4 ms·
The Wonders of the Male Human Pelvis
- fmajid 2mo agoSo does that mean modern human females are less efficient at walking or locomotion than men?
- romaniitedomum 2mo agoThe 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. However, the study, available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-59915-8 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.
- agolsme 2mo agothe 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 2mo ago[dead]
- IAmBroom 2mo agoThere is a distinct lack of evidence to support your odd claim, while a very similar species (H. sapiens) has frequently used quads for long distance pursuit. Frequent jumping species, from frogs to lemurs, have distinctive cartilagenous attachment points, which H. neanderthalis bones lack. The more reasonable assumption (per Occam) is that H. neanderthalis was also a long-distance hunter.
- annzabelle 2mo agoThat'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 2mo agoTrue, 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.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- runamok 2mo ago100%. Ann Trason often was first overall in ultras: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Trason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Trason. I think it may be that over extremely long endurance events, having more muscle mass goes from being an advantage to a disadvantage. Some more information: https://ultrarunninghistory.com/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-ann-trason/ https://ultrarunninghistory.com/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-an....
- moogleii 2mo agoAnd yet women seem to be defeating men at ultramarathons. I think more research is needed.
- _--__--__ 2mo agoI 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 2mo agoThe 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 2mo agoPersistence hunting a deer takes 20-25 km, according to wikipedia.
- cma 2mo agoSo 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.
- ksymph 2mo agoPersistence hunting likely wasn't a major driver of those evolutionary changes. The hypothesis is really only supported by the fact that we have adaptations that make it theoretically possible, but the times and places those adaptations came about doesn't really match up with the times and places it would have been effective (i.e. woodland where the ground would be too hard for effective tracking [0]). There are some other things that point away from it, too; it's worth doing some googling. It's certainly possible that persistence hunting happened to some degree, and it's a fun idea so it really caught on in popular consciousness, but the actual evidence is limited. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248407001327 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...
- chabska 2mo ago[flagged]
- dyauspitr 2mo ago[flagged]
- calmbonsai 2mo agoFWIW, women are equally competitive in ultra-running, so I suspect the claimed advantages only apply at faster paces & longer gaits.
- chrisco255 2mo agoDo you know off hand what distance a run needs to approach before women and men are equally competitive?
- twalla 2mo agodepends on how you define equally, but probably between 100 and 200 miles https://runrepeat.com/state-of-ultra-running https://runrepeat.com/state-of-ultra-running
- philipallstar 2mo agoOr it could be that women's ability to metabolise fat outweighs the mechanical advantage at that point.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]