Summiting a 14er vs. Running a Marathon
If you've had a busy week, clap your hands. If you've had a busy week, clap your hands. If you've had a busy week, and had no time to speak, if you've had a busy week clap your hands!
Wait a second, why am I typing? I need my hands to clap.
So it's been a while since I've checked in. I've spent most of the week investigating the safety of SunRay Park's race track -- the procedures in place to evaluate it, the raw data, expert's opinions.
Check for a two-part series in the Daily Times later this week. In the meantime, as of the last safety committee meeting, there have been four horses euthanised at SunRay this year in over 3,000 starts, or 1.33 per 1,000. This is slightly better than the national average, but it improves taking into account three things:
1. SunRay's track is dirt. While data is preliminary and inconclusive, many tracks have switched to synthetic surfaces which seem to be safer.
2. SunRay's track is smaller in diameter. Some of the mile race tracks have better numbers. As SunRay track consultant Steve Wood explained to me, horses weren't made to gallop into turns at 40 mph and then change direction. That can create problems.
3. I don't have the official numbers from the New Mexico Racing Commission yet, but SunRay didn't have a great year in 2008. Luck plays a part in the equation, but several sources confirmed the track has done a much better job this year, and the statistics are significantly better.
*****
Debate -- 14er vs. Marathon: Which is harder, summiting a 14er (peak above 14,000 feet of elevation) or running a marathon?
As an avid mountaineer and a former Division I track athlete, I found this discussion on 14ers.com interesting.
Here's my take, reposted from the message board:
A marathon by far is more difficult.
The reason it's a no-contest: A marathon is, for most, a race. A 14er is, for most, about reaching the top and getting back down safely.
Anyone on this forum could finish 26.2 miles with an effort equal to, say, what you would expend during the 14-mile summit of Longs Peak via the Keyhole by controlling your pace. But a marathon is a timed event. Runners usually have a time goal in mind and therefore try to exert as much energy as possible during the course of the race. Mountaineers usually have a goal of summiting and therefore try to conserve as much energy as possible during the course of the climb.
The more altitude affects an individual, the slower they're likely to climb and the more they're likely to rest to ensure the greatest chances of summiting.
The comparison is flawed -- both quests seek different ends and are difficult in unique ways. Marathoners break down their energy and their muscles more while mountaineers must overcome greater risks and expend mental energy over a longer period of time.
The question is, what would level the disparity of the original proposition? Obviously if we switched the premise so we're comparing running a marathon with racing up and down a 14er as fast as possible, the 14er would be more difficult. In most cases you're talking about 2/3 the distance, plus several thousand feet of elevation gain over less conducive terrain.
But what if, say, it changed to taking a maximum of a five-minute break for every 1,000 feet of elevation gained? Or what if you had to keep your heart rate elevated to a 10 percent lower rate than when you're running a marathon?
*****
Moron Story: I left my laundry at the laundromat Friday.
I put it in the dryer, went home and started cooking Cajun beans and rice.
I got so excited about eating that I lost track of time. By Friday night, as I was readying for bed around 2 a.m., I realized that all my jeans and other various articles of clothing were sitting in the dryer -- or they were sitting in the dryer when the joint closed at 9 p.m.
I stopped by the place at 9 a.m. Saturday on my way to SunRay and luckily the kind woman had stored them in a closet. Now my only problem is everything I washed is wrinkled.
Any of you ever do something similar?
Stay true and keep pounding:
Wait a second, why am I typing? I need my hands to clap.
So it's been a while since I've checked in. I've spent most of the week investigating the safety of SunRay Park's race track -- the procedures in place to evaluate it, the raw data, expert's opinions.
Check for a two-part series in the Daily Times later this week. In the meantime, as of the last safety committee meeting, there have been four horses euthanised at SunRay this year in over 3,000 starts, or 1.33 per 1,000. This is slightly better than the national average, but it improves taking into account three things:
1. SunRay's track is dirt. While data is preliminary and inconclusive, many tracks have switched to synthetic surfaces which seem to be safer.
2. SunRay's track is smaller in diameter. Some of the mile race tracks have better numbers. As SunRay track consultant Steve Wood explained to me, horses weren't made to gallop into turns at 40 mph and then change direction. That can create problems.
3. I don't have the official numbers from the New Mexico Racing Commission yet, but SunRay didn't have a great year in 2008. Luck plays a part in the equation, but several sources confirmed the track has done a much better job this year, and the statistics are significantly better.
*****
Debate -- 14er vs. Marathon: Which is harder, summiting a 14er (peak above 14,000 feet of elevation) or running a marathon?
As an avid mountaineer and a former Division I track athlete, I found this discussion on 14ers.com interesting.
Here's my take, reposted from the message board:
A marathon by far is more difficult.
The reason it's a no-contest: A marathon is, for most, a race. A 14er is, for most, about reaching the top and getting back down safely.
Anyone on this forum could finish 26.2 miles with an effort equal to, say, what you would expend during the 14-mile summit of Longs Peak via the Keyhole by controlling your pace. But a marathon is a timed event. Runners usually have a time goal in mind and therefore try to exert as much energy as possible during the course of the race. Mountaineers usually have a goal of summiting and therefore try to conserve as much energy as possible during the course of the climb.
The more altitude affects an individual, the slower they're likely to climb and the more they're likely to rest to ensure the greatest chances of summiting.
The comparison is flawed -- both quests seek different ends and are difficult in unique ways. Marathoners break down their energy and their muscles more while mountaineers must overcome greater risks and expend mental energy over a longer period of time.
The question is, what would level the disparity of the original proposition? Obviously if we switched the premise so we're comparing running a marathon with racing up and down a 14er as fast as possible, the 14er would be more difficult. In most cases you're talking about 2/3 the distance, plus several thousand feet of elevation gain over less conducive terrain.
But what if, say, it changed to taking a maximum of a five-minute break for every 1,000 feet of elevation gained? Or what if you had to keep your heart rate elevated to a 10 percent lower rate than when you're running a marathon?
*****
Moron Story: I left my laundry at the laundromat Friday.
I put it in the dryer, went home and started cooking Cajun beans and rice.
I got so excited about eating that I lost track of time. By Friday night, as I was readying for bed around 2 a.m., I realized that all my jeans and other various articles of clothing were sitting in the dryer -- or they were sitting in the dryer when the joint closed at 9 p.m.
I stopped by the place at 9 a.m. Saturday on my way to SunRay and luckily the kind woman had stored them in a closet. Now my only problem is everything I washed is wrinkled.
Any of you ever do something similar?
Stay true and keep pounding:
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Summiting a 14er vs. Running a Marathon.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.daily-times.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/997
Leave a comment