.png){kind=small}
DSI Decoded: Optimizing Training with the Dynamic Strength Index
The Dynamic Strength Index (DSI) offers a fascinating glimpse into the balance between strength and explosive power, helping athletes and performance coaches fine-tune training for optimal performance.
The Dynamic Strength Index (DSI) was introduced in the early 2000s as a method to assess an athlete's ability to express force dynamically in relation to their maximal force capabilities isometrically (Sheppard et al., 2011). The concept has roots in the work of strength and conditioning professionals seeking to optimize athletic performance and find a more detailed protocol to prescribe individualized training for athletes. DSI has evolved from its initial application, which compared peak force in ballistic movements (like countermovement jumps) to isometric exercises (such as the isometric mid-thigh pull). Over time, researchers and practitioners have expanded its use, exploring variations in the metrics used for the calculation on both the ballistic and isometric side of the equation.
Calculating The Dynamic Strength Index
The Dynamic Strength Index (DSI) is a performance metric used in sports science and strength and conditioning to assess the relationship between an athlete's ability to generate force in explosive, high-speed movements and their maximum isometric force output. Essentially, it quantifies how effectively an athlete can translate their absolute strength into dynamic power.
We will review the multiple ways to calculate DSI along with reviewing different metrics and exercises that can be used in the calculation to provide practitioners with a more well rounded look at an athletes ability to generate force dynamically and maximally.
CMJ (Concentric Peak Force) + IMTP (Peak Force) [fDSI]
One of the most widely used methods to calculate DSI is through Countermovement Jump and Isometric Mid Thigh Pull
fDSI is derived by Peak Force (CMJ)/Peak Force (IMTP)
A higher DSI indicates a greater ability to convert isometric strength into dynamic power, suggesting that the athlete may benefit more from plyometric training to enhance their explosive capabilities (Weakley et al., 2023). Conversely, a lower DSI may indicate that the athlete has strong isometric strength but struggles to express that strength dynamically, which could warrant a focus on explosive strength training (Smith et al., 2024).
2620 (CMJ Peak Force) / 3300 (IMTP Peak Force) = .79 DSI
CMJ Peak Force and IMTP Peak Force:
Low DSI (<0.60):
Indicates that the athlete produces significantly less force in the CMJ compared to the IMTP.
Recommendation: Focus on ballistic and plyometric training to improve explosive power.
Moderate DSI (0.60 - 0.80):
Suggests a balance between maximum strength and explosive power.
Recommendation: Implement concurrent training, combining both strength and power exercises.
High DSI (>0.80):
Indicates that the athlete's CMJ peak force is close to their IMTP peak force.
Recommendation: Emphasize maximal strength training to increase overall force production capacity.
CMJ (Concentric Peak Force) + ISO Squat (Peak Force)
A method of measuring fDSI that is gaining traction due to the recently popularity with the isometrics belt squats as a tool to measure maximal isometric strength.
fDSI is derived by Peak Force (CMJ)/Peak Force (ISO Squat)
The isometric belt squat, which emphasizes lower body strength without the compressive forces associated with traditional squats, serves as an effective tool for assessing isometric strength. This exercise allows athletes to generate peak force in a controlled manner, making it a reliable method for evaluating strength capabilities among various populations (Comfort et al., 2019; Pritchard, 2020). In conjunction with countermovement jump, Isometric Belt Squat can be an additional alternative when calculating fDSI for virtually any population
2620 (CMJ Peak Force) / 3300 (ISO Squat Peak Force) = .79 DSI
DSI Ranges provided via Sean Baker - VALD LinkedIn Post
CMJ Peak Force and ISO Squat Peak Force
Low DSI (<0.50):
Indicates that the athlete produces significantly less force in the CMJ compared to the ISO Squat.
Recommendation: Focus on ballistic and plyometric training to improve explosive power.
Moderate DSI (0.50 - 0.65):
Suggests a balance between maximum strength and explosive power.
Recommendation: Implement concurrent training, combining both strength and power exercises.
High DSI (>0.65):
Indicates that the athlete's CMJ peak force is close to their ISO Squat peak force.
Recommendation: Emphasize maximal strength training to increase overall force production capacity.
