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.

▲

annzabelle a day ago | parent | next [-]

That'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.

▲

runamok 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

100%. Ann Trason often was first overall in ultras: 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-an....

▲

Spooky23 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

True, 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.

	▲	a day ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

agolsme a day ago | parent | prev [-]

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?

	▲	IAmBroom an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There 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.
	▲	sieabahlpark a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]