Introduction

Since the beginning of modern sport history (the modern Olympic Games, Athens 1896), coaches and sports scientists have been working together to develop new training methods to help athletes perform better. These innovations in training theory are a mutually evolving process [1, 2]. Often, a system developed based on a coach's empirical observations can later be explained by science as to why it worked. More recently, coaches have adapted the design of training work and the physiological factors to be assessed (VO2max/maximal oxygen consumption/; anaerobic-threshold) to several scientific findings [3–7]. At the beginning of the 20th century, athletes were trained mainly in amateur conditions, and the field of elite athletes was narrower. As time passed, globalization attracted more and more countries into the world of elite sport, and competition in the world elite became fiercer. At the same time, runners' training has become increasingly scientific and professional [8–11].

Despite their small populations and cold climates, northern European countries dominated the world distance running scene in the first half of the last century. They won numerous Olympic medals and set world records during this period. However, these countries have achieved many critical successes in recent decades and continue to do so today in an increasingly globalized competition (e.g., despite East Africa's dominance in middle and long-distance running in the 1980s and 1990s). One possible reason for this success may be that many key training theory innovations in distance running over the last century have originated in Northern Europe and Scandinavia.

This paper aims to present the main training theory innovations in the history of modern distance running that can be traced back to the countries of Northern Europe. It will look at the possible socio-historical reasons behind this phenomenon. Then, draw possible practical lessons that can be used for a country like Hungary to catch up with the European and world elite in distance running.

Research methods

For this interdisciplinary subject, we used a less formal, traditional or narrative review format [12]. The literature search was conducted on the following internet databases without language restrictions: Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, SportDiscuss, and Researchgate. All databases were searched using the title, abstract and keywords search fields. The following keywords were used in combination with Boolean operators (AND, OR): “training”, “distance-running”, and “elite-level”. The types of articles analysed were review articles, original research, and case studies. In addition to scientific articles, internet sites and books on sports history were used. We selected the ones that best matched the Northern European countries and our research question from the data we received.

“Flying Finns” the beginnings of systematic preparation

The beginnings of modern, year-round distance running training can be traced back to the Nordic countries. The Finns first developed a systematic approach in the 1910s. The method is attributed to Finnish coach Lauri Pikhala, whose two most successful students were Paavo Nurmi and Hannes Kolehmainen. They have won 13 Olympic gold medals in distances between 1,500 m and marathons and set several world records. Kolehmainen's training consisted of long endurance runs, long hikes on foot, short sprints, and intense repetitions built in between, and can be seen as a forerunner of interval training. He pioneered steady pacing in his racing, recording 25 s in the 5,000 m Olympic final in 1912 [13].

Nurmi, a nine-time Olympic champion, developed his predecessor's methods further, finding the most optimal steady pace and rarely running without a stopwatch in his hand. At the beginning of his career, he neglected speed work and only trained for six months of the year. Later, he gradually increased his workload and switched to two training sessions a day. He mainly did longer walks, short sprints, and strength training in the mornings. In the afternoons he did more challenging training sessions in the woods or on the track. For example, in between his 10–20 km forest run, he would intersperse 6 × 400 m intense intervals of 60 s each with 10–15 min of slow running as rest [14].

In the 1920s, the dominance of Finnish runners was due to the year-round preparation, with long runs and walking being the first significant activity during the winter. However, as the racing season approached, walking was increasingly replaced by 50–300 m sprints and 600–2,000 m repeats done daily [13]. This system produced such outstanding Olympic medal-winning runners in the 1930s as Ville Ritola, Iso-Hollo, Taisto Maki, and Lasse Viren in the 1970s. The early Finnish dominant runners were often nicknamed the “Flying Finns.”

The Swedish fartlek method

Fartlek training is a well-known and still commonly used training method, first developed more than 70 years ago in the late 1930s by Swedish trainer Gösta Holmer. Around that time, fartlek training was Holmer's answer to the Swedish runners' lack of success against the Finnish dominance of the era and a solution to Sweden's limited access to 400 m athletics tracks and harsh winters with snow and ice conditions. Gösta Holmer's fartlek could be performed practically anywhere, even without standard athletics tracks. “Fartlek” comes from the Swedish word “Speed play.” It reflects that this training involves athletes running at various speeds or paces, combining continuous aerobic running with sections at or near race pace. The original, so-called “unguided fartlek” allows the athlete to run any distance at any speed, varying the pace to suit his or her preference, sometimes running at high, sometimes at a lower intensity. During the fartlek, changing terrain conditions can add another variable to the workout, often performed in the woods over undulating terrain. It has been called the “Swedish natural method” [15].

