The physiology research at the Royal Central Institute of Gymnastics (Swedish acronym: GCI) in Stockholm was never primarily focused on sports, but has made significant contributions to sport and exercise physiology. Changing ideas about the human body (from form to motor) during the early twentieth century led to criticism towards the posture-oriented Ling gymnastics. The rationalisation movement of the 1930s and onwards also paved the way for a rationalistic physiology research. GCI recruited Eric Hohwü Christensen (1904–1996) from Copenhagen for the new position as professor in physiology in 1941. Christensen built his research programme on the ideas of the Copenhagen School, focusing on basic research, bodily limits and rationalisation of exercise. The majority of research at GCI focused on basic physiology, and the main goal was to rationalise the exercise of the entire population, which was in line with the ambitions of the emerging Swedish welfare state.

But applications in elite sports became a claim to fame for GCI through names such as Per-Olof Åstrand and Bengt Saltin. This article aims at showing how the research programme was outlined during Christensen’s professorship, 1941–1969. How does a scientific environment focused on basic, physiological research become famous for its impact in sports?

Until the 1950s, Swedish cross-country skiers relied on natural training. But in the wake of failure at the 1952 Winter Olympics, the Swedish Ski Federation initiated a scientification of training. They sought aid from physiologists to “rationalize” the training of elite skiers. But the advocates of natural training resisted this new, scientific model. A battle was fought between the two sides, and a number of different power strategies were used by the federation and the physiologists to promote scientific training. In this article, the battle between different training regimes is analyzed using theories of power and sportification.

The article concludes that the shift towards rational training during the period 1948-1972 was part of a larger rationalization of Swedish society. And the relative slowness of implementation was due to a lack of professionalization (of coaches). Rationalization should therefore be seen as one of the later stages of sportification. 

Elite athletes of today use specialized, scientific training methods and the increasing role of science in sports is undeniable. The scientization process started in endurance sports (e.g. Yttergren 2012, Bourne 2008, Krüger 2006, Svensson 2014, Heggie 2011, Johnson 2009), among them cross-country skiing. This article analyzes how Swedish physiologists and cross-country skiers interacted in the scientization of training methods, focusing on the technologies of sportification that were used. Examples of such technologies are scientific testing, training logs, training camps and training manuals. Material from archives, interviews and earlier research will be studied using theories of bio-power (Foucault 1998) and sportification (e.g. Yttergren 2006, Guttmann 1978). The article concludes that while technologies of sportification could not ensure a rapid rationalization of training methods, these technologies over time became standard features in the training and sportification of cross-country skiing.

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.

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? In this essay, these questions are addressed.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 will analyze the scientific interest in high-altitude training for sports. Especially, we will study the links between science, military and sports.

This article discusses the landscapes of skiing from a heritage and memory perspective. Are there certain landscapes of cross-country skiing that can be seen as a national and/or local heritage? What constitutes these landscapes and how are they portrayed in tourism and marketing today? By the analysis of three examples - Hindås, Vålådalen and Vasaloppet - this article investigates how history and landscape is used to market skiing and to attract (skiing) tourism. How is skiing constructed as cultural heritage and used for present day purposes? The three before-mentioned cases are compared with fourth, Landvetter, a place where cross-country skiing does not have the same historical connection. The conclusion is that ideas about landscapes of skiing unite Vasaloppet, Vålådalen and Hindås, even though the efforts and commercial effects may differ greatly. Another conclusion is that landscapes of skiing (or any sport) are cultural products, and best understood as a form of cultural heritage. Landscapes of sport are now being articulated as sites of cultural heritage, much resembling the articulation process of other previously neglected landscapes of industry, research, cities and other. This articulation implies a broadening of the cultural heritage, a process that risk being paralleled by a commercialization and devaluation of the increasingly inclusive heritage concept. But there are also more positive aspects. The inclusion of landscapes of movement in the cultural heritage can result in both protection and increased attraction, like in the case of the VasaloppsArena.