Mt. Rainier In One Day Versus an Ironman Tri

I couldn't help notice reading on a trip report where there was mention of ascending and skiing Mt. Rainier in one day and it not being very hard. I have a buddy who has completed an Ironman in under 10 hours and when he attempted to climb and ski Rainier, he said it was the hardest thing he's ever done. I have never heard anyone say an Ironman triathlon is not very hard, but I find it kind of odd people would be saying to climb and ski Rainier in a day is not very hard as if it has become standard these days.

Am I missing something here, or does there seem to be a special genetic breed of people up there in the PNW in where a change of altitude of 9,000 -14,000 vertical feet doesn't have any affect?

Then again 20 years ago, people thought doing an Ironman was the most amazing thing. Now, these events fill up so fast, its as if it is as standard as doing a local 5k race. I'm guessing in a few years a one day ascent on Rainier will be as standard as doing a 5k race?

A triathlon at sea level and mountaineering are two completely different things. I've seen marathon runners get crushed by the Muir snowfield and seen very strong mountaineers get crushed on runs at sea level.

Yes, you'll have generally strong cardio fitness doing either, but both are fairly specialized endeavors using different muscles in different ways. It's also a different mental approach, I'd guess. Inevitably, the people who do either at a high level have being participating and focusing on those activities for years, which is how they get to that level of performance.

For me, skiing Rainier in a day isn't to bad. After all it is just walking, and I have been doing that since I was two years old I do find that I get a bit fatigued above 12k though.
Now an Ironman, that's a whole different story! If I could survive the swim, I might have a chance at completing one. Unfortunately it turns out that it is quite difficult to doggy paddle those kind of distances... It all comes down to what your into and your training.

some people are affected by altitude much more than others and being prone to altitude sickness has little if anything to do with one's fitness level. You may be in peak physical condition and still need an acclimatization day or two at 10k before going higher....that just has to do with how your body is wired.
I've done Rainier in a day...don't ever need to do it again, camping out up high and enjoying the scenery is as much an enjoyable part of the trip as the climb itself...but to each their own

I agree that the elevation will be a big problem for people who train and race at sea level. Also the surface should not be underestimated. Walking on snow or skiing is quite different from the hard surfaces they run and bike on.

Few years back I skied Baker with a guy who was running marathons under 3 hr and was generally in much better shape than me. He barely made it to the Coleman-Demming col where he waited for us while we skied the summit. The issue was his ankles and hips, he just was not used to the ski specific movements.

I have done both.
I did the October 1983 Hawaii Ironman at age 21.  I finished in 10:42:50 which in those days was pretty good.
I climbed and skied Rainier in about a day in July 2006 at age 43.  Our party took a quite leisurely pace with many rest stops.
The Ironman was WAY harder.  The reason is simple: it was a race.  I maintained maximal sustainable pace from beginning to end, with no rest longer than about 30 seconds in a chair to change shoes.  If I had paced myself in the Ironman as we did on Rainier, taking several sustained breaks, the experience would have been totally different and much, much easier. 
Really, though, the two are apples and oranges.

I agree with normanclyde on this one. (Wow. Impressive effort for 1983 by the way). I have done a 10 hour Ironman at the age of 41 and the effort took me a good month to recover from. I was however, just as wiped out last July after Ryan and I tagged the summits of Baker and Shuksan within a 24 hour period. My Rainer effort started at midnight and ended at 4 back at the parking lot. Went skiing a few days later.

The Ironman was WAY harder.  The reason is simple: it was a race. 

Thanks for stating that so concisely. I also agree an Ironman would be harder. Another way to look at this is how one prepares for both events. The average triathelete who competes in an Ironman spends months doing triathlete-specific training. The average ski mountaineer likely does little specific ski mountaineering training for Rainier relying instead on general fitness and a good touring base.

I couldn't help notice reading on a trip report where there was mention of ascending and skiing Mt. Rainier in one day and it not being very hard.

It's not that Rainier in day isn't "very hard." I actually think it is hard and it is something to proud of. However, I don't feel it's an acomplishment that one should use to distinguish themselves or boost about. That's what I didn't like about the comment in the report I responded to and I particularly didn't like the context the comment was made in. The author who wrote what I responded to said he never intended to distinguish himself like I interpreted.

I'm guessing in a few years a one day ascent on Rainier will be as standard as doing a 5k race?

Well, I don't think it'll ever be that common. However, I think when people shift their perspective from believing something is very hard and out of their realm to "maybe I could do that" - it will become more common. I use to believe Shasta in a day (granted much easier than Rainier in day) was hard and avoided trying it. Then I tried it, and was suprised it wasn't nearly as hard as I thought. I think people are generally suprised in what they can do when they stop believing they can't or something is too hard.

