The Cold War era was also an era of scientific and rational training methods in sports, especially in cross-country skiing. As competition hardened through the rise of Soviet and DDR skiers, other nations had to adapt. Sweden did so by changing training ideology, from natural to scientific training, in the early 1950s. By teaming up with physiologists, the Swedish Ski Federation wanted access to scientific, rational training to stay competitive. The methods proposed were not only interesting for sports, but also for military purposes. Some of the research was even funded by military organizations. The Cold War contributed in two ways to training – an increased military interest in training, as well as an increased competition in international cross-country skiing that resulted in an accelerated rationalization of training.

Fotboll är världens största sport. Men bland allt det stora (pengar, arenor, turneringar) finns också något annat, viktigare. Idrottens själ, numera svårfunnen på de största arenorna. Fotbollens rötter finns ofta på mindre orter – som Öxabäck.

I drygt 30 år var lilla Öxabäcks IF ett av Sveriges främsta damfotbollslag. Trots ett begränsat befolkningsunderlag, knappa ekonomiska resurser och konkurrens från betydligt större orter. Vad var det som gjorde att just Öxabäck blev centrum för svensk damfotboll?

I den här boken följer vi utveckingen från starten 1966, när ett gäng väninnor efter en danskväll i Borås trotsade rådande normer och drog igång vad som skulle bli Sveriges bästa lag. Hör spelare, tränare, styrelsemedlemmar och Öxabäcksbor berätta om lagets uppgång, storhetstid och fall.Detta är historien om Öxabäck, en liten by med ett mycket stort idrottsarv

Today, most elite endurance athletes use high-altitude training to some extent. For at least the last 40 years, it has been linked to increased performance. But how was high-altitude training established as a means of improving performance? And how did the scientific approach to altitude differ from the traditional, natural valuation of mountains as a site for training?

High-altitude training was introduced in sports in the post-war period. During the 1960s, it became a highly contested method, with controversies between scientists, athletes, doctors, sport organizations and coaches. What ideas about altitude and performance were important in this process? What type of scientific hypotheses led scientists and sport practitioners towards increasing high-altitude training? Interestingly, those within sports who rejected the scientific, ‘machine-like’ training methods also often valued the mountains. Famous Swedish coach Gösta Olander is one example. He was the most influential protagonist of the natural training method in Sweden, and his base was in Vålådalen (in Jämtland, near Östersund and Åre). Both Swedish (e.g. Sixten Jernberg, Gunder Hägg) and international athletes (e.g. Michel Jazy and Michel Bernard) came to Vålådalen. The fresh mountain air and scenic surroundings were important as a place for training camps, but scientists later demystified the mountains via scientific explanations about increased oxygen uptake and increasing hemoglobin levels in the blood. Vålådalen became a center not only for natural training, but also for scientific monitoring, testing and evaluation.

And the setting of international standards regarding high-altitude training had a political aspect, as the issue was addressed when white runners from low altitude were threatened by the results of mainly runners from high altitude countries like Kenya and Ethiopia.

Focusing on the Swedish case, we analyze the scientific interest in high-altitude training for sports. Especially, we study the links between science, military and sports.

Introduction

Elite endurance athletes of today use specialized, scientific training methods and the increasing role of science in sports is undeniable. This is especially true for cross-country skiing. But how and when did scientists and educated coaches gain power? Scientification of training methods in cross-country skiing accelerated in the 1950s and cross-country skiing was an early adopter, even if not all skiers were (Svensson 2013). Still, the experiential, local knowledge of skiers remain an important ingredient in modern day training. How have these different knowledge traditions merged? How has it changed training in theory and practice?

Methods

This paper analyzes how physiologists and skiers interacted in the transformation of training methods. Material from archives, interviews and previous research will be studied using theories of bio-power (Foucault 1998), sportification (Yttergren 2006, Guttmann 1978) and STS (Knorr-Cetina 1999, Latour 1987) Skiers from Sweden and Norway will be used as the main examples.

Results and discussion

Training methods were developed through meetings between practitioners and theoreticians. Scientification of training was driven by hardening international competition. The creation of “rational” training methods was a co-production of knowledge between different knowledge traditions, where skiers represented a traditional, local and tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1958), while scientists represented scientific, written knowledge with universal claims.

In the co-production of knowledge about training, bodies were at the core. Ultimately it was a matter of control over bodies. Should they be subjected to bio-power (Foucault 1998, 2001) or should they remain under the control of the practitioner? The relationship between skier and scientist resembled that of patient and doctor. Interaction between the expert on the local level (skier /patient) and the universal level (physiologist/doctor) resulted in a knowledge-base that affected both practice and theory. Rational training, in the end, was not built only on science but also on the individual and collective experiences of elite skiers.

References

Foucault, M.(1998), The Will to Knowledge. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1. New York: Penguin Books.

Guttmann, A. (1978), From Ritual to Record. The Nature of Modern Sports. New York: Columbia University Press.

Heggie, V. (2011), A History of British Sport Medicine. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Knorr Cetina, K. (1999), Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. London: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (1987), ‘Centers of Calculation’, in Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 215-257.

Polanyi, M. (1958), Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Svensson, D.(2013), ‘How Much Sport is there in Sport Physiology? Practice and Ideas in the Stockholm School of Physiology at GCI, 1941–1969’ in The International Journal of the History of Sport, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 892-913.

Yttergren, L. (1996), Täflan är lifvet: idrottens organisering och sportifiering i Stockholm 1860-1898. Stockholm : Stockholmia.

Anthropogenic change is large-scale. But the Anthropocene is also a result of small-scale, local landscape use and change. These changes and uses are often based in movement. How do movements (sport, outdoor life, tourism etc.) affect landscapes physically and mentally? In the Anthropocene, these questions are increasingly important to answer.

Mobility in the landscape is under-theorized. The cultural history of walking, with Rousseau, Austen, Thoreau, Muir and others have been discussed (e.g. Solnit 2001). Understandings of landscape monuments are often tied to nationalism (Lowenthal 1998, 2008, Hettne et al 2006) and are generally limited to monuments within traditional areas of cultural and natural heritage (buildings, infrastructure, rare species). But the importance of movement as a practice for understanding landscape and ”life worlds” has also been underlined (Ingold 2000, 2011, Hastrup 2009). The movement heritage, in terms of skiing tracks, hiking trails etc. has to no small degree shaped understanding of the landscape. We investigate how these landscapes of mobility have been and can be articulated, and how they can contribute to a sustainable tourism in the Anthropocene.

We seek to combine this growing understanding of cultural heritage aspects of landscape with theories from the modern landscapes of bodily movement. These landscapes have been labeled portable (Qviström 2013), but in contrast to this portability, the landscapes of movement we focus on are not portable. Instead, their protection is based on their cultural history and emotional value. Is it possible to combine economic and ecological interests in tourism in the Anthropocene?