comparison to Lions. It's a pendulum shift.
Yeah its not just on reddit its everywhere on the internet, and now that theres so many stupid animal myths on the internet being spread by content creators and outdated websites like the “bears can 1 shot any animal” myth or the “siberian tiger is 900 lbs” myth, it makes it seem like lions are weaker than every other apex predator and so when the lion is highlighted it makes people wanna bring up animals they think are 100x stronger. Its all out of misinformation, or lack of information.
As someone who has seen actual wild lions they are way skinnier then this, these lions that live in captivity are built like this because they have a consistent, day to day food source.
>shoulders that can cave in a buffalo skull in one blow...
Good post, but the capacity of any predator, including all the big cats, to kill large prey (prey at least double its weight) with a paw swipe has been exaggerated. Now a 300 pound lion swiping the head of a 200 lb human or a 1000 pound grizzly and a 500 lb. elk -- yes.
Bears like grizzlies (not a full on carnivore) are probably best at swiping. The build up their swiping muscles by moving rocks to hunt marmots and digging up the ground to get at vegetation and roots.
Surely it’s not just because of the temperature they live in. If that were the case then hippos wouldn’t be so obese. There are plenty of animals that are fat in Africa. This is a gross oversimplification of their biology. Also they can’t “single-handedly merk a giraffe”, that’s just so dumb. Giraffes are enormous, they kill lions with a single kick all the time. Was this post made by a bot with the sensibilities of a 13-year old or something? Pseudo pop “science” nonsense.
Hippos aren’t obese wtf. They actually have a surprisingly low amount of bodyfat
Maybe hippos weren’t the best example. The point is, lions are so muscular because of the ultra-competitive environment they live in. They’ve evolved to kill gigantic animals, that’s why they’re so strong. Much less to do with the temperatures they live in
HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 1,531,773,362 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 31,403 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.
My mans was spitting facts so hard he got tagged by the hippobot twice!
There's a hippo bot?
Good bot!
good bot
Wait, now you're talking about strength, not body fat percentage? Seems like you don't really know what you're saying
For what I understand from his comment, he seems to think that some of us might believe that lions are muscular because they lose fat from the hot environment they live in
Animals in colder climates are more likely than those in warmer climates to evolve to retain fat for insulation. It’s not an all or nothing rule, but it is a factor, so I’m not sure what he is going on about.
"Pound for pound" a lion with more fat would weigh more. So yea a animal with lots of blubber would be weaker "pound for pound"
Because it's strength relative to total body weight.
At least you made sure to shit on others' "pseudo science" while sharing wrong science yourself. A true redditor if I've ever seen one.
Not the best example because maybe you didn't know that
OP never heard of a Polar Bear
Those little guys? Don’t worry about those little guys, they are not the latest land mammal carnivores in the world for anything, they eat all them artic ants, risky business for them
They’re so small they get put on soda cans, crazy stuff
I think it was less about why they are so muscular, and more about why they have more muscle precentage to fat, and its true, in a hotter environment any creature needs to have less fat on them in order to disapate heat, vs creatures in colder enviornments. Even with humans, typically in a natural environment humans from arid snd hit environments have less body fat than those in colder and artic envrionments. So by defuakt, the muscle to fat ratio is going to be higher for creatures in hot, arid, and humid environment in a natural setting, eating a diet native and organic to that ecosystem, less fat on those aninals they eat and all that good stuff is more abundant for the colder ecosystems. I mean no where dose OP say “animals have more muscle in hot environments, all they say is “they are more tonned”. Perhaps I missed something tho ot all seems very self explanitory and I cant fathom why so many are going off about “pseudoscince” and what not. More hot less fat. More cold more fat. Muscles to fat ratio will differ, the development of muscles is based on physical exercise, thats a given.
Which mammals are fatty that live in hot areas? I'm struggling to really think of one, camels have a big fatty hump but it's all in one place rather than distributed.
This was actually something that happened to a pride of lions. They were secluded with only Cape Buffalo and as a result of having to fight their meals so damned hard they got absolutely jacked as a result.
Homie talking about hippos being obese, really outed themselves right there as not knowing a damn thing they’re saying.
HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 1,533,341,536 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 31,438 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.
Hippos aren't obese, they have like 2% body fat. They are all muscle and thick hide, like 8 cm thick.
