Garpple Thesis

Problem → Mission → Vision

MAIN PROBLEM STATEMENT

Runners struggle to see (1) progress overtime and (2) maintain motivation during the months between races when progress is invisible.

Progress in running happens slowly over weeks and months through consistent training, but runners can't tell if their training is actually working because: they don't race frequently enough to track PRs, the improvements are too gradual to notice day-to-day, and they have to manually dig through different views and months of data to compare similar efforts.

This causes runners to train discouraged, blind to genuine progress because they can't see the fitness gains they're actually making.

MISSION

Help runners maintain motivation and build confidence in their training by showing them evidence of progress they can't see elsewhere - both during training blocks when improvement feels invisible and across training blocks when they forget how far they've come. More concisely: Show runners evidence of progress over time so they have confidence their training is working (even between races).

VISION / Why do I care?

I'm passionate about helping people see how they're getting better over time because I've experienced firsthand the power of consistency and long time horizons. The growth curve is hard to see when you're zoomed into the immediate, but when you set appropriate time horizons and work hard consistently you’re able to achieve above-average results. That's running.

I don't want to build for the person who runs one race and disappears. But if they download this app, I want them to come back. I want to help people keep running because running changes lives and improves health. And those are the two things I've always cared most about: health and finding purpose.

Too many people quit not because they aren't improving, but because they can't see they're improving (this is true in life and in running). If I can give people confidence in their training over time, I can help them stay consistent. And consistency in running carries over into other aspect of life: it teaches you the value of showing up, believing in yourself (trusting the process), and playing the long game.

Core Assumption → Hypothesis → North Star → Thesis

CORE ASSUMPTION (What you're testing):

When runners see evidence that they're making progress over time, they gain confidence in their training, which reinforces consistency and sustains motivation during periods when improvement would otherwise feel invisible.

More simply: Visible progress → Confidence → Sustained consistency

HYPOTHESIS (How I'll test it)

If we automatically surface evidence of longitudinal progress, then runners will open the app 3-5x/week (after ~every run) because:

It gives them positive reinforcement for work already done (not guilt for work undone)
It answers the question no other app answers well: 'Am I getting better?’
It creates confidence during training blocks when races aren't validating progress

NORTH STAR METRIC

People who open the app 4+ times in a week (WAU_4+)

Why 4x/week? Matches the ICP's typical running cadence (3-5x/week). I want them coming back after each run to see how that run compares to past efforts, plus periodic check-ins to see longitudinal progress.

How I’ll know if the core assumption is working:

Leading indicators (early validation):

Users open the app without a run trigger (they're checking progress, not just logging workouts)
One-day retention is high, >40% (they come back the next day, not just once)
Users share progress/insights to a friend within the first week (valuable enough to tell others)

Lagging indicators (sustained validation):

4-week retention >40% (they're still finding it valuable after the novelty wears off)
Conversion to paid >15% (if freemium - willingness to pay = real value)
Session length increases over time (more data = more engagement with comparisons)
Qualitative feedback: "I can finally see I'm getting better" vs "cool data"

THESIS (Why I'll win)

I'll win because we're solving a real, poorly-addressed problem (invisible progress between races) with three distinct advantages:

Unique positioning: We're the only app optimized for longitudinal progress tracking over months/years, not weekly summaries or daily prescriptions.
Behavioral advantage: Progress tracking = passive consumption + positive emotions. Prescriptive apps = active effort + guilt. We align with revealed preferences, not stated preferences.
Founder-product fit: I’m a serious hobby runner building for serious hobby runners. I understand the problem because I live it. And I can move faster than established competitors because its me + AI iterating based on real runner feedback with no overhead.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

SECONDARY ADVANTAGES & DIFFERENTIATORS

Community co-building: Build a community of runners who care about seeing the app progress while they progress, knowing their ideas and feedback directly shape development
Transparency and education: Show runners not just the metrics, but WHY they matter and how they tie into training performance (build trust through understanding)
Solo-builder authenticity: Lean into being a real runner solving a real problem for other runners — not a corporation chasing growth metrics
Exceptional design: Great taste in UI/UX that makes complex data feel simple and intuitive (design quality that most fitness apps lack)

UNIQUE INSIGHT GAP / CORE DIFFERENTIATOR

The Insight: Running is a long-term compounding game, but most apps are optimized for short time horizons (what did I do today/this week/this month). The confidence problem stems from runners not being able to see training progress over time between races — and no other app is solving this well.

What in-app feedback revealed: Users aren't asking for more data (they already have it). They're asking: "Am I better than I was 3 months ago? 6 months ago? Last year?" Current apps can't answer this because they don't automatically surface longitudinal comparisons.

The gap in the market:

Strava shows you what you did (activity feed, segment times)
HealthFit shows you every metric (47 data points per workout)
Garmin shows you current fitness (today's VO2 max, training load)
Nobody shows you: "Here's proof you're getting fitter over time"

One-Sentence Positioning: "Garpple shows you if your training is working — the one thing all those other apps can't tell you."

Unique Solution: Automatic longitudinal comparisons without manual effort. We do the work of finding similar workouts across months, surfacing trends, and showing comparison progress — so runners don't have to manually dig through their history to answer "Am I getting better?" With nudges in the right direction instead of prescriptive changes that people don't do and ultimately lead to guilt.

For: Consistent runners who train without a coach
Who: Want to know if their training is actually working
Garpple: Shows you if you're getting fitter over time
Unlike: HealthFit, which shows you every metric but can't tell you if you're improving
Garpple: Automatically surfaces evidence of progress from your training data
So you can: Have confidence that your training is working, even between races

MAIN ICP

Who most desperately needs it?

