ALBERT

All Library Books, journals and Electronic Records Telegrafenberg

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Publication Date: 2010-01-30
    Description: Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years, but the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning relative to modern running shoes. We wondered how runners coped with the impact caused by the foot colliding with the ground before the invention of the modern shoe. Here we show that habitually barefoot endurance runners often land on the fore-foot (fore-foot strike) before bringing down the heel, but they sometimes land with a flat foot (mid-foot strike) or, less often, on the heel (rear-foot strike). In contrast, habitually shod runners mostly rear-foot strike, facilitated by the elevated and cushioned heel of the modern running shoe. Kinematic and kinetic analyses show that even on hard surfaces, barefoot runners who fore-foot strike generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers. This difference results primarily from a more plantarflexed foot at landing and more ankle compliance during impact, decreasing the effective mass of the body that collides with the ground. Fore-foot- and mid-foot-strike gaits were probably more common when humans ran barefoot or in minimal shoes, and may protect the feet and lower limbs from some of the impact-related injuries now experienced by a high percentage of runners.〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Notes: 〈/span〉Lieberman, Daniel E -- Venkadesan, Madhusudhan -- Werbel, William A -- Daoud, Adam I -- D'Andrea, Susan -- Davis, Irene S -- Mang'eni, Robert Ojiambo -- Pitsiladis, Yannis -- England -- Nature. 2010 Jan 28;463(7280):531-5. doi: 10.1038/nature08723.〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Author address: 〈/span〉Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, 11 Divinity Avenue, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA. danlieb@fas.harvard.edu〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Record origin:〈/span〉 〈a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20111000" target="_blank"〉PubMed〈/a〉
    Keywords: Adolescent ; Adult ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Child ; Female ; Foot/*physiology ; Forefoot, Human/physiology ; Gait/physiology ; Humans ; Kenya ; Male ; Running/*physiology ; *Shoes/standards ; *Stress, Mechanical ; United States ; Weight-Bearing/physiology ; Young Adult
    Print ISSN: 0028-0836
    Electronic ISSN: 1476-4687
    Topics: Biology , Chemistry and Pharmacology , Medicine , Natural Sciences in General , Physics
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Publication Date: 2016-03-10
    Description: The origins of the genus Homo are murky, but by H. erectus, bigger brains and bodies had evolved that, along with larger foraging ranges, would have increased the daily energetic requirements of hominins. Yet H. erectus differs from earlier hominins in having relatively smaller teeth, reduced chewing muscles, weaker maximum bite force capabilities, and a relatively smaller gut. This paradoxical combination of increased energy demands along with decreased masticatory and digestive capacities is hypothesized to have been made possible by adding meat to the diet, by mechanically processing food using stone tools, or by cooking. Cooking, however, was apparently uncommon until 500,000 years ago, and the effects of carnivory and Palaeolithic processing techniques on mastication are unknown. Here we report experiments that tested how Lower Palaeolithic processing technologies affect chewing force production and efficacy in humans consuming meat and underground storage organs (USOs). We find that if meat comprised one-third of the diet, the number of chewing cycles per year would have declined by nearly 2 million (a 13% reduction) and total masticatory force required would have declined by 15%. Furthermore, by simply slicing meat and pounding USOs, hominins would have improved their ability to chew meat into smaller particles by 41%, reduced the number of chews per year by another 5%, and decreased masticatory force requirements by an additional 12%. Although cooking has important benefits, it appears that selection for smaller masticatory features in Homo would have been initially made possible by the combination of using stone tools and eating meat.〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Notes: 〈/span〉Zink, Katherine D -- Lieberman, Daniel E -- England -- Nature. 2016 Mar 24;531(7595):500-3. doi: 10.1038/nature16990. Epub 2016 Mar 9.〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Author address: 〈/span〉Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Record origin:〈/span〉 〈a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26958832" target="_blank"〉PubMed〈/a〉
    Keywords: Adult ; Animals ; Bite Force ; Carnivory ; Diet/*history ; Female ; Food Handling/*history ; Goats ; History, Ancient ; Hominidae ; Humans ; Male ; Mastication/*physiology ; Meat/*history ; Particle Size ; Plants ; Tool Use Behavior ; Tooth/physiology
    Print ISSN: 0028-0836
    Electronic ISSN: 1476-4687
    Topics: Biology , Chemistry and Pharmacology , Medicine , Natural Sciences in General , Physics
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...