To be able to climb Mt.Everest

**tranzformer** · 05-25-2005, 10:01 PM

Just curious if we have any members that attempted this or plan to. My older brother and I have dreamed of doing this together when we eventually had the $$$$ to allow it. What kind of physical shape do you have to be in to do this. It isnt like Lance Armstrong type of being in shape. I know no fat ass can do this, but can anyone with a decent athletic ability accomplish this??

**Trackhead** · 05-25-2005, 10:07 PM

Anyone with $60,000 can hire a guide and a slew of sherpas to short rope their carcass to the summit.

**ak_powder_monkey** · 05-25-2005, 10:57 PM

I plan on skiing denali some day. Having seen it about half the days I've lived all I can think about is skiing it

**Idris** · 05-25-2005, 11:08 PM

To have a good chance of summiting you have to be in very very good shape. If you think Mont Blanc (4807m) or Mt Whitney (44??m) is a gentle afternoon stroll then you are getting in shape. To get in shape freinds in Cham would do Mont Blanc du Tacul from the Midi in their (2-3 hour) lunch brake and then do something serious on their day's off like Mt Blanc from the valley without an overnight on the mountain.......the realy fit nuts in Cham have the record down to under 5 and a half hours round trip to the summit from the center of town, thats 3800m of climbing and then the same in decent.

**MacDaddy** · 05-25-2005, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Anyone with $60,000 can hire a guide and a slew of sherpas to short rope their carcass to the summit.

I don’t know about anyone!
But I'm sure TH, that you meant that comment, as a tongue and cheek flippant reference to the "rich ass holes" that can afford it!

I would imagine a candidate to even be considered for an Everest climb, would have to be in some incredibly great shape, and have mountaineer skills that are above average, or you would, and could endanger a whole climbing party.

but what do I know, I think a my hike into Honeycomb canyon is mountaineering!

**runethechamp** · 05-25-2005, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Idris

.......the realy fit nuts in Cham have the record down to under 5 and a half hours round trip to the summit from the center of town, thats 3800m of climbing and then the same in decent.

That's some serious shit.

**Tuckerman** · 05-25-2005, 11:11 PM

This dood just did it without oxygen. I have read that his lungs can take in 40% more oxygen than the average human for some reason? That sound like sorta like "Lance Armstrong type of being in shape." He could be the most amazing America climber ever.

G · 05-25-2005, 11:22 PM

If you have to come here and ask, you really don't belong there.

**Duker** · 05-26-2005, 12:41 AM

TH is right. Anyone remember Sandy pittman from 'into thin air' ?

**hucksquaw** · 05-26-2005, 12:58 AM

i agree with TH but nonetheless, tranzformer, you should look at geoff's peice of information as more important.

**Mrs Roo** · 05-26-2005, 04:01 AM

Friend of mine is a super fit military guy who teaches climbing and winter mountaineering to the army. He applied for army backing/funding on an expedition and lost out to younger even fitter guys. Not for the faint hearted, bodied or to be tackled on a whim.

**shera** · 05-26-2005, 04:12 AM

I dream of doing it all the time. It motivates me to work hard when I climb. But it doesn't really motivate me to chase the money, so I dunno. At least would like to get to the himalayas and see that bigass mountain and do some skiing at 20k feet. Base camp would be a cool place to check out I guess. Bring home some flags to hang in the yard.

**shmerham** · 05-26-2005, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

This dood just did it without oxygen. I have read that his lungs can take in 40% more oxygen than the average human for some reason? That sound like sorta like "Lance Armstrong type of being in shape." He could be the most amazing America climber ever.

Was he a big guy? If I remember correctly, lung capacity is not related to fitness, only lung size.

**pube-in-my-taco** · 05-26-2005, 04:36 AM

You have to be in great shape, but you don't have to be in elite shape like lance armstrong or ed viesturs. the ability to climb blanc in a day might even exceed the fitness you need to be in. the main thing about everest is how well you handle altitude, and fitness contributes to this factor.

the biggest complaint of seasoned everest climbers and the more experienced sherpas is not the fitness of the climbers, but the experience. people typically complain about sandy hill pittman, but at least she had already done the other six summits. some extreme examples are people who attempt it without ever having climbed a peak above 15,000 feet.

the books on the i'll-fated 1996 season are required reading for anyone considering everest. into thin air by jon krakauer is an excellent read which paints a vivid picture of life on the mountain and requirements to climb it. left for dead by beck weathers may be the worst book i've ever read, but it does talk about the requirements as well. i own, but have yet to read the climb by the late anatoli boukreev. I understand that it is pretty good.

best quote from krak's book:

Originally Posted by Jon Krakauer

Attempting to climb Everest is an intrinsically irratiional act--a triumph of desire over sensibility. Any person who would seriously consider it is almost by definition beyond the sway of reasoned argument.

**shmerham** · 05-26-2005, 04:37 AM

I would think mental toughness would probably be the biggest factor.

