Rendered at 00:36:58 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
calmbonsai 3 minutes ago [-]
FWIW, women are equally competitive in ultra-running, so I suspect the claimed advantages only apply at faster paces & longer gaits.
fmajid 2 hours ago [-]
So does that mean modern human females are less efficient at walking or locomotion than men?
romaniitedomum 2 hours ago [-]
The linked article certainly implies this:
> Because our legs are positioned slightly more forward, our quads both absorb the shock of stepping and spring our bodies back upward. This more energy efficient gait may give men an advantage over long distances. Because they were constrained by the demands of childbirth, women’s pelvises weren’t able to develop these modifications, researchers say.
> The shock-absorbing device seems to benefit modern males, mainly in long-distance walking.
followed by:
> Regardless of whether this exchange confers a net advantage in long-distance walking, it requires empirical testing, like everything that we propose here.
So the conclusion seems to be that this may confer advantages in long-distance walking. Long-distance is not explicitly defined either.
Regardless, it's mind-blowing to think that Neanderthal males had the same pelvis bone structure as modern women.
annzabelle 19 minutes ago [-]
That's interesting to me, because one of the few athletic categories where men and women are relatively evenly matched is long distance hiking and running. The current appalachain trail speed record is held by a woman for example. In general (if pack weights are proportionate), men and women can happily hike long distances together at the same pace, which is not so true for some other sports.
Spooky23 14 minutes ago [-]
True, but men tend to be physically larger and heavier.
My guess is any differences are very general and relevant over population, and can be compensated by training.
jareklupinski 4 minutes ago [-]
figures they need that efficiency to make it to the same distance at a larger mass
agolsme 1 hours ago [-]
the empirical testing seems a bit like sophistry to me -- we can't really go back in time to test neanderthals, and while the anatomical difference seems dispositive of adaptation, there is no evidence that indicates the adaptation is towards walking. It seems equally plausible to me that stronger quads in human males are not for walking long distances but for jumping....who's to say human culture didn't go through a period with a ton of parkour?
sieabahlpark 27 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
moogleii 2 hours ago [-]
And yet women seem to be defeating men at ultramarathons. I think more research is needed.
_--__--__ 1 hours ago [-]
I doubt there was much evolutionary selection for the ability to run more than 50 miles at once (my understanding is that the female advantage in ultra endurance has to do with muscle/fat composition and lower total skeletal mass, which is a major tradeoff to make for other areas).
toss1 38 minutes ago [-]
The evolutionary adaption to running ultra-distances is persistence hunting, and it was one of the keys to human survival and evolution.
In persistence hunting, over great distances, humans can outrun game animals as long as they pick one animal and track it. Deer, antelope, etc. all run faster in short bursts, but overheat and reach exhaustion after long distances whereas humans can just keep going. Eventually, the human can just walk up to it and make the kill with a knife or rock.
bryanlarsen 35 minutes ago [-]
Persistence hunting a deer takes 20-25 km, according to wikipedia.
cma 5 minutes ago [-]
So an ultramarathoner could hunt three back to back instead of one, or maybe two without being an elite athlete with modern hydrocarbon gels. Or get through part of a failed hunt midway and pursue another, etc.
jtari3333 52 minutes ago [-]
It seems like men hold every ultramaathon record. What event are you referring to where women do better than men?
bryanlarsen 37 minutes ago [-]
A quick google shows several ultramarathon course records held by women, like Rachel Entrekin on the Cocodona 250, Sophie Woods on the Via Alpina, et cetera.
> Because our legs are positioned slightly more forward, our quads both absorb the shock of stepping and spring our bodies back upward. This more energy efficient gait may give men an advantage over long distances. Because they were constrained by the demands of childbirth, women’s pelvises weren’t able to develop these modifications, researchers say.
However, the study, available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-59915-8 only states:
> The shock-absorbing device seems to benefit modern males, mainly in long-distance walking.
followed by:
> Regardless of whether this exchange confers a net advantage in long-distance walking, it requires empirical testing, like everything that we propose here.
So the conclusion seems to be that this may confer advantages in long-distance walking. Long-distance is not explicitly defined either.
Regardless, it's mind-blowing to think that Neanderthal males had the same pelvis bone structure as modern women.
My guess is any differences are very general and relevant over population, and can be compensated by training.
In persistence hunting, over great distances, humans can outrun game animals as long as they pick one animal and track it. Deer, antelope, etc. all run faster in short bursts, but overheat and reach exhaustion after long distances whereas humans can just keep going. Eventually, the human can just walk up to it and make the kill with a knife or rock.