Political efficacy is at the heart of the "Norwegian Method", not physiology

The "Norwegian method" towards endurance sport has gained a lot of traction in recent years, and for good reason. The domination of Jakob Ingebrigtsen on the track and Gustav Iden/Kristian Blummenfelt over multiple triathlon distances has sparked intrigue regarding the Norwegian style of endurance training. However, the success of Norwegian athlete development in non-endurance based sports (for example Erling Haaland and Martin Odegaard in the Premier League or even Karsten Warholm, who's event is anaerobically dominant) suggests there's more to Scandinavian success than just metabolic testing and intensity control of training sessions. Using a combination of objective and anecdotal evidence, this article aims to propose that the true "Norwegian method" goes way beyond intensity control and metabolic testing, and political efficacy is at the foundation of their sporting success.

Firstly, below is a graphic which should summarise my thoughts on the fundemental factors in Norwegian sporting success (ie the "Norwegian Method"). The graphic begins at the national government level before showcasing the knock-on effects on not only the national sporting federation but also coaches who're working directly with athletes. This article will aim to explain each factor in detail before identifying key lessons for coaches and leaders that should aid in creating a healthy but performance enhancing culture.

National Government

Trying to narrow Norway's political stability down to three major points was difficult, as they seem to be ahead of most other Western countries across the board. However, in the context of developing athletes, low income inequality, high income mobility and free education seemed to be the three most important factors. Firstly, Norway has a very low income inequality in comparison to other rich countries (here, income inequality is measured by the average salary of the bottom 20% of earners compared to the top 20% of earners).

Income equality has a vast amount of positive correlates. Among many others, there's a positive correlation between income equality and improved mental health, decreased obesity rates and a longer life expectancy. Simply, the list (left) would have a similar order if the countries were ranked by physical or mental health measures. The correlates of income equality create a healthy society in which people are naturally more likely to take-part in physical activity, which despite having a much smaller population, should give Norway a head-start over larger countries like the USA (who's obesity rate is double that of Norway as per the World Population Review).

The other two factors on a national government level (high social/income mobility and free education) are more related to creating a "safety net" allowing the general population to follow their true passions without fearing the consequences of failure (the positive effect of people pursuing their true passion will be discussed later). Norway excels in measures of social mobility, which is the potential in which someone's socio-economic status can change throughout their lifetime. According to the World Economic Forum's "Global Social Mobility Index" (2020), Norway are ranked second in the world. For reference, the United Kingdom are ranked 21st and the USA are ranked 27th. Additionally, tuition fees don't exist for EU students studying at a Norwegian University. This contrasts massively to the minimum tuition fee of £9,250 a year that students must pay to attend a university in England.

These two factors (among others, of course) have created a culture in which everyone in Norway is able to fully pursue their passion without fearing the financial consequences of failure. For example, if a Norwegian student completes a degree in which they go on to regret, they're not in any financial debt and still have a great chance of climbing the social-economic ladder due to high social mobility. Unfortunately, the UK (that has fairly poor social-mobility), has created a culture in which young people are afraid of failure due to the financial consequences, leading to a safer degree choice in order to minimise the risk of wasting £27,000+ on a degree they regret completing. The consequences of a "safe" degree choice are that the majority of students are not studying their true passion, leading to a decrease of overall work quality as a result of decreased grit (passion and perseverance towards a long-term goal).

Kristian Blummenfelt winning gold at the Tokyo Olympics. Image credit - Wagner Araujo.

The benefit of Norway's political stability was discussed excellently by Gustav Iden (2022 Ironman world champion), who in an interview with Tri247, explained "Norway has a really good welfare system. If you fail at school and you want to do sports, you can kind of go all in because even if you fail, you still have access to this huge fund. I think that means people are motivated to go all in, without fear of failing. In some countries I guess that if you miss one payment, you're kind of homeless, but you'll never be homeless in Norway if you try. I think that's one of the reasons that you can try, without fear of failing in life".

