UKC

Along the lines of 1st world problems, most western people have an idea of "the hardest task known to man", tonight I was informed running the london marathon is the hardest thing anyone can undertake, if you can do this you can do Everest...Now its common knowledge in the world of ascentionism(made up word) that both ascending everest and the London marathon has been achieved by people with little training or prior knowledge. but how do these pop culture achievements compare on the scale of things.

For example on the topic of marathons, how would that compare to the less popular Nine Edges Challenge in the Peak?

In reply to Lukem6:

Surely that cheese run down the steep hill in the southwest has to be on the list.

In reply to Lukem6:

"Doing" a marathon is easy, it is one foot in front of the other for 26.2 miles, running the faster marathon your body has the potential to run is incredibly difficult, same can be said about 100m to super long ultras.

Obviously "Doing" Everest takes a bit more than "Doing" a marathon, but fit, determined and wealthy people are guided up all the time, oxygen less new routing is much less common.

In reply to Lukem6:

Oh that's good.

That said, the London marathon might, in one sense, be the hardest task that (almost) anyone can undertake - in that it's widely known, and that you can take as long as you need -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Lomas

In reply to Nutkey:



If it was up to me I'd put a 5 hour time limit for participants in the marathon without health problems so 'running a marathon' actually meant something. A fit person could walk 26 miles in 7 hours so the current 24 hour limit in London is ridiculous.

In reply to Lukem6:

For me, on of the the hardest physical things I have done was the Cuillin Ridge Traverse. Considerably more demanding than completing the Seven Sisters Marathon.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I agree Tom, certainly at most 6 hours.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I think you're forgetting there's a whole host of reasons why people do marathons or any other similar type of undertaking. I can happily knock out a marathon at any time now, but there's plenty of people who would really struggle to walk 26 miles let alone run them. It's a target for some people who may have started off at a very unfit/ill/injured point. It's also quite a spectacle and so stands out even for those that run regular marathons as something that would be fun to do. It's also a big fund raising event.

In short, quit judging and let people enjoy what they like. At least they're getting off their arses and doing something active. There's plenty of space on the course for the competitive runners and the ones at the back.

In reply to Lukem6:

Surely you need to compare like with like?

Running 26 miles takes a fit athlete a couple of hours. The last and only time I did one it took me about three and a half. If you are less fit you might take a little longer.

Climbing everest? Starting from the bottom, will surely take a little more than the time it takes to run - or walk a marathon.

So where do they get the idea that a marathon is harder?

I guess this is just another attention grabber that was devised by some editor or copywriter trying to fill a few columns in a paper,

In reply to Dave Perry:

His long it takes to do something isn't really the best measure of how hard something is.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Well I've done a marathon in under 3 hours several times, and I've been on an Everest Expedition once (albeit not by the yak route). And believe me, I thought Everest was miles harder than just finishing a marathon.

In reply to Lukem6:

I've run a marathon and been up to 6000m 3 times and trekked Everest area. And I know there is not the slightest chance of me getting up Everest - if I suddenly got stupid that is.

In reply to Lukem6:

Marathon clearly not the hardest per say. Many run ultras or back to back marathons. If you do mean task surely it's the task which has least likelihood of success for those who undertake it. Marathon has quite a high success rate does it not?

In reply to Beat me to it!:

Ultras aren't necessarily harder than marathons, it depends how you run each. I'm playing devils advocate, but I am also right.

The point mentioned in the OP is clearly rubbish, but there is a big difference in running between completing and competing, this isn't really comparable to mountaineering where the object is to complete generally, ie. to get the summit and back safely.

In reply to The New NickB:

It might not be as I've suggested ("not comparing like for like"). But are you really saying that for the average guy, slogging along a road for three or four hours or whatever is harder for them than slogging up everest carrying a load of gear for several days?

In reply to Dave Perry:

We're talking about westerners? Since when did they carry their own gear?

In reply to Dave Perry:

No, I am suggesting that running the best marathon that you as an individual can do is very different from completing a marathon. You leave nothing on the road, you cross the line utterly spent.

Everest may be harder, if it is, the person won't do it, it may be the same, in which case they will do it, just. It may be easier. It will depend on the individual.

In reply to The New NickB:

You do realise the context is 'hard for the average person' not for 'hard for someone specifically trained for that discipline'?

Also is anyone on this post so far saying covering 26 miles in your own time is harder than climbing everest? No. Its come from a source outside of the discussion.

However I still am baffled as to the attitude that either is easy. They're both difficult physical and emotional endeavours and are impressive to the vast majority of people.

In reply to Scarab9:


Is it, I would hope that anyone doing either would do some training.


Am I making such claims.


You haven't really read what I have written.