What's Harder? Sub-3 or climbing Everest?

ohio_miler wrote:

I'll also add that it isn't physically a joke, it does take a real toll on your body. I left at 205lbs and was 174 when I got back to Kathmandu. I was probably around 168 when I got back to base camp.

And to the people saying its 100x easier, or 10x easier I'll offer a prop bet. I haven'trun more than 15 miles in a week for at least 5 years. I've never run a marathon. If Everest is really 10x easier, offer me 10:1 odds that I won't break 3:00 in a marathon going basically couch to starting line in 3 months. I'd love for someone to offer that bet but I'm guessing I'll hear crickets...

Dude, it's because you are naturally talented at running.

zzzz wrote:

It took me two tries to climb Shasta.

Whoa, you suck ass at climbing. I started in the morning and was done by 1pm

I didn't bother reading the thread.

Prior colleague who happens to be a pulmonary critical care MD who did both, and describes it in terms of physiology.

The marathon is much more a matter of dealing with CO2 elimination, whereas Everest much more a matter of getting O2 in when there isn't much around. Both happen via the lungs, but most people do better at one than the other.

team Unruly Bush wrote:

zzzz wrote:

It took me two tries to climb Shasta.

Whoa, you suck ass at climbing. I started in the morning and was done by 1pm

Different morning, different weather and conditions. I know you're just poking fun, but a good climber knows when to turn around and what situations to stay out of, like a line of traffic on the tourist route on Everest.

DIRT BURDS wrote:

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Mount-Everest-has-gotten-so-crowded-that-climbers-13890650.php

That's an absurd photo.. And not funny absurd because people are dying because of the crowding on the lines.

Problem is the overall number of permits is based on a theory/hope of the length of the window to get up. But if a stretch of bad weather shortens the actual window, and everybody tries to get up at the same time, this is what you get.

Either have to reduce the overall permit number or have some kind of daily gatekeeping system. And if that means some people who paid a lot of money don't get to attempt, the way to look at it is that they bought a lottery ticket that didn't pay off.

Marksch wrote:

I didn't bother reading the thread.

Prior colleague who happens to be a pulmonary critical care MD who did both, and describes it in terms of physiology.

The marathon is much more a matter of dealing with CO2 elimination, whereas Everest much more a matter of getting O2 in when there isn't much around. Both happen via the lungs, but most people do better at one than the other.

That is an absolutely horrible explanation.

At altitude the partial pressure is just lower not less O2. Also running fast is not a matter of CO2 elimination. Pretty much wrong all around.

friend at IBM forwarded this email wrote:

Marksch wrote:

I didn't bother reading the thread.

Prior colleague who happens to be a pulmonary critical care MD who did both, and describes it in terms of physiology.

The marathon is much more a matter of dealing with CO2 elimination, whereas Everest much more a matter of getting O2 in when there isn't much around. Both happen via the lungs, but most people do better at one than the other.

That is an absolutely horrible explanation.

At altitude the partial pressure is just lower not less O2. Also running fast is not a matter of CO2 elimination. Pretty much wrong all around.

I like the MD's insights better than yours, keeping in mind that he is being paraphrased and not speaking precisely for himself.

A human engaged in vigorous exercise will generate as much as eight times the CO2 of one at rest, so CO2 elimination by the respiratory system is certainly a significant issue for endurance performance.

As for altitude effect, yes the percentage of oxygen is constant but the lower air pressure means molecules are further apart, so we don't get as much oxygen with each inhalation. There's nothing meaningfully erroneous about characterizing that as less oxygen available to breathe.

ohio_miler wrote:

I'll also add that it isn't physically a joke, it does take a real toll on your body. I left at 205lbs and was 174 when I got back to Kathmandu. I was probably around 168 when I got back to base camp.

And to the people saying its 100x easier, or 10x easier I'll offer a prop bet. I haven'trun more than 15 miles in a week for at least 5 years. I've never run a marathon. If Everest is really 10x easier, offer me 10:1 odds that I won't break 3:00 in a marathon going basically couch to starting line in 3 months. I'd love for someone to offer that bet but I'm guessing I'll hear crickets...

No one's taking that bet dude. Wejo ran sub-3. Remember he did nothing but soccer matches and stilled rolled under 3 a few years ago. If you're an ex collegiate runner sub-3 is easy. But that doesn't mean it's easier than Everest for Joe Sixpack.

DIRT BURDS wrote:

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Mount-Everest-has-gotten-so-crowded-that-climbers-13890650.php

Insane. Lessons not learned. K2 2008, Everest 1996.

StevePrefonDead wrote:

No sherpas on marathon course.

10 dead so far.......enough said.

Go climb it and find out.

Difficulty - how hard something is - and risk - how dangerous something is - are two different things.

Say you have to flip a coin - tails you die, heads you live. Is that difficult? No.

I'd say sub 3 marathon is harder, less people are able to do it. That doesn't mean Everest isn't hard.

Everest is way, way riskier though. The death statistics are horrifying, even if you just look at recent years, it's still a high percentage, amazing that people want to risk that really.

The % dying from running a marathon is very low.

I'd love to go and look at Everest, but I wouldn't climb it. I'd very much respect the fact it has a very real chance of killing you.

Marksch wrote:

I didn't bother reading the thread.

Prior colleague who happens to be a pulmonary critical care MD who did both, and describes it in terms of physiology.

The marathon is much more a matter of dealing with CO2 elimination, whereas Everest much more a matter of getting O2 in when there isn't much around. Both happen via the lungs, but most people do better at one than the other.

Ha ha, that is absolutely hilarious ?

Did your former colleague run his marathon enclosed in a sealed greenhouse? One of the most idiotic claims I've ever read on here - and I've read A LOT of idiotic claims on here.