National Olympic Federation (Olympiatoppen)

How do factors at a national government and non-sporting level translate down into the Norwegian Olympic Federation? Simply, they're able to employ people who're both intensely passionate and intelligent about their job (this intelligence is likely attributed to their passion).

A desire to learn and improve seems to be common throughout Norwegian sport, but this desire isn't just limited to the athletes, it expands out to the coaches, physiologists, nutritionists, and so on. This desire to learn and improve knowledge has created a culture in which people, despite working in different roles (or even different sports) are eager to share knowledge with one another with the goal of developing their own practise. I believe learning from different sports is hugely underrated in current coaching practise and by increasing the collaboration between coaches across a range of sports, new ideas can be developed (during my time as a sports performance analyst in the NCAA, I gained a tremendous amount of tactical knowledge through watching handball and water-polo, two sports that were completely unrelated to my specialist sport - football. More recently, gaining a deeper insight into general neurobiology has massively impacted my knowledge of endurance sport). In most Western countries there still seems to be a disconnect between the art and science of sports training, but Norway seem to have bridged this gap through collaboration and a sharing of knowledge. As a result, coaches can design training beyond their own subjective viewpoints and on the other hand, scientists are more aware of the challenges coaches go through on a day-to-day basis, allowing for more training/competition specific research to take place.

The fact that employees at the National Olympic Federation are intensely passionate about the sport means that they're on the same wavelength as the athletes, and an intense passion for the long-term training process is developed. It seems the idea of training in Norway (at least in an endurance sense) is more focused on the long-term, rather than succeeding over the short-term. This may explain why intensity control is such a large part of the training methodology, as coaches are more focused on developing the long-term capacities of the athlete's energy systems, rather than attempting to maximise the athlete's current capacities through extremely intense training (defined as "power" training by Jan Olbrecht). In many nations, especially with the rise of social-media, there's an emphasis on achieving goals in as little time as possible (take the enormous number of IronMan entries from athletes who're clearly unprepared as an example), but this doesn't seem to be the focus in Norway, at least not at the elite level.

The third factor relating to the National Olympic Federation is a focus on a multi-sport upbringing. A very common error amongst athlete development is that the earlier they begin specifying in a sport, the better. A misunderstanding of Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hour rule is probably at fault. A large amount of research supports the use of a multi-sport upbringing for a decreased injury risk and increased chances of success in senior sport. Tudor Bompa, in his book 'Periodisation', compares the differences between the "early specialisation" training philosophy (which refers to sport-specific training, or focusing on a single sport) and a "multilateral programme" (partaking in a number of sports during childhood). A common pattern Bompa identified was that children partaking in "early specialisation" recieved a fast improvement in performance, but often achieved peak-performance by 15-16 before suffering from physical and/or psychological burnout, resulting in retirement before the age of 18. Evidence of this pattern was found by McDowall (2023) who conducted research into the Scottish under 17 football squad that reached the final of the UEFA European Championships in 2014. Ten years on, not a single player from that squad has played for the senior men's team, despite those youngsters colletively achieving more than 350 appearances for their nation at youth level. A study by Malina (2010) also found that only 17% of National Collegiate Athletic Assosiacion (NCAA) Division 1 athletes had exclusively participated in their specific sport as a child. The other 83% either played multiple sports during childhood or played a different sport to what they played at the collegiate level.

Whether intentional or not, it seems Norway shares a similar idea to Tudor Bompa when it comes to young athlete development. Bompa's "stages of development" model, which is inspired by the Eastern European approach to young athlete development, suggests that multilateral development should be the focus during childhood before specialised training begins to take-over for "junior" athletes. The specific age of a "junior" athlete isnt specified, but Nagorni's (1978) study of Soviet athletes would suggest that early specialisation should not begin before the age of 15. Building a strong physical and psychological foundation through the multilateral philosophy before prioritising sport specific during mid-to-late adolescence gives the athlete a better chance of high performance by the time they reach physical maturation. Additionally, exposure to numerous sports limits the risk of psychological burnout (or boredom), ensuring the athlete remains eager and stimulated by their sport when training/competing as a senior. As we know, endurance sport can be extremely repetitive when completing large volumes of training, so ensuring a young athlete isn't "bored" of their sport before reaching the senior level is of absolute importance.

