It's worth noting that those deaths aren't simply evenly distributed either. Of the friends I've known that have had potentially life threatening climbing injuries (fortunately nobody's died yet), they were either doing "expedition" level stuff or were simply stupid (free soloing). There are of course exceptions. Pay attention to what you're doing and don't be an idiot and 95% of climbing injuries will pass you by.

You shouldn't compare the benefits of getting exercise from rock climbing to the chances of dying from it. The choice isn't rock climb or be totally sedentary. You can get exercise in ways where you can't fall and die. What you should compare is the marginal benefit of the additional exercise you end up doing because you enjoy rock climbing more than the next best activity. And, then compare that to the death rate.

So, if you look at the numbers, the risk of death from climbing is very, very low. Really, it's extremely low. You'd have to go on two outings a week for 3,200 years for the probability of your death to have an expected value of 1.0. Or, if you stick to top ropes, a lot longer than that.

Compared to how much you can benefit from the exercise, the risk of falling and dying is really insignificant, to the point that I don't think it's worth debating between climbing and any other common form of exercise.

[EDIT]: Fix an incorrectly worded statement about expected value.

You keep mentioning death, but death is just the worst possible outcome. What about maiming, paralysis, broken bones, etc.?

My uncle played football in high-school, broke his knee and it's bothered him ever since. He didn't die.

Everything we do has risk, and we shouldn't let it consume us. But I'd also not focus on death in isolation.

Probability of 1.0? Are you sure you're doing the right math? What's the probability after 6,400 years? 2.0?

I meant expected value, but I wrote "expected probably".

That's still wrong. If you have x chance of surviving each day of rock climbing then you have an x^n chance of surviving n days of rock climbing, not a 0 chance of surviving.

OK, by now we all know that GP meant expected number of fatal accidents.

The author's making a slightly different point to the one you're trying to argue:

> the benefits of exercise massively outweigh the risks of even a dangerous activity like climbing.

In other words, the risks of heart attack, diabetes and other diseases are worse than rock climbing, even if you go climbing twice a week.

> So, basically, if your options are either a) be sedentary or b) get adequate exercise by rock climbing, it is better for your health to choose b.

humbledrone, I doubt that's the choice most climbers are making. I'm also a frequent climber (mostly outdoors). If I could not climb, I would not be sedentary - I'd do something(s) else (I already do other activities, too). If I couldn't do anything other than take a stroll every day, I would do that, because I feel better when I move around. Most of the climbers I know are clearly this way - people who can't stand not to be active.

I am pretty convinced, myself, that I'd be better off walking for an hour on safe sidewalks every day instead of rock climbing. I think rock climbing, and other activities in which I partake, put me at higher risk for serious injury or death than a nice healthy walk. How much higher, I'm not sure.

But it's a free society (I live in the USA) and we can do what we want, so I climb, because I'm kind of addicted.

Given the direction that health insurance is taking, I do wonder if people who admit to participating in higher-risk sports will some day be penalized by higher premiums, as smokers are.

I had to quit climbing for my life insurance policy.

When I look at my more active friends, dying is the least of problems really. I had four friends who had their legs broken in terrible ways from skating or horse riding, while I haven't even had to go to the hospital since childhood.

Things like that could easily make you more sedentary for the rest of your life.

I'm not sure about climbing, I just don't think the math is as easy as that :)

The quality of life improvement from the added flexibility and strength must be taken into account also. To be a bit vulgar, would you rather engage in overnight activities with rock climber or with a couch surfer? Which one is able to run for the bus? Play with their kids?

(a related issue that really annoys me is when they compare the dangers of ectasy and heroin using the death rate, when the quality of life destruction caused by ectasy is 1% compared to the horror that happens to a junkie)

The thing with rock climbing is that it is not just "excercise". It's a hobby, it's fun for those of us that do it. (And if it isn't fun, why are you doing it?). I don't climb to stay fit, I climb because I enjoy it, because it is a challenge. I have a fear of heights, so I get a huge adrenaline rush when climbing. There is nothing like abusing your fears to produce thrill ;)