I've run a lot of 5ks this year, and the question I keep getting is when I'll move up. Marathon? Ultra? Here's the thing. I don't think I need to.
There's a quiet belief floating around the running community that the longer races are the real test. The ones that count. That everything under 42.2 kilometres is a warm up, a stepping stone, or practice for the distance that actually matters.
Somewhere along the way, distance became a measure for how serious a runner you are. Race further, care more. But that's wrong.
Plenty of fantastic runners have no interest in a marathon. Plenty have no interest in an ultra. Plenty never will. That's fair enough.
You race 5ks, 10ks and half marathons instead. You race them often, too, because you recover much faster from shorter distances. That means you get more starting lines, more finish lines, and more chances to test yourself.
That's not a lesser version of running. It's just a different one.
Training hard for a 10k is still training hard. It's just training hard differently. Less total volume. More time in the upper zones.
Marathon and ultra prep is time-consuming. Long runs span hours. Fuelling becomes a skill to master. It's a serious commitment, and a good one if that's what you want.
But racing shorter doesn't make you less of a runner. Or soft. Ask anyone who's run a max-effort five kilometres. There's nowhere to hide out there. No easing into it. No finding your legs. It's honest, painful, and over quickly. That appeals to me.
None of this is a knock on the longer distances. I've run marathons. They're genuinely great goals, and finishing one is its own kind of magic.
But racing longer shouldn't be the only respected option. And racing shorter shouldn't need defending. Some of us just like running fast and racing often.
You don't need to finish a marathon to call yourself a runner. You just need to go run.
