Sure, but it can't be just any ol' snake oil thing. If they keep buying into snake oil after snake oil, they will never see results and only become more depressed and unmotivated. Snake oil exercise regimes are actively detrimental because of this.

Posted elsewhere in this thread but very much worth reading, a devastating take-down of the piece:

http://elsbethvaino.com/2013/05/should-you-do-a-newspaper-wo...

But the dirty little secret is burning calories though exercise is basically a waste of time compared to simply eating less and it takes vary little to get basic fitness. So assuming your diet is reasonable you can look like someone that spends 2 hours a day in the working out by doing to same basic routine without the cardio.

That's not to say cardio is pointless, rather unless your trying to build stamina for some reason cardio takes a lot of time for little short term benefit.

http://elsbethvaino.com/2013/05/should-you-do-a-newspaper-wo...

Yes and no.

Once you dig past the obviously bullshit claims and scams, and the One True Way prophets (and even Rippetoe suffers this to an extent), there's a lot that's very well established. Much of the problem boils down to a fundamental set of market failures: fitness _is_ simple (not "easy", but simple), and there's relatively little money to be made in the stuff that really works (that's a principle you can apply well beyond the field as well).

The rebuttal piece noted elsewhere in this thread is excellent. Read it.

http://elsbethvaino.com/2013/05/should-you-do-a-newspaper-wo...

The most important thing for me to realize is understanding how your body responds to training, diet, rest, recovery, and stress.

Here's the key: your body is a complex feedback system responding largely with and to hormonal flows you can influence directly through diet and training.

"Training" includes both strength training and cardio. For the typical schmoe or schmoette, a basic level of strength, cardiovascular, mobility, and motor-control fitness is reasonably easy to attain.

An extremely good general overview is Liam Rosen's guide. The Reddit Fitness FAQ is also quite good. Neither is selling anything, a key point:

http://liamrosen.com/fitness.html

http://www.reddit.com/help/faqs/Fitness

Rippetoe is a good introduction to strength. The "New Rules of Lifting" books by Schuler and Cosgrove go a bit broader (and add some scope to strength training), as well as add the introductory phase that some untrained individuals might benefit from which Rippetoe largely omits (though the general principle that "you cannot start too light" is useful to keep in mind.

As to the failings of the NY Times piece, there are many, and these are highly typical of Gretchen Reynolds pieces -- I've come to discount her, and much other, health & fitness reporting at the Times (Gina Kolada is also pretty poor in my experience, despite her stature and tenure).

- It offers little or no actual strength development.

- There's no training of the back (difficult without at least minimal equipment). This is omitting training a major muscle group, and one which is underutilized in most modern daily life. More than even other muscle groups.

- There is no progression. You don't need "muscle confusion", but if you're going to progress in a training program, there has to be some mode of increasing the challenge over time.

- This is effectively a cardio-only program. It's promoting the same myth that the fitness industry has promoted since the 1970s, that cardio is all you need. The simple truth is that muscle mass and strength offer very significant benefits (Schuler and Cosgrove get into this, Robert Arnot's Dr. Bob Arnot's Guide to Turning Back the Clock also addressed this back in 1994), and as you age, you are losing about 0.5% of your muscle mass per year. This is called "sarcopenia", or age-related muscle loss.

So: yes, this is a pretty poor article, the science is lacking. The program is likely "better than nothing", but there are vastly more effective programs (and Rippetoe or "New Rules" would be good starts) which will actually provide far more returns.

The key is this: while "something" may be better than "nothing", "better" is better than "something".

If the article itself would point out these deficiencies and that this program is only a VERY basic starting point, I could accept it. It doesn't. Ergo: it's adding to the problem.

Honestly: Gretchen should be canned.

For most people the answer is to do a bit of each.

Then answer your own question in a reply here.

Or I could sit next to you for the next 20 years and spoon-feed you the Internet.

That's an unfortunate name.

Also, great comment on your part :)

This routine is more for intermediate-to-advanced types and those already spent a big amount of time in gym.

Ted: Yeah, sure, 8-Minute Abs. Yeah, the excercise video.

Hitchhiker: Yeah, this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: 7... Minute... Abs.

Ted: Right. Yes. OK, all right. I see where you're going.

Hitchhiker: Think about it. You walk into a video store, you see 8-Minute Abs sittin' there, there's 7-Minute Abs right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?

Ted: I would go for the 7.

Hitchhiker: Bingo, man, bingo. 7-Minute Abs. And we guarantee just as good a workout as the 8-minute folk.

Ted: That's right. That's - that's good. That's good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Abs. Then you're in trouble, huh?

But don't go shooting the messenger because he's a bit of a meathead and turn people off to good advice as a result. That's just employing logical fallacy. Really, the benefits of weightlifting and eating properly are so great that if you tried it you wouldn't be surprised I'm so adamant about these programs. They literally prevent you from dying early.

I could be completely depressed and sleep deprived, drink a scoop of that, and the ONLY thing I'll want to do is get in a squat rack and put some heavy shit in the air.

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm347270.ht...

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/business/fda-issues-warni...

You're criticizing gimmicky crap and bloated industries and you post a "health supplement"?

Edit: http://www.leangains.com/2010/09/high-protein-recipes-and-ja... make sure not to get the "micro" stuff and instead look for the one with the DMAA in it

My overall point is that while these "scientific" workouts are not the best way to workout, people should at least do something instead of nothing, similar to what DanielStraight said. Then if they truly want better results, they should follow routines like yours.

Exercise is hard. We used to have to do it, you know, to like eat and stuff. I would be willing to bet that if you grabbed a prehistoric man and dropped him into now with all the luxuries modern life affords, he, himself, would be loathe to exercise.

You have to want it. People who do "7 minute exercises" don't want anything. They can't even find value in prolonging their life, or living more healthy, or goddammit even looking better.

There is no fragmented advice, no magic bullet. If you want to be healthy, you have to work for it. Period.

I assume this is intended as snark, but still... a little extreme.

It's a ridiculous statement. Life expectancy, even among those who do not regularly exercise, is greater than 50. My mom is 70, and the most exercise she's ever gotten was from walking (and not for fitness, just around the block, or meandering through the mall). She certainly would not have been better off dying in her 50s.