If Flagstaff is oversaturated, could Laramie (alt. ~7200 feet) be an alternative for high altitude training?

jamin wrote:

By Trumpy do you mean pro-small business, individual liberty, and lowest minority unemployment of all time.

Trump is only pro business for billionaires, who get no jail time for stealing millions even billions. Meanwhile the poorest 99 percent are locked up for years for minor infractions, another money making scheme for the rich. The average full time income is below $18,000 a year, and the wealth disparity in this country is the greatest it's been since 1929. None of that sounds any good unless you're one of the richest .1 percent and don't care about anyone else but yourself.

actually wrote:

I mean handing out KKK and anti-gay leaflets, being scared of immigrants and beating a gay student to death. Trumpy like that.

Actually, the gay student was murdered by gay friends of his who were hoping to steal his cache of drugs and sell them.

Not quite so accurate wrote:

Actually, the gay student was murdered by gay friends of his who were hoping to steal his cache of drugs and sell them.

sounds pretty Trumpy to me.

YMMV wrote:

Evan Jogger wrote:

Our best marathoner in a generation lives and mostly trains in Portland, OR. .

In an altitude house.

^this

Subway Surfers wrote:

YMMV wrote:

In an altitude house.

^this

Because there's no huge advantage to living at altitude full time if you weren't born there!

Meh. wrote:

Because there's no huge advantage to living at altitude full time if you weren't born there!

Explain

Nobody has mentioned Mexico City or the viaje de los leones (valley of lions). Higher than a lot of places and unlike a lot of them you could train year round and it actually has all the amenities you'd need. Sure you need to know Spanish and getting a job could more difficult than in the US - but a large part of the US is fluent in spanish already.

To the two people who mentioned they lived in Laramie (one who lived in from 1995-2000 and the other who lived for two years). The latter person mentioned not having many areas to run in/near the city. See my original post about a 5500 acre park opening up next year with maintained trails. New bike path already constructed north of town which was well after you lived here.

Once you get below 8000 feet at Laramie area, the dirt doesn't retain the snow for too long because of lack of tree cover and sun. This brings me to a bigger point: all these alternate locations suggested with will likely hold onto that crustified (hard to run on) snow due to forest cover. Sure, it's less windy but that lack of wind also makes it near impossible to run on semi-permanent winter snow pack. Anyone who's run on old snow knows how much it sucks running on it (especially when others have already walked/run and there is a crusty, hard packed uneven layer of snow). This is why you want to a high elevation valley surrounded by mountains as opposed to a mountain top or high elevation plateau sticking out with a ton of trees (which I think is what the New Mexico locations are). Outside of Laramie, maybe Alamosa fits that requirement (which btw housed our last great XC runner).

Pat Porter would have never been as good if it weren't for a high elevation valley training ground like Alamosa (or in the same vein, Laramie). Dry, cold, small college towns. Away from distractions.

not so bad wrote:

Altitude is overrated wrote:

Flagstaff is expensive for a reason.

It's a great location and the town is decent.

Laramie is cheap for the same reasons.

It's in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming and the town is probably lame ( I don't think I have come through there yet.)

The only good thing is that your presidential election vote has a lot more say then the same vote in California.

Laramie is actually seemed like a cool little town when I stopped by in the summer. I'm not going to speak for the winter though. It does seem rather Trumpy for a college town, and very Trumpy once you get outside of town.....but I could see spending a few months there in the summer.

Like Baltimore ghettos are very Obamish.

Laramie sucks balls. You couldn't pay me to live there.

Ghost of Jason Rexing's Trainers wrote:

When and how did Flag become "oversaturated"??

Flag is the new Boulder, it's cheaper than Boulder. It will over time price itself out.

The glow of elites making this train have will fade with time and another training meca will come into the picture.

Laramie will never be that place.

Santa Fe - 7200 feet with nearby towns even a little higher.

Population - 83k.

Fairly mild with teens in the winter and 80s in the summer. Has a whole foods. Decent trails and a national forest nearby. Surprised more ppl looking for altitude don't go here.

Wait, what?!?! wrote:

https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/growing-population-leads-to-affordable-housing-shortage-in-laramie/article_68924e60-4738-5779-b105-0137ea129f9d.html

Ha, ha that is probably because all these letsrun runners are moving there to train in altitude.

Kvothe wrote:

Santa Fe - 7200 feet with nearby towns even a little higher.

Population - 83k.

Fairly mild with teens in the winter and 80s in the summer. Has a whole foods. Decent trails and a national forest nearby. Surprised more ppl looking for altitude don't go here.

Because it is frikin expensive.

Not to mention all these old "artsy" people living there.

Gordon Gekko wrote:

Kvothe wrote:

Santa Fe - 7200 feet with nearby towns even a little higher.

Population - 83k.

Fairly mild with teens in the winter and 80s in the summer. Has a whole foods. Decent trails and a national forest nearby. Surprised more ppl looking for altitude don't go here.

Because it is frikin expensive.

Not to mention all these old "artsy" people living there.

Is it? At least there is stuff to do there. It might be a good option for someone intending to live and work at altitude long term/permanently. With some of these towns like Laramie, you'd be bored within a month. In Laramie in the winter, when you're snowed into town and can't run the snow/ice covered trails its got to be miserable.

I'd rank Santa Fe up there with Boulder and CO Springs, ahead of Mammoth Lakes, Laramie, Big Bear, Alamosa, Leadville, Tahoe and these other ski towns. Those kind of places are great for spending a summer at altitude before senior year of college or an extended vacation to train, but not to live long term. Some of them may have big enough running communities and cleared paths so you can train seriously in the winter, but I'd really research it.

juttyhee wrote:

Meh. wrote:

Because there's no huge advantage to living at altitude full time if you weren't born there!

Explain

Alternative species?

Base of voters have served time in jail wrote:

Like Baltimore ghettos are very Obamish.

Javanka own a lot of slum rentals in Baltimore. Obama owns none.

colorunner123 wrote:

Woodland Park, Colo., is nice. 8,481 feet.

My sister lived in Evergreen CO (elevation, 7220) for 2 years and commuted to downtown Denver for work. A 40 minute drive most of the time. Tons of trails and snowshoe running or nordic skiing in the winter.

The racing scene in Denver is nearby and Golden is only 20-25 minutes away. Plus the advantage of a major international airport.