Just a BIT at a time..
If I have learned one thing from years spent at the intersections of sports science, cold dugouts, and the whiteboard clutter of tournaments, it’s this: in high-performance environments, every dose matters, and the smallest interventions can echo loudly in outcomes. Nowhere is this truer than during the compressed, high-stakes carnival of a 7- to 14-day hockey tournament, where coaches face the ceaseless tug-of-war between rest, recovery, and maintenance of physical rigour. Here, the concept of “microdosing” strength work—delivered in tactical slices rather than traditional training chunks—has migrated from both avant-garde podcasts and pharmacology labs to serious, evidence-based discussion in the sports science literature (Cuthbert et al., 2024).
At VOITTO, we are keen to explore how microdosing might help athletes, technical staff and coaches get the most out of players at tournaments . What can we glean, practically and scientifically, from this paradigm? How should the sport innovate implementation strategies? And, critically, what would a robust research trial to test these ideas look like, tailored to the fiercely unique context of hockey?
What Is Microdosed Resistance Training?
The term “microdosing” carries a good deal of baggage—evoking images of both cutting-edge neuroscience and the more esoteric fringes of biohacking and 4-chan like BS. In the domain of resistance training, its meaning is refreshingly empirical: microdosing refers to splitting the total intended weekly loading—whether measured in sets, repetitions, or tonnage—over more frequent, smaller training exposures (Cuthbert et al., 2024; Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023). The central tenet is to provide sufficient neuromuscular stimulus for adaptation or maintenance, while minimizing the interference with recovery, skill work, or match performance. The guts of it align with something like the classic Ludwig Mies van der Rohe quote “less is more”.
Importantly, microdosing is not simply the “minimum effective dose”—an important distinction. Rather than a single, cautiously modest stimulus, microdosing is about deliberate distribution: “more often, less each time” (Cuthbert et al., 2024).
Microdosing has been studied across several team sport contexts, but its formal investigation ( and the funds to back it) remains emergent. Nonetheless, themes recur in the literature:
adaptation during fixture congestion,
attenuation of acute fatigue,
improved technical execution through frequent neuromuscular ‘priming’, and
support for injury risk reduction (Cuthbert et al., 2024; Mock, 2023; Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023).
Key Findings from Chena (2025) and Related Research
While the details of the forthcoming Chena (2025) paper are still under publisher embargo, its abstract and summary reports have been widely circulated among practitioner networks. Chena’s work builds directly on the conceptual framework advanced by Cuthbert and colleagues (2024), offering one of the most focused empirical pilots on microdosing resistance training in a field hockey tournament context.
Core findings from Chena (2025) include:
Microdosed strength sessions (10–20 min, 3–4x/week) maintained isometric and dynamic lower body strength, while traditional once-per-week loading led to mild decrements across an 11-day female collegiate tournament.
Markers of neuromuscular fatigue (via countermovement jump metrics, peak power output) displayed smaller post-match declines and faster recovery in the microdosing group versus controls.
Self-reported DOMS and perceptions of “dead legs” were lower in athletes on the microdosing schedule—a finding echoed in recent qualitative work (Mock, 2023; Cuthbert, 2022).
No increase in soft-tissue or overuse injuries was observed, and several athletes attributed sustained performance to the lighter, more frequent exposures (Chena, 2025; Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023).
These outcomes align with the landmark work of Cuthbert et al. (2024) and Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al. (2023), which demonstrated that microdosing approaches in both soccer and field hockey can deliver equivalent, if not superior, maintenance of neuromuscular qualities during periods of fixture congestion or intensive match-play.
The Physiological Rationale for Microdosing During Tournaments
Short-duration, high-density tournaments create a physiological puzzle for the applied sport scientist and strength coach. Athletes face a relentless schedule—sometimes playing daily or every other day, often with travel and disruption—creating an environment where fatigue accumulates and, paradoxically, deconditioning can rapidly set in if all strength work is abandoned (Cuthbert et al., 2024; Mock, 2023).
The Problem with Traditional Approaches
Historically, in-season strength training has oscillated between two extremes: either a heavy session once per week (risking acute fatigue/injury ahead of matches) or total suspension of strength work “for recovery’s sake” (risking rapid detraining) (Mock, 2023; Cuthbert, 2022). Neither is fully satisfactory.
After as little as 7–10 days without strength stimulus, well-trained athletes begin to manifest declines in neuromuscular contractile ability, rate of force development, and tendon stiffness. These deficits can have real impacts on hockey-specific performance—sprinting, change of direction, deceleration, and shooting power—and may subtly increase injury risk as the tournament progresses (Cuthbert et al., 2024; Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023).
Microdosing as a Solution
The microdosing paradigm is based on several physiological principles:
Frequent Low-Volume, High-Intent Exposures: By distributing smaller “doses” of strength work over more days, athletes maintain neural drive, muscle-tendon mechanical properties, and key enzymes/adaptations without creating overwhelming acute fatigue (Cuthbert et al., 2024; Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023).
