Mt Whitney Zone
Posted By: Greg T Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/02/10 10:46 PM
I am having a bit of a good natured disagreement with a good friend of mine. Which do you think is tougher; hiking Mt. Whitney or running a marathon? I have never run a marathon but I have hiked the MWMT twice, (one day hike and one overnight). My friend has never hiked Whitney but says that running a marathon is harder.

I thought the day hike was a little harder than hauling the heavier pack on the overnight trip, but not much.

Your thoughts?? Have some of you done both?

PS With any luck, my friend will come to Whitney with me this summer and we will find out!
Posted By: quillansculpture Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/02/10 11:32 PM
I've run a few marathons, including a couple of Wild, Wild West Marathons in Lone Pine and a marathon in Death Valley.

Day hiking Mt Whitney is harder in my opinion. On top of that, the training is harder to get because you have to drive to a place to get elevation. Downhill is tougher on the joints. Marathon running is usually pretty flat (though I only ran off road marathons) and you can just leave your front door to get started.

I think an overnight is easier than a marathon, with the exception of the acclimatization. Day hiking is hard and you really can't stop anywhere. When you are at the summit, you have to go back and by then you are pretty tired.

On election day, my vote:

Mt Whitney day hike.....1
Marathon................0

Now.....Badwater......that's another story!
Posted By: Tyrone Biggums Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/02/10 11:39 PM
Only 1 successful day hike under my belt and completed 1 marathon (in not so glorious fashion).

You can always bail half-way through a marathon and get a ride back.

Bail half-way through the hike... it's still a long hike back, albeit downhill.

When I did my day hike, I ran into hail, rain, lightning, and snow. I figure most marathons will be called off under these conditions.

Both are definitely physically demanding, specially for those that are not in super duper athletic shape (like me).
Posted By: Steve C Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/02/10 11:51 PM
But Tyrone, you didn't give us a definitive vote!
Posted By: Tyrone Biggums Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/02/10 11:57 PM
Originally Posted By: Steve C
But Tyrone, you didn't give us a definitive vote!


...for me? Dayhike was more challenging.
But it was also a lot more fun and satisfying in the end.
Posted By: wazzu Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 12:04 AM
My completion track record:

3 for 3 Full Marathons, 15 for 15 half-marathons smile

0 for 2 Whitney Summits mad(1 over-night, 1 dayhike)

My vote:

Whitney is tougher. Big reason is the altitude, terrain, and lack of any support stations along the way. (A good marathon has water/aid stations every mile or two)

If your friend starts comparing Whitney to ultra-marathons (100+ miles) then my vote may change...but not likely.
Posted By: Harvey Lankford Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 12:09 AM
what about those of us with bad knees who can't run but can still hike all day long? In that case :

Whitney - just do it (3 X here)
Marathon - impossible

Posted By: Steve C Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 12:27 AM
I guess I can't compare apples to apples, since I haven't dayhiked Whitney in a couple of decades.

My marathon experience required several months of training: long-distance runs, with hours of recovery time after each one; quads that ached during the runs and afterwards. Then I could hardly step off a curb for days after the marathons.

But the dayhike oh-so-long-ago, did not require much more than general conditioning for me, except that I was sick with AMS at the summit. I guess I should dayhike the Main Trail again one of these years so I can compare.

But my vote is that the marathon was way harder.
Posted By: quillansculpture Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 01:18 AM
With a new hip, I can't run marathons anymore either. But, a marathon is just about 4 miles further than Mt Whitney......and you don't have to run uphill, avoid rocks, deal with altitude issues, and so on.

Now that we are talking about Marathons....

Is anyone going to do the Wild Wild West Marathon
in Lone Pine, right below Whitney the first weekend of May? I'm going to walk it, and possibly do some light "jogging".

I would love to know who might be going AND it is a great prep for a Mt Whitney hike.
Posted By: wazzu Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 01:58 AM
QS,

I'm more of a 1/2 marathoner, but this sounds interesting. Especially since it's advertised as 'walker friendly'. I'm definately more of a walker than a jogger in a full marathon, and I don't even have hip/knee replacement as a reason, I'm just slow. (I sure hope 'walker friendly' means actual walking and not having to need a walker to cross the finish line.)

As long as you are doing the 26.2 mile marathon and not the ultra 50k marathon (31 miles), I'm going to 'pencil' it on my calendar. Give me something to start planning for next year.

