
The Scientific 7-Minute Workout - tilt
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-scientific-7-minute-workout/?
======
pvnick
This is a waste of time. Let me explain.

After years of spinning wheels, like many others, I've found that gimmicky
crap like this is just that - gimmicky crap. This may be more efficient than a
30 minute run and burn the same net amount of calories, but you'll offset the
entire effect of this workout by eating a cookie. For overall health and
lasting benefits you're going to need to get into a gym and pick something
heavy off the ground.

As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise,
we're really susceptible to people throwing around the term "scientific" to
describe their exercise pitches.

Please don't waste your time with this "workout," unless of course you're so
weak and fragile that it'll literally kill you to do a squat. Really look into
Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe for actual good advice.

"Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in
general." - Mark Rippetoe

Edit: Btw, time comparison: spend years chasing the latest "scientific"
fitness fad (see article) and going nowhere or get in better shape while
working an office job than 99% of highschool/college guys in a few months for
a time commitment of 2-3 hours per week. That's the kind of math I'm talking
about when I talk about starting strength and leangains.

~~~
DanielStraight
"This is a waste of time" is read by someone who currently does no exercise as
"I may as well not bother trying".

Fitness advice is so fragmented and the debates between those who practice
various types of fitness are so vigorous that it puts people off to fitness
entirely.

If you actually want to inspire people who are not fit to get fit, it is going
to take encouragement, not constant criticism of every possible method of
getting fit.

There is literally no exercise routine that someone can propose and not face
immediate criticism. A beginner doesn't need a perfect routine (which clearly
doesn't exist anyway given all the argument on the issue). They need to do
_something_. Something that is not actively harmful and will increase their
fitness, even in a small way.

You may think you are showing people a better way, but you are really giving
people nowhere to turn for support, because everyone always tries to show a
better way no matter what the original way was. I could come here every single
day posting about another fitness routine and every single day I would be told
it's wrong. So if everything is wrong, what do you think I am going to do?
Nothing.

~~~
dredmorbius
_Fitness advice is so fragmented and the debates between those who practice
various types of fitness are so vigorous that it puts people off to fitness
entirely._

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...](http://elsbethvaino.com/2013/05/should-you-do-a-newspaper-workout/)

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.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
What if cardio-only is sufficient just to make you feel better, more relaxed?
Why not just do it for those benefits? Honestly, if someone wants to play 30
minutes of DDR, they will sweat, they will exercise...no they are not in a
very good fitness plan but think of it as a gateway drug.

~~~
jacques_chester
The trouble is that cardio-only doesn't improve or forestall certain classes
of health problem such as sarcopenia or osteoporosis. Plus most folk discover
to their very great surprise that weight training is very satisfying.

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

------
jeffheard
This is not a waste of time. Let me explain.

Sometimes you only have 7 minutes. What's the difference between 7 minutes of
this and 7 minutes of sitting, reading HN or Reddit? Lots.

I did this one yesterday, just to try it out. Now me, personally, I'm quite
active. I did it three times with 30-second stretch breaks because that's what
it took to work up a good sweat.

The point of exercise like this, to my mind, is that you can do it anytime and
work it into your work day. Exercise during the work day, even minimal
exercise sharpens your concentration and "shakes out the dead leaves" so to
speak. It makes you sharper, and sharper at 3:30 in the afternoon (empirically
determined to be the least productive time of the day by several studies) is
exactly what most of us need.

What are your goals when you work out? Depending on that, this is not a waste
of time. If you want to lose 50lbs, this will not help you. If you want
massive muscles, this will not help you. If you want to be an "active person",
this will not by itself achieve that, although it may make it easier to _get
into_ exercise later, when you do something short and see nearly immediate
results. It's rewarding, and that's the first thing you need when starting an
exercise program of any sort.

My point is, don't let anyone -- or yourself -- shame you out of working out.
Yes, you read it in the NYT. It's a fad and it's mass-media. That doesn't make
it stupid by definition. If it starts you off on finding ways to hack your
body and make it strong, endurant, and resilient, then by all means, _go for
it_.

