Who runs longer in this workout?

Given that Max King did the infamous "100 x 200" (actually 110) with everything after #40 in 30 seconds (final in 27), I reckon a 1:47 guy could do about 40-70 as well. The marathoner wouldn't necessarily do more than 15-20. If that 2:20 marathoner is female probably less. You have to look at what race paces that 30 seconds correlates to. For runner 1 it's mile pace if not slower. For runner 2 it's 800 pace if not faster.

I'd go with #1, it would take less effort for him to hit those sub 30s. If he runs under 28 on any of them, that marathoner is going to win.

Max king workout is a different workout with more rest and broken into sets. So I don't really consider it comparable. I will say you are a considerable deal off on your number of rep predictions. The workout really compounds on itself as you go further and further into oxygen debt. It also didn't help that the workout was done at altitude. Not sure if that changes guesses.

thinking this may be fudged. 70 200s in 30? plus another 40 in the ballpark? sounds a bit (a lot) bogus for a guy with no mid d credentials.

Curious workout wrote:

Max king workout is a different workout with more rest and broken into sets. So I don't really consider it comparable. I will say you are a considerable deal off on your number of rep predictions. The workout really compounds on itself as you go further and further into oxygen debt. It also didn't help that the workout was done at altitude. Not sure if that changes guesses.

I forgot about the sets (200 jog between each?), but I knew the rest between each rep was only from the finish line to the start (lane 6 on a 200m track), I assume walking.

On the other hand I think Bill Dellinger or Bill Bowermann had runners do 30 / 30 and he figured if you could do 16 you were ready to break 4. In that case, if pushing all-out I think runner 1 would do 20-25 and runner 2 more like 10.

You'd have to know more about the runners. If you're assuming that these are their best performances, then runner 1 may be something like 4:00 mile, 14:00 5k and can do many more than runner 2 who may be a 4:00 1500m, 14:45 5k runner.

Maybe though runner 1 is a 47.0 400m, 4:12 mile and runner 2 is 3:50 1500m, 14:30 5k performer who can do more of these than runner 1.

depends on whether flying starts are allowed.

The 1:47 could do more than the 2:20 marathoner. Neither could do anywhere near the numbers being cited above. The marathoner might make 10-12, the 800 man might make 12-14, if he is a 8/15 type maybe 16-20.

This was a weekly staple at Oregon under Dellinger. 16 would be very good for a miler. I've done 20 during marathon training and a 2:20 marathon would have been an epic disaster for me.

malmo I am impressed with how close you are. I fully expected the marathoner to be toast at 12 and the 800 guy to make it 14-16.The results were this:1:47 guy made it 14 repsMarathoner made it 17 repsThis went against what I expected seeing has the marathoner should have limited ability to buffer lactic acid.As a full disclosure, although the marathoner exclusively has trained for marathons for the past 3 years, he did run 3:47 and 14:10 3 years ago. The 800 guy has run 48 for 400 and 3:44 for 1500. The 1:47 and 2:20 are the most recent pr performances.What physiologically is going on that allows the marathoner to run as fast as he has run for the past couple years for so many repeats?

malmo wrote:

The 1:47 could do more than the 2:20 marathoner. Neither could do anywhere near the numbers being cited above. The marathoner might make 10-12, the 800 man might make 12-14, if he is a 8/15 type maybe 16-20.

This was a weekly staple at Oregon under Dellinger. 16 would be very good for a miler. I've done 20 during marathon training and a 2:20 marathon would have been an epic disaster for me.