You Don’t Need To Be A Great Runner To Run Far

ByPhill Hours Comments Reading Time: 5 minutes

A lot of people don’t believe me when I tell them I’m an average runner. But whenever I check the numbers, I’m not seeing much that stands out as truly great. I’d say I’m just above average, and that’s all you really need to be able to run for a very long time. I’m not even aiming for greatness; I’m aiming to do well enough to meet my own goals and expectations.

For example, I went for a 3-hour run the other day, and Garmin has some stats… let’s dive into what we can see there. The image shows a lot of orange data points for my Run Cadence, Vertical Ratio and Ground Contact Time. 

A graph showing cadence, vertical ratio and ground contact time, all below average

Luckily, Garmin also tells me what this means:

A key for the above graph, showing orange is below average - 5-29th percentile.

It seems, generally, I’m falling into the 5th-29th percentile of what I assume is Garmin users. That’s not great, but how about how far I ran in that time? How do my distances and paces compare with other runners?

An image showing the times and paces (as listed below) that Garmin predicts I will run.

Let’s throw these into RunRepeat’s calculator:

  • 5K – 22:44 – You’re faster than 95.27% of all runners.
  • 10K – 47:59 – You’re faster than 90.33% of all runners.
  • Half – 1:46:06 – You’re faster than 90.75% of all runners.
  • Marathon – 3:49:09 – You’re faster than 80.46% of all runners.
A graph showing percentiles of runners, with RunRepeat making me look rapid.

That seems pretty damn good, but let’s check another calculator:

  • 5K – 22:44 – Your Running Level is Intermediate ★★★
  • Over 5 km you’re faster than 64 % of male runners aged 42
  • 10K – 47:59 – Your Running Level is Intermediate ★★★
  • Over 10 km you’re faster than 56 % of male runners aged 42
  • Half – 1:46:06 – Your Running Level is Intermediate ★★★
  • Over 13.1 miles you’re faster than 55 % of male runners aged 42
  • Marathon – 3:49:09 – Your Running Level is Novice ★★
  • Over 26.2 miles you’re faster than 46 % of male runners aged 42
Results from another calculator showing me to be a novice runner

Well, that’s a lot more sobering… a lot more average, and at the moment I haven’t looked like hitting any of those times that Garmin’s predicted I’m capable of.

Let’s go for a final check with Runner’s World:

  • 5K – 22:44
  • Your age-graded score is: 61.14% with an age-graded time of 21:14
  • To score a 100% you would need a time of 13:54
  • 10K – 47:59
  • Your age-graded score is: 58.67% with an age-graded time of 45:32
  • To score a 100% you would need a time of 28:09
  • Half – 1:46:06
  • Your age-graded score is: 57.41% with an age-graded time of 1:41:41
  • To score a 100% you would need a time of 1:00:55
  • Marathon – 3:49:09
  • Your age-graded score is: 55.98% with an age-graded time of 3:39:37
  • To score a 100% you would need a time of 2:08:17

Okay, so I’m above average, but it doesn’t look like I’m that far above average. RunRepeat’s calculator is taking race results, but elite runners have been excluded, and it is an analysis of recreational runners, and that possibly includes an awful lot of people who are just doing the distance for the first time as a sponsored event. I could imagine a scenario where my running ability is in the top 10% of the general population, but only just above average amongst the running population.

So, it looks like I’m still average for a runner. But there is one place I seem to be doing well, and that’s VO₂ Max, which Garmin claims to be 52 and in the top 10% for my age and gender. I’m happy with that, and it’s slowly been ticking up as I’ve been training; it was 48 back in April. 

Despite Garmin’s claims on my running form, I’d never claim to be a below-average runner, but I couldn’t claim to be much above average either. One of the reasons I gravitated towards ultramarathons is that they are less about being the best runner and more about how you manage your race, both with the mental side and the physical and nutritional aspects. 

I’d say I’m a fairly solid runner, with a decent amount of experience at longer distances, having finished over 20 ultramarathons so far. For any given ultramarathon, I’ve felt I could come in somewhere between the top half and the top third. I even won an ultramarathon once, but that was as much luck of the draw with who turned up as it was down to me. But I think, or at least I hope, what this shows is that you don’t have to be some elite-level runner to attempt something like running the length of a country, or really any silly distance. 

Whether you’re thinking of running LeJog in the UK or attempting to run a marathon over the course of the day, if you’ve prepared well enough, you don’t need to be some sort of fantastic uber-runner. I’m certainly not, and I know I can keep myself moving for longer than other runners I know who are seriously rapid or have beautiful form. I just keep putting one foot in front of the other, rinse and repeat. And really, that’s all you have to do. You don’t have to be great to run really far, you just have to keep moving forward.

Similar Posts