In the early days, a typical Swedish fartlek training session was run for 12 km, often with the fast sections running faster than the race speed of 5,000 m. This type of training was done 3–5 times a week. Using the fartlek method, Holmer's athletes achieved world records from 1 mile to 10 km. The most successful of these athletes was Gunder Hägg, who set ten world records in the summer of 1942 in seven different events, from 1,500 m to 5,000 m, in 82 days (he was the first runner to break 14 min in 13:58). The running world took notice and the news of the new fartlek training spread. Gunder Hägg's record-breaking performance was no coincidence, as he broke the world mile record an astonishing five times between 1942 and 1945, together with Arne Andersson. Sweden's withdrawal from the Second World War allowed them to organize the races, and together, they improved their world record from 4:06.1 to 4:01.3 in three years, coming very close to the 4-minute mark [16]. Between 1939 and 1940, while serving in the army, he ran 5 km a day at a high intensity, often in knee-deep snow, and also did long cross-country ski runs lasting several hours. In 1941, he moved his headquarters to Valadalen, a rural resort. Here, he trained similarly, with 15–30 km of cross-country skiing and one or two daily runs of 5 km in the woods, where he varied his pace between sprinting and slow jogging to suit the terrain. It is worth noting that his training sessions usually lasted 20–30 min, and he did not use a track. However, during the racing season, he was often on the track several times a week, up to 30 times in one summer [17, 18].

The emergence of interval training

In the second half of the 1930s, the most significant innovation in modern methods was the interval method, the fundamentals of which still guide runners' training today. In many ways, the German Dr. Woldermar Gerchler is the founder of modern training methods and a pioneer of the scientific approach. He was an experimenter who sought to base his training methods on sound physiological and psychological principles. He worked with renowned cardiologist Dr. Herbert Reindel, and together, they tried to develop a scientifically based training method to maximize the heart's size, fitness, and efficiency. Gerschler and Reindel initially conducted experiments with 3,000 test subjects, each undergoing 21 days of thorough training to control heart rate. They found that their heart volumes increased by a fifth after this short period and showed significant performance improvement. From these experiences, they developed a form of repetitive training in which an athlete runs a relatively short distance, such as 200 m, several times at a relatively fast pace [19].

The system was called “interval training” because the rest or recovery period between faster runs was considered essential. During this time, the heart adapts, getting bigger and stronger. In its original form, faster run repetitions were performed, usually 100, 150, or 200 m (up to 40–80 times), sometimes 300 or 400 m. The repetitions were run at a pace that allowed participants to reach a heart rate of 180 beats per minute after the run. The next faster repetition was started when the heart rate had returned to 120 beats/min. The theoretical background was that the amount of blood in the body is constant for the individual, that as the number of heartbeats decreases, the amount of blood pumped for each heartbeat increases, and that the effect of exercise occurs when the heart rate decreases. If a decrease in heart rate to 120 beats/min did not occur within 90 s of the end of the previous faster run, then the exercise was deemed too hard and had to be modified. Otherwise, the heart would have been overloaded, leading to fatigue and exhaustion instead of the desired training effect. Gerschler's interval training resulted in very rapid improvements in performance as the heart became stronger and returned to a resting rate of 120 beats/min faster, and rest periods were reduced. Training was made more difficult after adaptation by reducing the length of rest periods and increasing the distances covered rather than by increasing the pace of fast sections. Gerschler advocated a scientific approach and needed to consider fartlek running more precisely [19, 20].

