Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion Marathon vs Whitney?

This has been pretty well covered on the Whitney Portal Store Message Board - see the topic, The Winners.

Summation: having done both, I think Pikes Peak is harder because it covers a full 26.2 miles vs the Whitney course of 22 miles. Pikes Peak starts at an elevation of 6,300' which is much lower than the Portal starting point. True, Pikes Peak is only 14,115', slightly lower than Whitney.

Final proof: In 1961 Calvin Hansen from Colorado won the Whitney Marathon in 3:54.45 and also won the Pikes Peak Marathon that year in 4:07.15 BUT had Whitney been 26.2 miles this would certainly make Hansen's time way over 3:54 & probably closer to 4:30 + or -. So an argument could be made that if Whitney was 26.2 miles it would be tougher. But since the original question was Pikes Peak Marathon vs MMWT at 22 miles "only" this would in my opinion make the Pikes Peak Marathon tougher.

Entry for the Pikes Peak Marathon or Ascent is done on line in March.(see below) In past years the entries have closed out in 30 minutes or less. Recently it has gotten a little easier to get in either or both races. The Ascent is around the 3rd Saturday in August and limited to 1800 runners. The Marathon is the next day and the Sunday race is limited to 800 runners. The entry fee is pretty expensive, 2010 was $105 for Ascent and $95 for the Marathon. (I can't figure out why longer race is cheaper)

I ran it in 1971,72, & 73 when both races were run the same day and barely 200 people showed up. I do not recall the entry fee, but it was pretty cheap back then & mainly Colorado runners entered but with a large group from San Francisco, CA & another large group from Arkansas & Missouri. Last year 111 runners did the double, ie ran both races. Obviously friends of Jack N who would find that childs play since you get to rest overnight after the Ascent before tackling the Marathon.

Those that are interested can check the website: www.pikespeakmarathon.com

I'm gonna chime in with Marathon being harder. Though I have not day hiked Whitney.
I've done it as an overnight (once, last month) and have run 12 marathons (including 3 Ironmans).
and trail runner, I'll be in Boston in 2011 as well!.

I drink beer better than I run, hike, or climb, so put me down for #'s 6 & 7. Dogpound...very cool. This will be my first Boston and I am pretty pumped. We have a big group coming up from Orlando, so maybe you could meet up with us?

CMC2...I would love to meet you some time. Sounds like you are the real deal!

Kent Williams

On two occasions several of us did the Mt. Whitney Marathon. What's that, you say?

We started at that first big switchback on the road, 2+ miles from Whitney Portal (big parking area), and stayed on the trail every inch of the way (no shortcuts). The distance to the top was almost exactly a half marathon, so the round trip was a marathon distance.

That was back before the trail was lengthened 1/4 mile or so just below the summit, some 8 - 10 years ago. So now you would start 1/4 mile past that big switchback.

It was an experience. I won't divulge our times. But it is something that might interest this crowd.

But Bob, did you run it or walk it?

...and did you take any shortcuts?

Joe, I'm pretty sure you can add Bob to the "Likes Beer" column.

My two cents worth:

I was a runner for the first part of my life but had to give it up for health reasons. At first I was happy to run 10k and 15k races but then I desided to train for a marathon. After running two 1/2 marathons (in a respectable time) I said "I am not cut out to be a long-distance runner." I wasn't limited by the physical aspect - mentally, I just did not want it badly enough.

Climbing big mountains: As Bulldog stated - too many variables invovled - and just cannot compare running a marathon to climbing big mountains.

So now, 20 years after giving up running and at the age of 51 - how did I have the mental strength to climb Everest?

Very interesting topic.

That is one big assumption for a lot of us.

Having been on both mountains several times, it's gotta be Whitney - right? There's a nice, graded, reasonably-sloped road to the summit of Pikes, which I assume is the track the marathon is run on? I'm going with a key on the word "harder", not longer - smooth grade versus rocky, gnarly trail.

The only easy way on Whitney is to take the tram and grab your Starbucks at the top . . .

No Gary, the road is off limits to walkers, joggers, runners and everything else except motor vehicles and bikes by special permit.

The Pikes Peak Marathon starts in Manitou Springs 6300', up a paved road for about a mile and then on the Barr Trail which is your typical dirt rocky trail. It is far from being a gentle slope but is every bit as challenging, a rocky gnarly trail as you describe Whitney, only longer and with more elevation gain to the summit vs Whitney from the Portal.

Instead of speculating, come on out next summer en route to Whitney and get some altitude training in here !!

FWIW:

I "created" a calculator to approximate the workload of a hike - relative to the work to walk one flat mile. It's based on data taken from research paper by Minetti on treadmill work, so there are certainly some assumptions.

Keep in mind, this approximates Work / Energy required - not any sort of limit to rate of energy production as there would be at altitude (something fun to add in the future).

I don't know what the exact stats of the Whitney ascent are, but let's say 11 miles, 6500 ft gain. Equivalent number of flat miles is ~ 23.

