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

I mean just the cold, the wind and the altitude are enought to make the Everest a lot harder than a marathon.

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...

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...

Hahahahaha in 3 months? For a 4:00/15:29 guy? You should run sub-2:40. Nice try tho.....

It took me 11,000 miles (in ~ 7 years+) of training to go from couch to sub-3 after picking up the sport at age 27. I consider this to be a pretty nice achievement which I am proud of, realizing that for faster runners, this is a rather laughable time. But for a commoner, it's quite neat and makes me happy.

Climbing the Everest on the other seems like going for a sub-4 marathon held in a very far place, with a large time commitment on the logistic side, and running said marathon very close to an edge while playing russian roulette with a real gun that may kill you 3%+ of the time.

I feel like I could be capable of trying the latter, but the logistics, costs and very importantly the risk (very real) makes this an achievement that is hard to put into perspective. I kinda want to do it, but it would feel more selfish even than time spent running. You may very well die, and if feels selfish to risk it when you have relatives, dependents, or others who may love or need you. It's definitely riskier, so "harder" is quite an unhelpful attempt!

Everest is a much smaller 'club', that's for sure.

What?? Is this a trick question.

I did a sub 3 going up Everest, found it much harder coming down, a Kangaroo clipped my ankles and i fell 3000 ft and lost 3 toes.

What a stupid god damn thread.

EVEREST is the answer

For Eliud Kipchoge, a 3 hour marathon is extremely easy. So for him climbing Everest is not only harder, but there’s a 4% chance he will die

For some/many mountain climbers, there is a 96% chance they will summit Everest without dying, but a 0% chance they can run a marathon in under 3 hours (irrespective of how much they train if they’re simply not built for marathon running).

You’re welcome everybody.

Edmund Hillary wrote:

It depends.

A lot more people have run under 3 hours than climbed Everest.

Just get up on Everest is more a matter of money these days. You don't really need to be much of a climber. You buy yourself into a commercial climbing outfit and they organize everything. You just need to come up with $60,000 -100,000. That's all.

Not true.

no one knows how their body will respond to altitude. Very fit people have failed because of what happens to them due to the high altitude and it doesn't matter if you're a world-class athlete or a wealthy businessman.

this thread reveals who the mediocre to bad runners are.

Many on this site ran under 2:40 on my their first attempt and have since gotten under 2:30 several times. There are others who have run under 2:20.

Running under 3 hours just isn't a big deal if you have some natural talent, you don't even need to train for the distance to do it.

On Everest though, it's about how your body responds to days of altitude and cold, especially above 8,000m.

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't run 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...

I only run 10-15 miles a week and I could run under 3 hours tomorrow. The people who think the sub 3 hour marathon is harder are not good runners.

End of thread/

like for real lol. I see old ladies hiking steep trails. Little to no real big physiologic expenditure. Ice climbing is tricky, but not real physically taxing, at least i'm assuming it isn't

Not even close, sub 3 is harder. If you took all the world, and trained them properly for both, you’d have WAY more people summit Everest.

Everest is the tallest mountain in the world. How could it compare to a 3-hour marathon? I would say it's close in difficulty to running 2:06.

Clarity:

It takes more training & talent to accomplish sub 3.

The accomplishment itself is obviously going to be more of a toll on your body to summit Everest.

However, unequivocally it takes more talent & training for sub. Take the previous posters example of training the worlds population for both. Many more would conquer Everest than sub 3

Any 80 year old did it. And many senior citizens have. 206 equivalent???? Gtfo

Sub 3 takes more natural ability & training.

Climbing Everest because you can die, probably would need oxygen canisters to summit,

may have to deal with storms, could fall into a crevice, could get frostbite and lose toes or fingers and

you also need to acclimatize at certain elevations before you can accent higher.

Running sub 3 is basically 7 minute miles (slightly faster) which takes work, but you can do your training

on a treadmill or on roads in relative peace.

You can run that marathon on a cool and sunny day without the risks associated with an Everest attempt.

The sub 3 may not be possible for someone who's summited Everest but it doesn't entail the same amount of risk.

Very different things, both requires the right set of genes. I was close to breaking 3 and had I started running in my 20s, it would have been relatively easy. I am super prone to high altitude cough and never got higher than 23000 ft. Have a friend who submitted Everest, could easily leave her in the dust at sea level and am better at technical climbing, but high up on the hill she is way better.

What's harder? To qualify for the Boston Marathon or to get in with a charity? Climbing Everest is more similar to the "get in with a charity" answer. Money, baby.

Could not be more wrong wrote:

Any 80 year old did it. And many senior citizens have. 206 equivalent???? Gtfo

Sub 3 takes more natural ability & training.

Any fit male and a majority of females are capable of a 3 hour marathon, while Everest is only mastered by the truly elite. Those are some pretty special senior citizens, my friend.

The hardest is Sub-3 Everest.