Maintenance of “Readiness”: These exposures act as a form of neuromuscular priming, helping to sustain “match readiness” by minimizing perceived muscle soreness and maximizing power output immediately before matches (Mock, 2023; Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023).
Prevention of Detraining: Consistent, if modest, practice of key shapes and high-intent movement preserves strength and technical skills—guarding against the classic “week two slump” many hockey teams report during tournaments (Cuthbert et al., 2024).
This approach is a bit like “meal frequency” in nutrition: you don’t lose muscle eating only one enormous meal per week, but by consuming smaller, regular portions, you optimize energy availability and sustain key systems (Hansen, 2015; Smart Training, 2022).
Practical Implementation Strategies
Armed with this knowledge, the sports scientist’s next challenge is translation—how to weave microdosed strength work into the messy, ever-shifting reality of a hockey tournament.
Session Structure and Content Ideas
Session Frequency: 3–5 sessions per week, ideally on non-match days or well-timed to avoid proximity to peak game loads (Chena, 2025; Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023; Cuthbert et al., 2024).
Session Duration: Micro-sessions rarely exceed 15–20 minutes— ensuring minimal interference with tactical practice, meetings, meals, or recovery blocks (Mock, 2023).
Content: Focus on compound, athletic movements—e.g., trap bar deadlift, split squats, jump squats, push-ups, or isometric holds—with an emphasis on intent (speed or force of movement), not just volume. A typical session might include 2–3 main exercises, 2–3 working sets each, at moderate intensity (e.g., 70–85% 1RM or max speed) (Cuthbert et al., 2024; Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023).
Notes: Prioritize coaching quality, intent, and “athlete feel”. Sessions can double as activation before on-field work or as a “top off” later in the recovery cycle (Mock, 2023; Smart Training, 2022).
Session Timing Considerations:
When possible, avoid loading within 6–8 hours pre-match, to maximize power output.
For travel days, athletes can perform brief activation circuits (isometrics, band work, jumps) upon arrival to battle travel-induced neuromuscular dampening (Mock, 2023; Cuthbert et al., 2024).
Integrate strength microdosing into pre-practice ramp-ups rather than as isolated, standalone sessions—this maximizes buy-in and logistical efficiency. Get the routine right ahead of time.
Integration With Recovery and Tactical Demands
Collaboration across staff is essential. Strength microdosing must be tightly coordinated with tactical coaches, recovery staff, and medical teams to prevent cumulative overload and ensure every athlete’s individual needs are met (Cuthbert et al., 2024; Sportsmith Podcast, 2024). Working hand in hand with the data analyst with GPS-HR data and rotation plans is essential to individualizing loads.
Communication strategies include:
Agreeing on a weekly calendar with specific “microdose slots,” adjusted daily based on player feedback, readiness scores, and minor injuries.
Using simple readiness and fatigue metrics (CMJ, subjective questionnaires) to “green light” or “red light” individual athletes for a microdose session (see further below).
Keeping open lines of feedback—microdosed strength work should leave an athlete feeling “activated and sharp”, never “dead-legged” or unduly fatigued (Mock, 2023).
In tournaments, recovery is the umbrella under which all training sits. Prioritize sleep, nutrition, hydration, and lower-intensity modalities first—microdosed strength slots should never compromise these mandates (Cuthbert et al., 2024).
Individualization: Honoring Athlete Variability in Microdosing
Why Individualization Matters
No squad is an homogeneous mass—hockey teams are a web of positions (defenders, midfielders, forwards, goalkeepers), training histories, ages, and injury profiles. The literature is clear: responses to resistance training—especially under fatigue—are highly individual (Cuthbert et al., 2024; Mock, 2023). Microdosing is, by nature, “tunable” to each athlete, but it demands a sound framework for individualization.
Key Strategies for Individualizing Microdosed Strength Work
Initial Athlete Profiling: Before the tournament, establish baseline strength, power, and fatigue metrics (e.g., 1RM estimates, jump tests, subjective fatigue).
Role-Specific Adjustments: Forwards may require more power-speed emphasis, while defenders might favor robustness/isometric work. Bear in mind, more and more players are effective in multiple layer roles. Goalkeepers benefit from fewer ground contacts, more upper-body rotational and plyometric work (Cuthbert et al., 2024; Smart Training, 2022).
Injury Risk Management: Athletes with prior hamstring, groin, or ACL issues may receive tailored, microdosed preventive exercises (e.g., Nordic hamstring, adductor isometrics), as evidence suggests these respond well to distributed dosing (Cuthbert, 2022).
Readiness and Affective Monitoring: Daily briefings—formal (“Wellness/Fatigue surveys”) or informal (“How do you feel today?”)—guide the greenlighting of sessions or the automatic deloading of ‘at-risk’ players (Mock, 2023; TeamBuildr Blog, 2023).
Female Athlete Considerations: While the evidence base is still growing, Chena (2025) and Cuthbert (2024) highlight the need for menstrual cycle-tailored load management, particularly when travel and stress disrupt hormonal rhythms.