The Serious Hobbyist Runner

Post-newbie runners (1-3 years experience, training 3-5x/week without a coach) who can't see if/how their consistent work is actually making them better

Demographics:

1-3 years running experience
Trains 3-5x/week consistently
No coach (self-directed training)
Runs 20-35 miles/week
Has completed multiple races (3+ half marathons or 1+ marathon)

Psychographics:

Core emotional state: "I'm putting in the work but can't tell if it's paying off"
Past the phase where every run is a PR
Committed enough to train consistently but not elite/obsessive
Goal-oriented (wants to get faster, not just finish)
Feels stuck or uncertain about whether training is working
Checks apps frequently but gets frustrated with what they show

Behaviors:

Has 6+ months of workout history (enough data for comparisons)
Opens Strava/Garmin/HealthFit regularly but closes it without answers
Manually scrolls through old workouts trying to remember "was I this tired last time?"
Knows their current VO2 max but can't tell if they're trending up
Between races, motivation wavers because progress feels invisible

Jobs to be Done

Functional Jobs:

Primary: "Help me know if my training is actually working" (between races when I can't validate with PRs)
"Show me if I'm getting fitter over time" (not just what I did today/this week)
"Compare my current fitness to 3/6/12 months ago" (without manually digging through history)
"Validate that my consistency is translating to improvement" (so I don't feel like I'm wasting time)

Emotional Jobs:

Primary: "Give me confidence that my training approach is working" (reduce anxiety/uncertainty)
"Help me feel motivated during the long middle of training blocks" (when progress is invisible)
"Make me feel proud of the progress I've made" (even without a recent PR)
"Reassure me that I'm not stuck or plateauing" (I'm still getting better, just slowly)
"Help me feel like a legitimate 'serious runner'" (beyond just recreational)

Social Jobs:

"Give me something concrete to say when people ask 'how's training going?'" (beyond "it's fine")
"Help me decide if I should sign up for that next race" (do I have evidence I'm ready to level up?)

Why this person MOST needs Garpple:

They have enough experience that newbie gains are gone (progress is slower)
They have enough data history to make longitudinal comparisons meaningful
They're committed enough to care, but not elite enough to have a coach validating progress
They're at the highest risk of losing motivation during training blocks
First-time racers don't have a base-line performance to care about improving against

Other two ICPs (ignore for now):

Second-race runner: Getting more serious after completing first race for fun; signed up for second race with a time goal
Pre-commitment runner: At decision point about signing up for next race; needs confidence boost to commit

Marketing Angles

"You're getting better. You just can't see it yet."
"Finally know if your training is paying off — without waiting for race day."
"Am I getting better? (Your app should be able to answer that.)"
"You're putting in the work. Is it working?"
"All that training data. Still can't tell if you're getting faster."
"Training without a coach? Here's your progress tracker.”
"Finally know if your training is paying off — without waiting for race day."

3 Biggest Risks (framed as questions)

Risk 1: "Does visible progress actually drive sustained engagement, or just one-time curiosity?" My core assumption is: Visible progress → Confidence → Sustained consistency. But what if showing runners their progress is interesting once but doesn't create enough value to make them open the app 4x/week? This breaks my hypothesis that automatic longitudinal progress will drive 4+ opens per week. If retention drops after the initial "aha moment," then visible progress creates one-off interest but not habit.

Mitigation:

Test with leading indicators (one-day retention >40%, unprompted opens, sharing behavior)
If retention drops after week 1, the insight isn't valuable enough — pivot or kill
Build feedback loops that make each visit reinforce the next (new runs = new comparisons = reason to return)

Risk 2: "Is progress actually detectable and compelling during training blocks when runners need it most?"

My mission is to show evidence of progress "during training blocks when improvement feels invisible." But what if the progress is SO gradual that even when you surface it automatically, it's not compelling enough? Or worse - what if there are long stretches (6-8 weeks) where there ISN'T meaningful progress to show (plateaus, base-building phases, injury recovery)? If I can't show meaningful progress when runners most need confidence, I can't solve the core problem. Or, I need to reframe how and when this product is needed.

Mitigation:

Define what "meaningful progress" looks like (5 bpm HR drop? 10 sec/mile pace improvement? Consistent effort scores?)
Have fallback insights for plateaus ("Your consistency this month is building the base for future gains" / "Maintaining fitness during injury recovery")
Test with real runner data: Can we detect progress signals in 80%+ of 4-week windows?

Risk 3: "Is the technical challenge of workout matching too hard to solve well?"

Comparing workouts accurately requires:

Effort level matching (easy run vs. tempo)
Statistical significance (enough data points)
Advanced considerations like weather/conditions adjustment

If the matching is bad, comparisons are meaningless. If it's too complex, it takes too long to ship.

Mitigation:

Start simple: Distance + pace range + effort level (easy/tempo/long)
Be transparent: "Compared to 12 similar 5-mile easy runs from the past 6 months"
Improve gradually with user feedback ("This comparison doesn't feel right")
Ship fast, iterate based on real usage — perfect matching isn't required for V1 if the insight is directionally correct

P.S.: To mitigate risk of just “moving fast and being unique”:

Build community from Day 1: Make early users feel like co-founders, not customers
Go narrow and deep: Own "progress tracking for Norwegian Singles Approach (NSA) running community" completely before expanding
Charge early: Prove willingness to pay ASAP (even if it's just $5/month for beta access)
Build my brand: Be the face of this. Content, presence, personality. Strava is a faceless company. You're a real runner.

Sources that informed this:

181 waitlist signups
15 pieces of in-app feedback from Garpple
65 pieces of in-app feedback from Race Time Calculator
Competitive Analysis of HealthFit’s 353 app store reviews
Numerous customer conversations, text messages, and emailing

You can download the app here