.png){kind=small}
Micro-dosing in Performance Training, its the new craze, how effective is it?
- GPS DataViz
- Nov 27
- 10 min read
Micro-dosing in sport performance training is gaining rapid popularity among coaches and athletes alike, but its conceptual appeal raises an important question: does it really work? Rooted in carefully dividing training volume into shorter, more frequent sessions, micro-dosing challenges traditional periodization models that emphasize longer, concentrated training sessions. The promise is alluring—maintaining or even improving critical athletic qualities like power, speed, and strength during busy competitive periods while managing fatigue and recovery. To understand why micro-dosing has become a strategic tool, it is important to explore the underlying concepts that explain its theoretical effectiveness and practical benefits.
Micro-dosing is defined as dividing the total training volume within a micro-cycle into frequent, shorter, repeated bouts rather than fewer longer sessions.
This approach offers advantages in managing fatigue, maintaining physical qualities with short residuals (like speed/power), and fitting training around congested competition schedules.
It integrates with broader periodization, allowing micro-dosing during dense competition periods for maintenance and traditional higher volume sessions in preparatory phases.
Related mechanisms such as post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE), resistance priming, and repeated bout effect are explained as theoretical bases for enhanced acute and chronic adaptations.
Micro-dosing facilitates better motor learning, increased feedback opportunities, and individualization including considerations for growth, maturation, female athlete health, and player autonomy.
While micro-dosing presents an appealing strategy to maintain fitness and skill under the demanding conditions of modern sport, it is not without potential drawbacks. Like any training approach, it carries limitations and challenges that must be carefully managed to avoid unintended consequences. Understanding these cons is essential for coaches and athletes to implement micro-dosing effectively within a broader periodized plan and avoid pitfalls related to volume, fatigue, motivation, and logistics. The following points outline some of the key disadvantages and considerations associated with micro-dosing training.
Volume-Dependent Hypertrophy Limitations: While micro-dosing can maintain or improve strength, hypertrophy gains are highly volume-dependent. If total training volume is reduced too much to accommodate micro-dosing, muscle growth may stall.
Risk of Training Monotony: More frequent but smaller sessions can increase training monotony if exercise variety is insufficient, potentially leading to decreased motivation and athlete burnout.
Training monotony is defined as a measure of how repetitive or similar an athlete's training is over a period, typically focusing on the variation in training intensity, volume, or type of exercise from day to day.
Logistical Challenges: Scheduling more frequent sessions requires buy-in and coordination with athletes, coaches, and support staff, increasing the complexity of managing athlete workloads and readiness.
Not Always Superior to Traditional Models: Meta-analyses show that when training volume is equated, some periodization models like daily undulating periodization outperform static or micro-dosed plans for strength development, making micro-dosing a useful but not universally superior tool.
Potential for Cumulative Fatigue: Without careful recovery management and programming, the daily nature of micro-dosing could inadvertently lead to chronic fatigue, especially in novice athletes.
Limited Long-Term Evidence: Although supported conceptually and by short-term studies, direct evidence for long-term outcomes and across all phases of training remains limited, requiring cautious application
The following studies provide compelling evidence for the effectiveness of micro-dosing portions of training to potentially enhancing athletic performance. Research across various sports and training modalities (sprints, plyometrics, etc) shows that distributing training volume into smaller, more frequent bouts throughout the week can potentially match or surpass traditional training results while reducing fatigue and improving recovery.
Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023 — Field hockey sprint training micro-dosed across 4 sessions/week showed significant improvements in sprint times (5 to 25 m) and reduced neuromuscular fatigue compared to a traditional 2-session model.
Ramirez-Campillo et al., 2024 — Youth soccer study found micro-dosed plyometric jump training distributed over 4 sessions/week improved jumping performance (squat jump, countermovement jump), reactive strength index, and 10-m sprint acceleration as effectively as traditional higher-volume plyometric training.
Ramirez-Campillo et al., 2022 — Comparisons of micro-dosing (four weekly plyometric sessions) and traditional higher-dose plyometric protocols found both effective for improving amateur basketball players' performance metrics.
