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

Walking up Everest is way easier.

The question needs to be more specific. How about this:

Given one year to train, can a greater percentage of men between 18 and 45 run a sub-3:00 marathon, or summit Mt. Everest with full sherpa assistance?

My guess would be a greater percentage of men could summit Everest. Sub-3:00 marathon is only feasible for a small percentage of men (I know, you fast guys think anyone can do it if they train right, but you are not aware that you were born on 3rd base in the genetic lottery). I think any very solid long-distance day hiker could get up Everest. Like, a guy who uses hiking poles and regularly hikes 18 miles with 4,000 feet of climbing in a day. Slow. As. Hell. He might run a 3:45, but he can power for hours.

Jon Krakauer is way beyond a solid climber. He’s a highly accomplished mountaineer in addition to being a great writer. He established a new route on Devils Thumb in Alaska as a solo climber; it’s one of the most dangerous and challenging climbs in North America.

So his opinion certainly carries some weight... but what do you think a 2:10 marathoner would say about the challenge of running 3:00? Do you think they would call it a “real accomplishment,” as you do, or do you think they would say that a pretty large number of people with the time and money to devote to training and traveling to fast courses could probably accomplish it?

team Unruly Bush wrote:

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

I'd say the same, though I'd say Shasta was much harder than a sub-3. I didn't have to do "marathon training", mostly dog jogging with my dog (9:00 pace might be fastest run of week), to go sub-3 on my first try at age 43. When I was younger, I probably could do 2:35 as a training run if I wanted without knocking myself out.

It took me two tries to climb Shasta. First try was solo on Green Ridge over New Years (21 years ago). I started late afternoon maybe, and dug in and bivied mid-mountain in crazy wind gusts, where I could look down on the town lights between gusts, where people were likely celebrating the new year. I had to bail the next morning because it had turned into and stayed a blizzard. I couldn't see where I was going. Second try was a few months later, a solo walk up on Casaval Ridge. Went smoothly, but I probably lost some brain cells going to altitude without acclimatization.

The main reason Shasta was more difficult is the commitment and sound judgments needed to do the climb solo safely in the winter. If the weather changes for the worse, you have to be able to take care of yourself, with no help expected to come (maybe to pick up your body if you mess up). You need to be aware of potential avalanche paths, possible crevasses on glaciers if crossed, etc. I remember a poster on a climbing, really more peak bagging board I used to be on (Views from the Top) died on Shasta from exposure, so it can kill you just like Everest. Even if doing it in a group in the summer, I'd say it's harder than a sub-3 for a decent runner because of the length of time it takes and the altitude.

I interpret the OP's question as a question to me or runners who might be reading LR, not the average person. Many people, especially women, do not have the talent to ever go sub-3 no matter their training.

darkwave wrote:

I've gone sub-3, and a friend of mine submitted Everest a few years ago (said friend was a 2 hour half-marathoner).

There is no doubt in my mind that Everest is the more impressive achievement.

To some extent, going sub-3 is a combo of talent and hard work. I think that climbing Everest is potentially physically achievable for a larger segment of the population, but the hard work and dedication over years that it requires dwarfs what I had to do to go sub-3.

These sentiments echo mine pretty closely. It would be vastly easier for ME to run sub-3, but there are plenty of people who never have a chance of running sub-3 no matter how hard they try. Some of those same people, however, could very likely train enough to climb Everest.

Thus, I think climbing Everest is generally more impressive, but I think sub-3 is more physiologically out of reach for a large portion of the population.

Likelihood of dying running a sub-3 marathon -- relatively small. Likelihood of dying climbing to the top of Everest -- 30%, and it goes up if you're older. There are so many things that can go wrong on a climb are really high. You may be a top age group athlete runner, but that's no guarantee you can handle 20,000 feet altitude, and the top of Everest is over 29,000 feet.

395 people summited yesterday. Looks more and more like a 3:00-ish type deal. Maybe more like 3:30 in heavy urban traffic after you parted with the $60K entry fee.

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.

Everest is hard because of the logistics. You need to be able to take months off. You need that 50k+. It isn't hard physically. If you can get your self in 3 hour marathon shape, you can get your self in good enough shape to climb everest.

With hard things there are a couple of categories

a) things that require effort. Walking across the US doesn't require talent or skills that most people don't have. If they put in the effort, they can do it. Few want to put in the effort

b) things that require effort and talent. It doesn't matter how much I train, I am not dunking a basketball. At a certain level they are impossible if you don't have enough talent.

Both everest and a marathon are B type activites. But everest is closer to A.

sub 3 is not that big of a deal. it is the bench mark for genetically unathletic types who like running.

Seems like the implied question is: what is harder, training your body to run a sub 3 hour marathon, or being financially well-off enough to have savings large enough that a $60,000 entry fee is well within your means.

Seems like dropping $60,000 on a two week vacation is 1%er territory. Is running a sub 3-hr marathon 1%er (running) territory?

Ran some numbers. 0.5% of people in the US have ran a marathon. ~2% of people who run a marathon will break 3 hours (based on an analysis of 2017 Chicago marathon results). Therefore, about 0.01% of Americans can break 3 hours in the marathon. While about 1% of Americans would probably be able to be financially well off enough to comfortably afford a $60,000 Mt. Everest summit vacation.

Running a sub 3-hr marathon is about 100x harder to accomplish than summiting Everest. Even if you assume that 90% of the people that could break 3 hrs in the marathon choose never to run a marathon, that would mean only 0.1% of people in the US could break 3 hours in the marathon, still making running a sub 3 hr marathon 10x harder than summiting Everest.

Didn't Killian Jornet run up to the top of Everest at sub 3hr marathon pace as part of a workout or something?

I think there are two parts to this. If you look at a cross slice of the population sub 3 is probably harder. Everest isn't technically that challenging and has become a lot of middle-aged people not in any kind of sensational shape make it up every year.

Now if you're talking for elite level runner vs elite level mountaineer running a sub 3 is way easier. I could go out and run a sub 3 any day and back to back for many days with no concern for weather conditions. Climbing Everest due to the extreme conditions is not ever going to be a cakewalk and you can't go and do it day in day out.

So I guess the way I'd put it is for a runner capable of anything faster than 2:30 sub 3 is way easier for that individual than Everest would be for a climber of comparable talent. But as a general cross slice of the population sub 3 is probably tougher, the reason more do it is because it is a safer more affordable pursuit for the masses.

This is assuming the standard method for climbing Everest. If you go it with no assistance or Oxygen tanks then this all goes out the window.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

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.

Case in point:

Everest: you ever tried saving $60k?

Also: when someone asks why did you climb Mount Everest? The answer is ‘because I’ve got a massive ego’.

You can run a 3hr marathon and if someone asks how your weekend was at work on Monday you can say ‘I went for a jog’.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

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.

Case in point:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/05/22/utah-mountaineer-has-died/

Did anyone actually read the article? "Cash’s guides carried him to the Hillary Step, but a two-hour traffic jam on the fixed ropes there stopped them from descending further." WTF waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many 1%ers out there on the mountain at once - what a disaster. RIP.

HahaRiiiiiiight wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Case in point:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/05/22/utah-mountaineer-has-died/

Did anyone actually read the article? "Cash’s guides carried him to the Hillary Step, but a two-hour traffic jam on the fixed ropes there stopped them from descending further." WTF waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many 1%ers out there on the mountain at once - what a disaster. RIP.

Of course I read it. Congestion at the step is a common problem, unfortunately. Has been for years, and well before the advent of the 1%.............whatever that means.

Everest is 10x easier, it's all about money