4.3 Article

The metabolic cost of walking in humans, chimpanzees, and early hominins

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
Volume 56, Issue 1, Pages 43-54

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.09.001

Keywords

Locomotion; Energetics; Hominin evolution; Biomechanics

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [BCS-0424092]
  2. LS.B Leakey Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bipedalism is a defining feature of the hominin lineage, but the nature and efficiency of early hominin walking remains the focus of much debate. Here, we investigate walking cost in early hominins using experimental data from humans and chimpanzees. We use gait and energetics data from humans, and from chimpanzees walking bipedally and quadrupedally, to test a new model linking locomotor anatomy and posture to walking cost. We then use this model to reconstruct locomotor cost for early, ape-like hominins and for the A.L. 288 Australopithecus afarensis specimen. Results of the model indicate that hind limb length, posture (effective mechanical advantage), and muscle fascicle length contribute nearly equally to differences in walking cost between humans and chimpanzees. Further, relatively small changes in these variables would decrease the cost of bipedalism in an early chimpanzee-like biped below that of quadrupedal apes. Estimates of walking cost in A.L. 288, over a range of hypothetical postures from crouched to fully extended, are below those of quadrupedal apes, but above those of modern humans. These results indicate that walking cost in early hominins was likely similar to or below that of their quadrupedal ape-like forebears, and that by the mid-Pliocene, hominin walking was less costly than that of other apes. This supports the hypothesis that locomotor energy economy was an important evolutionary pressure on hominin bipedalism. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available