Adaptive explanations for modern human foot anatomy have long fascinated evolutionary biologists because of the dramatic differences between our feet and those of our closest living relatives, the great apes. Morphological features, including hallucal opposability, toe length and the longitudinal arch, have traditionally been used to dichotomize human and great ape feet as being adapted for bipedal walking and arboreal locomotion, respectively. However, recent biomechanical models of human foot function and experimental investigations of great ape locomotion have undermined this simple dichotomy. Here, we review this research, focusing on the biomechanics of foot strike, push-off and elastic energy storage in the foot, and show that humans and great apes share some underappreciated, surprising similarities in foot function, such as use of plantigrady and ability to stiffen the midfoot. We also show that several unique features of the human foot, including a spring-like longitudinal arch and short toes, are likely adaptations to long distance running. We use this framework to interpret the fossil record and argue that the human foot passed through three evolutionary stages: first, a great ape-like foot adapted for arboreal locomotion but with some adaptations for bipedal walking; second, a foot adapted for effective bipedal walking but retaining some arboreal grasping adaptations; and third, a human-like foot adapted for enhanced economy during long-distance walking and running that had lost its prehensility. Based on this scenario, we suggest that selection for bipedal running played a major role in the loss of arboreal adaptations.

No abstract

The longitudinal arch (LA) helps stiffen the foot during walking, but many people in developed countries suffer from flat foot, a condition characterized by reduced LA stiffness that can impair gait. Studies have found this condition is rare in people who are habitually barefoot or wear minimal shoes compared to people who wear conventional modern shoes, but the basis for this difference remains unknown. Here we test the hypothesis that the use of shoes with features that restrict foot motion (e.g. arch supports, toe boxes) is associated with weaker foot muscles and reduced foot stiffness. We collected data from minimally-shod men from northwestern Mexico and men from urban/suburban areas in the United States who wear ‘conventional’ shoes. We measured dynamic LA stiffness during walking using kinematic and kinetic data, and the cross-sectional areas of three intrinsic foot muscles using ultrasound. Compared to conventionally-shod individuals, minimally-shod individuals had higher and stiffer LAs, and larger abductor hallucis and abductor digiti minimi muscles. Additionally, abductor hallucis size was positively associated with LA stiffness during walking. Our results suggest that use of conventional modern shoes is associated with weaker intrinsic foot muscles that may predispose individuals to reduced foot stiffness and potentially flat foot.

The longitudinal arch of the human foot is commonly thought to reduce midfoot joint motion to convert the foot into a rigid lever during push off in bipedal walking. In contrast, African apes have been observed to exhibit midfoot dorsiflexion following heel lift during terrestrial locomotion, presumably due to their possession of highly mobile midfoot joints. This assumed dichotomy between human and African ape midfoot mobility has recently been questioned based on indirect assessments of in vivo midfoot motion, such as plantar pressure and cadaver studies; however, direct quantitative analyses of African ape midfoot kinematics during locomotion remain scarce. Here, we used high-speed motion capture to measure three-dimensional foot kinematics in two male chimpanzees and five male humans walking bipedally at similar dimensionless speeds. We analyzed 10 steps per chimpanzee subject and five steps per human subject, and compared ranges of midfoot motion between species over stance phase, as well as within double- and single-limb support periods. Contrary to expectations, humans used a greater average range of midfoot motion than chimpanzees over the full duration of stance. This difference was driven by humans' dramatic plantarflexion and adduction of the midfoot joints during the second double-limb support period, which likely helps the foot generate power during push off. However, chimpanzees did use slightly but significantly more midfoot dorsiflexion than humans in the single limb-support period, during which heel lift begins. These results indicate that both stiffness and mobility are important to longitudinal arch function, and that the human foot evolved to utilize both during push off in bipedal walking. Thus, the presence of human-like midfoot joint morphology in fossil hominins should not be taken as indicating foot rigidity, but may signify the evolution of pedal anatomy conferring enhanced push off mechanics.

