StemQ Notice: The following is an answer to this question
Interesting question @irelandscape. Let's see if we can figure out the answer. I remember going to this trek as a child. During the 14 km of trek everybody walked step by step via ramp like path, but I took stairs climbing 1 or even 2 steps at a time. I not only reached early, but did not get exhausted. But was it because of the path that I took, or was I just a super enthusiastic kid? I don't know. Maybe, if we start by asking if energy demand by physics and energy spent by a biological machine are the same?
Image by pasja1000 | pixabay
How much energy is needed to climb the stairs?
If we go by physics of it, then a ramp and staircase of same angle and equal height must require same minimum amount of work, and in the end you have converted all your kinetic energy you generated to move up to potential energy = mgh. And lost all kinetic energy you generated to move forward to friction. But how much energy did you need in your muscle to generate that force? What physics tells you here is minimum energy that you would need to generate those forces. But machines generating that forces say from fuel or ATP (the fuel in case of muscles) may not be 100% efficient. Also it might be more efficient in climbing stairs than in climbing ramp. Net energy required to pull up two steps at a time could be different than that required while climbing one step at a time.
Measuring energy spent
One way to test how much energy in total is being spent, is to measure the amount of oxygen being consumed by body while working. Now sure, this is a proxy, it doesn't tell you the exact amount of energy being used in individual muscles to generate the required force. But you can use it as an average of all the muscles working together to complete the task. In 1972, Corlett et al., measured the oxygen consumed by the body in climbing stairs vs climbing a ramp. They found that stairs are always have less physiological price than a ramp. And, this has to do a lot with the way we move up a stair vs ramp. It has to do the way the torque is generated by muscles near knee joint, for example. Now one way to answer your question would be understand the kinematics of stair climbing.
The kinetics of climbing on stairs
Doodled by @scienceblocks
Recorded by @scienceblocks
When climbing stairs you need to generate the following forces -
Step 1 - you need to force to lift your first foot, and a torque to bend the knee (no, not in front of dragon queen).
Step 2 - after fixing your first foot on the ground you need to create a pull from your hips to lift of the second leg. You also need to generate torque to bend the knee, position it for the next stair. Next, you need to create a swing and move this leg forward.
The force needed to pull the lagging leg up and amount of muscle contraction to bend the knee, depends on height of the stair. The amount of forward swing required depends on distance you have to move further.
Hence in theory if your stair has a height of h and forward distance of x, then muscle contractions required for covering distance of twice the height, 2h and twice the length, 2x, should be twice, as well. So in a way, for n number of stairs the work done by muscles should be the same. That means even though the oxygen consumed by body would be twice for climbing 2 stairs at a time, at the end of the day you should consume equal amount of oxygen in both cases, because now you just walk n/2 steps. Right? Let's see!
In 2012, Halsey et al., used heart rate calibrated for oxygen consumption as measure of energy expenditure, during one step vs two step ascents. They found that single step method burned 8.5±0.1 kcal min−1, but double step ascent cost was 9.2±0.1 kcal min−1. Well, that's not really double. That's interesting. Given this we can make up equation for energy consumed during the ascent.
E = Ct, where C is consumption of calories per minute and t is minutes taken to climb n amount of stairs. Now, it is to be noted that time required to climb n amount of stairs, is less for two step strides, perhaps because people tend to take longer steps, trying to cover the double distance in similar amount of time for each step. This would mean that even though per minute energy consumption is more for double stride, single step stride will end up consuming more energy in a long run, for fixed amount of stairs.
But the thing that makes me yet more curious is, why doubling length and height of stair steps did not cause double of energy consumption, to begin with. So another answer to this question might lie in the way muscles work when taking smaller vs larger steps. As Halsey et al., 2012the authors explain there can be two reasons for this one being more muscle contraction frequency during single stride vs more muscle contraction during double stepping. Another reason can be the muscle fibres in use. The higher frequency of contraction during single step also require fast twitch muscle fibers, which consume more energy than power they deliver. In this regard, Teh and Aziz, 2005 found that, when they controlled for stepping frequency the heart rare and oxygen consumed was higher for single step strides. But by this method, the net energy consumed in a long run was only marginally higher for single steps than double steps. Nevertheless, at the end of the day it does look like single stepping is more energy expensive in a long run than double stepping on the same staircase.
In the end, I would like to say that this is the best explanation I could come up with from biological perspective. If there is a physical perspective it would be cool to hear. Maybe, we can try creating a simulation for one step vs two step climbing and figure out a way to test it.
References
StemQ Notice: This post was originally submitted on StemQ.io, a Q&A application for STEM subjects powered by the Steem blockchain.
Oh I've never doubted it can save energy. Hehe. It definitely saves time too.
Interesting to know there's stemq.io, i only use musing.io. 😊
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This post has been voted on by the SteemSTEM curation team and voting trail. It is elligible for support from @curie.
If you appreciate the work we are doing, then consider supporting our witness stem.witness. Additional witness support to the curie witness would be appreciated as well.
For additional information please join us on the SteemSTEM discord and to get to know the rest of the community!
Thanks for having added @steemstem as a beneficiary to your post. This granted you a stronger support from SteemSTEM.
Please consider using the steemstem.io app to get a stronger support.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks, I really enjoyed reading your answer! :-)
Now, in the question I was specifying that the aim would be to climb the same amount of steps in the same amount of time.
So when climbing two steps at a time you would change steps at half the frequency.
But it sounds like it will definitely take less energy than going up one step at a time.
Which begs the question, should staircases be designed with bigger steps? ;-)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is excatly where Teh and Aziz study is interesting. They controlled for what you have asked in the question. They made people climb 11 stories, a total of 180 steps. They made sure that time taken by individuals in both single step and double step stride remains the same. To achieve this they made single stride individuals to take a step frequency of 100 steps/min and double stride individuals to take 50 steps per minute. Despite of this the single step method took 10% more oxygen than double step method. This shows that reducing the number of steps is perhaps not the only reason for single step method being more energy consuming.
Regarding design of staircase, now that idea might be great for young individuals. But for old people or people with knee problems or people with arthritis, it might make their life harder than it already is. Even for young individuals there will be a threshold for height per stair after which climbing it may become a tedious task. In order to keep staircase friendly for people of all age and size , it would be best to have the usual size staircase. Those who can , may consider a two step strategy on this staircase if they like.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think the main reason for single step being less efficient is friction.
Every time you step on the ground you loose most of the kinetic energy that pushes your leg towards the ground (you can see that your leg doesn't bounce up again like a rubber ball).
So when you hit the ground only half of the time you loose only half this energy. So taking double steps is more efficient.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hi @scienceblocks!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 3.666 which ranks you at #5032 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has improved 2104 places in the last three days (old rank 7136).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 323 contributions, your post is ranked at #238.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit