<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Friedl, L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eisová, S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Holliday, T. W.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Re-evaluation of Pleistocene and Holocene long bone robusticity trends with regards to age-at-death estimates and size standardization procedures</style></title><short-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Human Evolution</style></short-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aging</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Femur</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lower limb</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Postcranial robusticity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Temporal trends</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tibia</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">08/2016</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248416300483</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">97</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">109 - 122</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">0047-2484</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Long-term trends in robusticity of lower limb bones in the genus Homo through the Pleistocene until the present have been proposed, which have been interpreted as a consequence of decreasing levels of mobility and activity patterns, changes in lifestyle, and environmental factors. There has also long been evidence that skeletal strength increases over an individual&#039;s lifespan. This increase is caused by continuous bone remodeling that optimizes the structure of a bone to resist mechanical loadings and creates a balance between endosteal resorption and subperiosteal apposition. However, none of the previous studies of temporal trends in robusticity has considered both processes and analyzed how individual age-related robusticity might influence higher-level temporal trends. This paper therefore explores temporal trends in robusticity of lower limb long bones within the genus Homo and considers how individual ages-at-death can confound published evolutionary trends, given the fact that some aspects of relative bone strength tend to increase over individual lifespans. Cross-sectional diaphyseal properties of the midshaft and proximal femur and midshaft tibia of Pleistocene and early Holocene individuals, together with data on age-at-death are used to analyze changes in relative bone strength relative to individuals&#039; ages and evolutionary time. The results show increasing bone strength in adulthood until the fourth decade and then a slight decrease, an observation that conforms to previously published results on recent human populations. However, no significant impact of age-at-death on the trends along an evolutionary trajectory has been detected. The evolutionary trends in femoral and tibial relative strength can be described as fluctuating, probably as a consequence of changing mobility patterns, environmentally and technologically influenced behaviors, and demographic processes. The differences between evolutionary trends published in several studies are explained primarily as a result of different ways of standardizing cross-sectional parameters for size, and differences in sample composition.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record></records></xml>