The difference isn’t quite that extreme. Pound per pound “chimpanzee muscle exceeds human muscle in maximum dynamic force and power output by ∼1.35 times” they are strong largely because they are extremely muscular not simply stronger on a pound per pound basis.
However, there’s inherent strength vs endurance tradeoffs involved. Space taken up by mitochondria is in direct competition with the cellular machinery that turns ATP into motion. Similarly, increased capillary density can supply more nutrients and oxygen, but again displaces more directly useful muscle tissue.
I think there is more to it than just the muscle pull force. My understanding is that the chimpanzee muscle skeleton system is configured for much greater leverage for many motions and this is a much larger Factor.
Leverage is another trade-off. Humans are well adapted to throwing a baseball sized rock, spear, or javelin much farther than a gorilla can, but a gorilla can throw a 200kg stone farther.
Maybe that's the same as what I'm saying but it strikes me differently. As I understand it, the trade-off is between range and diversity of motions versus strength in one specific set of circumstances.
The further your muscle Anchor Point is from the pivot, the greater the mechanical lever. For example, the human bicep anchors only inch or two from our elbow pivot. You could anchor twice as far and double the resulting Force, and in fact many animals do exactly that.
It's hard for me to imagine the comparative kinematics in your example, but I would think throwing a baseball and a heavier Rock would go through essentially the same motion. Attempt might be far better at an overhand throw than a human, but a temp might be simply incapable of performing an underhanded or side pitch
> You could anchor twice as far and double the resulting force
> throwing a baseball and a heavier Rock would go through the same range of motion
I think you’re missing a key detail here. Muscles can only contract at a finite percentage of their total length per given unit of time even with near zero load. This is mostly irrelevant when lifting something, but means very fast motions want the anchor point near the point of rotation. People are really quite extraordinary in how far the can throw light objects but it’s a real tradeoff.
However, there’s inherent strength vs endurance tradeoffs involved. Space taken up by mitochondria is in direct competition with the cellular machinery that turns ATP into motion. Similarly, increased capillary density can supply more nutrients and oxygen, but again displaces more directly useful muscle tissue.