ARTICLE

Sprinters versus Long-distance Runners: How to

Grow Old Healthy
Krzysztof Kusy and Jacek Zielinski
Department of Athletics, Faculty of Physical Education, Sport and Rehabilitation, Eugeniusz Piasecki University
School of Physical Education, Poznan, Poland
SKI. Sprinters versus long-distance runners: how to grow old healthy. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev., Vol. 43, No. 1,
KUSY, K. and J. ZIELIN
pp. 57Y64, 2015. So far, aging studies have concentrated on endurance athletes. Master sprint-trained athletes were not the main focus of
attention. We propose the novel hypothesis that the sprint model of lifelong physical training that involves high-intensity exercise is at least as
beneficial as moderate-intensity endurance exercise for successful aging. Key Words: aerobic capacity, glucose metabolism, lipid profile,
body composition, neuromuscular function, training adherence, health risks

INTRODUCTION

By sprint-trained athletes we mean those who perform

short-time (conventionally e30 s) maximum-intensity exercise resulting in the highest possible movement velocity,
speed, or frequency at a low external resistance. Typical examples are track sprinters and high and long jumpers who
have to accelerate the body rapidly in an extremely short
time. The exercise training pattern of sprint-oriented athletes
clearly differs from that of endurance athletes. On the other
hand, taking into consideration a standard training schedule,
sprint also may be classified as a mixed sport, where different
training modalities are undertaken to reach the main goal,
that is, sprint performance. Master sprinters use varied exercise: apart from developing speed (0.8Y2.0 training sessions
per week), they improve specific speed-endurance abilities
(0.6Y2.1 training sessions per week), jumping ability (0.3Y1.1
training sessions per week), strength (0.6Y1.5 training sessions
per week), and aerobic endurance (0.6Y2.0 training sessions
per week) (7). In effect, master sprinters and jumpers devote
10% to 50% of their training time to endurance development
(7) because low-intensity exercise is necessary to warm up
properly or to focus on improving movement technique.
Moreover, aerobic mechanisms enable faster recovery after
high-intensity exercise. Importantly, not only the incorporated endurance exercise determines health effects of sprintoriented training. It was revealed in randomized control
(3,28) and intervention (32) studies that sprint interval
training itself induced beneficial metabolic and cardiovascular
adaptations that normally are associated with aerobic training: increase in maximal oxygen uptake, insulin sensitivity,
resting fat and carbohydrate oxidation, reduced systolic blood
pressure, waist and hip circumferences. This suggests that
chronic high-intensity (sprint) exercise might be an effective
strategy to maintain health.
As sprint-trained athletes undertake different training modalities and given that sprint training itself causes some

Master athletes usually continue their training across decades, adhering to training regimens of three to six sessions
(about 10 or more hours) per week (7). The incidence and
risk of chronic diseases of affluence, for example, diabetes,
metabolic syndrome, or coronary heart disease, reportedly are
lower, and self-rated health is better in competitive master
athletes (13) and former elite athletes (16) than in apparently
healthy controls. Moreover, master athletes reach upper limits
of human physical capacity (18) and are, thus, an adequate
model to determine successful aging.
So far, studies on age-related changes in aerobic capacity
and other health characteristics have concentrated on endurance sports (26,30). There only are few studies contrasting
sprint- and endurance-trained master athletes (4,6,23). Unfortunately, specific goals and design of these studies do not
allow a deeper insight into age-related changes. First of all,
small numbers of subjects within narrow age ranges were analyzed, and untrained groups were not included for comparison.
Moreover, aging sprint-trained athletes have never been the
subject of any study on age-related changes in characteristics
such as aerobic capacity, anaerobic threshold, or insulin
sensitivity probably because they have no predictive value
for sprint performance.

Address for correspondence: Krzysztof Kusy, Ph.D., Eugeniusz Piasecki University

School of Physical Education, Department of Athletics, ul. Krolowej Jadwigi 27/39, 61-871
Poznan, Poland (E-mail: krzysztofkusy@op.pl).
Accepted for publication: August 15, 2014.
Associate Editor: Hirofumi Tanaka, Ph.D., FACSM
0091-6331/4301/57Y64
Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews
Copyright * 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine

57
Copyright 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

adaptations as advantageous as those resulting from endurance training, they represent a model of long-term physical
activity with specific consequences for aging, which is interesting in the context of health and fitness preservation in a
long-term perspective. Based on the previous premises, one
may expect that sprint-trained athletes who practice competitive sport on a regular basis will maintain an optimal level
of health characteristics across the lifespan.
Our recent studies among competitive athletes of different
ages (20Y94 yr) have thrown some light on the effects of
sprint-oriented and endurance training models on characteristics that are not only related to sport performance but also
are crucial to maintaining general health in a lifetime perspective: aerobic capacity, heart function, insulin sensitivity, glucose metabolism, lipid profile, body composition, bone
density, neuromuscular function, and tendinopathy (11,15,
17,19Y22,25). In Figure 1, we present a brief comparison between the aging-related health effects of sprint and endurance training, which we subsequently discuss in more detail.
We take into account health benefits as well as some risks
connected with sport training. In general, both athletic groups
benefit from their training models, and health benefits definitely outweigh a certain risk associated with competitive

sport. Certainly, athletes specializing in different disciplines

differ in health profile.
In this short review, we make an attempt to compare
health- and aging-related benefits and risks of the sprint and
endurance training model. We hypothesize that the sprint
model of lifelong physical training based on short highintensity exercise is in general as beneficial for successful aging and health as is the endurance model based on prolonged
submaximal exercise.

BENEFITS
Maximal Aerobic Capacity
In one of our studies, we analyzed relationships between age
O2max) and contributors to
and maximal oxygen uptake (V
the age-related decline in master athletes and controls based
on cross-sectional data (19). The sprint group showed a lower
O2max than the endurance group (~47 vs
average level of V
j1
~58 mLIkg Iminj1, respectively). This was in accordance
with earlier cross-sectional studies based on smaller groups of
middle-aged master athletes (4,6). However, at the same time,

Figure 1. Simplified picture of some health benefits and risks resulting from long-term sprint (black boxes) and endurance (white boxes) training in aging
master athletes. The effect of recreational physical activity (standard level) is a point of reference. It should be emphasized that both athletic groups benefit
from their training models much more than recreationally active individuals (let alone sedentary ones) and that health benefits definitely outweigh a certain
risk associated with competitive sport, as lower incidence of chronic diseases in master athletes shows (13). Both groups of master athletes differ only in the
profile of benefits: sprint-oriented training more effectively promotes bone mineral density (which may be similar in endurance athletes and untrained
subject V dashed line), muscle mass, neuromuscular function, and probably training adherence, whereas endurance training is more effective in
maintaining high aerobic capacity and cardiovascular function as well as optimal glucose metabolism and lipid profile. Both training models seem to
facilitate keeping low fat mass. The risk of tendinopathy is similar, but the injury rate is higher in sprinters than runners. Tendinopathy, injury, and
osteoarthritis occur more frequently in athletes than in the general population. Competitive master athletes participating in long-term intensive endurance
training may have a somewhat higher risk of deleterious cardiovascular structural and functional changes than the general population; the analogous risk in
aging sprint-trained athletes is not known (gray box).

58 Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews

www.acsm-essr.org

Copyright 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Figure 2. Schematic illustration of the relationship between age and

maximal aerobic capacity as measured by maximal oxygen uptake
depending on training status: average linear cross-sectional declines
across the adult lifespan. [Adapted from (19). Copyright * 2014 John
Wiley & Sons Ltd. Used with permission.]

sprinters had significantly higher levels of aerobic capacity

than untrained recreationally active individuals (~41 mLIkgj1I
O2max was reported
minj1). Admittedly, in one study, a lower V
in young nonendurance athletes (bobsledders) than in untrained
controls; however, athletes were approximately 8 yr older and
the difference in aerobic capacity changed to the advantage of
bobsledders after a 15-yr follow-up (23). According to our data,
O2max, expressed both as
the cross-sectional rate of decline in V
milliliters per kilogram per minute and as percent per decade,
was smaller in the sprint group (0.31 mLIkgj1Iminj1 per year)
than in endurance runners (0.46 mLIkgj1Iminj1 per year) and
untrained controls (0.35 mLIkgj1Iminj1 per year) (Fig. 2). In
line with this finding, other researchers revealed that the
O2max was
longitudinal (15-yr follow-up) rate of decline in V
slower in sprint athletes than in endurance runners (23). Interestingly, whereas, in the untrained participants and endur O2max
ance groups, the rate of cross-sectional decline in V
accelerated over the age of 50 (0.50 and 0.63 mLIkgj1Iminj1
per year, respectively), this was not the case in sprinters
(0.19 mLIkgj1Iminj1 per year for young and older groups) (19).
O2max of the sprint and
As a result, the average levels of V
endurance groups become similar about the age of 80 yr. Our
cross-sectional data suggest that sprint-trained athletes may be
a distinct group characterized by the slowest decline in absolute
O2max whereas, in endurance-trained indiand percentage V
O2max is reported to be faster (26,30)
viduals, the decline in V
or similar at best (35) compared with untrained individuals.
It seems that it is the smaller rate of decline in maximal
heart rate that accounts for the smaller rate of deterioration
O2max in sprint-trained athletes compared with endurin V
ance athletes. Simultaneously, maximal oxygen pulse, a variable related to stroke volume, and hemoglobin concentration
showed a similar rate of decrease in both groups (19).
In general, aging endurance-trained athletes are characterized by considerably higher maximal aerobic capacity than
sprint-trained peers. The latter, in turn, exceed untrained subjects and surpass the values recommended in fitness norms. The
O2max seems to be significantly smaller in
rate of decline in V
sprinters than in endurance runners and untrained individuals.
Volume 43 & Number 1 & January 2015