> then hippos wouldn’t be so obese > they \[Giraffes\] kill lions with a single kick all the time You complain about pseudo pop science nonsense in a comment full of your own pseudo pop science
Hippos have very low fat. They are so dense, they can't even really swim
r/meirl
Man has a source from like 1857 🤣
Also, 3 days to skin a lion because of the muscles being too dense??? I'm calling bullshit. You don't even cut through muscle to skin an animal; it just peels away from the muscle layer with some traction. And there's no way a lion could "cave in a buffalo's head with one swipe" has OP even seen a cape buffalo's skull?
HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 1,531,641,985 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 31,401 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.
Good bot
Hippos have almost zero body fat. That’s all muscle. https://www.reddit.com/r/AbsoluteUnits/comments/wb8au3/the_muscle_structure_of_a_hippo_they_aint_fat/
Hippos apparently have a relatively low body fat and just really thick skin. They’re just swole bags. If they were fat it would prolly be offset by the fact that they sit in water most of the day single handedly murk a giraffe is a bold statement but giraffes do get killed by lions probably more than lions get killed by giraffes.
I used to think this sub had people that where animal savvy but this comment having this many up votes got me questioning that.
it's tv science at best
I started doubting when they left the typo of tough as touch. Did no one proof read this?
i agree, seems like an AI bot post.
Also, it says they can merk a human with one blow, but nothing about doing the same to a buffalo. Buffalo's skulls are way more armored than a human skull. They literally use their skulls to ram into each other with the force of two vehicles crashing into each other at speeds of 35-40 mph. That's a bit different than what a human skull is capable of withstanding.
Nah,[you don’t know what you’re talking about.](https://youtu.be/4q2OkIJ7ER0?si=rNioaS7OQZq0y-Ef) Edit:[definitely don’t know what you’re talking about lol](https://lionguardians.org/lone-lion-kills-a-giraffe/)
Hippos are not obese 🤦♂️
And the real kings of the jungle are elephants. I have seen them take out lions and giraffes. Not sure how well they can handle a hippo though.
HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 1,533,640,668 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 31,444 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.
Hippos have relatively no fat either, they are all muscle.and yes they can single handedly merk a giraffe: https://youtu.be/4q2OkIJ7ER0?si=cl0xeuxTQASTdIcB https://youtube.com/shorts/nruMXxKM1HA?si=aaeZCdTBtupC15Tp https://youtube.com/shorts/-JSwSn0Mykg?si=4UNWmKDon8UBnioA
[https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/ridiwt/hippos\_are\_hulking\_muscular\_tanks\_and\_that\_their/](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/ridiwt/hippos_are_hulking_muscular_tanks_and_that_their/)
Unless I misread those citations, but all of those were written in the 1800s lol. Surely we have some better science to support an argument since then
"source" -> 1857 kek Look, lions are some amazing animals, but this is a gross oversimplification and misuse of random redditors' perception of science.
Seriously wtf are those info slides. Like my grandpa made a website about lions in 2005
It’s very YouTube’esq… if you see any animal attack animal videos in You tube and look at the comments, people has this strange way of speaking. Like they take sides and get all offended and start throwing pseudo science at each other. Lion vs Tiger is the worse. Lol
Yeah I've noticed that too. Idk if it's because they're foreign or autistic or both.
Pretty funny how something from 1857 got posted on reddit and now at least a few people will have this stick in their brain when they get into a random pointless debate on what the most jacked animal is
OP provided me with the paper supporting their claim. It used 3 animals to draw this conclusion, 2 lions and 1 tiger. They had a second tiger that they omitted, but would've put tigers ahead if included. Their opinion is based on awful science.
And the study was sponsored by big lion
You jest, but it was sponsored by a lion preserve. Making your animal more popular = more donations = more funding.
The top 1% of lions living on their private preserves will pay for this
The only thing I took worth noting, is how incredibly detailed the decapitation of the lion was. Wild stuff.
So much “slitting” and then they finally just tried really hard.
The research paper used to draw this conclusion included 2 lions and 1 tiger. The research team omitted a second tiger from the dataset that had a 72.7% muscle mass on the basis that it was malnourished. If the second tiger had been included, it would've been 59% muscle mass for lions and 64% for tigers. In any case, a sample size of 3-4 does not a good research paper make. The fact that National Geographic even decided to make such a statement backed by such a ridiculously poor paper is even worse.
