A better way of reading your results:

Each chomp took 1/(87.8/s)/100000 = 114 ns (including overhead)
Each chop took 1/(91.6/s)/100000 = 109 ns (including overhead)
Each nada took 1/(109/s)/100000 = 92 ns
[download]

so

Each chomp took 22 ns
Each chop took 17 ns
[download]

It's not surprising that chop is faster than chomp (since what it does is far, far simpler), but they are both seriously fast! What this means is that trying to optimize this is a waste of time; there is far more "fat" to trim elsewhere.