Submaximal Aerobic Capacity

In another cross-sectional study, we analyzed relationships
O2GET)
between oxygen uptake at gas exchange threshold (V
and contributors to the age-related decline (17). It was revealed that endurance runners had, as expected, higher levels
O2GET than sprint-trained athletes, expressed in absolute,
of V
O2max)
body massYadjusted, and relative (percentage of V

values. The VO2GET of the sprint group exceeded that of the

untrained group. The cross-sectional rate of absolute decline
O2GET was significantly smaller in the sprint group (0.38
in V
mLIkgj1Iminj1 per year) than in the endurance group (0.56
mLIkgj1Iminj1 per year) and least pronounced in the untrained group (0.22 mLIkgj1Iminj1 per year). The percentage
decline was comparable in all groups investigated (Fig. 3).
However, the absolute rates of decline were virtually the same
in sprint-trained athletes before and after the age of 50 yr
whereas, in endurance runners and untrained participants, a
considerably greater loss was observed in older subgroups. Older
O2GET
sprinters also showed a smaller percent decline in V
(7.2% per decade) than older endurance athletes (13.4%) and
older untrained participants (10.2%). Consequently, the re O2GET converged to a similar value in the
gression lines for V
sprint and endurance groups at the age of 85 yr.
Cardiorespiratory factors, but not age, were predominant
O2GET in all groups. Oxygen pulse at gas expredictors of V
change threshold explained 89.9% to 95.6% of variance in
O2GET. At the same time, nonsignificant between-group
V
differences in threshold heart rate, hemoglobin, and hematocrit were shown. This suggests either a greater stroke volume
or oxygen extraction at gas exchange threshold in athletic
groups. In summary, submaximal aerobic capacity in master
endurance runners is at a higher level than in sprinters who,
O2GET above the population average and show
in turn, have V
a slower decrease with age than endurance runners.
Glucose Metabolism and Lipid Profile
In the third study, we showed the cross-sectional relation
between parameters of glucose metabolism and age depending

Figure 3. Schematic illustration of the relationship between age and

submaximal aerobic capacity as measured by gas exchange threshold
depending on training status: average linear cross-sectional declines
across the adult lifespan. [Adapted from (17). Copyright * 2012 Wolter
Kluwers Health. Used with permission.]
Sprinters versus Long-distance Runners

Copyright 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

59

on training modality using Homeostatic Model Assessment

(20). The major finding was that insulin sensitivity and pancreatic A-cell function were not associated with age in both
sprint-oriented and endurance athletes. In other words, their
glucose metabolism was stable and efficient across the whole
age range of 20 to 90 yr (Fig. 4). However, the average fasting
glucose and the proportion of individuals with impaired
fasting glucose were higher in the sprint than endurance and
untrained groups. The untrained group was characterized
by a much greater age-related increase in fasting insulin and
A-cell function and a considerable decrease in insulin sensitivity compared with both athletic groups. With age, untrained
subjects seemed to compensate for their lowering insulin sensitivity with an increasing A-cell activity, whereas athletes
maintained the balance between insulin sensitivity and insulin
secretion. In support of our research, former top-level athletes
representing endurance and mixed sports (including sprint
and jumping events) were shown to have a considerably lower
relative risk of diabetes than controls in the long-term (16).
The risk (odds ratio) was lower in endurance athletes (0.24)
than in the mixed group (0.52), whereas power sports did not
differ from the general population (1.21).
The cross-sectional increase in fasting glucose with age was
not significant in the sprint group (0.07 mmolILj1 per decade) and did not differ substantially from that of endurance
and untrained groups (0.12 and 0.08 mmolILj1, respectively).
The relation between fasting insulin and age was not significant in sprint and endurance groups whereas, in the untrained
group, the correlation was strong (r = 0.78, 7.6 pmolILj1 per
O2max was associated
decade). In addition, a higher level of V
with significantly lower fasting glucose and insulin as well as
with better insulin sensitivity for the combined group of participants, whereas A-cell function was not related to the levels
of aerobic capacity.
The picture of the lipid profile seems to be more advantageous in master endurance athletes than in sprint-trained
athletes, but older sprinters still look significantly better than

Figure 4. Schematic illustration of the relationship between age and

insulin sensitivity as evaluated using homeostatic model assessment
depending on training status: average linear cross-sectional declines
across the adult lifespan. [Adapted from (20). Copyright * 2013 Taylor &
Francis Ltd. Used with permission.]