**pube-in-my-taco** · 05-26-2005, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by shmerham

Was he a big guy? If I remember correctly, lung capacity is not related to fitness, only lung size.

Ed Viesturs is a superhuman. He is like Lance Armstrong, with a level of fitness that the vast majority of us can't even dream of having. That said, I don't think he's an unusually large person.

his web site is http://edviesturs.com

**pube-in-my-taco** · 05-26-2005, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by shmerham

I would think mental toughness would probably be the biggest factor.

actually the biggest factor is the $$$$.
no wait, the biggest factor is stainless steel basketball-sized nads.

kidding aside, you're right.. probably.
main factor is mental toughness, followed by ability to handle altitude.

**Mountain Freak** · 05-26-2005, 06:20 AM

Definately a goal of mine... I plan on working up to it, clibing Orizaba, then Aconcagua, and Denali. Who knows if I'll ever get the chance, but I climb year round so I'm never out of shape.

**Trackhead** · 05-26-2005, 06:58 AM

If you don't know how to tie a figure eight-clove hitch-butterfly. Or can't atleast put on your own crampons and climb 70 degree ice comfortably. Or set up your own tent and know how to take care of yourself at 20,000ft minimum. Or haul your partner out of a crevasse. Or know what if feels like to have AMS and puke your guts out.

Then IMHO, come back when you have those skills. Otherwise, you are a liability to everyone on the mountain. If you can't contribute, then you don't belong there.

'You' as used above meaning: anyone attempting to climb Everest.

Why not consider climbing some 20k volcanoes in Ecuador, or 18k volcanoes in Mexico. Or playing on Rainier or Denali. Then perhaps test yourself at 23k in Argentina on Aconcogua. After you climb these, you will have a better idea on your ability and physiology to go higher.

**homeless** · 05-26-2005, 07:09 AM

For an accurate accounting of the 96' tragedy, read "The Climb" by Anatoli Boukreev. Krakauer is a good writer and has since become a pretty strong climber, but in 96' he was inexperienced and unknowledgable... "Into Thin Air" ,while a good read, is a running joke in the mountaineering community.

If the physiology of your body accomadates high altitudes, then you CAN climb Everest... It's just a matter of mental and physical training. A good idea is to spend a few years climbing serious 14,000-foot peaks (Rainier, Whitney, etc..), then head North to Denali or South to Aconcagua and/or peaks in the Cordillera Blanca. By this time, you should have an idea of what you are capable of.

Some people need to take the step of climbing a 7000-meter peak like Khan Tengri, before moving on to the biggest ones... others don't. It just depends on your tempermant, physiology and fitness level.

If you get there before me; don't ski the Super Couloir

I call dibs on that line

Zach

**Hacksaw** · 05-26-2005, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by homeless

Krakauer is a good writer and has since become a pretty strong climber, but in 96' he was inexperienced and unknowledgable... "Into Thin Air" ,while a good read, is a running joke in the mountaineering community.
Zach

Zach,
I think you should go back and do some real research about Krakauer's climbing record. Yes, he didn't have much high altitude experience, when he went to Everest.
As a tecnical mountaineer he has a very full record. Example, he was on the first ascent of the Ham and Eggs Couloir on the Moose's Tooth, in Alaska Range in 75'. He was also on the first ascent of the South arete of Xanadu peak in the Arrigetch Peaks of Alaska in 74'.First ascent of the west ridge of Mount Arthur Emmons in the Brooks Range, in 74'... And I think he has been to the Devil's Thumb on the Stikine Icecap of Alaska. And all these climbs where before he went to Everest.
As far as "Into Thin Air," being a running joke in the mountaineering community, I haven't heard any laughing. I thinkt its hard to laugh at someone who has stood on the summit of Everest, and come home with all their fingers and toes....
Cheers,
Halsted

**H20MAN** · 05-26-2005, 07:56 AM

.....So I've been told. I've done many a crazy mountaineering trip, many solo. Of course I dream about CHUMALONGMA but for the most part DENALI is a much more difficult mountain and you don't have to be part of the corperate money mongers to do it. REAL PEOPLE can do it and real people DIE there all the time.
EVEREST IS LOST!
You can do so many routes that are way better. One climber said be selective in what you climb because you'll eventually die doing it.
Mentally you'll find yourself in a bad situation and you'll ask yourself why your doing it... well...
why?

I still SOLO.... and I don't have a straight answer and been closer to death than any normal mind would won't to be.

**Blurred** · 05-26-2005, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by H20MAN

I don't have a straight answer and been closer to death than any normal mind would won't to be.

That about sums it up.

**H20MAN** · 05-26-2005, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mountain Freak

Definately a goal of mine... I plan on working up to it, clibing Orizaba, then Aconcagua, and Denali. Who knows if I'll ever get the chance, but I climb year round so I'm never out of shape.

I would like to do Aconagua then Denali. There are so many climbs in CO to train on. I have a split board too and when I'm out on the split you know I'm going somewhere crazy!