Has Yasso's 10x800 ever worked for you?

No. It is a self-marketing ploy that has gained traction with those at Dieter's World.

Sounds like the OP has answered his own question. "Skeptical" is another way of saying, no way in hell!

It depends how you scale. I'm much better at short distance, so I can hammer out Yasso's that predict about 15 minutes too fast. By the way, the method Yasso himself described was to recover with a 400m easy lap.

Marketing scheme designed for 4+ hour marathoners.

For me it would be a complete disaster. Best distance was about 3000m. Loved running track reps.

I think I'd come out about 20 mins faster than I could really run a marathon.

bad predictor, bad workout. whats to like? nothing.

It's a good predictor...of 3000 pace.

I like it as a workout, but it's more of a predictor of what you can't do than what you can - e.g. if you are aiming for a 2:35 marathon and can't manage 10x800m in 2:35 a month out from the marathon, you aren't getting 2:35. I ran a set in 2:29avg four weeks out from my last marathon, ended up running 2:33, which was within a minute of my goal - was never under any illusions I'd run 2:29 though.

I'm also very much at the endurance end of things rather than speed (5k PB of just 16:30), so I'm guessing the difference will be amplified even further for speed-based runners with lower mileage.

I think Yasso himself would insist that there is no scientific viability to this "test": it merely TENDS to be a decent predictor of marathon time for the "average" marathoner (which these days means 4+ hours) who might have no idea of what they're actually capable of. It's no better or no worse than using other race times as a predictor (it's actually pretty much the same thing), and probably worse than using something like VO2Max as a predictor.

I think there's a general awareness in the running community that the faster you are (especially at middle-distances), the more "off" the test can be.

It's meant for the Runner's World community, not the Running Times (RIP) community, and it probably works fairly well for that group, so no harm no foul.

SwissFamilyKnobinson wrote:

I like it as a workout, but it's more of a predictor of what you can't do than what you can - e.g. if you are aiming for a 2:35 marathon and can't manage 10x800m in 2:35 a month out from the marathon, you aren't getting 2:35. I ran a set in 2:29avg four weeks out from my last marathon, ended up running 2:33, which was within a minute of my goal - was never under any illusions I'd run 2:29 though.

I'm also very much at the endurance end of things rather than speed (5k PB of just 16:30), so I'm guessing the difference will be amplified even further for speed-based runners with lower mileage.

exactly.

better as a negative indicator.

the way the workout has been described recently, with a 400 jog between each 800 repeat, it's a great workout

the way it was originally described, with the time between repeats being equal to the time of the repeat, (meaning that if you ran 2:45 800's, the rest/recovery interval should be 2:45) was not as challenging nor as effective

back when i was a regular sub-3:00 i found the workout to be just a little bit fast... i could average 2:55 for 10 x 800 and i would run a 2:57:30 marathon

Besides low mileage speedsters, it's also probably going to be off for anyone weighing over 135 pounds.