Anybody else....maybe some of the Westsiders want to come over and have a east vs west wager? Something along the line of who buys the post-race beverage? whistle

Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 02:31 AM
Originally Posted By: quillansculpture
. . . a marathon is just about 4 miles further than Mt Whitney......and you don't have to run uphill, avoid rocks, deal with altitude issues, and so on.


This subject of comparing a Whitney dayhike and a marathon comes up often from runners who want to try a really big mountain like Whitney, and Joe and wazzu make some very good points. Joe's point about running uphill could be revised to "you don't have to run uphill for 11 sustained miles". And, unlike a road race, you can't bail if you decide you've had enough and the body's just not cooperating - when that happens on a big mountain, you are still exactly halfway to the quitting point, barring the need for SAR assistance and a chopper ride out.

When Joe and I summitted back in July, it was the tail end of the Badwater Marathon and we encountered several ultra-marathoners on the trail. Absolute beasts who did the Badwater-Portal route, then managed to snag permits and continue to the summit. No pack, lightweight running shoes and a single water bottle. After what they had been through, Whitney was just icing on the cake (those who didn't get slapped down with AMS, anyway).

When I hear this topic pop up, I think of a great story that Bob Rockwell recounted here at some point in the past year (can't find it, but I bet you can Steve smile ) - one in which a group of bad-ass, young distance runners essentially blew off Bob's offer to hike up the main trail with them one day. Bob, of course, made the summit just fine, but almost all of the young distance group dropped like flies along the way.

In comparing a Whitney dayhike to a marathon, there are just so many more variables at play with the hike that can produce less-than-desirable results.
Posted By: Rod Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 04:04 AM
Well a marathon can be walked also Harvey. It doesn't have to be run on and pound those arthritic knees. I plan to walk a marathon next year since I know my knees and back can't take the pounding of running. I have a patient who walks marathons in 6 hours.I don't care about my time or getting a ribon.I just want to check it off my list. I wish I had done it while I was in Whitney hiking shape which was up until last year.
My thoughts having trained like I was training to hike Whitney and walk a marathon would say climbing Whitney is way tougher due to the altitude.
Posted By: bobpickering Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 05:33 AM
Walking a marathon is obviously easier than hiking Mt. Whitney, but that wasn't the question. I trained ten times as hard for my first marathon (4:16) as I did for my first Whitney summit (a 13-hour day hike). We're comparing very different things here, but the marathon is physically harder, assuming you actually run it. On the other hand, a marathon doesn't require any of the knowledge or skills we debate at great length on this board and elsewhere.
Posted By: Bee Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 05:55 AM
My 2 cents:

1. Running prepared me for Whitney (I had one hike all season, but many miles of running) but hiking Whitney would not have trained me to run. (I did not do it as a day hike, but as relaxed/moderately refreshed as I felt on the summit arrival, I feel I could have done a dayhike with just a little more prep)

2. 2 days of acclimatizing (dimox even better) took care of the altitude with zero negative symptoms of AMS, but no amount of passive training could help my running.

3. I could hike Whitney with running as a base, but walking a trail would never be enough to prepare for a marathon. In sheer dedication of time/effort, a marathon would take much much more.
Posted By: Harvey Lankford Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 02:22 PM
Originally Posted By: bobpickering
assuming you actually run it.

Bob and Rod, I don't consider it a marathon unless it is run. When I dayhiked Tuolumne to Agnew 29 miles in 14 hrs I did not consider that a marathon. Never a thought of it.

Just to tease....The ancient Greek who ran(and died!) well, er, um, set the standard!
Posted By: Rod Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 04:31 PM
That is funny and a great analogy Harvey.But my patient who walks the marathon in 6 hours thinks of it as a real marathon accomplishment. That is faster than a lot of "runners" that finish.So is completing the distance laid out for a marathon matter if you walk it or slowly jog crawl to the finish line?
Posted By: quillansculpture Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 05:01 PM
4:16 is a really good time.

One of the years I did the Wild Wild West, the winning time was a bit over 3:29.51, while the last marathoner came in at 8:39. I reached the halfway point at under 2 hours and thought I was going to have a super time. But, then "Mother Hill" kind of helped take it out of me. My time was 5:41.29. That's a really slow last 13 miles! But, I didn't walk as I was running with a runner from a club in Ridgecrest. She slowed a bit to help me get by the last couple of miles. BUT, I do remember "running" the last two miles in sand and gullies before Tuttle Creek Campground and watching "walkers" passing me by.

