I wouldn't claim they can handle more weight (since top bodybuilders are lifting insane weights to get those muscles), but they can certainly do it for much longer than bodybuilder who trains for short bursts of maximum efforts. Our body literally builds only around the effort it experiences, and 0 more, running in absolute minimalist mode.
If you ever ie been running, say at 10km consistently, try to move that one day to 20km while maintaining the intensity. Significantly harder, you may experience various connective tissue issues too and not just muscle and energy management.
Or break a leg or two like I managed with recent paragliding accident, don't move one of them for 3 months and you will find that body, in its quest for lowest energy spending at all costs literally consumed all connective tissue to barest minimum, so stuff just doesn't move at all. I guess other mode didn't develop since in our distant past, like in rest of animal kingdom, broken leg meant certain death.
Maybe I’m being pedantic but bodybuilders don’t generally “lift insane weights” or do bursts of maximal effort. That sounds more like powerlifting. Bodybuilders prioritize gaining muscle size, which is not equivalent to gaining muscular strength.
Nah its fine you and me are both right in our own ways. Powerlifters go for absolute maximum, but just below them are bodybuilders. You won't get huge muscles by doing tons of relatively mild repetitions, it just doesn't work that way (say 15 reps of medium effort vs 3-5 of max you can do, former gets you endurance and tonality, latter volume).
Ie Arnold was doing 550 pound (250kg) squats at some point, thats not something you will ever see in normal gym. Similar for other exercises.
It is true that high reps/low weight will build more muscle endurance, but less strength.
However, it is a myth that it results in more "tonality".
Muscle definition is only a result of muscle size and body fat percentage. So you can achieve just as much muscle definition doing high weight low rep exercises, all else being equal.
You've only identified body builders specifically here. Strongmen, powerlifters, wrestlers, and other elite athletes can put in a similar amount of hours as a bodybuilder at the gym and certainly gain more "real strength" than a farmer will.
It just feels romantic for many to imagine that the farmhand is the "real" macho man.
All the ones you've listed need to train a lot to reach these heights. While I might've expressed it poorly, my point was that a minor investment of time only allows for body building - and that won't make you strong
If you don't train for strength, you won't get as strong as someone who does train for strength.
But all bodybuilders who train for size alone are stronger than those who don't train at all.
And the amount of additional work it takes to train strength is miniscule if you're primarily training for size. A few heavy top sets at the start of your workout are enough to drive improvements in the skill of strength while the hypertrophy work will increase your potential for force production.
But real strength, like farmers traditionally had, is hardly visible and needs an insane amount of time just handling heavy weights.
These people look completely average but can easily handle way more weight than the totally jacked body builder can.
But if the goal is mainly the physic and not strength... Then yes: a few hours a week is plenty