The Reactive Strength Index (RSI = jump height ÷ contact time) is the standard field metric for assessing the stretch–shortening cycle (SSC) — the store-and-release elastic energy mechanism behind explosive movement. But RSI has real problems: it mixes incompatible units (producing m/s despite being treated as dimensionless), it ignores drop height entirely, and it rewards very short contact times even when almost no upward impulse is produced.

The Proposed Solution: DRI

Not all reps are created equal — and this study proves it. Researchers assigned 45 adolescent male sprinters to one of three velocity-based training (VBT) programs, each using a different velocity loss threshold (10%, 20%, or 30%) during back squat training over six weeks. While all groups got stronger, athletes training with the lowest threshold consistently outperformed their peers in sprint speed, jump height, peak power, and reactive strength — while also reporting significantly less fatigue.

For over a decade, force-velocity profiling (FVP) has been the gold standard for sprint assessment—a supposedly elegant way to identify whether athletes are "force-dominant" or "velocity-dominant" and prescribe individualized training accordingly. Coaches swear by it. Scientists publish papers validating it. But in 2023, biomechanists dropped a bombshell: FVP is a "dead end"—mathematically sophisticated wrapping around a present that doesn't exist.

This episode dissects the FVP civil war. It breaks down the foundational research defending the method against simulation models proving FVP is task-dependent, not a true capacity descriptor. The analysis examines the latest 2025 meta-analysis showing FVP-optimized training performs no better than simple unresisted sprinting. And it asks the uncomfortable question: Are coaches and athletes wasting time chasing a phantom metric?

This is hard science, real stakes, and a debate that will reshape how you assess sprint performance.