I've never run a street marathon, mostly because the dirt runners are wonderful and helpful people who care more about running than winning. Since the Wild Wild West is all dirt, and of course has a nice uphill up to the Portal Road, creek crossings, etc, the times are much slower than a street marathon. My buddy who runs street marathons from time to time can do one in about 4:15, while he finished the WWW in just over 5 hours.

Again, anybody who want to do the WWW, it's May 7th, 6:00 A.M. Start. I'm gonna have Gary call me from Atlanta to wake me :-)
Posted By: AlanK Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 05:07 PM
Originally Posted By: Rod
That is funny and a great analogy Harvey.But my patient who walks the marathon in 6 hours thinks of it as a real marathon accomplishment. That is faster than a lot of "runners" that finish.So is completing the distance laid out for a marathon matter if you walk it or slowly jog crawl to the finish line?
I am not one to criticize what someone thinks of as a real accomplishment. The range of human capabilities is vast, so each of us has his/her own personal definition of "accomplishment." However, I would think that we could get general agreement that walking a marathon -- in most cases 26.2 relatively flat miles on a good surface -- is easier than the 22 mile Whitney hike. When I think of a marathon, I think of running nonstop trying for the best time I can get. For me, that makes the marathon harder than, say, the Whitney Day hike. On the other hand, I have not run a marathon since 1977. Maybe I'm remembering them as harder than they really were. Also, I can always push harder on the hike. smile
Posted By: Steve C Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 05:16 PM
Rod, a 6 hour "walking" marathon is quite respectable. That's 4.3 mph; most people can't walk 3 mph, and when hiking, 2 mph is a pretty good pace.

Olympic competitors can walk at 9 mph (a 6:30 mile pace!)

Here's a YouTube clip. Doesn't look anything like walking, if you ask me.

Posted By: Rod Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 06:53 PM
We always called those "funny walkers".
There are those guys that are in wheechairs that do the marathons too. Is their accomplishment a legitimate "marathon"?
I wonder if anyone has ever summited Whitney in a wheelchair.
Posted By: + @ti2d Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 08:32 PM
Originally Posted By: Greg T
...My friend has never hiked Whitney but says that running a marathon is harder...my friend will come to Whitney with me this summer and we will find out!

I have known "ultra-marathoners" who thought it could be done "without" having to train. I told them that hauling their "sustenance" in a pack on their back does make a tremendous difference. Extra weight, center of gravity, etc. They take off like jackrabbits only to start slowing down after TSM on the way to TC then bonk at the base of the SBs.

Well, they found out the hard way. When they turned around to go back I mentioned, "Hey, at least your are halfway there."

Hiking MW is definitely a lot tougher than a 26.21875 mile marathon. I don't know of too many marathons starting at 8,365 feet. Maybe there's one, but who knows.

Your friend is in for an "enlightenment" if he/she thinks marathons are tougher.

Hope your friend heeds the advise of all. I wish your friend the best and that the both of you make it to the summit regardless of your "disagreement."




Have fun.
Posted By: trail runner Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 08:38 PM
Interesting discussion topic and lively debate. In my personal experience a marathon is considerably harder than Whitney, but I do think this is a bit of an "apples to oranges" comparison. It think it depends upon how you approach each activity. The big difference is that most of us "hike" Whitney while we "race" a marathon. It would obviously be much easier to walk 26.2 miles on a typical marathon course than hike 22 miles gaining/losing 6,100' of elevation over broken ground, and deal with the altitude. However, if you really run a marathon, it is pretty darn tough.

I have trained for 3 marathons, but only ran one due to injuries sustained while training for the other two that caused me to have to stop training and withdraw before the races. When I ran my first and so far only marathon, it was a very hot day and I was pushing hard as I wanted to hit my time goal which would qualify me for Boston, (under 3:30 for my age group). I did hit my Boston qualification time goal even though I didn't do as well in the race as I was expecting. When I crossed the finish line, I was done, finished, kaput. I had a hard time walking after the race and was limping around for the next couple of days. Conversely on Whitney I felt good when I arrived back at the Portal Store and had plenty of gas left in the tank. Furthermore my 17-year old son hiked Whitney with me without doing any training at all and really performed well. I am pretty sure he wouldn't have any chance of "running" a marathon unless he put in a considerable amount of training. In fairness our trip was an overnight hike up the Mountaineers Route which I don't think would be as fatiguing on the legs as a day hike of the 22 mile MT.

