Yup, compared with reptiles and amphibians and fish, mammalian energy budgets are shocking. So much so that our bodies will even atrophy our feeble muscles to save energy if we reduce the amount of work we do with them.
I wonder if anyone knows the calorie requirements to keep chimpanzees healthy?
not likely, human weight lifters have denser bones due to the extra loads they put on them, I see no reason a human with the crazy monkey muscle gene wouldnt simply develope desnser bones to go alone with them.
Yeah, your bones bulk up along with your muscles, but they tend to take longer to do it. If you go from being relatively sedentary to being suddenly very active one of the risks you face is that of stress fractures, where your bones literally start to crack from the sudden pressure put upon them by all your moving around. It’s one reason you’re supposed to gradually transition into a workout routine, so your bones can catch up (along with your muscles, your cardiovascular system, your metabolism, etc.)
Hmmmm - good point, although in this thread we have been discussing increases of muscle efficiency by 5-7 times. I seem to recall that the mouse growth factors generated something like 40% more muscle. If those two were to combine in a scalar fashion, you’d be looking at 7-9.8 times more muscle power. So instead of the record for an unaided bench press being 700 or so pounds, you’ be looking at muscle capable of pressing something like 4900-6860 lbs, but without any of the skeletal adaptations mentioned by eviladam, part 2.
Bearing in mind that it’s not unheard of for dedicated arm wrestlers, bodybuilders and the like to generate enough torque to snap their own bones or rip their muscles loose, I thought the human skeleton simply wouldn’t be able to cope with that amount of force input, and the joints and muscle attachment points definitely wouldn’t.
However, I have been wrong many, many times, so I will happily defer to those with more knowledge of this (i.e. pretty much anybody) 
I remember back in the day, Brian Bosworth was considered a hot prospect out of college (reading the Wiki link, I guess a really hot prospect). Injuries cut short his professional football career - my understanding was that steriod use allowed his muscular development and strength to overpower his attachment and support structure.
So, I would think that there are limits to how strong humans could get, at least in the short-term, before ripping ourselves apart. Ever wonder how the six million dollar man could throw a car - his super-powered arm was attached to a normal spine; I would have thought he’d rip that bionic arm out by the roots.
Maybe, maybe not. A while back we had a CS thread on the subject – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275033 – and the consensus was that, given the basic human anatomical structure, it probably would be impossible to gene-engineer a human as strong as Superman, or even Spider-Man.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of soldier or Universal Soldier (that’s really more about reanimation than genetics, so it might not count) or the TV show with Jessica Alba, or maybe even Dr. Moreau’s Island (?sp?); not comic book superheroes. There are probably many others from the ~70’s era along those same lines.
Yes – but all those assume it is possible to greatly enhance human physical strength without any basic alterations in human anatomy and without mechanical assistance. And it is probably not possible, even with genetic engineering or some functional equivalent of it.
Unlikely, The gene in question, if we are to believe scm1001 and his link, controls the myosin in the muscles, which has nothing to do with bones. Myosin is one of the two proteins that, for lack of a better word, pull along each other to contract a muscle. More myosin (and it’s counter part, actin) means stronger muscles. So chimps problaby have more myosin and actin, in addition to the non-mutant version that we have.