60 Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews

untrained controls in this respect, according to a follow-up

study (23).
To sum up, our data suggest that both aging sprinters and
endurance runners effectively preserve a high level of insulin
sensitivity and an optimal level of lipid profile.
Fat Mass and Lean Body Mass
In general, master athletes show more optimal body composition compared with untrained controls. According to our
and other cross-sectional research, older sprint-trained and
endurance athletes have similarly low body fat percentage
(4,25). Aging sprinters, however, have a higher lean body
mass, suggesting a greater proportion of muscle mass (11,25),
which is important in the context of preventing age-related
sarcopenia/dynapenia and accompanying disadvantageous
changes in functional fitness.
Bone Density
In principle, in all track and field athletes, bone mineral
density is higher than the expected age-adjusted population
mean; however, this effect is greater in sprinters and middledistance runners than in long-distance runners (11). Available cross-sectional studies on aging athletes suggest that
sprint training affects bone characteristics more advantageously than endurance training or daily habitual physical
activity. Master sprinters have a higher bone mineral density
and bone mineral content at the legs, hip, lumbar spine, and
trunk compared with master endurance athletes and controls
(11,25,33). The difference may be seen even at nonloaded
sites like the arms (25). Results for endurance athletes often
are ambiguous, indicating somewhat greater but sometimes
similar bone mineral density compared with untrained individuals depending on the measured site (5,12,25,31). It
seems that higher-impact loading protocols in disciplines like
sprint, jumping, or basketball are more effective in promoting
bone mineral density in older athletes (9,11). As revealed in
middle-aged and older sprinters versus active referents, mechanical power in the eccentric phase of hopping was one of
the strongest independent predictors of bone characteristics,
suggesting that regular high-impact training has positive effects on bone strength and structure (14). These effects are
related to increased body and muscle mass because exercise
training (especially strength and resistance) concurrently induces muscle adaptation. Nevertheless, the differences in
bone mineral density and content between sprinters, longdistance runners, and nonathletes usually persist after adjustment for body mass (25,31), suggesting that the mechanical
loading is crucial. However, it should be noted that the differences may be biased because of self-selection (voluntary
participation), sport participation in young years, and genetic
predispositions. Consequently, two explanations are possible:
(i) greater skeletal size allows exertion of larger muscle forces,
supporting engagement in sprint disciplines, or (ii) forces
exerted during sprinting induce skeletal adaptation and augment bone density. Probably, both these factors cooperate
and intensify each other.
Although bone mineral density and content clearly are
greater in athletes than in untrained individuals, the decline
with age seems to occur mainly in athletes. In a cross-sectional
study, in both sprint- and endurance-trained subjects aged
www.acsm-essr.org

Copyright 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

33 to 94 yr, negative correlations of age and tibial bone

strength indicators were found, whereas no significant effect
of age was observed in sedentary controls (33). High values
of bone strength indicators were not preserved beyond the
age of 80 yr, and the characteristics of trained and untrained
groups became similar with advancing age. This suggests
that even training based on maximal mechanical loading
does not prevent the age-related decline in bone strength in
old age.
Neuromuscular Function
The sprint model of training better promotes neuromuscular function. Master sprinters performed better than endurance runners on tests of countermovement jump, multiple
one-leg hopping, and grip force. Interestingly, the results of
age-matched endurance athletes were below or equal at best
to the average of the reference population for the countermovement jump (11,24). It can be explained by a different
muscle fiber-type proportions in differently specialized athletes. Maximum force and power generated during jumping declined linearly with age (cross-sectional data) in master
athletes, with no significant differences in the amount of decline between endurance runners and sprinters (0.29Y0.58
W I kg-1 I yr-1); however, the latter kept a considerably higher
level of power across the age span of 35 to 90 yr (24).
Training Adherence
Both sprint and endurance training models offer many opportunities for long-term adherence to physical activity, but
some differences are worth emphasizing. It was demonstrated
experimentally that a purely endurance exertion is perceived
as being more strenuous than sprint exercise (8). This suggests that the permanent continuation of endurance training
may be more difficult and onerous. On the other hand, nonadapted, less-fit, or diseased individuals may perceive the
single bouts of a high-intensity exercise as extremely stressful,
sometimes accompanied by nausea and lightheadedness (1). In
the context of lifelong sport adherence, sprint-trained competitive master athletes seem to be more persistent than longdistance runners. Among elite German track-and-field master
athletes (n = 620), sprinters (n = 67) and jumpers (n = 54)
participated on average 25.2 T 15.8 yr and 27.6 T 15.4 yr,
respectively, in sport activity and competition, whereas longdistance runners specializing in track (n = 100) and road races
(n = 97) participated 18.2 T 12.8 yr and 15.7 T 11.3 yr, respectively (7). However, the individual sport careers ranged
widely from 4 to 73 yr because of age differences (45Y80 yr).
Interestingly, master sprint-trained athletes are early
starters, entering their first sport competition usually at the
age between 20 and 30 yr, whereas master endurance runners
most often start competition at age 40 yr or later. The overwhelming majority of sprinters/jumpers (~87%) and throwers
(~98%) reported their first participation in any sport competition before the age of 30 yr compared with approximately 38%
of endurance runners with early sport experiences (7). This
suggests, in turn, that endurance disciplines may be more open
to people in later phases of life because of better training
availability and simplicity. The continual and still growing
popularity of mass-participation marathons and similar events
across the world testifies to this. Sprint-oriented disciplines
Volume 43 & Number 1 & January 2015