Again, it is apples to oranges as most of us would generally "race" the marathon while we "hike" Whitney. In a marathon I never stop running and drink my water/Gatorade and eat my 3 GU's without breaking my pace. I think when most of us hike Whitney we take plenty of rest stops to enjoy the views, drink/eat, take pictures, and talk to fellow hikers. If however I was to actually attempt to run/race the 22 miles up/down Whitney with 6,100' of elevation gain/loss while pushing as hard as I could, I am quite sure I would be a total mess when or if I finished. Perhaps a more apples to apples comparison would be comparing a day hike of Whitney to someone who completed a marathon using the Galloway Method, (run/walk), to cover the 26.2 mile distance in a more relaxed fashion than many runners take when they show up to "race or run" a marathon.

Running a marathon and hiking Whitney are both allot of fun and accomplishments to be proud of no matter how long they take you. It is all good.

Off topic, I am currently training for Boston 2011....anyone else in the Whitney Zone family running Boston this year? Joe: I will have to remember that Wild Wild West Marathon.....sounds pretty cool...maybe we can put together a Whitney Zone Team? If we end up doing Wazzu's East-sider vs West-sider with loser buying the beverages wager, I guess I am a East-sider since I am coming from Florida?

Kent Williams
Posted By: Rod Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 09:15 PM
Great point about "hiking Whitney and running a race" in a marathon.I personally don't think I could ever run a marathon due to knees and back. That is why I took to running stadium stairs for my workouts. That didn't hurt either. I have had "runner" friends join me and die on the stairs and get incredibly sore.That being said I can hike Whitney and not be affected by AMS while some marothoners might get AMS and not make the summit.
The question is which is harder and the answer should be for who?
Posted By: quillansculpture Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/03/10 09:37 PM
Hey Kent... I just thought of something. What about the "wall"? I guess you do get it in both events, hiking Whitney and marathons. But, when I hit the wall in a marathon (and again, it's been almost 11 years), it is an extremely mental experience. I tell people it's like feeling "Why am I out here? Why am I running?" and I felt this between 18 and 22 miles and only once in a marathon and once in my first training run of 22 miles.

I get a similar feeling on Whitney and other hikes, but it's earlier, just a few miles in, AND then it goes away for good. When hiking Whitney with Gary, Bulldog34, I told him that sometimes I feel it on a hike and he said he sometimes feels it more than once at the early stages of a hike. Once again, it goes away for him (If I remember correctly.) And, it's always mental, not physical.

Just wanted to add that and see if anybody else has similar experiences.
Posted By: trail runner Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 12:14 AM
Joe:

Interesting point. Yes, I too have hit the wall. It seems to appear at approximately 20 miles for most of us. It may be partly mental, but I believe it is mostly physical. Hopefully somebody who knows their stuff can chime in and bail me out here, but I think your body runs out of glycogen stores or something like that and you start to fall apart. I just know you feel totally spent when this happens. I have made it through all of my 20 to 23 mile training runs without hitting the wall as I run those at an easier pace than my race pace. When I ran the Chicago Marathon I did hit the wall at approximately 20 miles and had to fight to keep from really falling off my pace and missing my goal. I think I slowed by at least 1 min per mile for miles 20-25, but found a bit of a kick for the last mile when the finish was in sight.

I would imagine most who hit the wall on Whitney are dealing with AMS more so than the typical marathon wall, but perhaps some think they have AMS when they really just hit the wall? A little of both maybe?
Posted By: CMC2 Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 01:51 AM
I've been out of town 2 days and just saw this topic.

For what it is worth: the Marathon World Record on a paved surface is 2:03.59 for the full 26.2 miles.

By way of comparison, the Ascent half marathon (13.1 miles) on Pikes Peak is 2:01.06, not that much faster for HALF the Marathon distance. The same runner has done the full Pikes Peak Marathon in 3:16.39 vs his best road marathon 2:19.44 (Matt Carpenter)

I have referred to Matt several times on the Whitney Boards and suggested he could easily run Portal to summit and back to Portal in under 3:20. Google his name if you want to see impressive Mt racing results, especially under Wikipedia.

I have run 10 marathons, including Pikes Peak twice and Mt Evans with the other 7 on roads, including Boston, Western Hemisphere twice, Ave of the Giants Redwoods, White Rock, & Denver Marathon twice. It is hard to say which is more difficult as the degree of fatigue varies, but obviously the road marathons are faster and I recovered quicker than the Mt Races or hiking many 14ers over the years due to altitude and terrain.
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 02:15 AM
Originally Posted By: quillansculpture
When hiking Whitney with Gary, Bulldog34 . . . he said he sometimes feels it more than once at the early stages of a hike. Once again, it goes away for him (If I remember correctly.) And, it's always mental, not physical.


