It's not a matter of 'naturalness', but yes, that would be unproblematic. The core meaning of 'run' (in the sense of moving your legs) has an implicit sense of a being durative action.
Any verb that has this kind of durative sense as part of what I call its 'core' meaning couples very easily with durative time phrases, as well as with the continuous aspect.
Think about the verb 'wait', for example. The core sense of this verb is that it happens over a period of time. It isn't a punctual action, so it would be 'problematic' to say something such as:
She waited at ten o'clock.
Now, this sentence isn't ungrammatical, and I won't say it doesn't make any sense, or that it's not 'possible' but it doesn't make good sense because the punctive aspect of the time phrase at ten o'clock interferes with the durative aspect of the verb. That's what I mean when I talk about 'interference'. When you ask whether such a sentence is possible, I think you ought to be asking whether it's unproblematic, or whether it makes good sense.
An inverse example would be to use a punctive verb with a durative time phrase:
The bomb exploded for three hours.
That doesn't make good sense, as you can easily understand. There's a problematic interference of aspect. The same kind of interference is produced when you couple a punctive verb with a continuous aspect:
The bomb was exploding.
Telic verbs are similar in a way to punctive verbs in that there is something like a punctive aspect to them. They have a sense of 'accomplishment' that is best considered as an event that happens at a point in time.
In summary, when we interpret sentences we have to contend with various kinds of aspect—the aspect of the core meaning of the verb itself, the aspect of the time phrase, and the aspect of the tense. All these contribute to meaning.