seem to be more demanding, requiring, for example, technical

skills, specific equipment or facilities, assistance during training
session (coach), and so on.
The assumption seems to be justified that sprint- or enduranceoriented sports are preferred by certain groups of people because of their personal inclinations. Psychological studies
show that there is a link between a sport or physical activity
form preferred by a person and his/her personality traits (27).
In addition, despite a great health potential of regular exercise, many adults do not participate in physical activity, citing
the lack of time as the main barrier (29,32). As it was demonstrated in randomized controlled trials, various forms of sprint
training may be a less time-consuming and more adherencesupporting solution that would be as effective as endurance
training (28,32) and less energy consuming (3). However,
time saving may be deceptive. Some authors rightly indicate
that net time spent exercising at high intensity is relatively
short, but actual training session times are longer, including
warm-up, rest periods, and cooldown (1).

RISKS
Tendinopathy and Rupture
One may be concerned about tendon and ligament
overload because of sprint exercise. Two cross-sectional
studies we coauthored have not revealed any significant relation between tendinopathy of Achilles and patellar tendons
and sport specialization in master track-and-field athletes
(21,22). However, injury rates during athletic competition
seem to be significantly higher in sprinters, middle-distance
runners, and jumpers than in long-distance runners, throwers,
and combined events, even if overall injury rate is low and
does not increase with age and performance level (10).
Follow-up data indicate that the rupture risk for shoulder region and Achilles tendon in master track-and-field athletes
after the age of 45 yr may be higher than in controls (13).
Moreover, a significantly increased (~2.5-fold compared with
controls) risk of osteoarthritis of the hip, knee, or ankle in old
age is a common adverse effect of competitive sport participation at a young age (16), but it seems that the health
benefits still outweigh the risk (13).
Heart Arrhythmias
According to a common and well-documented view, many
years of endurance training is associated with undeniably
beneficial physiological adaptation of the heart in competitive master athletes. Cross-sectional comparisons show that
master endurance athletes have greater heart dimensions
(cavities, walls) than aging sprinters and control individuals,
but the hypertrophy is benign and the normal function of the
heart is preserved (6,15). Recently, however, some undesired
effects of endurance training have been revealed. In a comprehensive review, Wilson et al. (34) provide consistent evidence from different scientific sources that a lifelong career
in intensive endurance exercise may be associated with deleterious changes in cardiac, peripheral, and cerebral vascular
structure and function, and a veteran athlete may not be as
healthy as believed. In an original study by Swedish researchers,
Sprinters versus Long-distance Runners

Copyright 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

61

more than 50,000 participants of cross-country 90-km skiing

races were followed in a 16-yr period (2). Faster finishing time
and high number of races (representing higher training load
and longer training history, respectively) were significantly
associated with a higher risk of arrhythmias, mainly of atrial
fibrillation/flutter and bradyarrhythmias. Whether the longterm sprint-oriented training is less hazardous with regard to
heart function is not clear as yet, and this issue requires investigation. Despite these hazards, available follow-up studies
clearly show that endurance athletes are at much lower risk of
chronic diseases of affluence, morbidity, and mortality than
the general population (2,13,16). Most importantly, both
training modalities seem to reduce the risk of coronary heart
disease and cardiac insufficiency, with endurance athletes
being best protected on later stages of life, as it was revealed in
a long-term follow-up in former elite athletes (16).