Despite his success as an athlete, Gerschler's method was criticized by many as too rigid and dangerous. Reindell and Gerchler, however, stuck to their ideas. His method, which evolved and changed over the years, was best described in a 1963 article in Track Technique. The article detailed the benefits of interval training as opposed to Long Slow Distance (LSD), which was becoming increasingly popular with runners through Arthur Lydiard. Gerschler acknowledged that long-distance running also improves the heart, but he makes three arguments favour interval training: 1. it takes less time; 2. it provides a more robust stimulus; 3. the intensity and duration of the stimulus can be controlled more precisely. He also introduces the concept of local muscular endurance, which he believes is paramount for intermediate-distance runners. However, he also acknowledged the monotonous nature of the system because the distances covered were almost exclusively between 100 and 200 m (example: Table 1). He also tried the longer 400-m repeats but found them less effective than the shorter intervals because of the need for oxygen. For Gerschler's method, he specified four variables: the length of the effort, the speed of the run, the duration of the rest period, and the number of repetitions [19].

In 1935, he met Rudolf Harbig, who later led him to a world record of 1:46.6 for the 800 m, which lasted for 16 years. In 1952, Luxembourg's Josy Barthel, also a pupil of Gerschler, surprised many by becoming the Olympic champion in the 1,500 m. For the next thirteen years, Woldemar Gerschler's name was almost forgotten, only to be mentioned again when Roger Moens of Belgium, whom he had trained, improved the 800 m world record to 1:45.7. Another of his outstanding students was the French distance runner Gordon Pirie, whose accounts also show that in addition to short interval training sessions before the race season, he used to run longer runs at maximum speed, known in today's terms as anaerobic capacity training. He ran distances between 400 and 2,000 m 4–8 times at near maximum speed, with up to 20 min. rest [21]. For an example of Gercheler's training week, see Table 1.

In the 1940s and 1950s, the interval method became widespread worldwide and was further developed. Czech Olympic champion Emil Zatopek increased the number of intervals performed to unprecedented heights, while Hungarian coach Mihály Iglói further improved the system [14]. His method consisted mainly of shorter daily intervals in different series and at sub-maximal speeds. Later, Franz Stampl, who was of Austrian origin but set records in England (Roger Bannister's first under 4-minute mile performance) and Australia (Ralph Doubell's Olympic victory in 1968 in the 800 m), supplemented the method with longer intervals and their progression over the season [22]. Until the mid-1960s, when Arthur Lydiard and the New Zealand runners became known for “marathon preparation,” the training of the world's top runners was characterized by the daily performance of shorter and longer interval training (200–2,400 m), mainly with active rest at the same distance [18].

Longer controlled aerobic interval methods

Polarised training

The polarised training intensity distribution was first described in the early 2000s by Norwegian sports science researcher Stephen Seiler. He did this using the 3-zone scale based on physiological factors most commonly used in the literature [37]. In it, he classified work below the aerobic threshold (vLT1) as low-intensity training (LIT or Zone 1), work between the aerobic and anaerobic thresholds (vLT1 and vLT2) as moderate-intensity training (MIT or Zone 2), and work above the anaerobic threshold as high-intensity training (HIT or Zone 3). In addition to the abovementioned scales, the 5-zone [10] and 9-zone scales for middle-distance runners [8] are also used. Based on his observations, world-class endurance athletes (cross-country skiers, cyclists, or the Norwegian record-breaking runner Ingrid Kristiansen) are trained by a high workload (160–200 km per week for runners). About 80% of this volume is done at low intensity (Zone 1), while the remaining 20% of the training is done in the ranges above the anaerobic threshold (Zone 3). Very little is done at moderate intensity, so Polarised Training is often called the 80:20 training method, which illustrates the low-to-high-intensity effort ratio [26, 38]. In practice, this is often summarised as athletes doing 30–70 min of aerobic endurance running below the aerobic threshold in addition to one long run per week (90–120 min). According to the model, effort above the anaerobic threshold in the baseline period is usually twice a week. One of the workouts is a longer endurance-based workout of about 30–40 min of intermittent exercise at around 90% of vVo2max (race pace of about 10 km for elite racers), with a load/rest ratio of about 1:3 or 1:2. Seiler often recommends this type of training with 8 × 4 min with 2 min rests, then progressing this training to 4 × 8 min with 2 min rests at the same intensity as the season progresses [39]. The other intense training primarily uses short intervals (>60 s) at vVo2max or faster. This training aims to maintain anaerobic capacity and develop race-specific coordination. In addition to the main training sessions, athletes also perform short (>15 s), sub-maximal sprints with complete rest [40, 41]. They begin performing competition-specific long-interval work 4–10 weeks before competitions. At this time, the intensity picture often becomes even more polarised [34, 42].