It's definitely mental for me Joe, but it's physically based - it's usually the result of the first lactic acid buildup in my legs. Whenever I get that that first hard burn, I instinctively want to stop and turn around. I never do, of course, but it's something I always have to fight through early on in a hard uphill hike. Once I've achieved an oxygen and acid balance I'll generally keep going till the cows come home.

My quitter tendencies here are the product of running the quarter-mile (440 yards/400 meters) in high school and college. That is the most intensely painful race in the track world because you're asking your body to run at 85% max speed for about 200 yards more than your legs think is reasonable. Lactic acid buildup is enormous the last half of this race (along with an intense oxygen debt) and it hurts like hell. Whenever I get that burn in my calves or quads, I flash back to all those 440s I ran - and all the pain that came with it - and I just want to say "screw it!"

I really hated the 440 due to all that misery. I much preferred the 100 and 220, but by the time I got to college I wasn't quite fast enough to play with the big boys in the pure speed events and I didn't have the endurance for the mid-distance 880. So I got pigeon-holed into the quarter-mile and hated every single race I ran, regardless of where I finished. In fact, the last race I ran before I hung up the spikes for good was against Edwin Moses in an open 400. He already owned a couple of Olympic golds at the time, but I was actually leading at 300 meters. In reality Edwin was just cruising, and about 80 meters later he was several steps ahead of me and pulling away. I decided then and there that I was wasting my time, and that it was time to find something I actually enjoyed doing.

Hiking is much more my speed - once I get past that initial burn . . .
Posted By: wagga Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 02:18 AM
Mr. CMC2, I'd like you to meet Crazy Jack. Today you & CJ are going to do a Whitney Double. Meet you both at the WPS at noon for a beer.
Posted By: CMC2 Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 02:55 AM
Bob Rockwell introduced me to Jack in August 2008 at the Portal. I learned he had lived in Colorado when he was an outstanding biker. Maybe years ago I could have handled a double, but not anymore at age 73 with bad knees. I haven't run, jogged or moved fast since 1985. And Bob R will tell you my beverage of choice is either iced tea or soft drink, don't like the taste of beer. Guess I wouldn't last long in Oz would I Wagga, although I have been there.
Posted By: wagga Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 03:02 AM
If you have been to Cronulla we might have met.
Posted By: Bee Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 03:13 AM
Originally Posted By: CMC2
my beverage of choice is either iced tea or soft drink, don't like the taste of beer.


Oh-so-glad to know that I am not the only one who has a lemonade(or otherwise) because I can not gag down a beer!

Regarding Marathons VS hiking: I believe that at least hiking is much kinder to the body than the pounding of long distance pavement running (having done both)
Posted By: tdtz Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 03:23 AM
Bee,
I'm with you...can't stand beer, can't stand the taste of alcohol in general (I do love a good bloody mary though).

and....I couldn't run a marathon, but i could summit whitney. (just to stay on topic.....).
td
Posted By: Rod Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 03:57 AM
The hitting the "wall" or bonking is definately physical even when it seems mental.When the glycogen reserves in the body are depleted and the carbohydrates loaded are depleted and there is no more food to replenish the caloric burn and the body can't breakdown fat or muscle tissue reserves then the body runs out of fuel and quits functioning.Heretofore referred to as hitting the wall or bonking.
"
Quote:
Marathoners used to call bonking "hitting the wall," but it's actually a bodily form of sedition. In some form or another, it becomes a collapse of the entire system: body and form, brains and soul. * Consider the muscle-glycogen bonk, where the brain works fine but the legs up and quit. Then there's the blood-glucose bonk, where the legs work fine but the brain up and quits. Let's not forget the everything bonk, a sorry stewpot of dehydration, training errors, gastric problems, and nutrition gaffes.
Posted By: CaT Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 04:23 PM
I've never liked the taste of any beer -- still don't.
Enjoy a good double-Bailey's though.

Never run a marathon, though I have run shorter "long" distances and a mini-tri. I've also dayhiked Whitney. Whitney seems easier to me, mostly mentally. Usually flat surface seemingly endless running provides little to distract from the rigors of the run, which makes it seem harder, whereas the myriad natural wonders and diversity of a trail such the MT or the MR make the long trek enjoyable, at least for me.

CaT
Posted By: quillansculpture Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 04:31 PM
So, the unofficial Tally is:

Mt Whitney.... 8
Marathon...... 3
Like Beer..... 3
Dislike Beer.. 6
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 07:20 PM
Make that 4 for beer.
Posted By: wazzu Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 07:37 PM
add my vote for beer - total is 5
Posted By: wagga Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 08:20 PM
Like beer: six.
Posted By: AlanK Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 08:43 PM
OK, let's escalate: Which is harder -- the Pikes Peak Marathon or the MMWT? Let's assume running for both courses.
Posted By: + @ti2d Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 08:47 PM
Originally Posted By: AlanK
OK, let's escalate: Which is harder -- the Pikes Peak Marathon or the MMWT? Let's assume running for both courses.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooo...

MMWT hands down...there ain't no souvenir shops on the top or roads to the top of Mecca West.

Then, again, that's just me talking!

Hmmmm...Pikes Peak Marathon...I would like to run that!


Have fun...
Posted By: CMC2 Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 10:14 PM
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.
Posted By: CMC2 Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 10:38 PM
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
Posted By: dogpound Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/04/10 10:44 PM
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!.
Posted By: trail runner Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/05/10 01:23 AM
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
Posted By: Bob R Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/05/10 03:04 AM
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.
Posted By: Steve C Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/05/10 05:20 AM
But Bob, did you run it or walk it? smile

...and did you take any shortcuts? wink

Joe, I'm pretty sure you can add Bob to the "Likes Beer" column.
Posted By: Cindy Abbott Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/05/10 04:36 PM
Originally Posted By: Bulldog34
In comparing a Whitney dayhike to a marathon, there are just so many more variables at play with the hike that can produce less-than-desirable results.

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.
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/05/10 10:35 PM
Originally Posted By: AlanK
OK, let's escalate: Which is harder -- the Pikes Peak Marathon or the MMWT? Let's assume running for both courses.


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 . . .
Posted By: CMC2 Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/06/10 12:02 AM
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 !!
Posted By: Ze Mane Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/06/10 02:08 AM
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.
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/06/10 02:32 AM
Originally Posted By: CMC2
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 !!


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.

Posted By: quillansculpture Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/06/10 06:31 AM
Originally Posted By: Ze Mane

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).


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 :-)
Posted By: trail runner Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/06/10 02:38 PM
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
Posted By: Ze Mane Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/06/10 02:48 PM
Originally Posted By: quillansculpture

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 :-)


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.
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/06/10 02:59 PM
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?
Posted By: Ze Mane Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/06/10 03:16 PM
Originally Posted By: Bulldog34
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.
Posted By: Cindy Abbott Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/06/10 11:49 PM
Originally Posted By: Ze Mane
FWIW:

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...


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
Posted By: wagga Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/07/10 12:24 AM
Cindy, you stopped too soon. Let's have oxy levels up to 28,000. Not that most of us will experience those levels.
Posted By: Rod Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/07/10 01:27 AM
wagga is that with or without supplimental oxygen?
Posted By: quillansculpture Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/07/10 02:14 AM
Originally Posted By: Ze Mane

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


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.
Posted By: AlanK Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/07/10 03:36 AM
Originally Posted By: Cindy Abbott
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

Actually, the percentage of oxygen in air is 21% at sea level and at higher altitudes. What changes is the air density (and pressure) which drops by the amounts listed. So, it is certainly true that one takes in less oxygen (and nitrogen, etc. too) at higher elevations.
Posted By: KevinR Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/07/10 01:09 PM
Originally Posted By: AlanK
Originally Posted By: Cindy Abbott
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

Actually, the percentage of oxygen in air is 21% at sea level and at higher altitudes. What changes is the air density (and pressure) which drops by the amounts listed. So, it is certainly true that one takes in less oxygen (and nitrogen, etc. too) at higher elevations.


I've sometimes seen that concept described as "the oxygen available to us at X elevation is Y".
Posted By: AlanK Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/07/10 03:35 PM
Originally Posted By: KevinR
Originally Posted By: AlanK
Originally Posted By: Cindy Abbott
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

Actually, the percentage of oxygen in air is 21% at sea level and at higher altitudes. What changes is the air density (and pressure) which drops by the amounts listed. So, it is certainly true that one takes in less oxygen (and nitrogen, etc. too) at higher elevations.

I've sometimes seen that concept described as "the oxygen available to us at X elevation is Y".

