Deceptive Elevation Gain /Loss

We frequently see posts or comments similar to this one: "I have hiked trails in the Western States (or in Europe or on the Appalachian Trail) ... and the elevation (and the elevation gain) on those trails was much more significant than the elevation (and elevation gain) on Isle Royale. Thus, I suspect that I shouldn't have much problem with the trails on Isle Royale."
I want to use the following chart to describe two things:

1) Which trail would you rather hike -- The RED TRAIL or the GREEN TRAIL? The RED TRAIL certainly reaches higher elevation (than the GREEN TRAIL) and it has two somewhat significant hills that will certainly show up on a topographic map (that has 50 foot contour lines). The GREEN TRAIL reaches much lower elevation than the Red Trail, and most of the hills on the Green Trail will hardly register on a topographic map. HOWEVER, I would suggest that the GREEN TRAIL (with its numerous little hills) might very well "kick your butt" as much (or more) than the RED TRAIL with it's two steep hills.

2) TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS CAN BE DECEIVING. On a topographic map (that has 50 foot intervals between contour lines), the hills on the GREEN TRAIL would barely register--or might not show up at all. However, just because those 20 foot to 99 foot (or even 149 foot) hills don't show up on the topographic map at all (or barely show up) doesn't mean that they AREN'T really there. And, after 10 miles of hiking on such allegedly "flat" terrain--I am guessing that your body will definitely feel it.
It is my contention that many sections of the Isle Royale trails are a great deal like the Green Trail on the chart. The hills may barely register on the topographic map--but they are very real and their cumulative impact on your body will certainly be felt at the end of the day.