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

If you go the Nepal route then Nepal requires you to use Sherpas because they want the cash for their economy. Even if you intend on attempting the final climb alone Sherpas are going to haul your food and gear up to base camp, 17,700 ft, and camp one, 20,500 ft, for you. Sherpas also have installed the ladders that you’ll need to traverse the Khumbu Icefall.

Sub 3 and Everest both require focused training and effort.

Many of the sub 3 guys got there because they picked the right parents. Everest requires more initial preparation and several weeks to complete but less training than Sub 3. Sub 3 probably won’t kill you, but Everest might. A lot can go wrong when attempting Everest. Many people don’t achieve it during their first attempt and subsequent attempts are expensive and the risks are still there.

There is only one Everest but there are many choices for running sub 3.

Sub 3 is easier.

cotton shirt wrote:

Husband Of Diana Ross wrote: Come on. Haven't people over 80 summited?

person, singular, not people, plural.

cheers.

How many person over 80 ran a sub 3?

Oldest person to summit was 80 years old, while the master's world record for 80-84 is 3:15:53. Also WAY more 80 year olds have attempted marathons than have attempted Everest, therefor a sub-3 marathon is easily a greater physical accomplishment. Mentally though I'd say Everest is harder, partly due to the chance of death.

I'm in my forties and I can run a sub 3 with relative ease as my PB is 2:33 and I whould still have a shot at sub 2:45 now. I can't even think of climbing Everest. Wouldn't know where to start. I have a friend who is also into running with relatevely the same PRs as me and who tried doing the Everest but felt shitty (whatever term there is for mountain sickness) and wasn't allowed to go on. So... I'd say Everest is tougher.

Hobbyjogger High wrote:

I'm in my forties and I can run a sub 3 with relative ease as my PB is 2:33 and I whould still have a shot at sub 2:45 now. I can't even think of climbing Everest. Wouldn't know where to start. I have a friend who is also into running with relatevely the same PRs as me and who tried doing the Everest but felt shitty (whatever term there is for mountain sickness) and wasn't allowed to go on. So... I'd say Everest is tougher.

Makes sense that he may experience mountain sickness. Some endurance trained athletes don't have the appropriate ventilatory response at really high altitudes.

dbsquirtNXC21 wrote:

Everest is definitely harder than running sub 3 but I don't think its harder than running 2:35. The limiting factor for climbing Everest is that it cost 60K. If not many more would do it. Also climbing Everest is certainly more dangerous with a 4% mortality rate. But difficulty wise id say its about equivalent to a 2:30ish thon.

Have you ever done any high altitude mountaineering? If so I applaud you, if not how would you have any clue?

2:30ish marathon isn't even in the same universe; apples to oranges. Even someone who gets to the summit with the aid of sherpas still has to deal with storms, high winds, cold, and altitude (if you've never experienced the problems of altitude believe me, altitude is a problem..). You do an 10/12/14 hour day of climbing and then you're getting into a tent, sleeping in a sleeping bag, due to the altitude you may have a totally crap night of sleep, and then you get up and do it all over again the next day, and the next, and so on... you suffer on a big mountain in a way that DWARFS marathon running. I was a sub-9:00 two miler as a runner, made money bike racing, have nordic ski raced, some pretty challenging endurance sports. And I've ice climbed and mountaineered for over 20 years and I can tell you nothing comes close to how hard high-altitude climbing can be.

And people can and do die at an alarming rate participating in it.

dbsquirtNXC21 wrote:

Everest is definitely harder than running sub 3 but I don't think its harder than running 2:35. The limiting factor for climbing Everest is that it cost 60K. If not many more would do it. Also climbing Everest is certainly more dangerous with a 4% mortality rate. But difficulty wise id say its about equivalent to a 2:30ish thon.

And I ran a 2:53 marathon as an 8th grader, Paavo Nurmi marathon in Wisconsin back in 1973. Just added that in case someone asked "And have you ever run a marathon?". Wasn't that hard.

Tenzig Notgay wrote:

With perfect conditions the Marathon is harder. Plenty of folks have ambled up Everest on a nice day. Those folks might struggle to break 4 or even 5 on a good day for a Marathon.

Most folks that have this opinion:

1.) Have never climbed anything harder than 5.7 if they have done any climbing at all ........and:

2.) Have never done any alpine climbing, and if so, at significant altitude.

3.) Don't really realize the effort and commitment it takes just to get to the point of an Everest attempt.

That being said...........sub 3 would be considered easier IMO, considering the sheer number of people that have done it. Also just because someones a climber does not make them a runner, and the same holds true for runners.

I summited Everest in May 2018. I have never run a marathon. I've always quoted ballpark PRs on LetsRun because I didn't want to be outed, but I don't really post enough to care anymore. I started posting in 2005 in high school and then frequently throughout college. I ran 1:57/4:00/15:29 on the track. I ran a half marathon in 1:14 before my senior cross country season in college during the summer. I'm pretty confident a 3 hour marathon would have been very achievable at that point in my life. I have never run the marathon nor has it really appealed to me. As I've gotten older, I've considered doing it with friends that are trying to qualify for Boston.

Harder is a very subjective term.

