Jake Yono
JY Journalism
12/11/25
Aerobic Athletes Vs. Anaerobic Athletes In Athletics
Within the vast world of athletics (track and field), numerous types of athletes compete in various events. From big throwers to lengthy aerobic-based distance runners to explosive anaerobic-based sprinters with quick agility. If you aren’t familiar with these terms, Aerobic is when oxygen is required during training, for example, a long-distance run or race. Anaerobic is when no oxygen is released, and short bursts of energy are used (WebMD). That’s what makes athletics so unique. However, other sports have different types of athletes competing; track and field is the most unique. In this article, I will be critiquing the differences between sprinting and distance running, and in my opinion, which one is the better choice overall from the standpoint of the sport as a whole.
Start in sprinting, where generally you will find they are better all-around athletes, as in their shorter races, they are using agility to get off the line, maintaining great form to keep their speed up, and in hurdle events, they need that lateral fitness and extension to maintain form and speed to do well. When people think of track and field from the outside, the fastest will always stand out. For the sport as a whole, it’s so amazing to see the fastest athletes in the sport battling at every single level of the sport. Within distance running in the title, I’ve said they are better runners, which means they have taken up the sport early on, and in my experience, they have a deeper devotion to the sport than a natural sprinter. This, at the youth level, is due to the sport of cross country, where distance runners can essentially train all year round, deepening their confidence, love, and devotion for the sport, compared to sprinters at the youth level who usually come from other agile sports such as football and basketball. I’m not saying they don’t take it seriously, I’m simply saying that compared to distance runners, their devotion to athletics is much more prominent naturally because of cross country and the mental side of a long-distance race. The actual running is more prominent within distance because of the art of endurance, where athletes must go through long-distance races where they constantly have to breathe hard, and their muscles are fatigued, whereas sprinters have a short burst of acceleration, which makes no room for error. A sprinter with a bad start or split will likely not place highly in a race unless they are the class of the field by far, compared to a distance where a bad split, or going out too slow or fast, can occur, and a runner can still have a prominent race. This is what makes sprinting tough, but it’s easily accessible and not as difficult as distance running. My final thought of this comprehensive argument is that I believe everyone getting into athletics should start in distance training with good sprinting mechanics, as every athlete needs this, which will help them in every kind of race and make them more versatile in regards to the team as a whole. Once an athlete develops a good distance base, they can learn sprint mechanics and develop it more naturally compared to sprinters trying to become distance runners. A pure example of this is 3 time Olympic Gold Medalist Gabby Thomas tried to run a mile, which she doesn’t do in her training at all. Run it in 5 minutes and 30 seconds, which is good enough at the high school level, but nothing professional for what she is. On their counterpart, UofM Michigan star Trent McFarland, who competed in the 10k during cross country at NCAA regionals, now set a Big 10 record in the 800, showing that he can come down to more anaerobic races and still be intact, and there are many other runners like him. Final thoughts are as follows: Have you ever wondered what makes up the best decathletes and pentathletes? Most of them come from a distant background because the 800 for women or 1500 for men is the last event, which can influence scoring by a ton. These distance runners thrive because they can also put up a decent sprint time and be just good enough in the other events to give themselves the best shot. Lastly, if we’re talking about the grand scheme of things after athletics in the road running and ultra worlds, which USATF still sanctions, aerobic-based runners have a significant advantage over anaerobic runners who primarily sprint.
Wrapping up it is safe to say that analyzing the sport I partake in is the right thing for me and the conclusion that distance runners have more success in the sport of athletics as a whole is inevitable as they have a wider array of events that allows them to attempt more when they're finding their groove in the sport or switch to sprinting which takes time but is possible. On the other hand, sprinters do not have this luxury as they can only access a certain number of events influencing field events, but not much else, because they don’t have the aerobic capacity to try. They can develop sprint mechanics more easily than if a sprinter were to get an aerobic base. On the positive side, the agility and explosiveness shown in sprinters often correlate with the long and high jump, which allows them to have a smoother transition than distance runners to these events. In the end, both sprinters and distance runners have their ideals that make up the sport of athletics, but distance running is more valuable to the sport as a whole, in my opinion. Thanks.
