Yes, but they need to do the “in a controlled fashion” part no matter what you’re doing.
Controlling a wild bull is not the same as controlling a ping pong ball. One needs to consider the quantitative as well as the qualitative.
It’s not that Dex’s conclusions are wrong, it’s just that much (indeed most) of what he says along the way is wrong. He belittles “absorb the energy” even though that’s exactly what has to occur. His rubber ball analogy is flawed because he doesn’t consider the state of the ball when it reaches the bottom, and he states that you only need to expend the same energy standing as descending stairs in a controlled fashion which is incorrect.
Yes it takes more energy to go up than down but Dex gets pretty much everything wrong while arriving at the correct conclusion.
I hike quite a bit and I find downhills to be substantially easier than uphill.
I’m low mass but have a solid bone structure. However, my cardio leaves something to be desired. So, uphill I am totally limited by heart rate and heat dissipation, whereas downhill I just have to absorb the impact energy. The ground does some of the hard work for me.
How old are you? I have never liked downhill but now that my knees aren’t what they used to be, I positively detest it.
Now I’m really confused.
Here you say it takes more energy to go up than down. But before you said: “assuming you start and finish at rest, it takes exactly the same amount of energy to go up stairs as down.”
Which is it?
Powers &8^]
OK, I will grant that it depends on the grade of the hill (and the terrain to an extent). I would agree that a nice gradual downhill is easier than a nice gradual uphill. However, for me there is a transition point. If the grade is shallow enough (and the trail is smooth enough) that I can just lean forward a little and “freewheel” everything is fine. As soon as the grade becomes steep enough that I need to keep my weight back and my gait becomes more like descending stairs, then I have reached the point where the downhill has become more difficult than the uphill.
- Knees are just fine so far. I try not to (since I’ll probably injure myself one of these days), but I have no problem jumping off a 3-foot ledge with a (relatively) heavy backpack. But I really am a lightweight.
For me, it’s actually more dependent on the outside temperature than anything. I’m used to hiking in the heat, but it imposes pretty severe limits on climbing. On a cool day, say 50 F, I can climb a moderate slope almost indefinitely. In that case, I prefer climbing to descending. But the more usual case is 80+ F, and I’m very quickly limited by the heat. In that case I find descending to be far more comfortable almost no matter the slope.
I agree that a very slight descent is just about optimal. But even slopes that are like descending stairs aren’t too bad for me. It really only gets tough when it comes to actual rock scrambling, where climbing up is definitely easier than down, but really that’s a function of foot/handhold visibility.
Essentially I borked my terminology in my first post in this thread, as Chronos has kindly pointed out.
What I should have said is that there is the same amount of energy involved in going up or down the stairs. Coming down you don’t necessarily have to use as much energy but you do have to absorb it.
I’ve skimmed the main thread, but I see only assumptions, I don’t see a clear answer to the substantive question:
Does it take more calories to walk downhill?
Everybody agrees that it doesn’t, and that other things are important, but nobody tries to answer the actual question other than by saying “I feel more tired after walking up hill” and “There is a change in potential energy when you walk uphill or downhill” and “pain is caused by a different mechanism”
I think we can all agree that holding a weight uses calories, and lifting a weight uses calories, and that dropping a weight doesn’t use calories. The questions are, how many calories are used lowering a weight? How many calories if you do it fast? How many calories if you are doing it isometrically? How does it change? How does it compare?
*or MJ or Slugs: we are only interested in ratios here.
Perhaps the problem here is the word “absorb”? It’s not like when you step down a stair you’re converting that kinetic energy of the downward motion into stored ATP. It’s not absorbed and stored; it’s absorbed and dissipated through the elasticity of your body (and to an extent the surface you’re on).
I think that’s why Dex expressed incredulity at the correspondent’s choice of phrase. Technically, yes, you’re absorbing the energy as you move, but realistically that doesn’t have a lot to do with the energy you expend in doing so.
