Center of mass position does not drive energetic costs during climbing.

Climbing animals theoretically need to optimize the energetic costs of vertical climbing while also maintaining stability. Many modifications to climbing behaviors have been proposed as methods of satisfying these criteria, focusing on controlling the center of mass (COM) during ascent. However, the link between COM movements and metabolic energy costs has yet to be evaluated empirically. In this study, we manipulate climbing conditions across three experimental setups to elicit changes in COM position, and measure the impact of these changes upon metabolic costs across a sample of fourteen humans. Metabolic energy was assessed via open flow respirometry, while COM movements were tracked both automatically and manually. Our findings demonstrate that, despite inducing variation in COM position, the energetic costs of climbing remained consistent across all three setups. Differences in energetic costs were similarly not affected by body mass; however, velocity had a significant impact upon both cost of transport and cost of locomotion, but such a relationship disappeared when accounting for metabolic costs per stride. These findings suggest that climbing has inescapable costs driven by gaining height, and that attempts to mitigate such a cost, with perhaps the exception of increasing speed, have only minimal impacts. We also demonstrate that metabolic and mechanical energy costs are largely uncorrelated. Collectively, we argue that these data refute the idea that efficient locomotion is the primary aim during climbing. Instead, adaptations towards effective climbing should focus on stability and reducing the risk of falling, as opposed to enhancing the metabolic efficiency of locomotion.