~~~
te_chris
This should be the top comment. I never realised the tech crowd were as
bad/the same as the bodybuilding.com crowd.

------
marknutter
I believe there is some disagreement among elite endurance sport athletes
about whether interval training is actually better for performance over the
long term when compared to long distance training. High intensity interval
training did become very popular in the 80s/90s because one could seemingly
get very quick results from relatively few hours spent training. However,
Americans were always outperformed by African runners.

That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a
low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and
Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair
better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long
distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low-
intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as
well which is a hallmark of elite running status.

It seems counter-intuitive that low intensity running over long distances
should improve high intensity short-distance times, but the proof is in the
pudding.

Interval training can increase your lactate threshold, or your body's ability
to remove lactic acid from your muscles while you are engaging in high
intensity activities (the same acid that causes that burning sensation we all
love to hate), but it doesn't do that much for your VO2max which determines
how effectively your body uses oxygen.

Most pro endurance athletes mix interval training with long distance training
to get the benefit of both strategies. As with anything in physical activity,
there is no silver bullet.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a
low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and
Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair
better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long
distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low-
intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as
well which is a hallmark of elite running status.

This conclusion is premature. We have no way of knowing whether the increase
in performance in American athletes comes from them changing their training
methods, as opposed to countless other factors. As far as I know, no random
controlled trials have been conducted in this area (and those are the only
truly reliable scientific method for answering questions like this).

edit: only someone who doesn't understand science would downvote this comment.
:)

~~~
marknutter
I agree, it deserves better scientific treatment. I'd be shocked if such a
study isn't being conducted as we speak.

~~~
jacques_chester
I _would_ be shocked. Randomised, controlled trials are difficult and
expensive.

You need enough subjects.

First problem: how many advanced and elite athletes are there? Not many.

Second problem: how many have coaches who are happy for you to experiment on
their charges? Not many.

Third problem: given the small samples, how do you control other factors such
as diet and sleeping patterns? With great difficulty.

Fourth problem: funding the dream trial. Most research money is public money,
and "give us money to find out how to make healthy adults run slightly faster
so we can win an extra medal every 4 years" is a pretty difficult ask next to
research into helping sick folk.

There's a reason that a great deal of sports science still relies on research
done in the eastern bloc throughout the cold war. Totalitarian societies had
the conditions and the motivation to set large, serious experiments up, and
they did.

In general though, progress occurs through a cut down version of science.
Coaches observe, hypothesise and tinker. Scientists do small studies; the
studies compound or refute each other. Over time rough consensus emerges about
what works and what doesn't. Things that don't work disappear quickly.
Meanwhile, unseen, population effects muddy everybody's waters.

Is it the fully dressed version of science we demand from physics or medicine?
It is not. But it's what we can reasonably expect.

~~~
marknutter
> There's a reason that a great deal of sports science still relies on
> research done in the eastern bloc throughout the cold war.

how do we know these types of studies aren't happening right now in other
countries that have more lax ethics in science?

~~~
jacques_chester
> _how do we know these types of studies aren't happening right now in other
> countries that have more lax ethics in science?_

The one truly totalitarian society left, AFAIK, is North Korea; they might be
doing this.

But pretty much the easiest strategy for a centralised sports system is to
just throw bodies at sports until the normal distribution gives you winners.
The Chinese are finding that this works well for them.

------
jacques_chester
OK, I'll say it: this is not a very good program. Which is fine, because it's
a _sample_ program in a fairly silly ACSM article[1].

 _"The exercises selected should ... promote strength development for all
major muscle groups of the body"._

Then progressive resistance is required. Simply adding reps does not increase
strength past initial accomodation.

 _"... create a balance of strength throughout the body ..."_

Then drop the isometrics. Isometric exercises only produce strength increases
in a limited range of motion close to the joint angle of the isometric
exercise. And most of those studies were done with maximal voluntary isometric
contraction -- ie pushing as hard as possible against an immobile object. Wall
sits do not fit those studies.

 _"... adapted as necessary to increase or decrease exercise intensity"_

Which can't be done with most of these exercises.