23 is less than 26.2, and I would say from experience that if Whitney was at lower altitude, it would certainly be easier (assuming constant exertion).

As altitude increases, the sustainable rate of work will decrease (more anaerobic work). This will vary from person to person depending on genetics, altitude exposure, etc... For instance maintaining a 170 bpm heartrate at 13,000 ft could output 1/2 the power (or vertical ascent rate) of 170 bpm at sea level. Both will feel as intense.

In my case, attempting to sustain a marathon heartrate up Whitney may perhaps come close to a marathon time for me, but probably a bit slower. However, my brain would likely explode, so I would say it's harder.

Well in that case, Ernie, it would have to be Pikes with significantly more elevation gain and a longer distance. I assumed the Pikes Marathon would have been on the road - once again, ass-u-me strikes! Someone needs to do both "marathons" and report back to us - 'Tude, you up for that? Maybe DUG? Damn sure not me . . .

That's a tempting offer Ernie - wish I could have done it this summer like we had talked about. It's definitely high on the 2011 priority list. I want to do Long's Peak again as well, now that I've got a couple of Whitney trips under my belt, just to compare the two from a little more mature perspective - Long's didn't seem as hard a hike, but I recall it being dicier exposure - especially the Narrows and the Keyhole.

Unless I'm missing something, that's "just" the uphill. In most cases (with the exception of 3 hikers from Nebraska), you need to go back down after you summit.

One more thing: I don't like beer. I do like Gin and Tequila :-)

Who knew we would bring actual science into the discussion? In defense of the approximate 50% of us who feel the marathon is harder, I don't think any of us maintain a marathon even on a hilly course like say Boston would be near as difficult as actually trying to run as hard as your body would allow up Whitney or something like the Pikes Peak Marathon. My only assertion was that I think many of us moderately serious runners kind of figure out through our training and other races what our ideal/best marathon race pace is and we try to hold that for 26.2 miles. I personally think the kind of effort required to push yourself and run your best marathon is much greater than the effort that is required for a "normal hike" up Whitney. One is a race and the other is a nice but long and pretty hard day in the mountains. I have zero doubt that the mountain marathons like Pikes Peak and others are even harder for those who really run them hard. I am also sure hiking Whitney would be significantly harder than simply walking a marathon as the extra four miles would pale in comparison to the elevation gain and the altitude on Whitney. It goes without saying that mountain weather, unconsolidated snow, etc could and would be game changers in the discussion.

Kent

yeah just comparing uphill, trying to reasonably compare apples to oranges.

of course whitney will take longer including downhill. downhill is not hard, but tedious.

when people want to compare two things about which is "harder", one way to somewhat scale by is "pace" i.e. rate of energy use. if you are walking up Whitney at a moderate pace, it simply is not as hard as a marathon in energy expenditure. The only thing that makes Whitney hard while moving at 3mph is the altitude.

if you had a flat 26 mile trail at 13,000 ft, it would be harder to run a marathon on it than hike Whitney.

Ze Mane - nice to see some scientific analysis applied to this question. Those that have done both a Whitney dayhike and a marathon are really the best source for a subjective determination, but it's always good to get some purely objective comparison.

Out of curiosity, any idea what the change in workload is for a mountain climb when you factor in the added weight of a 10 or 15-pound daypack? Fifteen pounds is probably the upper limit for a summer dayhike for most, with maybe 12 as an average. Would that added weight affect the numbers in any significant way, assuming an average male of 165 pounds?

Thanks. Absolutely the additional weight will have an effect. Now, the exact relationship between added weight and workload I'm not entirely clear on (I've looked up a bunch of papers, but there are some different results) but a good approximation is simply that the % increase in weight (backpack + bodyweight) / bodyweight will lead to a similar increase in workload.

the effects may be nonlinear at higher weights though. it's definitely worth a good research review and discussion on its own. the one thing I will point to is one paper I posted looking into why Himalayan porters are more efficient hikers than their caucasian counterparts. Basically, with such huge loads on their backs (25 kg +), control of the torso sway probably becomes really important. So if you have a huge load and good control, you are going to have an increase in workload because of more weight, but if you can't control it well, you are going to have an even larger increase in workload.

Ze Mane:

Exactly. Here is the percentage of oxygen in the air (as compared to sea level) at these altitudes:
8000 ft 76%
10000 ft 70%
12000 ft 65%
14000 ft 61%
As a consequence of the lower amount of oxygen in each breath:
1. the body with have to use more anaerobic power to maintain power levels
2. the heart rate will increase in an effort to supply more blood flow to the working muscles

Cindy, you stopped too soon. Let's have oxy levels up to 28,000. Not that most of us will experience those levels.

wagga is that with or without supplimental oxygen?

Okay, okay.....now you have me going here. "downhill is not hard"!!!!!! (Hope you know that I'm just playing a bit here, but...)

I'm one of the people who hates downhill. I always felt more comfortable going uphill in training, not so much in a real marathon. But, going down Whitney, though not that bad, still is a bit hard.