> 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.
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?
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).
> Tel Aviv University
> Studied a hundred human skeletons
Hmm...
So does that mean modern human females are less efficient at walking or locomotion than men?
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.
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.
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?
And yet women seem to be defeating men at ultramarathons. I think more research is needed.
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).
It seems like men hold every ultramaathon record. What event are you referring to where women do better than men?