Discussion

The Nordic countries have given the world many successful athletes and important training theory innovations. Olympic champions and record-breaking athletes have come from this region. The fact that, despite their small populations and harsh climates, these countries can play such a dominant role on the world distance running stage is probably due to several factors.

One possible factor is that the Nordic countries succeeded in their own time by developing training methods that allowed athletes to do more and more training. These methods were developed based on empirical observations and the latest sports science knowledge. At the beginning of the century, the “natural method” of the Finns and Swedes could be seen as the forerunner of the modern interval. These early systems are low-volume from a modern perspective. However, they included many more extended efforts at high-intensity aerobic speeds and shorter intervals at race speed and above. This was unique for the era, as long endurance hikes and runs extensively characterized the training of distance runners. The first full year of preparation has also occurred in these countries [13].

However, the most significant breakthrough was the development of interval training. Here, workload, rest and adaptation to training are pre-planned, systematic and much easier to monitor. From the 1950s to the present day, we have seen the development of this method to ever higher levels. From the 1970s onwards, the systems developed in the Nordic countries (Verheul, later the Easy Interval Method, the pure endurance method of Van Aaken, and now the Norwegian method) have been based on longer controlled aerobic intervals (3–10 min). These allow the accumulation of large amounts of work at relatively high speeds (between marathon and 5 km pace) without significant lactic acid build-up. This is essential for developing anaerobic threshold speed (vLT2) and conditioning large numbers of type IIb medium muscle fibres in an aerobic direction [43]. These can produce very high levels of distance running performance if combined with short sub-maximal sprints and a certain amount of controlled anaerobic intervals at race speed [33]. These more intense, high blood lactate-producing sessions are done in a mainly shorter interval format (>800 m) during the pre-season, typically once a week. Then, in the specific preparation period of 1–2 months before the competition, coaches introduce longer race-specific interval sessions to prepare the athlete for the fatigue of competition [8]. The difference in the methods mentioned above is that coaches monitor the workload more and more accurately (nowadays, lactate monitors and heart rate measurements). Thus, they can do higher and higher quality work [32].

Another possible factor is the current historical situation.

The dominance of Finnish athletes at the beginning of the 20th century is because Finland was involved in the Olympic movement from the beginning and fought for national independence in this period, seeking to secure its national independence and self-confidence through sporting success. Another factor behind the series of victories of the ‘Flying Finns up to the Second World War is that they were the first to develop a well-established, year-round, large-scale, systematic training plan, which produced many champions.

During the Second World War, Sweden's neutrality made it possible to compete and train, while the sport was almost non-existent worldwide. The fact that the same country at the same time had two high-level athletes competing at the same distance, such as Arne Anderson and Gunder Haag, allowed for frequent stimulating clashes, which resulted in the world mile record developing rapidly in a matter of years. The specific political situation in Germany, also before the Second World War, where the sport was a state priority (see the 1936 Berlin Olympics) and received increased support, allowed Gerchler and Reinderl to carry out the scientific research necessary for the development of interval training. This method first spread throughout the region, rewriting many records. Figure 1 shows the time diagram of significant training theory innovations.

View Full Size

Timeline of the main innovations in training methodology

Citation: SPRINT – Sports Research International 2, 1; 10.1556/1020.2024.00009

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

After World War II, most countries became welfare states, such as West Germany, the Netherlands, and present-day Norway. Here, interest in sports increased, and support for the sport became significant, as promoted sports science research and the active use of the latest scientific findings in practical work.

Conclusions and practical applications

Northern European countries have had some of the greatest successes in distance running in the history of modern sport, and most of the decisive innovations in training methods can also be attributed to them. This may be due to the current historical and sociological situation, which allows for increased interest in and support for the sport. The promotion of sports science research and the active use of the results in practical work is also a factor.

Countries with small population and less-than-ideal climatic conditions can also be prosperous in athletics and other endurance sports. However, a well-designed training system, based on previous empirical evidence and complemented by the latest knowledge in sports science, could be a prerequisite for this. These can help to reduce attrition (preventing overtraining, continuous experience of success and development) and maximize the potential of the athletes involved in the sport. Developing such a training system requires high-quality training of sports scientists and coaches working in the sport concerned. Active dialogue between sports scientists and coaches is also essential.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare thatthere is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This publication received no external funding.