UKC

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170209-humans-with-ape-like-limbs-are-bett...

To understand the energy costs involved for apes to move around their forested environment, researchers analysed the next best thing: parkour athletes, who are extremely agile and can climb up and down complex obstacles.

"They are as close to our ape cousins as we can manage," says lead author Lewis Halsey of the University of Roehampton in London, UK.

In order to measure their energy consumption they were fitted with an oxygen mask. This would be difficult and unethical with wild apes.

The athletes were given four chances to go around an obstacle course, and became more efficient each time. This is similar to the way orangutans become more adept as they move around the forest and climb familiar trees.

Further, the parkour athletes with the longest arm spans and shortest legs were the most efficient.

"That's rather like an arboreal primate," says Halsey. "These apes tend to have broad chests and long arms, which gives them a big arm span, and short legs." While their bodies are obviously not identical to those of parkour athletes, "nonetheless the pattern is somewhat similar".

The results reinforce the idea that "humans are still pretty well-adapted for the trees," he says. "We're not as well-adapted as an orangutan, we just don't have the shoulder flexion and grip strength. But nonetheless we are pretty good."

In reply to SenzuBean:

It does seem the shorter leg plays a part in this as well.

Juan

In reply to SenzuBean:

Presumably long arms, relative to height, mean greater reach for less weight.

Still it hasn't stopped Adam Ondra, who has a negative ape index.

In reply to SenzuBean:

The only thing the paper can claim is that the few people on a parkour course with longer arms and shorter legs have an advantage.
I assume the athletes where allowed to pick their own way around the course, whereas in climbing you have one set of holds.

Does anyone have access to the paper to see how many took part and how the test was conducted?

In reply to SenzuBean:

If climbing was purely about reach there would be some merit. But it's also about strength, balance, coordination, flexibility, composure etc...

Considering long arms good, short bad, also missed out mechanical dis/advantages through leverage etc..

In reply to alx:


On some climbs like Archangel at Stanage, there is essentially only ONE hold all the way up.

In reply to Shani:

And those are good examples where short legs and long arms would be helpful!

My point about the numbers/experimental design (and the dislike vote..) is that if hundreds of people took part then the results could be significant, but if only a few people took part then the margin for error would be higher hence the conclusion drawn by the authors less reliable.

To the other posters, yep completely agree, rock climbing is far more complex hence any reach advantage could be undermined by the leverage working against you or the likely higher bodyweight leaving you with a lesser strength to weight ratio. Ultimately it doesn't chnage much as some climbs will always benefit a particular body type, we just need to acknowledge it.

In reply to alx:

It's true. In sports at the Elite level, body types tend to converge. Success is a selective process.

In reply to stp:


He looks like he's got a very long head and neck though. Arm span to shoulder height's what they should measure

In reply to Shani:

The strange thing with climbing though is the course or field we play on is always changing. Every route or problem is different and the requirements are thus different. This is very different to most other sports like athletics or ball games where the field is always the same.

For some routes now like Golpe de Estado or La Dura Dura you need a certain arm span as a prerequisite for success. On other routes, like a thin crack for instance, thin fingers may be more important.

For this reason the measurement of performance (grades) is highly subjective, unlike other sports. The grading system is based on an average height, average strength male.

If we think of each style of climbing (slab, route, power, crimpy etc.) as a different game, or even each route, then each will probably favour one body type more than another. But in general climbing terms the diversity of the many styles of climbing is likely to lead to a diversity of ideal body types too.

In reply to stp:
To some extent, yes. But there'll still be convergence towards a 'climbing' physique and even within climbing, a favoured 'type' - boulderers vs sport climbers perhaps? This WILL manifest at elite levels.

In reply to stp:

Not too sure climbing's that different n these respects.

Take ball games. Pitch conditions, exact dimensions make a difference even at elite level. As does your opponent, the bounce of the ball etc. Both in ways that suit can suit different body types.

There's a study somewhere of elite climbers, boulders and sport and the body types are remarkably similar, although bouldering gets a few more bigger people compared to sport. I expect they're more similar than lots of sports. Partly that's down to different positions - eg Rugby - but even within positions I'm sure football and rugby have as big a spread as climbing. And I expect tennis which is individual has a far bigger body type range than climbing.

Also, many other sports are equally or more subjective when it comes to comparing ability. Any team sport must be as least as subjective in comparing individuals. Sports where it's actually judged must be more so. Gymnastics or boxing, for example.

Even for things like athletics and cycling, within a given discipline I'd be surprised if there's much less variation in body type than climbing.