 _"To maximize the metabolic impact of the exercise, time should be sufficient
enough to allow for the proper execution of 15 to 20 repetitions (15) of an
exercise."_

Which further breaks the link with strength.

 _" Individuals who previously believed that they did not have the time for
exercise can now trade total exercise time for total exercise effort and get
similar or better health and fitness benefits."_

Given that the studies done on high intensity interval training were initially
done with _elite athletes_ , I'm not certain it shows that at all.

This is about as scientific as two guys spitballing over beer. It hasn't been
tested as a program and the idea that you can achieve any kind of serious
strength gain through high repetition circuit training is, frankly, a joke.

If you want to get stronger and improve cardiovascular condition, simple
barbell exercises and running or swinging a kettlebell will do it better, for
longer.

When I write programs for my trainees, I am apparently equivalently
scientific. I too take the general principles I am taught and go through a
process of exercise selection, exercise ordering, repetition and set layout,
rest period selection and then sprinkle in modifications. I'll be right back,
I have a scientific program for figure competitors I need to flog to the _Wall
Street Journal_.

[1] [http://journals.lww.com/acsm-
healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...](http://journals.lww.com/acsm-
healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/05000/HIGH_INTENSITY_CIRCUIT_TRAINING_USING_BODY_WEIGHT_.5.aspx)

~~~
timr
_"the idea that you can achieve any kind of serious strength gain through high
repetition circuit training is, frankly, a joke."_

I guess the joke's on all the extremely fit, strong people who do yoga, then.

(I've personally gained strength and muscle mass doing yoga, and when I looked
at this routine, I saw most of the poses in a basic vinyasa class. Seven
minutes is perhaps a bit aggressive, but the exercises do work. The notion
that you can _only_ get intensity with weights is the obviously silly one. All
you really need for a good workout is your body, and maybe a mat.)

~~~
JPKab
I have no doubt that you have gained significant strength doing yoga. It
should be noted that the poses in yoga do involve holding bodyweight, and the
increasing complexity and difficulty of the various poses involves
progressively more bodyweight resistance per muscle group.

There is no question that intensity can be achieved without weights. I believe
what the gentleman was referring to is the science of building significant
strength increases over a fit level of baseline strength.

The science on this one is very much settled, courtesy of the not very
ethical, but scientifically valid, studies from the Soviet Union in the height
of the Cold War.

The science is this:

Lower # of reps at 80 - 90% of a weight you can only lift once builds strength
most effieciently.

As you progress up the curve to higher reps at 60%, you are still building
strength, but not as efficiently, and you are moving more towards increasing
endurance.

Endurance, of course, is most efficiently gained with high # of reps at low
percentages. However, this will typically be at the expense of raw strength.

Note: For people who are not at all fit, with atrophied muscles, strength will
be gained very easily from almost any use of their muscles, high reps or not.

~~~
Dewie
I guess when someone can do five reps of one armed push ups, five reps of
pistol squats and five reps of pull ups (one arm?) then they can say "well,
maybe time to drop this scheme and hit the weights"#. But the vast majority of
people don't come close to this, so it is completely and utterly absurd for
the grandparent to dismiss anything other than barbells for strength training.

#Admittedly it's hard to find a replacement for something like olympic
barbells when it comes to exercises such as the deadlift. And of course
weights have their benefits with the easier progression, etc etc...

------
gojomo
This _cries out_ for an app, which uses both visual and audio cues to prompt
the next exercise, and count down each period. EG:

 _"Starting your 7 minute workout with Jumping Jacks in 5... 4... 3... 2...
1..."

"Start Jumping Jacks for 30... [optional chirp-per-second]... 20 seconds... 10
seconds... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."

"Rest now, next is Wall Sit... in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."

"Begin Wall Sit for 30... [etc]"_

Obviously, it _could_ be a static recording. But some obvious enhancements
would be:

• visual countdown timer

• changing images of the exercises to precede/accompany each phase

• optional chirps/clicks each second

• alternate trainer voices

• optional extra voiced 'encouragement' ("keep up intensity", "good", "almost
there", "all done")

• automatic logging/reminders of when/how-often circuit is completed (either
based on how many times started run through uninterrupted, or based on a
prompted "did you finish and what was your self-rated 1-10 intensity?"
question at the end)