Like Gregg_C and Normanclyde I have been fortunate enough compete in and finish multiple Ironman races (including Hawaii) and climb and ski several big mountains in single day pushes. Anyone who achieves either of these goals should be proud of accomplishing a significant athletic challenge. Following is a comparison, from my perspective, of a few of the similarities and differences between the two activities and a few thoughts from my experiences.

Similarities
• Both require proficiency in multiple sports disciplines.
• Both require excellent physical fitness, mental strength and solid understanding of sports nutrition.
• Both require a significant investment in (expensive  ) equipment.
• Both require a commitment of many hours of time to plan for, prepare for and do the event or trip.
• Although an Ironman is done at a lower average elevation, it still can involve several thousand feet of elevation gain and loss (i.e. IM Canada or Couer d’Alene). A ski mountaineering trip involves constantly increasing elevation (most of the time…  )

Differences
• Triathlon is very much an individual sport; the results are totally up to the individual. There are significant penalties (including disqualification) for working together on the bike leg. Ski mountaineering often involves one or more partners. Group dynamics and other human factors play a role in the safety of the trip and the final outcome. These can either help or hinder the group.
• Ironman races are done with a couple thousand fellow athletes and several thousand more of their closest friends and family supporting them. Most of our ski mountaineering trips involve only the members of our party in the solitude of the mountains.
• Triathlon race courses are carefully planned and marked. The racers know exactly where to go. Many ski mountaineering trips require careful route planning, the ability to navigate through unknown, complex terrain and to adjust if the group makes an incorrect decision.
• All Ironman events I participated in made athlete safety the highest priority. Boats and kayaks patrol the swim courses. The bike courses are patrolled by course marshals and vehicle access is carefully controlled at most events. Hydration and nutrition products are provided at regular intervals along the bike and run courses. There are ample medical resources available to assist athletes who have difficulties. In contrast, a ski mountaineering party is exposed to many objective hazards on any given trip (bad weather, rock fall, white outs, avalanche hazzard, etc). The party must recognize and manage these hazards. The group must carry all required nutrition and hydration for the duration of the trip. In the unfortunate event that one or more members of the party is injured, the rest of the team must have the necessary skills and resources to care for the injured members and get them to safety and professional care.

A few Thoughts
I am very proud of all of my Ironman (and other triathlon) finishes and the many fond memories I have of racing and training with friends and family. Jan and I continue to swim and bike as part of our weekly workout schedule.
That said, I feel I have been more challenged and have a greater sense of accomplishment from my time spent in the mountains, both climbing and skiing. I think this comes from the enjoyment we find from planning and tackling a new route to an isolated objective. Whether the outcome matches the planned goal, or turns out to be something else, the reward is in the endeavor. It is always quite satisfying..........

Gary

Aside from the elevation, I suspect another important factor is the gear. I mean, no serious competitor would seriously contemplating competing in a serious triathlon with anything other than running shoes and at least a decent road bike. But even on pretty strenuous ski routes, you still see some gear that just makes it all the more strenuous.

A few Thoughts
That said, I feel I have been more challenged and have a greater sense of accomplishment from my time spent in the mountains, both climbing and skiing. I think this comes from the enjoyment we find from planning and tackling a new route to an isolated objective. Whether the outcome matches the planned goal, or turns out to be something else, the reward is in the endeavor. It is always quite satisfying..........

Skiing is far more enjoyable.   Triathlons envolve a lot of solo training.  It was a nice change to switch gears to more skiing in 2001 after many years of training and racing.  It does give you a wicked base however.

While I am by no means an Iron Man triathlete, I have been a competitive nordic racer for some years. I find competitive and recreational sports serve different needs. I consider sports where you wear a number as competitive and activities like climbing and BC skiing to be recreational. Doing well at either takes lots of effort.

I am by nature competitive but prefer to dedicate my outwardly focused competition into races and direct inward competition and shared adventure into all types of training and mountain pursuits. This balance has worked for me over the past several decades.

Two different tasks with different cultures, but both unlimited in room for improvement. Past my fastest days, both forms of sport give my fascination with technique plenty of room to roam.

As for whether the Iron Man or RIAD is harder, who cares, people who do either are nutz... in the right way!!!

I did an Ironman, its a long day and you need to be physically strong, but it's nothing compared to my biggest days climbing. I never did Raineer in a day, I have done some aid climbing and carrying an aid pack to base of Washington Column in Yos was much harder than Ironman...

At Ironman:
1. people handing you food and water all day
2. if you fall, someone is there to pick you up
3. if it gets too cold or it gets too sketchy, you can bail out ANY time
4. you dont have to carry any gear
5. pizza and chicken soup and a plastic space blanket at finish line

I'd rather be in the mountains...