T. rex Not Fleet of Foot, Study Shows

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Image: LUIS REY

It was big and it was mean, but Tyrannosaurus rex wasn't fast. In fact, the dinosaur we most love to hate may not have even been able to run at all. So say researchers writing in the current issue of the journal Nature. Contrary to previous suggestions that the beast could reach running speeds of up to 45 miles per hour (mph), the new findings indicate that such swiftness would have been biomechanically unfeasible.

To test the idea that T.rex could move quickly, Stanford University postdoctoral researcher John Hutchinson and engineer Mariano Garcia of Borg-Warner Automotive created a computer model capable of estimating the amount of leg muscle a given animal needs to run fast. After verifying the model's accuracy using living chickens and alligators, the investigators plugged in the parameters for T. rex. They found that in order for the beast to run 45 mph, it would have needed supportive muscles in each leg amounting to nearly 43 percent of its body weight. "That is ridiculous," Hutchinson declares, "because it would leave very little room for anything else in the body--a skeleton, other muscles, et cetera!"


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The findings shouldn't necessarily come as a surprise. "When you get down to the science of how animals move, relatively speaking, big things really don't move fast," Hutchinson points out. Further illustration of this point comes from the team's work on chickens, which are not only good runners but also one of the descendants of dinosaurs. Using the computer model to scale a chicken up to the size of T. rex (that's a 13,228-pound chicken), Hutchinson and Garcia showed that such an animal would require about 99 percent of its body mass in each leg as muscle in order to sprint. "That's far more than is possible," Hutchinson observes. "A giant chicken could not even walk."

Exactly how fast T. rex could move remains unknown, but the team proposes that roughly 11 mph--the pace of a leisurely stroll for these behemoths--might be a more reasonable estimate. In any event, even a ponderous T. rex could still hunt: body size would have likewise limited the ability of its large potential prey animals--duckbill dinosaurs and Triceratops among them--to flee.

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe