Highest Marathon in the World

"Jan Turner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Announcing the Tenzing Hillary Everest Marathon

100k.org100k.orgOpen ↗

29th May 2004

Wow, first they have guides leading anyone and everyone up the mountain as long as you have the
money, resulting in enormous amounts of trash, spent O2 cannisters, and general debris all over it.
Now there's a marathon there, actually on the mountain.

Tell me, when will the McDonalds be built at base camp? Will there be a Starbucks, too?

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org

I beg to differ. I say the highest marathon was the year that Robert Downey Jr, and Snoop Dog ran
the Boston.

SwStudio said:

Wow, first they have guides leading anyone and everyone up the mountain as long as you have the
money, resulting in enormous amounts of trash, spent O2 cannisters, and general debris all over it.
Now there's a marathon there, actually on the mountain.

Actually, David, the marathon preceded the guided climbs. I bailed from climbing over there in 1992
when the guided climbs were just starting, but there was a marathon, called the "Everest Marathon"
back then (not to be confused with the Everest Trail Marathon, which doesn't go anywhere near Mt.
Everest), which was held semi-regularly at least as long ago as 1990.

The garbage hell (no other way to describe it) at the Everst Base Camp goes way back before then.
Nepal is, according to the UN, about the 6th poorest country in the world. One of their only sources
of income--and their only serious source of foreign exchange--comes from what the trekkers and
climbers spend to visit there. Everest being THE major attraction, the government simply allowed too
many parties to come there, with far too little effort devoted to cleanup. The guided climbs
certainly added to the problem but did not create it. This is also not the only environmental
catastrophe in the area. For example, they fly in kerosine to be used for heat, because almost all
the trees in the mountain areas have been cut down for firewood.

BTW, the marathon route starts at 17,000', goes "down" to Namche Bazaar at 11,700', then up to Thame
at almost 15,000'. You really can't grasp this if you have not been to the Himalayas before.
Remember, you have to GET to the starting line, where the air pressure is just over half of what it
is at sea level--and it might be, oh, -20F at night. The first mile or so after leaving Gorak Shep
goes over the lateral moraine of the Khumbu Glacier. Up and down constantly (and VERY rocky) and
fairly arduous even if you're walking. You are above 15,000' for a few miles (until you pass
Pheriche). There is a stretch where the trail goes downhill for 4,000' or so--and then it goes right
back up again. In places, the trail is 12-18" wide, with a sheer dropoff of several thousand feet
just beyond the trail. Sound a great place to go for a run?

Quoted message said:

Tell me, when will the McDonalds be built at base camp? Will there be a Starbucks, too?

There was a Japanese luxury hotel at Khumjung (altitude 12,400 feet), where well-heeled guests could
fly in for a distant view of Everst. It closed because they had a slight problem: Their guests kept
dying from altitude sickness. No kidding.

So, no McDonalds (only if they serve McWaterbuffalo), but maybe a Holiday Inn...and there IS the
Everst Sheraton in Kathmandu.

It's very different over there from what you'd expect unless you've been there. The Sherpa people
were chased over mountain passes from Tibet about 500 years ago by decendents of Kublai Khan. There
is a Gompa at Dingboche, on the trail to Everest, that has been continuously occupied longer than
any place in North America--well over 300 years. The only "wilderness" in the Khumbu is the top of
the high peaks: There are people everywhere else.

You can sit at a tea house at Gorak Shep, drink Fanta and eat Toblerone that was brought in on a
yak. All over the areas where Europeans and Americans vist are long stone buildings called tea
houses which are divided into sleeping quarters (where you can put your sleeping bag) and eating
quarters (where they have a stone hearth and cook food for you). McDonalds? No, more like Chili's
(including the spices)! If you fly in to Lukla (oh, yeah, the landing strip is at 10,000 feet and
the plane goes to 13,000 feet. No pressurization...and the landing strip comes in at an angle, so
when you land it feels like you're going to run into the side of a cliff!!!), you can walk all the
way to the Everest Base Camp without ever sleeping outdoors or eating outdoors. These places are
more or less like what the French call "refuges" in the Alps, and it's been like that for a long
time. Even climbers tend to spend time in these places because you sleep better and eat better than
what your own camp staff provides. Don't blame the guided climbs.

Quoted message said:

Lyndon "Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track Coach Brooks Johnson

I didn't know that. That's horrible. Have these trekkers not heard of 'leave no trace'? Sad.

Quoted message said:

SwStudio said:

Wow, first they have guides leading anyone and everyone up the mountain as long as you have
the money, resulting in enormous amounts of trash, spent O2 cannisters, and general debris all
over it.

--
Nova Scotia, Canada

"Lyndon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There was a Japanese luxury hotel at Khumjung (altitude 12,400 feet),

where

Quoted message said:

well-heeled guests could fly in for a distant view of Everst. It closed because they had a slight
problem: Their guests kept dying from altitude sickness. No kidding.

No kidding? Huh. I've spent considerable time in Bolivia, and I've never heard of major problems
with tourists dying at the 12-14,000 ft range (La Paz, Potosi). Not saying it's not true--maybe
Japanese luxury tourists are of more fragile stock than the typical ill-shaven Swedish backpackers
you see around Potosi.

Lyndon said:

There was a Japanese luxury hotel at Khumjung (altitude 12,400 feet), where well-heeled guests
could fly in for a distant view of Everst. It closed because they had a slight problem: Their
guests kept dying from altitude sickness. No kidding.

I find that rather hard to believe. Maybe it caused people altitude sickness, but deaths in
significant numbers would be unlikely. I lived in Colorado for a few years (and hiked 9 or their
14K+ mountains). The top of the Vail ski resort is 11,500 feet. Arapahoe Basin is 10,800 up to
13,000 feet. People might experience nausea, headaches and dizziness, but very rarely die. I
suffered a little altitude sickness (major headache that faded when we came back down to Denver)
after a day white water rafting and followed by coming down to Breckenridge for dinner... it was
probably due to me drinking a load of beer without acclimatising first.

Malc

"Malcolm Ferguson" <Malcolm_Ferguson@NO_SPAM_PLEASEyahoo.com> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Lyndon said:

There was a Japanese luxury hotel at Khumjung (altitude 12,400 feet),

where

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

well-heeled guests could fly in for a distant view of Everst. It closed because they had a slight
problem: Their guests kept dying from altitude sickness. No kidding.

I find that rather hard to believe. Maybe it caused people altitude sickness, but deaths in
significant numbers would be unlikely. I lived in Colorado for a few years (and hiked 9 or their
14K+ mountains). The top of the Vail ski resort is 11,500 feet. Arapahoe Basin is 10,800 up to
13,000 feet. People might experience nausea, headaches and dizziness, but very rarely die. I
suffered a little altitude sickness

nrel.govaltitude.htmlOpen ↗

Ascending rapidly to 12,400 - and then sleeping overnight there - isn't that great an idea. Popping
up to the top of a ski resort on a chairlift is not the same as spending all day up there. And when
you hiked to 14K, I'm guessing that you spent the night sleeping at the night before the summit.

I believe quite a few trekkers in that region get altitude sickness, and they're certainly not
flying direct to the that height. It doesn't surprise me that if a good proportion of people flying
straight in would get ill, and that a number of them would die. The guests probably had less
experience of altitude than the typical visitors to the region.

Ben

Ben Blaukopf said:

nrel.govaltitude.htmlOpen ↗

Ascending rapidly to 12,400 - and then sleeping overnight there - isn't that great an idea. Popping
up to the top of a ski resort on a chairlift is not the same as spending all day up there. And when
you hiked to 14K, I'm guessing that you spent the night sleeping at the night before the summit.

I believe quite a few trekkers in that region get altitude sickness, and they're certainly not
flying direct to the that height. It doesn't surprise me that if a good proportion of people flying
straight in would get ill, and that a number of them would die. The guests probably had less
experience of altitude than the typical visitors to the region.

First of all, that 20-30% number on that URL is obviously not for all of Colorado, but people
visiting Summit County - this is clear by the advice of returning to Denver or Colorado Springs to
relieve the symptoms. It's also for AMS, which includes nothing more fatal than a headache or
nausea for most people. It's clear also that the danger is with pulmonary edema, which only affects
a small number of people. My point about the skiing first of all is that the people stay at a
reasonable altitude 9,000 feet, and more importantly that they're out exerting themselves at an
even higher altitude.

The crux of the matter though is that if this really were a luxury hotel, it would have facilities
(e.g. oxygen on hand) for dealing with AMS or more severe altitude sickness. Altitude sickness
leading to death very rarely comes on with no warning leaving time to treat the condition or
retreat back to a lower altitude - 12,400 feet isn't *that* high. If this "luxury" hotel didn't
have facilities to deal with problems and nor did they warn their customers to spend a few days a
lower altitude, then they weren't a very well run business... more like a cowboy operation than a
"luxury" hotel.

Malc

"Malcolm Ferguson" <Malcolm_Ferguson@NO_SPAM_PLEASEyahoo.com> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ben Blaukopf said:

nrel.govaltitude.htmlOpen ↗

Ascending rapidly to 12,400 - and then sleeping overnight there - isn't that great an idea.
Popping up to the top of a ski resort on a chairlift

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not the same as spending all day up there. And when you hiked to 14K, I'm guessing that you spent
the night sleeping at the night before the

summit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I believe quite a few trekkers in that region get altitude sickness, and they're certainly not
flying direct to the that height. It doesn't surprise me

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if a good proportion of people flying straight in would get ill, and that a number

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

them would die. The guests probably had less experience of altitude than the typical visitors to
the region.

First of all, that 20-30% number on that URL is obviously not for all of Colorado, but people
visiting Summit County - this is clear by the advice of returning to Denver or Colorado Springs to
relieve the symptoms. It's also for AMS, which includes nothing more fatal than a headache or
nausea for most people. It's clear also that the danger is with pulmonary edema, which only
affects a small number of people. My

Sure. It also talks about altitude sickness starting at 6000feet. I don't dispute that, nor that
most people will not get a pulmonary edema.

Quoted message said:

point about the skiing first of all is that the people stay at a reasonable altitude 9,000 feet,
and more importantly that they're out exerting themselves at an even higher altitude.

Yep, and 12000 is only 25% higher. But it doesn't follow that the incidence of a Yes. But 9,000 feet
is only a bit higher than sleeping in a pressurised cabin of a airliner. I'd guess, in fact, that
the cabin pressure is carefully calculated to be as low as possible (cheaper) without the risk of
killing people.

Quoted message said:

The crux of the matter though is that if this really were a luxury hotel, it would have facilities
(e.g. oxygen on hand) for dealing with AMS or more severe altitude sickness. Altitude sickness
leading to death very rarely comes on with no warning leaving time to treat the condition or
retreat back to a lower altitude - 12,400 feet isn't *that* high. If this "luxury" hotel didn't
have facilities to deal with

No, it's not. But I still don't see that it's sensible to fly straight to that altitude and
sleep there.

life-enhancement.comarticle template.aspOpen ↗

suggests that there is a 10% incidence of HAPE where an ascent of 10,000ft takes place in less
than 24hrs. Other papers suggest between 1-10% incidence between 2500-4500m, depending on speed
of ascent.

Quoted message said:

problems and nor did they warn their customers to spend a few days a lower altitude, then they
weren't a very well run business... more like a cowboy operation than a "luxury" hotel.

Indeed. And that may well have been the problem.

Ben