That works. Actually, I was not arguing with the original statement. I assume that what was meant is "compared to sea level, the amount (e.g., partial pressure) of oxygen in the air is 61% of what it is at sea level." The percentage of oxygen in the air is still 21%, but there is only 61% as much air.
Posted By: Cindy Abbott Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/07/10 05:26 PM
Yup, that's what I meant.

Here are some stats from Everest taken from my journal:
Basics: normal illnesses: cough, digestive stuff, cuts do not heal, no oxygen to breath - you know: the usual.
Blood and heart rate:

April 19th after 3 nights at base camp 17,600 ft 91 o2, 77 HR
April 27th after 5 nights at Camp 2 21,500 ft 75 o2, 94 HR
May 2 after one night at Camp 2 64 o2, 94 HR
(stays same for five nights) so climbed Lhotse Face with these readings!
May 6th hiked from Camp 2 to Base camp 72 o2, 82 HR
May 8th after one night in Dingboche 13,500 ft 89 o2, 70 HR

I was not very happy with my O2 Sat the last round at Camp 2 and the Lhoste Face but I did OK.


Here are the oxygen levels in air (as compared to at sea level) - continued:
15000 ft - 58%
21500 ft - 45% (camp 2)
23500 ft - 42% (camp 3)
26100 ft - 38% (camp 4)
29035 ft - 33% (summit)

This is without supplemental oxygen. So it shows just how dangerous it is to climb at these higher altitudes without it and my hat's off to those who have and lived.

I would never attempt it for one major reason: the disease I have is vasculitis (imflammation of the blood vessels). Even Dr. Peter Hackett (world's leading high-altitude medical researcher) did not know what was going to happen when I went to altitude.
Posted By: wagga Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/07/10 06:04 PM
Cindy, if you know your tidal volume & breathing rate you can use this calculator to estimate blood oxygen levels. Set the units to feet & enter altitude in feet.
If you don't change breathing rate and tidal volume, the magenta curve is pretty much a dead person.

Also some partial pressure info here.

elevation oxygen % compared
Location feet to sea level
------------ ------ ---
Fresno 450' 98%
Half Dome 8800' 73%
Lone Pine 3700' 88%
Whitney Portal 8360' 75%
Mount Whitney 14505' 57%
Everest 29035' 33%


And at 367442' (SpaceShipOne's apogee), you might see the occasional oxygen molecule drift by.
Posted By: AlanK Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/07/10 06:07 PM
Originally Posted By: Cindy Abbott

Here are the oxygen levels in air (as compared to at sea level) - continued:
15000 ft - 58%
21500 ft - 45% (camp 2)
23500 ft - 42% (camp 3)
26100 ft - 38% (camp 4)
29035 ft - 33% (summit)

For those who might possibly care, one can get basically these numbers using the following simple equation, which is derivable from elementary physics:
P(h) = P(0)*exp(-h/h0).
Here P is barometric pressure, h is height above sea level, P(0) = 760 Torr is barometric pressure at sea level, and h0 = 7990 m = 26200 ft.
Posted By: Ze Mane Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/07/10 08:36 PM
Originally Posted By: wagga
Cindy, if you know your tidal volume & breathing rate you can use this calculator to estimate blood oxygen levels. Set the units to feet & enter altitude in feet.
If you don't change breathing rate and tidal volume, the magenta curve is pretty much a dead person.


Was gonna link to this but looks like you've done that smile

Although the pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere is "only" reduced by 33%, the partial pressure in the blood drops down much more. At 8000m, there's like a 97% decrease in oxygen partial pressure!

The combination of the workload calculator with the oxygen pPressure could give an "effective" workload. Obviously 97% decrease in pace is significant! shocked
Posted By: Harvey Lankford Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/08/10 12:30 AM
this thread is getting too scientific - but I will add to the pot.

One of the reasons man (or woman, Cindy) can survive (at least for a while) at extreme altitude (like Everest) is because of the mystery of acclimatization. These changes are far more pronounced than those that occur in well-acclimatized Whitney hikers.

Acclimatization involves multiple physiological changes that include these and more: altered ventilation, making more red blood cells, incompletely understood metabolic changes at the intracellular level, and shifts in the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve. That is how extremely low pressure inspired air at extreme altitude can yet result in a higher useable level of O2 in the blood, and just as importantly, release of O2 from the blood into the tissues. Said another way, if all your blood did was pick up ambient low pressure gaseous O2 then you would be long before dead. The miracle of hemoglobin makes life possible over a wide range of O2 pressures.

