Slow and Steady Wins the Staircase Workout

People who climb stairs one at a time burn more calories per staircase than do those who bound two stairs at a time. Rose Eveleth reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Not taking the elevator is a good way to sneak in a little extra exercise every day. And if you do get some of your exercise avoiding elevators, here’s a burning question: do you burn more calories climbing stairs one at a time or bounding up them two at a time?

To find out, researchers had subjects climb stairs reaching 46 feet high. Based on the subjects’ heart rate measurements, the researchers estimated calories burned. They found that volunteers who took the stairs two at a time had a higher rate of energy expenditure over the 86 steps they climbed—but those who climbed one at a time burned more energy in total over the entire staircase. The study is in the journal PLoS One. [Lewis G. Halsey, David A.R. Watkins and Brendan M. Duggan, The Energy Expenditure of Stair Climbing One Step and Two Steps at a Time: Estimations from Measures of Heart Rate]

It makes sense. Although the bounders had a more intense workout, the one-steppers take longer to get to the top. So even though they’re burning fewer calories per minute than the bounders do, they work out enough longer to burn more total calories. And one step or two, there’s never a wait for the stairs.

—Rose Eveleth


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 above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

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