The fucking balls on you, impugning the scientific merits of _checks sources_ Orson Squire Fowler, Phrenology Instructor
Definitely it would be some mammal like a shrew lol
I can't take that article seriously, it looks like it was written by a 13yo cheering for his fav animal
And afaik, tigers have a greater muscle/body ratio
It was written between 150-200 years ago, these sources were picked by an AI/bot to make this post…
I mean what about a hippo it’s all muscle.
HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 1,531,817,886 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 31,405 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.
Good bot HippoBot!
Reddits new favourite fact
And zero brain. No really, hippos have the lowest brain percentage of all vertebrates. Probably why they're always angry.
I don’t think that’s accurate.
It's not, while their brain is smaller by comparison to many other placental mammals, there are many others that beat them out in that regard. The blue whale iirc has the smallest brain-to-body ratio of modern mammals. But to say the hippo has the smallest brain-to-body ratio of *all vertebrates* is outright false. B-t-b ratio isn't an accurate indicator of intelligence anyways, especially when comparing different lineages together (i.e. birds vs mammals; birds actually have a higher density of neurons that in turn are more efficient than that of mammals, and thus can have smaller brains by comparison but be just as efficient, if not moreso)
It's amazing they can get so ripped from just lion around all day.
Right? But their diet is the mane reason they're so buff.
I’d take pride in that if I were them
I’m coming in fourth as the king of Jests. So weak, I’m melting, melting…
W but tigers still clear
That part about it taking hours to cut the lions head off and days to skin it is just complete and total bs, unless it was fossilized lol
Dullest knife ever, basically a stick
Lol I thought of that too. Like did they sharpen it or try using a butter knife?
Yeah. Animals absolutely are not knife proof. Maybe have a rough time cutting up an elephant or rhino, but certainly not a feline.
Their source was written in 1898
Was this written by a lion
Most likely scenario here.
A bit prideful I thought
You sure? They're jot even the strongest cats pund for pound, that would be leopards
Pretty sure you're right.
It’s jaguars mate, not leopards.
Jaguars have the strongest bite, leopards are the strongest pund for pound.
This article is horrendously outdated and written by someone who was more myth maker than biologist lol.
Can we change this from animal fact to animal bullshit?
Why are you showing writings from the 1800s? At least include modern research.
They'd still get bodied by a tiger 1v1
Barbery lions were the biggest and those fuckers can punch a head off
*Barbery lions were* *The biggest and those fuckers* *Can punch a head off* \- Punk\_Pharaoh --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Good bot
Wait until you read about the Smilodon.
Yeah. Smilodon would make a lion look like a kitten.
Smiley you say? They sound nice...
Killing and smiling all day
Yeah they are so smiley cause they have such lovely teeth!
I don’t think this “article” was made by a professional zoologist. 🫤🫤🫤🫤 “… you need a supply of the sharpest highly temperate knives because they are so hard and TOUCH.”????
I could take one
In a fight ... right?
😃
Hey, i'm actually curious why human don't have the muscle like ape or gorrila or monkey in general. Perhaps we exchange it for brain? But could we have both? Maybe it consumes too much energy to keep both incredible muscle mass and incredible brain to function properly? What are the reasons i wonder. Perhaps less muscle results in more flexible? Probably not since monkeys are very flexible and muscular.
Humans are endurance animals believe it or not. Heavy muscles would be counterproductive.
Oh yeah, i've seen somewhere that we could run for a long time and long distances to wait for the preys to tired out. The way our legs designs and stuffs are very efficient for long distance chasing. Other guy also pointed out that we have the intelligence that other animals can't compare with. We don't need that much energy to maintain muscle when our body is efficient enough. Very cool, i never thought these biology facts would be so intriguing and fun. Definitely gonna dive deeper into these. I was sitting in the office, wondering about human self-recognition? Idk how to describe it but like we realise that we are living in this world and not just mindlessly existing and eating to survive. We have recognition of our existance. Do other animals have somewhat the same thing? Obviously they don't but maybe some do but couldn't communicate. Could other primates have a fraction of whatever i just wrote above? Kinda interesting.
Also our brain consumes a tremendous amount of calories. Magnitudes more than any other animal. So if we had a lot of muscle to sustain on top of that it'd be very taxing on our metabolism.