Coaches

The final stage focuses on the work coaches do directly with their athletes as a result of success at the National Governent and National Federation level. Firstly, a strong collaboration between the coaches and scientists has allowed for coaches to use technology effectively. Whether it be lactate, muscle oxygen or sweat monitors, elite Norwegian coaches have the knowledge and experience making physiologic testing worthwhile. This isn't to say that coaches outside of Scandinavia don't use these monitors (many coaches likely do), but the bridge between science and coaching allows the Norwegians to use them in the most effective manner (in terms of knowing how to analyse specific data and when to complete specific testing).

The final two factors at the coaching level are less related to training theory and more linked to managing the human to ensure training is sustainable long-term. The first factor puts joy at the heart of training. Simply put, training is not sustainable if athlete's don't fid joy in their work. The importance of "joy" in elite Norwegian sport is discussed in great detail by Seiler (2024) at the NRW Kongress (which is linked at the bottom of this page). Seiler identified a common word to describe the training process among top Norwegian athletes was "joy". Olav Aleksander Bu also discusses the importance of joy/happiness in relation to eating on a podcast episode (also linked below). Bu's opinion is that the athlete is better off being "overweight" than "underweight" if eating a lot of food ensures the athlete remains motivated and happy with their training. Regardless of the context, happiness seems one of, if not the most important factor in the training process. The final point, "human first, athlete second", is quite closely related to the previous point. It seems recognised that the athlete's physical and mental health comes before any type of sporting success, for a similar reason to what was previously discussed: if the athlete is unhappy, they're less likely to sustain long-term training.

Key lessons for developing a healthy but performance enhancing culture

To conclude, I've identified three key messages that can be taken from the "Norwegian method" and transferred to any coach/leader.

The first message is equality in the way people are treated. A coach should refrain from treating a more talented athlete better than a less talented athlete, which is why I'm agaisnt endurance coaches providing packages at different price tiers, as this implies that a certain tier is of less importance to the coach. My opinion is that the best coaches treat each athlete the same, regardless of ability level. This isn't to say that a coach should provide the same type of coaching to each athlete, but they should care for each athlete the same amount.

The second message is ensure you're working with truly passionate people. Those who follow their true passion are not only more likely to work more than those who're not fully invested, but they're also more likely to be more eager to learn, allowing for consistent innovation of ideas.

The final message is caring for the person comes before results. In the same way that an unhappy athlete won't produce their best performances, an unhappy employee won't produce their best work. Simple, but extremely effective, interventions on ensuring a culture remains a happy one are discussed in immense detail by Melanie Katzman and Ron Friedman in their respective books (linked below).

Summary

To conclude, it seems metabolic testing is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the true "Norwegian Method". The foundations of the method are set by the National Government, who've created a society in which Norwegians are able to pursue their passions without fearing the consequences of failure. This passion translates to an increased desire to learn and expand knowledge, allowing for collaboration and innovation of ideas between coaches and scientists across many sports. This consistent collaboration ensures the gap between the art and science of coaching is bridged, allowing for an increased quality of work from both coaches and scientists. To finalise, culture is the most important aspect of Norwegian sporting success, and it should be viewed as the foundation of the "Norwegian Method".

Important resources used in creating this article

Connect First - Melanie Katzman

The Best Place to Work - Ron Friedman

The Spirit Level - Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

Periodisation - Tudor Bompa

Nutrition and the Norwegian Method - The Norwegian Method Podcast (Olav Aleksander Bu and David Lipman)

The Norwegian Mindful Talent Development Pyramid - Stephen Seiler (YouTube)

Official references to follow...