there's no such thing as not being allowed to ask why.
'authorities' are quick to command to 'not question God', where in fact there are remarkably few such instructions in the Book, and they don't state don't ask why, but that the answer is in our current state incomprehensible to us or never to be comprehended.
to not question God is to not presume to have a better idea of how things should be, not to not ask why.

so, why the instruction to refrain from strangled animals?
i had a look at what people say, and most (sort of sensible) answers tie it to the (noahide) instruction to refrain from the blood.
which is correct in a way, but it's a derived answer, and where it's derived from is not clear.
quite simply because one can still drain the blood from a strangled creature, - to quote steve hollander (can't refrain, steve) 'duh!' -

i then looked at the Word, and to my surprise there are very few references to strangling. and no direct command to not do so, until it pops up in acts.

excluding a couple of catholic translations insertion of the word referring to david, what comes up is talk in nahum 2 of a bad pride of lions, in job 7 of his despair being so great he'd rather be strangled,
and the twin cases of ahithophel (2 sam 17) and judah (mat 27) strangling themselves.
plus a really interesting take in the aramaic of 2 cor 4.
(for completeness, the unforgiving servant nearly strangled his fellow servant in matt too).

now deut 21 talks of hanging bad guys, but note it is AFTER they are executed.
then there are diverse instances of people actually being hanged, but the curse a person hanged is under, refers to his dead body being hung up, there's no command to strangle anybody by hanging that i know of.

so, while waiting for someone to supply more info, let me talk of what came to my mind.

see, elsewhere we've been talking about the Spirit of the Father, amongst other aspects of Him. and though i only once briefly touched upon the injunction not to blaspheme the Spirit, for it will not be forgiven, which matthew, mark and luke all mention, it got me thinking.
because genesis 2 makes clear it is the Spirit (in His Neshamah function) that breathes life into us, continuously btw, for we perish the moment He departs from us.
now against the Father or the Messiah things can be forgiven, but not the Spirit. the answer to why that is can be found in the Spirit's function. He is fully a servant, not doing things of His own will.
the Father, and Messiah, choose what they will, but the servant just serves.

and that first physical primary service is simply to keep us breathing. breathe in, breathe out.
so when we kill, which is bad enough, we end that creature's life, but when we strangle, we hinder the Spirit Himself in doing His job, akin enough for me to tie strangling to blaspheming against the Spirit, dangerously close to being also something unforgiven.

and now we get to the life being in the blood, and why it needs to be drained, not consumed. because that breathe of the Spirit enters and invigorates us exactly through the blood, HE, or HIS breathe, the source of life, is in the blood.
therefore, eating the blood is in some way eating the Spirit's breathe, again, dangerously close to being also something unforgiven.
(ooh, blood sausage people.)

so, if i'm correct here, it would indicate those apostles had a deeper understanding of the Spirit, and based their injunction on that, not the noahide laws, which only mention the blood.

now, it looks suspiciously like i've answered my own question, but i'd like other takes, and more specifically, does anyone know of texts i've missed that talk around this?