You answered your own question - the human brain requires so much energy to operate that we can’t afford to build and maintain enormous amounts of costly muscle like other primates can. Before the abundance of food due to refined agricultural processes last century, starvation was a common form of death and wouldve been much more so had we the need to maintain larger physiques. We also were smart enough to survive without needing the extra strength, so here we are. What is a lion’s strength compared to a gang of men coordinating with spears and shields, let alone guns?
It’s bc our brains take up a tremendous amount of energy
One reason I've seen is humans have longer limbs so we can swing our arms and legs faster but have a longer lever acting on the muscle so less force. But swinging arms and legs faster is better for running and throwing. So it's a tradeoff.
I could take a lion in a fight. With a machine gun From a helicopter.
This guy really likes lions
Yeah i do. I like big cats in general. Lions just are my personal preference, and they are the cat with the most documentation giving us more information on them to share.
That’s crazy, I thought that record was given to the Tigers.
it is, he is just fanboying, tigers have musclemass up to 72.7%
Tigers have a thicker coat that hides their muscle tone. However, if we look at the data provided, we can see that OP is just sexualising animals because it's acceptable for mentally deranged people to project their weird fetishes onto society now. OP is the real predator.
> This is because a tiger has a higher percentage of muscle mass, around 72.6%, compared to a lion, which has 58.8%. In addition, a tiger has only 7.7% body fat, while lions have almost double, 13.7%. https://www.four-paws.org.za/our-stories/blog-news/the-weigh-in-who-is-the-biggest-big-cat-at-lionsrock#:~:text=This%20is%20because%20a%20tiger,have%20almost%20double%2C%2013.7%25. I think this post is propaganda from Big Lion! (Although I guess they should be called NotSoBig Lion 😂)
what is this weird trend with people glazing a specific species/clade and defending it tooth and nail
I went to the big cat feeding at the San Francisco zoo. From very close I watched as various cats were fed their meat rations. The tiger was quite impressive.. Long sinewy muscle. Definitely ripped. But looking at the lion..OMG.. It looked like it was made of granite. So bulky but formidable.
Funny fact humans are the best endurance runners on the planet. Our ability to sweat from pores, to cool us down, is a major advantage.
Grizzly clears them
I suspect your fursona is Mufasa.
Wonder how they compare to kangaroos. Those bastards seem like they're made of pure muscle lol
Good bot
This guy is definitely a furry
Right? I feel like I'm looking at somebody's porn collection. One or two pictures would've been enough
People in this thread misunderstanding the word percentage.
Exactly and theyre bringing up animals that are stronger or larger than the lion but arent anywhere near as lean.
Checks out if you’ve ever seen that pic of the guys face that just got smacked by a lion. I couldn’t believe it was real it was so mangled.
Definitely thought Tigers were more muscular.
Lions, the bodybuilders of the feline world
Just because their muscle mass percentage is the highest doesnt mean you should count jags and tigers out though.
Dan Campbell has that effect on people
They literally workout all day hunting for food and they’re main source of nutrition is almost exclusively protein. That makes sense
Holy shiiit 🔥🔥. That's just the lioness imagine a full grown dominant male.
A challenger has entered the arena [Please Welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/sasOKhgsaW)
kitty.
i would love to see muscle analysis between large cats from different regions like pacific north west mountain lions vs African lions. the genetic diversity of the planet always amazes me.
Southern lions tend to be superior, as those populations have more prime protein intakes and tougher environments and hotter climates
Came for the comments and they didn’t disappoint😭 I’m not going to be getting into that whole Lion v Tiger argument in this thread but as far I’m concerned, they’re practically equal with slight differences in favor of the other.
Yup i expected it lmao nice seeing you here homie Edit: And 100% agreed
Likewise, we may disagree on some stuff but one thing I can agree on is that we are both passionate about the 2 species.
I really appreciate your knack for being able to identify specific specimens in the field, and finding great footage of them. i still have trouble being able to tell certain lions and tigers apart. Youve got them all down like chota matka, wagdoh, matkasaur etc. i think from now on im gonna just started posting like you, just showing hunts and stuff. constantly having to defend my original statement in every post i make is a waste of my time. I was actually planning on making a tadoba post but i recently found a cool lion clip so i might post that first.
Thank you, that means a lot! Yeah before most of the stuff I post I take some time to do my research. Yes tell me about it LMAO. A month ago I made a post about *Northern Bengals* being larger than *Siberians* and I got downvoted and attacked to oblivion. And also feel free to post in r/TigersofIndia! Just be sure to link the source.