INFERENCE LIMITATIONS
When interpreting the above considerations, one should
take into account some assumptions and limitations. There
virtually are no longitudinal studies on lifelong age-related
changes in health characteristics of sprint-trained athletes.
An overwhelming number of data we presented were cross
sectional in nature. It means that evidence on associations
only, although strongly suggestive, but not clear causal proof
could be demonstrated. Moreover, only main trends were shown,
sometimes accompanied by a quite large variability among subjects of the same age. However, the obtained picture may be
valuable still because obtaining longitudinal data in such a wide
age range does not seem possible for the present.
It is worth considering to what extent physical training itself contributes to beneficial health characteristics in aging
competitive athletes. In our opinion, training is the crucial
factor; however, the selection bias must be taken into account. This is, first, genetic selection, as it is emphasized by
authors investigating chronic diseases in former elite athletes
(16). One should remember that physical fitness, activity, and
training responsiveness have a genetic component, and genes
modify the risk for many diseases. Thus, lifelong adherence
to endurance or sprint training (or any physical activity) and
related effects may not exclusively be a matter of personal
choice because genetic selection may make it easier (or more
difficult) to participate in and benefit from any training modality or just favor individuals with lower morbidity or mortality. One cannot be sure that the health profile would
change to the same extent if, for example, sprinters had
trained for endurance and vice versa. Second, selection type is
related to health habits (smoking, diet, alcohol consumption,
sleep, etc.) and socioeconomic status that are distributed differently between physically active and inactive peers (16,18)
and even between master athletes specializing in different
disciplines (7). Consequently, it must be supposed that the
physical fitness and health of master athletes are far above
average not only because of exercise training but also because
of genetic and environmental (social and psychological) factors. They probably represent a model of a genetically supported aging, undisturbed by factors related to unhealthy
lifestyle and based on a continuous lifelong physical activity
62 Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews

in the form of a competitive sport. They start their training

in youth and continue for many years. Moreover, athletes we
recruited were the best of the best, an elite group highly
ranked (places 1Y10) in European or world championships
(third selection).
One must be cautious when transferring conclusions from
athletes to the general population. How is the competitive
model of physical activity useful for the general healthy population currently cannot be decided clearly. On the other
hand, as other authors suggest and we confirm, individuals
who have a good training background and feel healthy can
reap health benefits from master competitive sports without
considerable risk (13). It seems that that the sprint-oriented
model of physical training, similarly to the endurance one, if
started early in life and then continued, may be an effective
activity pattern resulting in the maintenance and improvement of important health outcomes.
It must be stressed here that recommendations and interventions for people who are chronically inactive to start
exercising in advanced age or suffer from certain severe disorders are a separate issue that was not raised here. In particular, high-intensity exercise should be recommended, if at all,
with extreme caution to people with cardiovascular and other
disorders or to nonadapted ones. The use of supramaximal
(all-out) sprint exercise in clinical populations is limited.
Admittedly, sprint interval training was demonstrated to be
effective and relatively well tolerated in patients with type 1
and 2 diabetes; however, some doubts arise about its acceptability, feasibility, safety, and costs of exercising. It seems that
O2max)
the less strenuous high-intensity training (,90% of V
could be a compromise between the optimal exercise strategy
and potential risk (1).
Despite the above limitations, our research undoubtedly
has some strengths. We analyzed a wide age range of sprinttrained athletes compared with earlier studies. Also, we examined elite competitive master athletes in which factors related to unhealthy and inactive lifestyle affect the aging
process only to a small extent. Thus, we could separate and
compare two strongly pronounced lifelong training models.
In addition, we avoided the effect of seasonal changes because
we tested athletes in competition periods. We recruited a
large number of sprint-trained athletes despite some disciplineinadequate exercise tests (e.g., endurance) during important
championships. Finally, we included control groups that allowed reliable comparisons.

SUMMARY
The question arises, which model of physical training successfully supports maintaining basic health characteristics?
Today, the endurance model is preferred, and its advantages
have been demonstrated repeatedly. Until now, however, this
classic model has not been compared with any other one in
the context of lifelong physical activity and health. Consequently, the concepts of exercise and training in health and
aging research are often used as equivalents for endurance exercise and endurance training. We provide evidence that the
sprint-oriented training model also results in optimal health
outcomes in a long-run perspective. It should be emphasized
www.acsm-essr.org