Preserving Athlete Autonomy
Critically, successful microdosing programs foster athlete autonomy—the sense that players are partners in the dosing decision, not passive recipients. Allowing opt-outs, substitution of unfamiliar lifts, or micro-adjustments in volume builds psychological buy-in and reduces non-compliance (Mock, 2023; Smart Training, 2022).
Timing and Dosage: The Art of Scheduling Microdosed Strength in Tournaments
The “art” of microdosing in tournament settings lies in orchestrating volume, intensity, and frequency to match the changes in tournament rhythm. Here, evidence from both Chena (2025) and recent sprint microdosing research in field hockey and soccer is instructive (Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023; Cuthbert et al., 2024).
Generalized Microdosing Schedule
Microdosed sessions are typically scheduled on non-match mornings or on afternoon slots following active recovery when readiness is sufficient (Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023; Cuthbert et al., 2024).
Adjustments are made daily in response to match duration, injury status, subjective and objective fatigue, and logistical constraints (e.g., travel, weather).
Volume & Intensity Touchpoints
Total Weekly Volume: Aim for 60–75% of a typical in-season week, distributed evenly over sessions (Chena, 2025).
Intensity: Moderate-to-high intent for primary lifts (70–85% 1RM or maximal speed in plyometrics), always auto-regulated by feel and readiness (Cuthbert et al., 2024).
No microdose session should subtract from match performance. When in doubt, reduce volume or skip.
Injury Risk Reduction Through Microdosing
One of the strongest practical arguments for microdosed strength training is injury risk mitigation during tournaments. Both acute and overuse injuries spike during congested periods as central and peripheral fatigue accumulate, and athletes lose protective strength and neuromuscular fidelity (Mock, 2023; Cuthbert et al., 2024).
By regularly “reminding” and prompting key tissues—particularly hamstrings, adductors, and calf complexes—of high-intensity force production through manageable, frequent, low-volume exposures, microdosing maintains the “brakes” and “springs” of the kinetic chain (Cuthbert et al., 2024; Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023). These tissues, when gently stimulated, better resist the cumulative strain of tournament play.
Empirical Support
Chena (2025) and the studies by Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al. (2023) provide preliminary but promising data:
injury rates did not increase with microdosed strength, despite repeated exposures, and subjective markers of “tightness” and DOMS were lower than in once-weekly, high-dose models.
Detraining-induced risks (sudden drops in strength/power, decreased resilience) are notably attenuated in athletes who continue even modest strength doses during competition windows (Cuthbert, 2022; Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023).
Monitoring Neuromuscular Performance, Fatigue, and Recovery in Microdosing Trials
Objective and subjective monitoring are the bedrock of a safe, effective microdosing approach in tournaments. Consistent, time-efficient markers allow coaches and practitioners to dynamically adjust protocols and minimize the risk of overload.Biological/Hormonal Markers (If Resources Allow)
Cortisol/testosterone ratio: Monitors catabolic/anabolic balance, signaling excessive cumulative stress or recovery inadequacy.
Creatine kinase (CK): Offers a biochemical window into muscle tissue breakdown—though practical only if resources and timing permit (Smart Training, 2022).
Regular neuromuscular testing—CMJ or short sprints—has the dual advantage of acting as both a monitoring and a priming tool. A simplified 15-minute “performance readiness” block before each microdose session can guide real-time adjustments (Cuadrado-Peñafiel et al., 2023). As with all regular testing protocols; standardize conditions and ensure zero risk preparation by way of pre-test injury assessment and appropriate warm ups.
Athlete feedback is paramount. Objective metrics should always be cross-referenced to the lived experience of players, with data interpreted within the broader context of match minutes, travel, psychological stress, and individual baseline variability (Cuthbert et al., 2024).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chena, M. (2025). [Details Redacted].
Cuthbert, M., Haff, G. G., McMahon, J. J., Evans, M., & Comfort, P. (2024). Microdosing: A conceptual framework for use as programming strategy for resistance training in team sports. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 46(2), 180-201.
Cuadrado-Peñafiel, V., Castaño-Zambudio, A., Martínez-Aranda, L. M., González-Hernández, J. M., Martín-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
Mock, S. (2023, August 3). The power of microdosing. TeamBuildr Blog. https://blog.teambuildr.com/the-power-of-microdosing
Sportsmith Podcast. (2024). How to implement micro-dosing strategies in team sports [Audio podcast]. Sportsmith. https://www.sportsmith.co/listen/how-to-implement-micro-dosing-strategies-in-team-sports/
Smart Training. (2022, September 20). Microdosing training: An efficient strategy for athletes. Smart Training Blog. https://smarttraininglm.com/en/blog/microdosing-training-an-efficient-strategy-for-athletes/
Hansen, D. M. (2015, October 28). Micro-dosing with speed and tempo sessions for performance gains and injury prevention. Strength Power Speed. https://strengthpowerspeed.com/micro-dosing-speed-tempo/