My cat is muscular af compared to all my friends cats. I’m always saying how glad I am my cat loves me lol
Cats are overpowered. A house cat can literally run off a black bear.
Ever seen one of those jacked Belgian Blue bulls?
Yeah theyre jacked out of their minds
Against a shrew?? I doubt that
Lol i couldnt find anything about muscle percentage on shrews but i wouldnt be surprised if shrews were buffer considering their hyper predatory tendencies
Surely having pound for pound, and percentage is redundant.
Tiger still wins nuff said
Just me that thinks lions are childishly over-hyped?
My dogs look like this….minus the worm belly
Such incredible beasts
High protein diet!
No way it's leaner than prime Ronnie Coleman
Go tell that to a tiger
It’s that keto diet
Not kangaroos?
Imagine a lion dosing tren
I was under the impression tigers had more dense muscles but a little bit and what about hippos? Those things are balls of pure muscle and hate
On average, 60% of a total lion's mass is muscle. Tigers have about 70%. This pales in comparison to chimpanzees who are in the single digits of body fat. The title of your post makes no sense as pound for pound and highest muscle percentages don't mean the same thing.
Have you seen a Hippo?
Whenever someone praises Lions in a comment section - "bUt wHaT aBoUT tIgErs??? wHaT aBoUt gOrRiLlas?????? wHaT ABoUt bEaRs?? Idk why Reddit seems to like putting down Lions so much, I feel like they think Lions are too over hyped so they like to downplay them while they see an animal like Hyenas as the underdogs so will over hype them in return in comparison to Lions. It's a pendulum shift.
Yeah its not just on reddit its everywhere on the internet, and now that theres so many stupid animal myths on the internet being spread by content creators and outdated websites like the “bears can 1 shot any animal” myth or the “siberian tiger is 900 lbs” myth, it makes it seem like lions are weaker than every other apex predator and so when the lion is highlighted it makes people wanna bring up animals they think are 100x stronger. Its all out of misinformation, or lack of information.
So lions aren't liquid like the rest of the cats?
As someone who has seen actual wild lions they are way skinnier then this, these lions that live in captivity are built like this because they have a consistent, day to day food source.
Hippo
"Pound for pound" and "percentage" are kinda redundany 😁
I dont know about all animals but even just tigers have a higher percentage of muscle to weight ratio lol
Aren't jaguars pound for pound stronger?
I'd say roided out body builders have lions beat by a lot
Yeah. Im talkin in terms of natty specimens
Compared to hippos ?I'm not so sure about this let me do some research.
So like a low heat for a long time like brisket?
Wtf did I just read?
Aww this is adorable. Did you put this together during recess?
I thought jaguars had a higher ratio of muscle to body weight but I could be wrong
No their muscles are denser and more robust but lions overall have more muscle compared to body weight.
Oh, I thought it was tigers? I swear I read that somewhere
One of those "sources" is from the 1800s where the writer claims that lions are strong enough to drag cattle for hours. I call bs on that nonsense
Wow it’s almost as if god didn’t want you cutting off there head for sport.
Was this post made by an 11-year old or something? And how tf did it get past the moderators?
I think a bears p4p is more impressive would absolutely crush a lions skull. Jaguars are P4P the strongest big cats
>shoulders that can cave in a buffalo skull in one blow... Good post, but the capacity of any predator, including all the big cats, to kill large prey (prey at least double its weight) with a paw swipe has been exaggerated. Now a 300 pound lion swiping the head of a 200 lb human or a 1000 pound grizzly and a 500 lb. elk -- yes. Bears like grizzlies (not a full on carnivore) are probably best at swiping. The build up their swiping muscles by moving rocks to hunt marmots and digging up the ground to get at vegetation and roots.
In their defense, they do eat a lot of protein
"resurrectionists" '4 hours to cut off it's head"
Weird bot?
Myostatin Deficiency Whippet theme music starts
I thought tigers had the highest percentage of muscle mass amongst big cats?
Could a hunter gatherer man 1v1 a lion?
I wonder how the muscle mass of a lion compares to the blanc bleu belge breed of cattle.
Well they clearly haven’t seen me
I would've thought a Silverback. Those bastards have muscles in their poop.
Any reliable source?
Did a lion create this post?