Login | July 21, 2026
Training environment or training practices
PETE GLADDEN
Published: July 20, 2026
Have you ever wondered why Norway’s athletes are so much more successful in the Winter Olympics than the rest of the world’s winter endurance athletes?
Is it simply because the Norwegians live and train in what could be considered the closest thing to an actual winter sports paradise, or conversely, are these athletes actually training in such a way that they’re appreciably better than everyone else?
Well, there’s a rather good piece of research published in the April 25, 2025 issue of “Sports Medicine” that attempts to answer that question.
The article, “Best-Practice Training Characteristics Within Olympic Endurance Sports as Described by Norwegian World-Class Coaches,” attempts to explain the immense success Norwegian athletes have been enjoying in seemingly each and every Winter Olympics for decades.
The piece was published in the April 25, 2025 of Sports Medicine-Open, and the researcher’s aim was to, “Provide a synthesis of common features and sport-specific variations in best-practice training characteristics within Olympic endurance sports as described by world-class Norwegian coaches.”
So let’s take a look at several of the shared coaching philosophies that these Norwegian coaches have proffered to the researchers.
1) Every coach utilizes what’s called the “traditional periodization model.”
The traditional periodization model entails a training year divided into distinct periods - such as preparation, competition, and transition periods - and encompassed within each period are very specific performance goals and adaptations that the athletes are coached to meet.
Now within each of these training periods there’s always enough wiggle room for adjustments to be made with respect to the athlete’s training volume, intensity and frequency.
So the primary benefit of employing the traditional periodization model is that that it stresses a gradual transition towards lower training volume and more competition-specific training as the competition period nears.
2) Next is the fact that the Norwegian coaches approached the whole training process pragmatically, meaning that rather than just focusing on winning or attaining specific results, they prioritize the training process itself - ie. concentrating on daily routines, techniques, exercises, drills and the activities which help to improve their athletes’ performances.
3) Then we have what’s come to be known as the “Norwegian Training Method,” a training philosophy that fits neatly within the traditional periodization model.
So the hallmark of this Norwegian Training Method is the concept of high volume/low intensity training (LIT) coupled with low volume/high intensity training (HIT) and moderate intensity training (MIT) sessions.
That subtle little tweak differs from the way we Americans tend to divvy up training volume/intensity, in that we devote a bit more training volume to HIT and MIT and a bit less training volume to LIT.
In the Norwegian system that high volume/LIT makes up approximately 80–90% of an athlete’s total training time in order to develop good technique and aerobic capacity, while the remainder of the training volume - approximately 10-15% - consists of the MIT and HIT interval training.
The theory behind the Norwegian training protocol says that by attaining highly qualitative workouts via training session optimization - a process by which an emphasis on controlling the proper balance between training load and recovery periods is the focal point - the athletes can better adapt to the training stresses placed upon them without overtraining/undertraining.
What’s more, they’re approach is an athlete-driven methodology rather than team-driven methodology where all the athletes of a given discipline tend to have similar volume/intensity/frequency periodization plans.
An additional advantage of the Norwegian endurance training methodology entails their monitoring and testing system, where they’ve created a uniform blueprint for defining training subject matter that is appropriate for all endurance sports, thereby enabling the coaches to prognosticate comparisons across athletes and sports.
4) And finally, there’s a higher degree of importance placed on blood lactate training zones as opposed to heart rate and power training zones.
What’s more, the Norwegian athletes’ blood lactate levels are monitored during training sessions thereby assuring that the athletes are training up to their absolute maximum aerobic threshold limits without going too hard or too easy.
So is it these subtle training differences that make the Norwegians a perennial winter sports dynasty, or is it all about the environment they grew up in?
Even after reading this persuasive piece of research I’m still inclined to believe that environment does play a big role here, so I’m of the belief that both sides figure into the correct answer.
Pete can be reached at pjgladd@aol.com.