CMJ (Concentric Impulse) + IMTP (Peak Force)
The impulse based calculation for DSI is gaining traction due to the inclusion of time dependent force expression metric, which may provide a more comprehensive assessment of an athletes ability to utilize strength in dynamic movements.
iDSI is derived by Concentric Impulse (CMJ) / Peak Force (IMTP)
Although contemporary research suggests that the ratio between peak forces produced during a dynamic and an isometric task is useful for monitoring the training status of athletes (Haischer et al 2021), using peak force in DSI [fDSI] calculations neglects the time available for force production. From a practical perspective, the ability to produce force over time is critical for athletic performance and may be a better predictor of dynamic performance than the applied peak force (Haischer et al 2021).
Concentric impulse refers to the product of force and time during the concentric phase of a movement (example above), which is crucial for understanding how effectively an athlete can utilize their strength in dynamic tasks (Turner et al., 2020). Research indicates that a higher concentric impulse during jumps correlates with improved performance in strength assessments like the IMTP, suggesting that athletes who can generate greater concentric impulses are likely to have higher DSI values (Weakley et al., 2023; Joffe et al., 2022).
200 (CMJ Concentric Impulse) / 3300 (IMTP Peak Force) = .04 DSI
A key finding by Haischer et al (2021) was that iDSI and fDSI can lead to conflicting training recommendations for a significant percentage of athletes. Since impulse is a better predictor of dynamic performance, iDSI may offer a more accurate way to evaluate an athlete's capacity to use their strength dynamically. The study suggests that practitioners should consider using iDSI in addition to fDSI to better personalize training programs and address individual athlete's needs, especially in regard to improving force expression during dynamic movements.
NO CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS for CMJ Concentric Impulse and IMTP based DSI - More research is needed
Squat Jump (Concentric Peak Force) + IMTP (Peak Force)
The Squat Jump (SJ) and the Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull (IMTP) are two important assessments in strength and conditioning, particularly for evaluating dynamic strength and explosive power in athletes.
DSI is derived from Concentric Peak Force (SJ)/Peak Force (IMTP)
The Dynamic Strength Index (DSI) is a valuable metric that compares peak force output from the IMTP with performance metrics from jump tests, such as the SJ or the countermovement jump (CMJ). This comparison helps in determining whether an athlete may benefit more from strength training or plyometric training, thereby guiding tailored training interventions (Weakley et al., 2023).
Research indicates that the SJ is particularly effective in isolating the effects of strength without the influence of the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC), which is often present in CMJ assessments. This isolation allows for a clearer understanding of an athlete's pure strength capabilities (Ross et al., 2023).
1420 (SJ Peak Force) / 3178 (IMTP Peak Force) = .46 DSI
Comfort and colleagues (Comfort et al., 2018) aimed to compare methods of calculating Dynamic Strength index. In this study, they focused on Squat Jump (SJ) vs Countermovement Jump (CMJ) Peak Force to compare DSI values between methods. Within the study, the researchers found that both methods produced similar ratios for DSI but it was suggested that practitioners focus on using CMJ based DSI calculations.
NO CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS for SJ Concentric Peak Force and IMTP based DSI - More research is needed, although similar ratios are produced when using SJ vs CMJ.
Unilateral Dynamic Strength Index
The study "A novel approach for athlete profiling: The unilateral dynamic strength index" by Bishop and colleagues addresses the limitations of current athlete assessment methods, which primarily focus on bilateral strength and power measurements. Given that many athletic movements, such as sprinting, jumping, and changing direction, are performed unilaterally, the researchers aimed to quantify the reliability of a unilateral Dynamic Strength Index (DSI)
This study introduces the concept of a unilateral Dynamic Strength Index (DSI) for athlete profiling, addressing the gap in existing research that primarily focuses on bilateral testing. The DSI, which is a ratio of peak force produced during isometric and ballistic tasks, is examined in the context of individual limbs to identify potential strength and power discrepancies. The researchers assessed the reliability of unilateral isometric squats and countermovement jumps (CMJ) in recreational athletes, finding good to excellent reliability for individual peak force measurements. This suggests that assessing the DSI unilaterally could provide valuable insights into an athlete's strength and power balance, informing more targeted training programs.
