Remind me, what’s the allure of climbing the same trash-infested mountain that thousands have before? Oh, right, Nick is still attempting to be an influencer.
Interesting post. I have spent a lot of time at altitude and think that there are some other factors involved, including the ability to acclimatize and the ability to do well in the cold. Also, the ability to think clearly at altitude varies vastly among people. While running ability and VO2 max are somewhat predictive, the Sherpas and Tibetans are not good runners but excel at altitude. Being with most Sherpas at altitude is a humbling experience even for elite western climbers. There are clearly physiological adaptations at play. Conversely, there are many Sherpas who climb over 8,000 meters without O2 and are not close to the times suggested here in the marathon. There is so crossover, but they are essentially very different things. If you think about how physiology differs so significantly between say a 400 meter runner and a 5k runner, it should be no surprise that the physiology of elite Sherpas and runners is significant.
Tell me you've not climbed Everest, Cho Oyu, Island, Lhotse, etc without telling me that you haven't. "It's not that difficult" until a serac breaks off over your head, the ice fall decides to tumble like a frozen jenga game, or you get stuck in a freak storm for 3 days at 26k feet...
Tough talkers like yourself are the ones that get to Camp II and figure out that a helicopter back to Kathmandu might just be the better option.
Difficult and dangerous aren’t the same thing. The difficulty of climbing Everest is lower than something like running a 3 hour marathon. The risk of dying (or some serious frost bite) is orders a several orders of magnitude higher.
I highly doubt that. I climbed Mt Whitney last summer and that was infinitely more difficult than any marathon I’ve ever done (which includes many sub-3s). Everest must be 10x+ harder than Whitney.
Remind me, what’s the allure of climbing the same trash-infested mountain that thousands have before? Oh, right, Nick is still attempting to be an influencer.
Annapurna has the highest death rate at 32% but that number has been skewed by a single avalanche in 2014 causing 43 deaths.
Nope. 32% was the # of death vs successful summit by 2012. Currently the ratio has lowered to approx 20%.
The 43 deaths were not caused by a single avalanche on the mountain and are not accounted in the number of deaths while climbing Annapurna. They relate to snowstorms in October 2014 in the Annapurna region that killed 43 trekkers, guides, porters and herders. I don’t think a single Annapurna climber died during the event.
Perhaps I read that wrong? Still the 43 deaths in one storm in 2014 skewed the death toll percentages.
Difficult and dangerous aren’t the same thing. The difficulty of climbing Everest is lower than something like running a 3 hour marathon. The risk of dying (or some serious frost bite) is orders a several orders of magnitude higher.
I highly doubt that. I climbed Mt Whitney last summer and that was infinitely more difficult than any marathon I’ve ever done (which includes many sub-3s). Everest must be 10x+ harder than Whitney.
I am a wannabee sub 3 hour marathon runner (maybe portland this year!) and I found whitney to be a boring single day hike. My cousin (2:47 marathon) was absolutely dying at the top and I had to carry his backpack after the switchbacks. I also broke my phone screen at the top. After my 3:08 marathon walking was hard for a week. A couple days after whitney I did half dome and clouds rest from the valley. Comparing different talents/skills just doesn't work.
Remind me, what’s the allure of climbing the same trash-infested mountain that thousands have before? Oh, right, Nick is still attempting to be an influencer.
And what exactly is Nick trying to “influence” you to buy?
Climbing Everest is lame. 1) there are dozens of dead bodies 2) it’s extremely dangerous 3) it’s very expensive 4) it’s not impressive. I can’t do it because I don’t have the money , I don’t want to, but I could and so could many other people. It doesn’t require super athleticism. It requires wealth, boredom, and having no family depending on you. This isn’t the days of Malory and Irvine where we don’t have descent technology and mapping. There are guides that baby you and all the oxygen you need. Thousands of people have done it (who are wealthy).
TLDR Climbing Everest is for people with no family, a midlife crisis, boredom, no more real goals to achieve, and at least 50k saved up to use on a “vacation”.
Tell me you've not climbed Everest, Cho Oyu, Island, Lhotse, etc without telling me that you haven't. "It's not that difficult" until a serac breaks off over your head, the ice fall decides to tumble like a frozen jenga game, or you get stuck in a freak storm for 3 days at 26k feet...
Tough talkers like yourself are the ones that get to Camp II and figure out that a helicopter back to Kathmandu might just be the better option.
Climbing Everest is like doing pull ups on a crane. Do you need some athleticism ? Yes. Is it amazing ? No. Is it stupid and risky ? Yes. But there are some differences too , you don’t need 50k spare cash to go do pull-ups on a crane.
Difficult and dangerous aren’t the same thing. The difficulty of climbing Everest is lower than something like running a 3 hour marathon. The risk of dying (or some serious frost bite) is orders a several orders of magnitude higher.
Well...With O2 maybe since way more people can climb Everest than 7,000 with O2 (limiting factor being $). But without O2, climbing Mount Everest is one of the hardest things you can do. I read somewhere Symmonds estimated 10% of the world's population can climb the Big E No O2...that's riduiclous.
In all of history only 200 have made it to the top without oxygen. That would be worth like a 2:05-2:06 marathon. I'm sure that there's more that can do it, but you have to be a freak of nature to stand at 8,849 meters without any extra oxygen.
trail hobby jogger and sub 30 10k runner summited Everest twice in one day, the second summit starting from camp 4 (2600+ ft), the 1st camp in the "death zone", without O2. no 2:06 marathoner has a prayer. body is too weak.
I highly doubt that. I climbed Mt Whitney last summer and that was infinitely more difficult than any marathon I’ve ever done (which includes many sub-3s). Everest must be 10x+ harder than Whitney.
I am a wannabee sub 3 hour marathon runner (maybe portland this year!) and I found whitney to be a boring single day hike. My cousin (2:47 marathon) was absolutely dying at the top and I had to carry his backpack after the switchbacks. I also broke my phone screen at the top. After my 3:08 marathon walking was hard for a week. A couple days after whitney I did half dome and clouds rest from the valley. Comparing different talents/skills just doesn't work.
Similar to my thoughts. I did Mt. Whitney after my senior track season. I was fit 4:23/9:27. My friend was not, but he did get a nose bleed above 12,000 feet. A marathon requires more effort in my opinion.
I am interested in hearing of Nick’s experience. Hope it is honest and not embellished self-congratulatory.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Scott Fischer who led the ill fated expedition on Everest during the blizzard of ‘96, and immobilized in John Krakauer’s book “Into Thin Air” graduated from the same hs as me and his former AW teammate, Jim Crawford