It's Official: Three-Toed Sloths Are the Slowest Mammals on Earth

A serene lifestyle and the ability to modify body temperature make them the masters of lazy

RAÚL BARRERO Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.


After seven years of studying three-toed sloths, scientists at the University of Wisconsin–Madison have made it official: the tree-dwelling animals are the slowest mammals on earth, metabolically speaking. “We expected them to have low metabolic rates, but we found them to have tremendously low energy needs,” says ecologist Jonathan Pauli.

To reach this conclusion, Pauli and his colleague M. Zachariah Peery measured the metabolic rates of 10 three-toed sloths and 12 of the two-toed variety in Costa Rica and compared the results with similar studies of 19 other species of leaf-eating mammals. With a metabolic rate of 162 kilojoules per day per kilogram, the three-toed sloths have lower energy needs than koalas, which require 410 kilojoules per day per kilogram. Two-toed sloths, meanwhile, have an energetic expenditure of 234. Giant pandas are the only contenders that come close to the title of slowest mammal—at 185 kilojoules.

According to the study, published in August in American Naturalist, there is a suite of behavioral, physiological and anatomical adaptations that allow sloths to lead minimally exerting lives in the jungle canopies of Central and South America. For example, they have small home ranges and spend most of their time eating, resting or sleeping. They also have the rare ability to adjust their internal thermostat. “They're slightly heterothermic, so they can fluctuate their body temperature by about five degrees Celsius to be in line with the outside temperature. By relaxing their body temperature, they have big savings in terms of energetic output,” Pauli explains. Who said sloth was a deadly sin?

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