-Everest without Sherpa support above base camp is harder than running a 3 hour marathon. It involves doing your own gear carries to C1/C2/C3, getting a tent to camp 4, and stashing oxygen along the way. Very few people do this. My team paid to have our stuff sent to base camp via porters/yaks/helicopters. We did the bulk of our gear carries but did have Sherpa support for oxygen. If we had done all of the oxygen ourselves, it would have been another trip through the icefall. Doable, but wanted to avoid.

-At the far end of the spectrum, there are people who make an absolute joke of it. They have 3-4 Sherpa for every climbing client for logistics. The clients have a personalized sherpa AND a personalized western guide. These people carry no gear, melt no snow, set up no tents, and don't even tie their knots. I saw enough of it last year to make me want to quit climbing.

-Flow rates on oxygen matter, a lot. Last year the majority of the outfits on the mountain used a new oxygen system and the regulators got really messed up. Most westerners are ox 3-4l/min from C3-C4 and 5L/min from C4 to summit. I used oxygen about half the time between C3-C4 and climbed on 2L/min on summit day. We left a tank a with a Russian in very bad shape at C3 and I found that my regulator was less likely to act up on a lower flow rate. This make a HUGE difference. I feel confident I could have summited with out oxygen, but I would have had very bad frostbite.

-In terms of prep, I did Rainier, Ecuador volcanoes, Mexico volcanoes, and Denali before Everest. Between gear, permits, traveling, tipping guides etc I estimate I've spent $100k-$110k on climbing in 5 years. This, combined with the time off work, is one of the biggest hurdles to doing Everest.

-The training I did for Everest I would consider a similar level of intensity for what I would need to do for a 3 hour marathon. I ran twice a week, did a long weekend hike with a heavy pack, did stairs 1-2 a week, and was at the boxing gym 1-2x a week. I think I would need 40 miles a week of running to break 3 hours in the marathon. The training I did to run the 1500 in 4:00 was much harder than either.

I'm glad I did Everest and am proud that I could do the majority of it on my own. I would consider it much more impressive than a 3 hour marathon. I think my track times are better athletic accomplishments.

-

StevePrefonDead wrote:

No sherpas on marathon course.

Plenty of sherpas on a marathon course. In London they have them all the way to 7:30

Very impressive accomplishment. And a lot of cash commitment.............I pretty much limited myself to rock, living where I did at the time in Southern California. Yosemite, Tahquitz Rock, J. Tree, Tuolumne, and on the weekends, Stoney Point (then to the local Mexican restaurant for pitchers). Never really had the time to get into the alpine side of the sport, although I did dabble in it a bit. Fun times, long gone at my advanced age :)

In my last and final marathon, my calf seized up repeatedly, forcing me to walk 3 separate times over the last 10k. Finished in 2:45:19. Only the last 10k was painful. I have never scaled Mt. Everest, but it has to be harder than that. Most people spend 2 months climbing, and the record with supplemental oxygen is 10 + hours and 20+ hours without. I really don't think you can compare that to a 3 hour marathon. If you can run sub-3, then most of the marathon distance was probably not much of a struggle. Maybe compare some crazy hard ultra race that takes the same amount of time???

Hiking Mt. Shasta (less than half the height of Everest) was harder for me than a sub 3 marathon. Granted I trained for the marathon

Ohio Miler’s post really puts it into perspective.

For most people climbing Everest is a multi-year endeavor. You can spend tons of money, do a lot of training, and still get shut out if the weather turns. Hell, you can do all of those things and die up there.

Yes, you can pay to make it a lot easier and take quite a few shortcuts. You’re still spending 6-8 weeks in Nepal just to get to the top and you can still get shut out due to weather and/or die in a freak accident.

You can take a shortcut to a sub-3 hour marathon, too, if all you want to do is break three hours and you don’t care how you get there. Spend four months running 50-70 miles a week, register for the Revel Mt. Charleston Marathon outside of Vegas (it has 5,200 feet of drop on the course), go out at a very conservative pace (1:31 for the half), and you’re going to break 3:00. People at that race regularly outrun their PRs by 10-15 minutes. It’s the equivalent of having a Sherpa carry extra oxygen so you can get maximum flow all of the way up the climb.

I think sub 3 is harder, but you won’t die if you fail to run sub 3

Free_the_thigh wrote:

I think sub 3 is harder, but you won’t die if you fail to run sub 3

Indeed...............John Long put it in perspective. "In most sports, the consequence of failure usually isn't death or Vietnam style wounds". May have screwed up the actual quote a bit, but you get the drift.

If you allow "harder" to mean whatever you want, then this is a very subjective debate and you can cherry pick your argument. In terms of physical fitness required, running a 3 hour marathon is more difficult than summiting Everest with assistance. The world record for an 80 year old marathon is like 3:15 if I'm remembering correctly, but 80+ year olds routinely summit Everest. If you're over 75, you basically can't run a sub-3 marathon. But you can pay to have a bunch of people help get you up Everest! And so that sentence is true of much of the population -- you can't run sub-3, but you can pay to have people help you summit Everest.

It is not exactly routinely done by 80+.

Pretty sure that the oldest man, a Japanese, was indeed 80. But then maybe like 5 other 70+. And not that many 60+.

Oldest woman was 53 so far...

Considering that approximately 8300 people have summited and 288 people have died (3.46%) speaks for itself. If 3.46% of all marathon finishers died, there would be a hell of a lot of bodies.