This graph is the famous oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve. If standing on the top of Everest ( without using bottled O2) the horizontal PaO2 would be 25-30 range, incompatible with life. But on the vertical axis you see that with a high-altitude left-shifted curve, ones hemoglobin saturation % ("O2 sat") is a just barely life-possible 60%. I can tell you that it really doesn't feel good unless it is 75, and even that would be low enough to put you in the ICU back home.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Posted By: wagga Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/08/10 01:48 AM
There is a genetic/acclimatization factor at work here, too. Some decades ago, I was dating a nurse at Loma Linda. She suggested that I donate blood, which I did. Several days later, the hospital called & asked me to come in for a visit. They told me that I had recorded the highest hemoglobin & clotting factor they had ever seen. We discussed my life-style, and when I mentioned that I was climbing 12-14 thousand-foot mountains several times a month, they asked me to give blood every 3 weeks, so that they could spin down platelets. And they paid me!

That was then. Now, after three blood-clot episodes, I just depend on rat-poison. Every day.
Posted By: Bee Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/08/10 01:57 AM
Maybe you should move to Tibet?

Sorry about the rat poison....Cumadin & its counterparts are most unpleasant.
Posted By: wagga Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/08/10 02:20 AM
Whoever wrote "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" was perhaps thinking of coumadin aka warfarin.
Posted By: Harvey Lankford Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/08/10 02:20 AM
Originally Posted By: wagga
highest hemoglobin & clotting factor they had ever seen.

Warfarin Rx for blood clotting disorder would be unlikely for simple mild polycythemia (extra red blood cells) associated with frequent trips to moderate altitude.

Then again, there are some folks who get Chronic Mountain Sickness. This is unheard of in casual Sierra hikers, but seen in those who live their lives at say 10,000 ft and usually higher, like in the Andes. The other name for CMS is Monge's Disease, after the South American MD who described it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_mountain_sickness

Note: CMS is far, far different than the AMS we often discuss here.
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/08/10 02:48 AM
Wow - who would have thought that? You think of folks living their entire lives at high altitude and what incredible aerobic machines they must be, but there's generally a downside to everything.

wagga, I feel for you bud. In a previous life - like 1975-1979 - I was working my way through college as a pharmacy technician, and I recall hearing horror stories from patients on Coumadin. Nasty stuff, and far too often a lifelong regimen. Classic case of the cure being almost as bad as the disease. I remember one patient telling me that she only brushed her teeth twice a week or so 'cuz she bled from the gums for hours afterwards.
Posted By: Cindy Abbott Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/09/10 05:00 PM
Originally Posted By: Harvey Lankford
This graph is the famous oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve. If standing on the top of Everest ( without using bottled O2) the horizontal PaO2 would be 25-30 range, incompatible with life. But on the vertical axis you see that with a high-altitude left-shifted curve, ones hemoglobin saturation % ("O2 sat") is a just barely life-possible 60%. I can tell you that it really doesn't feel good unless it is 75, and even that would be low enough to put you in the ICU back home.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Perfect Harvey smile I wish that I would have taken my O2 sat at the summit but quite frankly - I did not care!!!!
My focus was on getting back down to Camp 4 at 26,000 ft. It took 18.5 hours from Camp 4 - summit - back to Camp 4 (because of the crowds). Crazy stuff!
Posted By: Rod Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/09/10 05:24 PM
Originally Posted By: Cindy Abbott
Perfect Harvey smile I wish that I would have taken my O2 sat at the summit but quite frankly - I did not care!!!!
My focus was on getting back down to Camp 4 at 26,000 ft. It took 18.5 hours from Camp 4 - summit - back to Camp 4 (because of the crowds). Crazy stuff!

That is what is making Everest so frighteningly dangerous.The enormous crowds all clustered at the Hillary steps and on the narrow ledges make for a dangerous wait to get up and down.18.5 hours RT from Camp 4. WOW!!!
Posted By: Cindy Abbott Re: Marathon vs Whitney? - 11/10/10 03:57 PM
The crowds slowed us down but we had a set turn-around time. I always pick safety over summit. At the Hillary step it was quit dangerous but we were able to pass each other in a operative manner - I thought it was very amazing at that altitude (the operation between strangers). Speaks well for climbers smile

This season the weather had held everyone down and there was only at 3 day window at the end. So everyone had to go up or go home.

Again, I was impressed with the cooperative manner of all the climbers. It reinforced my belief in the the general goodness and caring of all humans.
© WhitneyZone Message Board