Adam Loiacono, 2025 — Review article summarizing evidence supporting micro-dosing’s role in fatigue management, maintenance of short-term energy system residuals (speed, power), improved motor learning, and psychological adherence benefits.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2011 — Evidence for enhanced training adaptations with increased resistance training frequency consistent with the principles of micro-dosing.
While micro-dosing is a valuable strategy for managing training loads in complex sport schedules, it also presents limitations. As stated above, much of the research surrounding micro-dosing focuses on one aspect of training - Sprint training, plyometric training, etc. The approach relies on dividing training volume into frequent, smaller bouts, which may reduce the total effective stimulus necessary for hypertrophy and other adaptations if not carefully managed - especially in the off-season when competitive schedules are non-existent. Increased session frequency can lead to challenges such as planning complexity, greater logistical demands, and potential training monotony, all of which may negatively impact athlete motivation and recovery. Additionally, micro-dosing may not always outperform traditional periodization models, especially when volume and intensity are equated, and its long-term effectiveness across all training phases remains under-researched. Recognizing these limitations is crucial for applying micro-dosing effectively and integrating it within a broader, tailored training program.
A 2022 meta-analysis on resistance training frequency suggested that while increasing session frequency (a micro-dosing principle) can enhance strength gains, the quality and intensity of sessions are critical. Excessively low volume per session despite frequent exposure may limit hypertrophic adaptations and overall progress.
Supplement micro-dosing studies, e.g., with amino acids or cognitive enhancers, often show null or inconsistent effects on sport-specific performance outcomes, illustrating that micro-dosing of substances does not automatically translate to improved performance.
While many studies support micro-dosing for specific modalities like plyometrics or sprinting, no large-scale, long-term trials comprehensively prove superiority across all training phases.
Some evidence suggests that when total training volume is equated, traditional periodization models like daily undulating periodization may produce better strength gains than micro-dosing due to higher stimulus concentration per session.
Micro-dosing represents a practical and evidence-supported strategy for maintaining performance during the in-season phase, where managing fatigue, travel, and competition demands is paramount. By dividing key training stimuli into smaller, more frequent exposures, coaches can preserve speed, power, and neuromuscular qualities without adding excessive load or recovery strain. While this approach proves especially effective for modalities such as sprinting, plyometrics, and technical reinforcement, it should complement—not replace—traditional, higher-volume training phases used in the off-season or preparatory blocks that drive long-term strength and hypertrophy development. In this sense, micro-dosing serves as a valuable in-season optimization tool within a broader, periodized performance plan.
Micro-dosing can indeed be effective for in-season training primarily because it allows athletes to maintain key performance qualities like speed, power, and motor skills with low fatigue and minimal recovery disruption. This strategy fits naturally within the congested schedules and high demands of in-season competition, where maintaining training residuals without overloading athletes is crucial. However, when considering out-of-season or preparatory phases, if micro-dosed sessions are carefully programmed to match the total weekly volume and intensity of traditional training, micro-dosing can still provide sufficient stimulus for adaptation. The key is preserving session quality and ensuring progressive overload even within the distributed sessions. Therefore, micro-dosing in the off-season should not be automatically dismissed; it can be effective so long as volume, intensity, and progression are equated and managed with precision. Still, many practitioners find traditional block or undulating periodization more straightforward and effective for concentrated hypertrophy and strength adaptations, especially when training time and recovery are less restricted. Ultimately, micro-dosing is a flexible tool that excels in-season but requires expert application to be a viable alternative out-of-season.
Keys to Optimal Training Load during Micro-dosed resistance Training sessions: Prilepin's Number of Lifts Score (PNLS)
Prilepin's Number of Lifts Score (PNLS) is a useful tool for understanding the relationship between training volume, intensity, and stimulus. It quantifies the total number of repetitions performed within specific intensity zones relative to an optimal upper limit derived from extensive training data. The key insight PNLS provides is that if the total training volume—measured as the number of lifts—is too low relative to this upper limit, the stimulus may be insufficient to induce meaningful adaptations or performance improvements.