Since at least the 1920s, it has been reported that common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) differ from humans in being capable of exceptional feats of "super strength," both in the wild and in captive environments. A mix of anecdotal and more controlled studies provides some support for this view; however, a critical review of available data suggests that chimpanzee mass-specific muscular performance is a more modest 1.5 times greater than humans on average. Hypotheses for the muscular basis of this performance differential have included greater isometric force-generating capabilities, faster maximum shortening velocities, and/or a difference in myosin heavy chain (MHC) isoform content in chimpanzee relative to human skeletal muscle. Here, we show that chimpanzee muscle is similar to human muscle in its single-fiber contractile properties, but exhibits a much higher fraction of MHC II isoforms. Unlike humans, chimpanzee muscle is composed of ∼67% fast-twitch fibers (MHC IIa+IId). Computer simulations of species-specific whole-muscle models indicate that maximum dynamic force and power output is 1.35 times higher in a chimpanzee muscle than a human muscle of similar size. Thus, the superior mass-specific muscular performance of chimpanzees does not stem from differences in isometric force-generating capabilities or maximum shortening velocities-as has long been suggested-but rather is due in part to differences in MHC isoform content and fiber length. We propose that the hominin lineage experienced a decline in maximum dynamic force and power output during the past 7-8 million years in response to selection for repetitive, low-cost contractile behavior.chimpanzee | human | muscle | myosin heavy chain | muscle modeling M odern humans-with some exceptions-are often characterized as a weak and unathletic species compared with our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees. Whereas chimpanzees are proficient tree climbers and arborealists (1), our hominin ancestors gave up a reliance on the forest canopy after the emergence of the genus Homo (2). Subsequent evolution in brain size (3) and cognition as well as advancements in tools and other material culture (4, 5) have reduced our strict dependence on muscular strength for survival and fitness.Since at least the 1920s, both anecdotal reports and more controlled experiments have indicated that the strength of a chimpanzee can exceed that of a human (6-12). This has led to the now long-standing proposal that chimpanzees are "super strong" compared with humans. A critical review of experiments (i.e., pulling and jumping tasks) carried out between 1923 and 2014 suggests that chimpanzee mass-specific muscular performance consistently exceeds that of humans, with a differential of about 1.5 times, on average (SI Appendix, SI Discussion). Hypotheses for the muscular basis of the chimpanzee-human performance differential have included higher isometric force-producing capabilities (6-8, 11), faster maximum shortening velocities (7, 11), and/or a different distribution of myosin ...

No abstract

Efficiency leads to leisure Humans are animals—merely another lineage of great apes. However, we have diverged in significant ways from our ape cousins and we are perennially interested in how this happened. Kraft et al . looked at energy intake and expenditure in modern hunter-gatherer societies and great apes. They found that we do not spend less energy while foraging or farming, but we do acquire more energy and at a faster rate than our ape cousins. This difference may have allowed our ancestors to spend more time in contexts that facilitated social learning and cultural development. —SNV

During terrestrial locomotion, chimpanzees exhibit dorsiflexion of the midfoot between midstance and toe-off of stance phase, a phenomenon that has been called the "midtarsal break." This motion is generally absent during human bipedalism, and in chimpanzees is associated with more mobile foot joints than in humans. However, the contribution of individual foot joints to overall foot mobility in chimpanzees is poorly understood, particularly on the medial side of the foot. The talonavicular (TN) and calcaneocuboid (CC) joints have both been suggested to contribute significantly to midfoot mobility and to the midtarsal break in chimpanzees. To evaluate the relative magnitude of motion that can occur at these joints, we tracked skeletal motion of the hindfoot and midfoot during passive plantarflexion and dorsiflexion manipulations using cineradiography. The sagittal plane range of motion was 38 ± 10° at the TN joint and 14 ± 8° at the CC joint. This finding indicates that the TN joint is more mobile than the CC joint during ankle plantarflexion-dorsiflexion. We suggest that the larger range of motion at the TN joint during dorsiflexion is associated with a rotation (inversion-eversion) across the transverse tarsal joint, which may occur in addition to sagittal plane motion.