Is more energy spent taking one step or two up stairs?

[smootman]

So, do you gain more calorie burning or muscle building or energy expenditure if you walk up four flights of stairs one step at a time or if you take them two at a time? I’ve noticed my legs are throbbing either way, but i can’t tell if one is more beneficial than the other.

[AskNott]

I don’t have a good answer to your question, but I have long legs and a bit of clumsiness, so I’m half as likely to stumble when take two steps at a time.

[jawdirk]

I have no expertise, but I think it is pretty clear that there are a lot of variables that affect this, so there is no definite answer. It depends on the size of the stairs, the size of your stride, your technique, and your muscles.

I would guess that if you leap up the stairs, that is significantly harder than just running up the stairs (e.g. as many stairs as you can at a time). Otherwise, it is more important how many reps you do. The other important consideration is how safe it is. Just run the stairs as safely as possible. If you want to shorten your workout, just run faster.

[tremorviolet]

@smootman

So, do you gain more calorie burning or muscle building or energy expenditure if you walk up four flights of stairs one step at a time or if you take them two at a time? I’ve noticed my legs are throbbing either way, but i can’t tell if one is more beneficial than the other.

Yer gonna use the exact same amount of energy either way. Simple physics. If you take them one at a time, you’ll take longer than if you took 'em two at a time but burn the same number of calories. Same thing if you walk a mile or run a mile. You’ll burn more calories per minute running than walking but you won’t be running as long so it will balance out.

But, you’ll be working on different things depending on how you take the stairs. Usually, two at a time you’ll take slower and it’s more like doing a bunch of one legged squats. I feel it more in my quads when I take stairs two at a time. One at at time, you’ll probably being going at a faster clip and will be improving your stamina and/or cardivascular.

[Chairman_Pow]

tremorviolet: Are you sure that’s how it works? I’ve got the odd idea that based on the way antagonist muscles work, the more one of the muscles is contracted before it starts moving, the more power one will derive from the motion as opposed to the muscle being half “at rest.” If I start a pushup (or bench press, or bicep curl or etc.) from the halfway position, it’s a lot harder to get started than if I were to start from a “normal” position. I’m assuming that if I were to take one stair at a time, my leg muscles would be closer to the halfway point and not able to generate the same sort of (leverage? explosive power? oomph?) as the would if I had them closer to fully contracted (i.e. raised higher).

Also, standard protocol during the Sears Tower stair climb (109 stories on some stairs that are not quite up to code) was to take multiple stairs at once. Granted, there is a tradeoff between energy conservation and speed here, but I think its safe to assume that the amount of study that went into this (yes, there was studying) would have shown the most energy efficient technique.

[scr4]

I think tremorviolet’s answer is the physicist’s idealized version. It’s true that the work done is the same. And it’s probably a good first-order approximation to think that the energy expenditure is the same. But some muscles and muscle motions are more efficient than others, and if you choose a less efficient method, that means you need to expend more energy to do the same amount of work. So there will be a small difference. What exactly the difference is, I don’t know. It depends on so many variables.

[collinsc]

@scr4

But some muscles and muscle motions are more efficient than others

Not to mention previous training. As a bicyclist, I have absolutely wicked quads and glutes, completely disproportionate and out of balance with the rest of my scrawny self. If I were more of a runner however, I would have much more effective calves and hamstrings.

My experience tells me that taking the stairs by two stresses my quads more than anything else, while taking single steps at a higher cadence works my calves.

FWIW, I like the physicist’s argument. Either way, you still have to carry your same body mass up to the same height.

[vasyachkin]

muscle building and calorie burning are entirely different things. you have to be clear on your goal before you even ask this question.

[Shalmanese]

[QUOTE=tremorviolet]
Yer gonna use the exact same amount of energy either way. Simple physics. If you take them one at a time, you’ll take longer than if you took 'em two at a time but burn the same number of calories. Same thing if you walk a mile or run a mile. You’ll burn more calories per minute running than walking but you won’t be running as long so it will balance out.

[QUOTE]

Your assuming both activities are of equal efficiency which is not the case. Sprinting is a far less efficient use of energy than walking for example.

[Quint_Essence]

energy used is a matter of work performed / time.
Basically you will use more energy taking two steps at a time if it gets you there faster.
Really though there are a lot more factors including simple muscle fatigue. Most people will find they can climb more stairs before feeling exhausted by taking smaller steps, but even this can vary a lot depending on the height of the step itself.
Everyone will have their own “optimal step” but as a general rule of physics it takes more power to do the same work in a shorter time.

[Drethelin2]

An important thing as far as walking and motion goes is the springiness of muscles and the human body. from a standing start, it takes alot of energy to go into a run. But if you’re already running, each specific step of that run takes less energy than it would to start the running process. Depending on the lenth of your legs, and stair depth, you may get more bounce taking shorter steps, or equal amounts, or less.

[Uncommon_Sense]

Did a test.

Two flights of stairs the conventional way. Mildly labored breathing and heart rate.