Copyright 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

that both sprint and endurance athletic groups benefit from

their lifelong competitive sport participation much more than
recreationally active or inactive individuals and that health
benefits definitely outweigh the risks associated with intensive training (Fig. 1). There are, however, differences in the
profile of benefits: long-term sprint-oriented training more
effectively promotes bone mineral density, muscle mass, neuromuscular function, and probably training adherence, whereas
endurance training is more effective in maintaining high
aerobic capacity and cardiovascular function as well as optimal glucose metabolism and lipid profile across the lifespan.
Both training models seem to facilitate keeping low fat mass
effectively. The risk of tendinopathy is similar in both groups
and higher than in the general population, but the injury rate
during competition is higher in sprinters. Competitive master athletes participating in long-term intensive endurance
training regimens may have a somewhat higher risk of deleterious cardiovascular structural and functional changes than
the general population. An analogous risk in aging sprinttrained athletes is not known.
The presented studies support the view that the age-related
deterioration in health status is not an inherent feature of
older age. The sprint model of lifelong physical activity is
associated with higher levels of maximal and submaximal
aerobic capacity than in inactive or recreationally active populations and is accompanied by a relatively slow rate of agerelated decrease in aerobic capacity as well as by optimal insulin
sensitivity and lipid profile, which has been considered the
exclusive domain of endurance training.
Improvement in or maintenance of important health characteristics is advantageous to sport performance as well as to
functioning in everyday life, where various activities can be
carried out with less fatigue, without restraint and limitations.
It is particularly important for older people and their independence. Long-lasting training that includes high-intensity
exercise also seems to be effective in preventing the development of diseases of affluence. Moreover, sprint training may
be perceived as less fatiguing, thus adequate for certain personality types, which may be of great significance for many
years training adherence.
In conclusion, taking into account the presented research
and the current state of knowledge, one can hardly regard
endurance sports as the only appropriate model of lifelong
physical activity for health. The paradigm of physical activity based solely on endurance exercise, although unusually
valuable and commonplace, needs revision. We should consider the sprint model of lifelong physical activity as an
alternative and equivalent proposal for maintaining recommended levels of crucial health characteristics with aging in
healthy active people.

Acknowledgments
We would like to express our special thanks to all athletes, coaches, and
colleagues who contributed to the research.
Disclosure of funding received for this work: Our studies presented in this
article were supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (application grant no. N N404 191536) and by internal funding from
universities involved in the research.
None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.
Volume 43 & Number 1 & January 2015

References
1. Adams OP. The impact of brief high-intensity exercise on blood glucose
levels. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 2013; 6:113Y22.
2. Andersen K, Farahmand BF, Ahlbom A, et al. Risk of arrhythmias in
52,755 long-distance cross-country skiers: a cohort study. Eur. Heart J.
2013; 34(47):3624Y31.
3. Babraj JA, Vollaard NBJ, Keast C, Guppy FM, Cottrell G, Timmons JA.
Extremely short duration high-intensity interval training substantially
improves insulin action in young healthy males. BMC Endocr. Disord.
2009; 9(3)1Y8.
4. Barnard RJ, Grimditch GK, Wilmore JH. Physiological characteristics of
sprint and endurance master runners. Med. Sci. Sports. 1979; 11(2):167Y71.
5. Brahm H, Strom H, Piehl-Aulin K, Mallmin H, Ljunghall S. Bone metabolism in endurance trained athletes: a comparison to population-based
controls based on DXA, SXA, quantitative ultrasound, and biochemical
markers. Calcif. Tissue Int. 1997; 61(6):448Y54.
6. Child JS, Barnard RJ, Taw RL. Cardiac hypertrophy and function in master
endurance runners and sprinters. J. Appl. Physiol. 1984; 57(1):176Y81.
7. Conzelmann A. Competitive Sport in the Second Half of Life as Exemplified
by Track and Field Master Athletes [In German]. 1st ed. Koln (Germany):
Sport und Buch StrauQ, 1993, p. 128.
8. Desgorces FD, Senegas X, Garcia J, Decker L, Noirez P. Methods to
quantify intermittent exercises. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2007; 32(4):
762Y9.
9. Dook JE, Henderson NK, James C, Price RI. Exercise and bone mineral
density in mature female athletes. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1997; 29(3):291Y6.
10. Ganse B, Degens H, Drey M, et al. Impact of age, performance and athletic event on injury rates in master athletics V first results from an
ongoing prospective study. J. Musculoscelet. Neuronal Interact. 2014;
14(2):148Y54.
11. Gast U, Belav] DL, Armbrecht G, et al. Bone density and neuromuscular
function in older competitive athletes depend on running distance. Osteoporosis Int. 2013; 24(7):2033Y42.
12. Goodpaster BH, Costill DL, Trappe SW, Hughes GM. The relationship
of sustained exercise training and bone mineral density in aging male
runners. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports. 1996; 6(4):216Y21.
13. Kettunen J, Kujala UM, Kaprio J, Sarna S. Health of masters track and
field athletes: a 16-years follow-up study. Clin. J. Sport Med. 2006; 16(2):
142Y8.
14. Korhonen MT, Heinonen A, Siekkinen J, et al. Bone density, structure
and strength, and their determinants in aging sprint athletes. Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc. 2012; 44(12):2340Y9.
15. Krasicska B, Zielicski J, Krasicski Z, Kusy K, Tykarski A. The influence of
many years sport training on myocardial structure and function in veteran sportsmen in comparison to the effects of long-lasting arterial hypertension V echocardiographic evaluation. Arterial Hypertens. 2008;
12(2):87j93.
16. Kujala UM, Marti P, Kaprio J, Hernelahti M, Tikkanen H, Sarna S.
Occurrence of chronic disease in former top-level athletes. Predominance
of benefits, risks or selection effects? Sports Med. 2003; 33(8):553Y61.17. Kusy K, Krol-Zielicska M, Domaszewska K, Kryvciak J, Podgorski T,
Zielicski J. Gas exchange threshold in male speed-power versus endurance
athletes ages 20Y90 years. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2012; 44(12):2415Y22.
18. Kusy K, Zielicski J. Masters Athletics. Social, Biological and Practical Aspects
of Veterans Sport. 1st ed. Poznac (Poland): Eugeniusz Piasecki University
School of Physical Education, Monograph No. 372; 2006, p. 187. Available
from: http://www.wbc.poznan.pl/Content/108967/Masters_athletics_Krzysztof_
Kusy_Jacek_Zielinski.pdf. Accessed on March 1, 2014.
19. Kusy K, Zielicski J. Aerobic capacity in speed-power athletes aged 20Y90
years vs endurance runners and untrained participants. Scand. J. Med. Sci.
Sports. 2014; 24(1):68Y79.
20. Kusy K, Zielicski J, Pilaczycska-Szczevniak `. Insulin sensitivity and Acell function estimated by HOMA2 model in sprint-trained athletes aged
20Y90 years vs endurance runners and untrained participants. J. Sports
Sci. 2013; 31(15):1656Y64.
21. Longo UG, Rittweger J, Garau G, et al. No influence of age, gender,
weight, height, and impact profile in Achilles tendinopathy in masters
track and field athletes. Am. J. Sports Med. 2009; 37(7):1400Y5.
22. Longo UG, Rittweger J, Garau G, et al. Patellar tendinopathy in master
track and field athletes: influence of impact profile, weight, height, age
and gender. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2011; 19(3):508Y12.
Sprinters versus Long-distance Runners