PNLS originated from the work of A.S. Prilepin, a Soviet national weightlifting coach and sports scientist in the 1960s and 1970s. The data behind Prilepin's chart came from systematically analyzing the training journals of thousands of Soviet weightlifters during two distinct 5-week training cycles. This data collection was part of a broader, decades-long effort by Soviet sport scientists to optimize training volume and intensity for Olympic weightlifting. Prilepin's empirical findings regarding optimal repetitions and load percentages are descriptive and based on real training logs from elite athletes within the Eastern Bloc's rigorous weightlifting programs. Thus, the PNLS reflects training insights explicitly derived from Eastern Bloc sports science and athlete performance data from that era.
PNLS Applied to micro-dosing in sport performance, this means that simply increasing training frequency by dividing volume into smaller sessions does not guarantee effective training unless the cumulative number of quality repetitions reaches the threshold necessary according to PNLS principles. Without providing enough of a stimulus (i.e., an appropriate PNLS), athletes risk maintenance or even detraining because the training dose is below the level needed to trigger adaptation. Thus, micro-dosing demands careful planning to ensure that frequent, low-volume sessions collectively meet the optimal training load, balancing intensity and volume to avoid ineffective or counterproductive training.
Key Insights from Stephanie Mock-Grubbs and Cory Schlesinger
Micro-dosing in sport performance, as applied by leaders like Stephanie Mock-Grubbs and Cory Schlesinger, involves breaking conventional training sessions into frequent, short-duration "micro" sessions tailored to meet the demands of an athlete's schedule and optimize recovery. This method supports high-frequency exposures to targeted physical stimuli—such as strength, speed, or power—without potentially causing excessive fatigue or interfering with competition and academic responsibilities.
Stephanie Mock-Grubbs, notably at the University of Pittsburgh, leveraged micro-dosing for her volleyball athletes by reducing the number of movements per session for higher quality and ensuring strength and performance were sustained or improved across long, congested seasons.
Cory Schlesinger has championed daily, precise micro-dosing strategies in professional basketball that focus on skill-adjacent conditioning, CNS priming, and load management integrated seamlessly within the competitive calendar, emphasizing health and readiness while minimizing drain.
Cory Schlesinger and Stephanie Mock-Grubbs are popular in the micro-dosing training conversation because they have actively implemented and championed these principles at the highest levels of collegiate and professional sports. Schlesinger gained notoriety for his systematic use of micro-dosing with the Stanford Men’s Basketball program and his public advocacy at events like the Sacramento Kings Performance Symposium, where he inspired practitioners through practical examples and clear communication. Stephanie Mock-Grubbs, recognized for her work at the University of Pittsburgh, stands out for bringing micro-dosing into broader use within collegiate athletics and for teaching efficient, athlete-centric methodologies, often under the mentorship of leading strength coaches.
The concept of microdosing itself isn’t attributed to a single originator; rather, it evolved from distributed practice models in sport science, emphasizing small, frequent training exposures as an alternative to large-volume, high-frequency sessions. Its roots trace back decades, but it has only recently gained mainstream momentum as performance staff in elite settings sought innovative ways to keep athletes healthy and ready across busy, demanding calendars. Practitioners like Schlesinger and Mock are highly visible now because they've made the approach accessible, practical, and successful in environments where athlete health and ongoing adaptation are critical.
Both experts demonstrate how micro-dosing fosters better athlete engagement, facilitates effective adaptation, and preserves peak performance when traditional training models might risk drop-offs during the season
Conclusion
Micro-dosing has emerged as a powerful and practical strategy in modern sports training, particularly suited for managing the complexities of congested competition schedules, travel demands, and athlete recovery needs. By breaking down training volume into smaller, more frequent doses, micro-dosing allows athletes to maintain critical performance attributes such as speed, power, and neuromuscular readiness without accumulating excessive fatigue. This approach aligns with well-established principles of motor learning and physiological adaptation, enhancing skill acquisition while preserving training residuals that tend to decay rapidly during dense in-season periods. Empirical evidence from various sports, including field hockey, soccer, and basketball, supports the effectiveness of micro-dosing different training modalities for sustaining performance, reducing neuromuscular fatigue, and providing consistent stimuli that potentially promote ongoing adaptation.