Powers &8^]
Yes, the climber puts in energy to go up. The climber also puts in energy to go down. Not as much, as gravity adds energy (recovered potential), but muscles are still being contracted to slow the descent. Some of that energy is dissipated via impacts and elasticity of soft tissues. Some is dissipated in contact surfaces (i.e. the ground). But the difference between falling down the stairs and walking down the stairs is the energy expended by the muscles to control that descent. And that is more energy than just standing still or walking level.
And as Marvin the Martian explains, human muscle efficiency differs between eccentric and concentric contractions. Concentric contractions are like the bicep curl up - the muscles get shorter as they contract. Eccentric contractions are when the muscle contraction and the position are in opposition - the muscles contract but get to a longer position.
When I was working on space exercise equipment, that was actually a point of interest - how to replicate the eccentric exercise without gravity.
There is the same amount of energy that has to be transferred to go up or go down. Going up, all of that energy comes from the muscles contracting concentrically. Going down, some of that energy is dissipated in elasticity of soft tissues, some in the ground, and some of it by eccentric muscle contractions.
Eccentric muscle contractions are slightly less efficient than concentric ones.
Comfort is a different issue than pure energy. Impacts in soft tissues and into the bones is a comfort issue. Visibility is a comfort issue. Balance leaning forward vs leaning backward while stepping up vs down and concern over what happens if you fall all factor into the concentration and comfort factors.
Some of that dissipating energy might be recoverable, by elastic deformation. Things like cartilage and tendons and muscle have some elasticity. That is recoverable if immediately transferred, but not really storable. Other parts of that energy are not recoverable, they are expended ATP in the muscle contractions and heat.
It’s surprising to me what the 5 years after 37 have been to my knees.
It’s depressing to me what the 11 years after 37 have been to my knees 
If I may simplify: All the bodily movements going up or down require energy. The energy comes from the oxidation of sugar. So I ask, would not the rate of respiration be an adequate measure of how much energy is being generated? In general, I’m huffin’-‘n’-puffin’ at the top of a long climb, not the bottom.
Going up the stairs requires more oxygen, therefore going up the stairs requires more energy.
Good reply, but not complete. Do you go up stairs faster than you come down 
You’re puffing because your oxygen exchange is rate limited, not because (just) you used more energy.
Conversely, you should be able to use an infinite amount of energy going down, by going infinitely slowly (you’d have to hold your self up over every step), but the infinite amount of energy might not make you puff.
No, only the top one. It would take you an infinite time to move beyond that. Well, unless you went quickly till the last step and then infinitely slowly.
The caloric argument, then, would have to look at the whole picture. If you include the caloric repair-bill for muscles over a couple days, downhill might end up more expensive…
I don’t think that matters, faster does transfer more energy per second, but we’re transferring energy for less seconds, so work is the same no matter the speed.
I don’t understand “oxygen exchange is rate limited”, my body is in need of more oxygen, so he ramps up the exchange rate. I proposition is that this need comes about because I’m using it to oxidize sugar for the energy release.
If I am moving indefinitely slow, then I’m transferring an indefinitely small amount of energy … which I believe can be proved to be zero energy being transferred.
Yes. The point of the discussion is that you don’t need to be transfering energy to be using energy: Your endothermic. You use energy just standing still: if you don’t eat, you’ll die. (After couple of months)
We’re exothermic, we give off heat energy to the environment typically. If we stop, that condition is known as “heat stroke”.
I agree that we are always “using” energy; our heart pumps, our stomach churns and our spleen spleens; but this work done is basically the same whether we’re standing still, going up stairs or going down stairs. The question is do we perform more work going up the stairs than down.
My point is to use the rate of respiration are the measure, we need to consume more oxygen going up than going down. That’s not to say we don’t perform any work going down, our bodies act as a shock absorber so the force of the collision suffered by the bottom of our feet isn’t transferred to our brain case.
Dex’ example is spot-on correct … we have to preform the work to go up the stairs … gravity does the work to go down the stairs. Take a powerful muscle relaxer and have your SO tie you into a ball. A shove at the bottom of the stairs and you go thump, a shove at the top of the stairs and you go thumpa thumpa Thumpa Thumpa THUMPA THUMPA THUMP.