Later in the day;

Same two flights of stairs the two step method. Breathing was more labored and heart rate was faster - an indication of more energy spent.

One thought though. You have to pace your steps a little quicker in the two step method because you can`t comfortably hold the squat position quite as long. So, it seems like I had to climb the stairs faster in the two step method in order for my body to be comfortable doing it. This actually made the body work harder - expending more energy.

Ive got long legs, Im 6`4" about 210 lbs.

[smootman]

Your dedication to this query has not gone unnoticed. Thanks. I too will attempt the same experiment… and try to run up the stairs one at a time in order to match the speed you are going with the two-step method.

[Tangent]

@Quint Essence

energy used is a matter of work performed / time.
Basically you will use more energy taking two steps at a time if it gets you there faster.

No, tremorviolet had it correct before. The energy required is the same whether you do two steps at a time or one.

Energy = Work.

Power is work/time.

You were correct in saying

as a general rule of physics it takes more power to do the same work in a shorter time.

[Chairman_Pow]

I’ll be damned. One for the physicists…

Does it require the same amount of energy to walk 50 yards at a steady pace as to run that same 50 yards? If you ask me, it does not feel like I used the same amount of energy when I walked and when I ran. On the same note, does climbing stairs one by one use the same amount of energy as climbing stairs 2 by 2? Personally, it seems easier to take them 2 at a time… (paraphrased)
– Janes Chung
These are very good questions. Clearly you’re listening to your intuition. They’re also complex questions, because they start poking at issues of human physiology and efficiencies.
First, the simple answers. Let’s say you’re walking uphill, and want to go 50 meters (I’m obliged to switch to metric here), during which time you climb, say, 2 meters. Whether you walk or run (at constant velocity), the same amount of energy goes into raising your gravitational energy in each case. In running, you exert more power, and operate with less efficiency (discussed more below), but the energy expended is the same. It’s true that more energy is put into fighting air resistance in running than walking. As for stairs, one, two, three at a time–doesn’t matter from the standpoint of gravitational energy input. Again, there’s a difference in power, since taking steps two at a time generally gets you up faster.
But from a physics point of view, walking on level ground at constant velocity requires no energy, if friction is neglected. This is more appropriate for bicycles or ice skating than for walking, where clearly we cant just glide forward with no effort. So what does it take to keep moving? You have to swing your legs back and forth, which takes work. Your center of mass isn’t perfectly still–you’re bouncing up and down a bit. These thinks take energy. Running also takes energy, but maybe more than walking (for a given distance on flat terrain) simply due to more exaggerated motions. You’re legs swing to extremes, you’re arms are vigorously moving, you are bounding higher in the air (and since we don’t bounce that well, this energy is largely unrecovered). So running is less efficient for us. We were designed to be good at walking long distances, and okay at running, but I think your observation of which is more tiring stems mostly from these efficiency issues. As for stairs, again, I think it comes down to efficiency. Myself, with long legs, I tend to like the two-at-a-time approach. Actually, it’s hard for me to refrain from running up stairs. Don’t really know why–definitely more tiring.

– T. Murphy

From: http://www.astro.washington.edu/tmurphy/phys110/faqs/AD03.02.html

And one from some guy that spells his name funny as a probably coping mechanism:

Now, ponder this: Walking up 10 flights of stairs, is aerobic exercise. RUNNING up 2 flights of stairs, is anaerobic. Did you know, that the science of physics tells us that it takes the same energy to run a mile, as it does to walk it? You could walk up the stairs, at a slow and constant rate, and burn X amount of calorie energy. (calories are measures of energy). You could also run up a flight, rest, run the next, rest, until all the stairs are completed. You would have burned identical energy (according the laws of physics), but the effects on your body are dramatically different. Because of this, you can’t always trust pure science, when it comes to exercise. Don’t judge your exercise, on the pure numbers and statistics that you produce.

From: http://www.losewithrobb.com/exercise.htm

Your equations still don’t convince me though.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Think of it like a car. If you drive a mile at a constant 56 miles per hour, you use more gasoline than if you drove that same mile at 35. Energy usage where friction and imperfect machines like a human muscle are concerned is not solely a question of work done x time.

[Hyperelastic]

Whether you walk or run (at constant velocity), the same amount of energy goes into raising your gravitational energy in each case. In running, you exert more power, and operate with less efficiency (discussed more below), but the energy expended is the same.

The first part of this sentence is right, but the second part is wrong. It takes the same amount of energy to raise your body a given height, but if you are using a less efficient process to do it, you will have to expend more energy to raise your body that given height. The extra energy goes into body heat, friction, etc. and not into raising your body.

[swansont]

@whuckfistle

Did a test.

Two flights of stairs the conventional way. Mildly labored breathing and heart rate.

Later in the day;

Same two flights of stairs the two step method. Breathing was more labored and heart rate was faster - an indication of more energy spent.

I disagree. Labored breathing indicates more power generated, but it took you less time. Unless you quantify both, you can’t validly conclude how much energy was spent.