Copyright 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

63

23. Marti B, Knobloch M, Riesen WF, Howald H. Fifteen-year changes in

exercise, aerobic power, abdominal fat, and serum lipids in runners and
controls. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1991; 23(1):115Y22.
24. Michaelis I, Kwiet A, Gast U, et al. Decline of specific peak jumping power with
age in master runners. J. Musculoskelet. Neuronal Interact. 2008; 8(1):64Y70.
25. Nowak A, Straburzycska-Lupa A, Kusy K, et al. Bone mineral density and
bone turnover in male masters athletes aged 40Y64. Aging Male. 2010;
13(2):133Y41.
26. Pimentel AE, Gentile CL, Tanaka H, Seals DR, Gates PE. Greater rate of
decline in maximal aerobic capacity with age in endurance-trained than
in sedentary men. J. Appl. Physiol. 2003; 94(6):2406Y13.
27. Rhodes RE, Smith NEI. Personality correlates of physical activity: a review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2006; 40(12):958Y65.
28. Richards JC, Johnson TK, Kuzma JN, et al. Short-term sprint interval
training increases insulin sensitivity in healthy adults but does not affect
the thermogenic response to A-adrenergic stimulation. J. Physiol. 2010;
588(Pt. 15):2961Y72.
29. Stutts WC. Physical activity determinants in adults. Perceived benefits,
barriers, and self efficacy. AAOHN J. 2002; 50(11):499Y507.

64 Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews

30. Tanaka H, DeSouza CA, Jones PP, Stevenson ET, Davy KP, Seals DR.
Greater rate of decline in maximal aerobic capacity with age in physically active vs. sedentary healthy women. J. Appl. Physiol. 1997; 83(6):
1947Y53.
31. Velez NF, Zhang A, Stone B, Perera S, Miller M, Greenspan SL. The
effect of moderate impact exercise on skeletal integrity in master athletes.
Osteoporosis Int. 2008; 19(10):1457Y64.
32. Whyte L, Gill JMR, Cathart AJ. Effect of 2 weeks of sprint interval
training on health-related outcomes in sedentary overweight/obese men.
Metabolism. 2010; 59(10):1421Y8.
33. Wilks DC, Winwood K, Gilliver SF, et al. Age-dependency in bone mass
and geometry: a pQCT study on male and female master sprinters, middle and long distance runners, race-walkers and sedentary people. J.
Musculoscelet. Neuronal Interact. 2009; 9(4):236Y46.
34. Wilson M, OHanlon R, Basavarajaiah S, et al. Cardiovascular function
and the veteran athlete. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2010; 110(3):459Y78.
35. Wilson TM, Tanaka H. Meta-analysis of the age associated decline in
maximal aerobic capacity in men: relation to training status. Am. J.
Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2000; 278(3):H829Y34.

www.acsm-essr.org

Copyright 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.