Stairs & Calories

April 5, 2006 9:17 PM

Does taking the stairs 2 at a time burn more calories than stepping on all of them?

Assuming an equal amount of time from bottom to top, do you burn more calories (use more energy) taking the stairs 2 at a time than stepping on each of them? Does it matter if you use the handrail to pull yourself up?

posted by chefscotticus to Science & Nature (18 answers total)

Double post.
posted by occhiblu at 9:30 PM on April 5, 2006

ahh but he added the handrail. It works as a lever if pushed off of, so it reduces caloric expenditure, I'd expect.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:59 PM on April 5, 2006

Well, no, it wouldn't. Your legs would be doing less work perhaps but your arms would be doing more. Leverage doesn't reduce the amount of work done, it just makes it easier by spreading it out along a longer distance.
posted by kindall at 10:18 PM on April 5, 2006

I wonder about this too. I do the stairmaster for at least an 45 minutes, three times a week and do my best not to hold the hand rail because I feel like I would be doing less work since I am supporting myself with my arms and not using my leg muscles to keep me from falling over.

Anyone else think this is right or agree with kindall?
posted by special-k at 10:37 PM on April 5, 2006

But the leverage would mean that the arms would need to do less work to lift the body. In other words, the arms would do the same amount for less.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:54 PM on April 5, 2006

Ignoring the handrail, I think it depends on the time you take. I know the time for both is the same, but is it done quickly or slowly? Imagine running up a long set of stairs two at a time as fast as you can. Let's say it takes five minutes. Now imagine trying to run up the same stairs in five minutes taking the steps one at a time. Not only would you not make it, you would be exhausted trying, because there is more movement involved. Now imagine doing the same comparison extremely slowly, taking twenty minutes. I think it would be slightly less tiring taking one at a time, because of the isometrics involved in taking two at a time. Somewhere in between the effort would be equal.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:12 PM on April 5, 2006

Ignoring the small effect of inefficiencies, the amount of energy used is the same whether you take one or two steps at a time. You work twice as hard two steps at a time but finish in half the time. The rate of energy usage is higher when taking two steps at a time and that is why you get more winded, but the work done in both cases is the same.

Using the railing on the stairs doesn't really change things. You are just trading off the work done by your arms for work done by your legs. The amount of work is the same.

Using the railing on the Stairmaster, however, does reduce the amount of work and that is because the rail is stationary and the stairs are moving. You can rest your arms and never lift them. You have essentially removed the weight of your arms from your total body weight so you have to work less hard to climb the Stairmaster.
posted by JackFlash at 12:10 AM on April 6, 2006

Running up the stairs will let you burn slightly more calories because, though you will burn roughly the same amount of calories to climb the stairs, you will waste less time in the stairwell when you run, and you will end up spending that little bit of extra time on extra calorie-burning work, even if it's just a little more desk work, unless you plan on going home and to bed that much earlier. Furthermore, an uphill sprint will get your heart pumping harder, give your muscles a better stretch, and perhaps improve your circulatory and digestive systems.
posted by pracowity at 2:50 AM on April 6, 2006

This definitely makes me feel better about my initial question.
posted by disillusioned at 3:35 AM on April 6, 2006

I've often wondered about this as well. My seat-of-the-pants feeling is that taking stairs two at a time is more efficient than one at a time, thus you will burn less calories. There are a number of small factors that make come into play, however. I think the best answer depends a lot on your overall physique and the speed to which you take the stairs. If you're running two at a time, you have momentum to help. But if your legs are short, you have to exert more energy lifting your legs.

For me, the constant lift-push-lift-push is where all my energy gets sapped, thus I want to minimize the amount of leg lifts required--but then, I'm a skinny dude with strong leg muscles. There is a limit to efficiency, though. Taking three at a time would require me to strech my legs so much that I wouldn't be able get any speed and use momentum to help.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:19 AM on April 6, 2006

special-k -- I think the situation of walking up stairs using a handrail, versus leaning on the hand rail on a stairmaster is different. I know I've always heard that the railing on a stairmaster should only be used for balance purposes, and that leaning on it will reduce the benefits.
posted by inigo2 at 6:10 AM on April 6, 2006

Well, I take stairs two at a time because I'm 6'4". My office is on the 4th floor. I walk the stairs many times a day, just in the course of my normal routine. Walking on every step is like taking baby steps while walking outside - I go up the stairs more quickly and it feels more natural for me to do it two at a time. If I'm in a hurry I can take them three at a time. Does it use more energy? Maybe - when I go up stairs I'm generally moving fast; if I were to take them one at a time it would slow me down a lot, and probably reduce my heart rate accordingly.
posted by caution live frogs at 8:26 AM on April 6, 2006

Basic physics. The work done is the same either way because the change in your potential energy is the same. Potential Energy = 0.5 x Mass x Gravity x Height. Work is defined as the change in energy. The Potential Energy at the bottom of the stairs is 0. So, the change in Potential Energy, which is the same as the work done is only a function of the height of the stairs. Therefore the number of calories expended is the same whether you take the stairs one at a time or two at time.

The work done is the same regardless of time. Power is what relates time and work; Power = Work / Time
posted by retrorider at 9:06 AM on April 6, 2006

The same amount of work is done, but the difference arises from the effect on your metabolism; i.e. going up the stairs two at a time causes a little more strain on the body, and so boosts metabolism. AFAIK, the boost is small, and starts to trail off when you stop climbing, but the effect results in more calories being burned (after climbing) for the same amount of work.
posted by jenovus at 9:35 AM on April 6, 2006

I don't agree, retrorider. Calculating the work done as potential energy is ignoring the heat energy expended by the subject. If you dance wildly up the stairs, you'll get a better workout than if you walk up slowly, even if the time and distance is equal.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:52 AM on April 6, 2006

This reminds me of the Straight Dope: Does running burn more calories than walking?

A lot of the points Cecil makes seem like they apply to the one-stair/two-stair problem.
posted by IvyMike at 10:03 AM on April 6, 2006

My wife did an experiment where she went up five flights of stairs one day taking single steps, the next day taking double steps. Based on the "how-good-did-the-subsequent-peanut-butter-sandwich-taste test", she burnt more calories the first time.

I personally feel less tired after taking stairs two steps at a time; my instinct is that how tired I feel is a pretty good indicator of how many calories I've burnt, at least over such a short period.
posted by louigi at 10:28 AM on April 6, 2006

The work done is the same either way because the change in your potential energy is the same.

The change in KE->PE is the same. But you are forgetting about the inefficiencies between person to person. Climbing up a rope to the top floor would take vastly more energy than taking the stairs, for instance, because your arm muscles are weaker than your leg muscles.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:56 AM on April 7, 2006