The human foot was anatomically modern long before footwear was invented, and is adapted to barefoot walking on natural substrates. Understanding the biomechanics of habitually barefoot walkers can provide novel insights both for anthropologist and for applied scientists, yet the necessary data is virtually non-existent. To start assessing morphological and functional effects of the habitual use of footwear, we have studied a population of habitually barefoot walkers from India (n = 70), and compared them with a habitually shod Indian control group (n = 137) and a Western population (n = 48). We focused on foot metrics and on the analysis of plantar pressure data, which was performed using a novel, pixel based method (Pataky and Goulermas 2008 Pataky, TC and Goulermas, JY . 2008. Pedobarographic statistical parametric mapping (pSPM): a pixel-level approach to foot pressure image analysis. Journal of Biomechanics, 41: 2136–2143. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar] , Journal of Biomechanics, 41, 2136). Habitually shod Indians wore less often, and less constricting shoes than Western people. Yet, we found significant differences with their habitually barefoot peers, both in foot shape and in pressure distribution. Barefoot walkers had wider feet and more equally distributed peak pressures, i.e. the entire load carrying surface was contributing more uniformly than in habitually shod subjects, where regions of very high or very low peak pressures were more apparent. Western subjects differed strongly from both Indian populations (and most from barefoot Indians), by having relatively short and, especially, slender feet, with more focal and higher peak pressures at the heel, metatarsals and hallux. The evolutionary history of humans shows that barefoot walking is the biologically natural situation. The use of footwear remains necessary, especially on unnatural substrates, in athletics, and in some pathologies, but current data suggests that footwear that fails to respect natural foot shape and function will ultimately alter the morphology and the biomechanical behaviour of the foot.

It is commonly held that the major functional features of the human foot (e.g. a functional longitudinal medial arch, lateral to medial force transfer and hallucal (big-toe) push-off) appear only in the last 2 Myr, but functional interpretations of footbones and footprints of early human ancestors (hominins) prior to 2 million years ago (Mya) remain contradictory. Pixel-wise topographical statistical analysis of Laetoli footprint morphology, compared with results from experimental studies of footprint formation; foot-pressure measurements in bipedalism of humans and non-human great apes; and computer simulation techniques, indicate that most of these functional features were already present, albeit less strongly expressed than in ourselves, in the maker of the Laetoli G-1 footprint trail, 3.66 Mya. This finding provides strong support to those previous studies which have interpreted the G-1 prints as generally modern in aspect.

It has been shown that gibbons are able to brachiate with very low mechanical costs. The conversion of muscle activity into smooth, purposeful movement of the limb depends on the morphometry of muscles and their mechanical action on the skeleton. Despite the gibbon's reputation for excellence in brachiation, little information is available regarding either its gross musculoskeletal anatomy or its more detailed muscle–tendon architecture. We provide quantitative anatomical data on the muscle–tendon architecture (muscle mass, physiological cross‐sectional area, fascicle length and tendon length) of the forelimb of four gibbon species, collected by detailed dissections of unfixed cadavers. Data are compared between different gibbon species and with similar published data of non‐brachiating primates such as macaques, chimpanzees and humans. No quantitative differences are found between the studied gibbon species. Both their forelimb anatomy and muscle dimensions are comparable when normalized to the same body mass. Gibbons have shoulder flexors, extensors, rotator muscles and elbow flexors with a high power or work‐generating capacity and their wrist flexors have a high force‐generating capacity. Compared with other primates, the elbow flexors of gibbons are particularly powerful, suggesting that these muscles are particularly important for a brachiating lifestyle. Based on this anatomical study, the shoulder flexors, extensors, rotator muscles, elbow flexors and wrist flexors are expected to contribute the most to brachiation.