Although micro-dosing is not a wholesale replacement for traditional periodization models—especially those focused on hypertrophy and long-term strength development during preparatory phases—it serves as a highly valuable complementary tool. When expertly integrated into a periodized framework, micro-dosing optimizes athlete readiness and performance by matching training demands with practical constraints, helping coaches deliver precise, adaptable programs. As research continues to evolve, micro-dosing holds promise for improving training efficiency and athlete well-being, making it a vital strategy for maximizing sport performance in today's demanding athletic environments.
References
Afonso, J., Nakamura, F., Baptista, I., Rendeiro-Pinho, G., Brito, J., & Figueiredo, P. (2022). Microdosing: old wine in a new bottle? current state of affairs and future avenues. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 17(11), 1649-1652. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2022-0291
Andersen, A., Graae, J., Bejder, J., Bonne, T., Seier, S., DEBERTIN, M., … & Nordsborg, N. (2022). Microdoses of recombinant human erythropoietin enhance time trial performance in trained males and females. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 55(2), 311-321. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000003052
Bonder, I. and Shim, A. (2022). In-season training model for national association of intercollegiate athletics female basketball players using “microdosed” programming. Strength and Conditioning, 45(4), 395-410. https://doi.org/10.1519/ssc.0000000000000741
Clark, B., Woolford, S., Eastwood, A., Sharpe, K., Barnes, P., & Gore, C. (2017). Temporal changes in physiology and haematology in response to high‐ and micro‐doses of recombinant human erythropoietin. Drug Testing and Analysis, 9(10), 1561-1571. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.2176
Cuadrado‐Peñafiel, V., Castaño‐Zambudio, A., Martínez-Aranda, L., González-Hernández, J., Acero, R., & Jiménez‐Reyes, P. (2023). Microdosing sprint distribution as an alternative to achieve better sprint performance in field hockey players. Sensors, 23(2), 650. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23020650
Cuthbert, M., Haff, G., Arent, S., Ripley, N., McMahon, J., Evans, M., … & Comfort, P. (2021). Effects of variations in resistance training frequency on strength development in well-trained populations and implications for in-season athlete training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 51(9), 1967-1982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01460-7
Cuthbert, M., Haff, G., McMahon, J., Evans, M., & Comfort, P. (2023). Microdosing: a conceptual framework for use as programming strategy for resistance training in team sports. Strength and Conditioning, 46(2), 180-201. https://doi.org/10.1519/ssc.0000000000000786
Liu, G., Wang, X., & Xu, Q. (2024). Microdosing plyometric training enhances jumping performance, reactive strength index, and acceleration among youth soccer players: a randomized controlled study design. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 342-350. https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2024.342
Loria, F., Cox, H., Voss, S., Rocca, A., Miller, G., Townsend, N., … & Leuenberger, N. (2021). The use of rna‐based 5'‐aminolevulinate synthase 2 biomarkers in dried blood spots to detect recombinant human erythropoietin microdoses. Drug Testing and Analysis, 14(5), 826-832. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.3123
Marchand, A., Martin, J., Collot, D., Hoang, O., Roulland, I., Semence, F., … & Varlet‐Marie, E. (2019). Combined administration of microdoses of growth hormone and erythropoietin: effects on performance and evaluation of gh detection capability using anti‐doping methods. Drug Testing and Analysis, 11(11-12), 1698-1713. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.2674
Sutehall, S., Martín-Rincón, M., Wang, G., Shurlock, J., Durussel, J., Mooses, M., … & Pitsiladis, Y. (2018). The performance effects of microdose recombinant human erythropoietin administration and carbon monoxide rebreathing. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 17(12), 457-466. https://doi.org/10.1249/jsr.0000000000000551
Wu, B., Zhang, B., Yin, M., Xu, K., Ramírez‐Campillo, R., Huang, S., … & Zhang, K. (2025). Plyometric jump training micro- and high-dose effects on amateur basketball players athletic performance: a randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Physiology, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1684022