The results offer normative data for the unilateral DSI, demonstrating acceptable levels of reliability for the testing methods used. While no significant differences were found between left and right limbs for the DSI, differences were observed between dominant and non-dominant limbs in both isometric squat and CMJ performance. This highlights the importance of considering limb dominance when evaluating strength and power. This research paves the way for practitioners to use the unilateral DSI as a tool to identify asymmetries and tailor training interventions to improve athletic performance and potentially reduce injury risk.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Dynamic Strength Index is a valuable tool for athletes and coaches to assess the balance between maximal and explosive strength. By exploring various calculation methods, including the traditional approach, impulse based approach, and squat jump based approach along with the inclusion of different isometric exercises and unilateral evaluation, we've demonstrated the versatility and applicability of DSI across different training scenarios. While each method has its merits, the key is to choose the one that best aligns with your specific goals and situation. Consistently monitoring DSI can provide crucial insights into an athlete's performance profile, helping to guide training decisions and optimize development. As with any assessment tool, it's essential to interpret DSI results in conjunction with other performance metrics and to use them as part of a comprehensive training program. By understanding and effectively implementing DSI and the various calculations, coaches and athletes can take a significant step towards more targeted and efficient performance training practices.
Did you find this blog post helpful?
Yes
No
References
Bishop, C., Jordan, M., Torres-Ronda, L., Loturco, I., Harry, J., Virgile, A., … & Comfort, P. (2023). Selecting metrics that matter: comparing the use of the countermovement jump for performance profiling, neuromuscular fatigue monitoring, and injury rehabilitation testing. Strength and Conditioning, 45(5), 545-553.
Bishop, C., Read, P., Lake, J., Loturco, I., & Turner, A. (2021). A novel approach for athlete profiling: The unilateral dynamic strength index. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 35(4), 1023–1029.
Comfort, P., Thomas, C., Dos'Santos, T., Jones, P. A., Suchomel, T. J., & McMahon, J. J. (2018). Comparison of Methods of Calculating Dynamic Strength Index. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 13(3), 320-325
Comfort, P., Dos'Santos, T., Beckham, G., Stone, M., Guppy, S., & Haff, G. (2019). Standardization and methodological considerations for the isometric midthigh pull. Strength and Conditioning, 41(2), 57-79.
Haischer, M. H., Krzyszkowski, J., Roche, S., & Kipp, K. (2021). Impulse-based dynamic strength index: Considering time-dependent force expression. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 35(5), 1177-1181.
Joffe, S., Price, P., Chavda, S., Shaw, J., & Tallent, J. (2022). The relationship of lower-body, multijoint, isometric and dynamic neuromuscular assessment variables with snatch, and clean and jerk performance in competitive weightlifters: a meta-analysis. Strength and Conditioning, 45(4), 411-428.
McMahon, J., Suchomel, T., Lake, J., & Comfort, P. (2018). Understanding the key phases of the countermovement jump force-time curve. Strength and Conditioning, 40(4), 96-106.
Paschall, J. and Dawes, J. (2022). Physical demands of air force special operations command flight crews: a needs analysis and proposed testing protocol. Strength and Conditioning, 45(3), 354-363.
Pritchard, J. (2020). Fitness testing parameters for alpine ski racing. Strength and Conditioning, 43(2), 1-6.
Ross, J., Jelmini, J., Leary, B., Hoch, M., & Heebner, N. (2023). Kinetic and kinematic aspects of the vertical jump related to overreaching: a systematic review. Strength and Conditioning, 46(4), 454-467.
Sahrom, S., Cronin, J., & Harris, N. (2013). Understanding stretch shortening cycle ability in youth. Strength and Conditioning, 35(3), 77-88.
Sheppard, JM., Chapman, D., & Taylor, KL. (2011). An evaluation of a strength qualities assessment method for the lower body. J Aust Strength Cond, 19, 4–10.
Smith, J. (2024). Using python to analyze isometric force-time curves. Strength and Conditioning.
Suchomel, TJ., Sole, CJ., Bellon, CR., & Stone, MH. (2020). Dynamic Strength Index: Relationships with common performance variables and contextualization of training recommendations. J Hum Kinet, 74, 59–70.
Weakley, J., Black, G., McLaren, S., Scantlebury, S., Suchomel, T., McMahon, E., … & Read, D. (2023). Testing and profiling athletes: recommendations for test selection, implementation, and maximizing information. Strength and Conditioning, 46(2), 159-179.
Comments