~~~
joshuahedlund
There's at least one already; <http://willwilson.co/7minworkout/>

------
rickdale
A lot of the get fit in 60-90 days fitness programs that sell on TV are based
on these types of workouts. I was a fatass my whole life until 1.5 years ago I
decided to lose weight and get in shape. I followed the slow carb diet and now
try to recommend it every time I get the chance. I exercise daily, but without
the diet aspect I dont think my body would have changed at all.

The supplement and weight loss industry has made in very difficult for people
to achieve results. I lost 50 pounds fat and put on 20 pounds of muscle with
zero supplements, not even a protein shake, just lots of good nutrition,
patience, and little understanding that my body might change.

~~~
nlh
Congrats! It's a huge sense of accomplishment, no? I did a similar thing
around the same time ago -- started eating better (out with the Frosted Mini
Wheats for breakfast, in with the Greek Yogurt), started running, and lost 30
lbs in about 6 months. No supplements either. Best life improvement I've ever
made.

~~~
rickdale
Thanks and congrats to you too. I have found a lot of people that are into
fitness on hn. Taken a few tips here and there. The no supplements thing was
something I was just determined to do. In my mind, I ate to get fat, and now I
needed to eat to get fit. That perspective helped me out a lot. I wanted to
mention that I achieved my results so far without a gym membership. I did put
together a small @ home gym, but its not the same as a gym. Just been able to
really stay motivated.

------
draugadrotten
BBC medical guru Michael Mosley(PhD) has a very interesting show about 3
minute high intensity training, and there are indeed couch potatoes that can
reap huge benefits:

 _...research from a number of centres has shown that three minutes of HIT a
week improves insulin sensitivity by an average of 24% ...

Although 15% of people made huge strides (so-called "super-responders"), 20%
showed no real improvement at all ("non-responders")._

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251>

------
zdw
The full article is here:

[http://journals.lww.com/acsm-
healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...](http://journals.lww.com/acsm-
healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/05000/HIGH_INTENSITY_CIRCUIT_TRAINING_USING_BODY_WEIGHT_.5.aspx)

It's surprisingly readable and goes into much more detail. Also, a
downloadable PDF.

------
bernardom
The best article I found on this was "Everything You Know About Fitness Is A
Lie" [1]

I'd summarize the contents as: 1- Most gyms are 45% cardio, 45% stretching 10%
weights. This is bad. 2- You need to lift heavy things. 3- There are no
shortcuts.

Favorite excerpt: My conversion moment came in a garage-like industrial space
next to an ATV rental yard in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. I was lying on a concrete
floor, near puking, having just humiliated myself on the king of all strength
exercises, the old-school back squat. "The best thing I can do for an
athlete," coach Rob Shaul said to me as I struggled to get up, "is to make him
strong. Strength is king, and you're fucking little-girl weak."

[1] [http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/everything-you-know-
abou...](http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/everything-you-know-about-
fitness-is-a-lie-20120504)

------
saosebastiao
When someone tries to distinguish their X by saying it is rooted in science,
all they really mean is that someone with a grad degree and a lab coat came up
with it. That is a pretty limited, and IMO flawed view of what science is. Are
they really trying to say that other workouts don't use the scientific method
at all? That they don't do anything like formulating and nullifying hypotheses
with evidence, without any semblance of control? Is your workout really better
because it came out of a university research center?

Science isn't peer review. Peer review is merely a filter mechanism to discard
bad from good...a filter mechanism that has both false positives and false
negatives. We shouldn't conflate peer review with science.

------
tn13
"Scientific" ?

I dont see science in this article or the science in this article is the same
science behind those late night tv ads where they sell 8-minute-ab-pro (among
the others).

The original paper that articles cites does not provide any concrete data to
defend their claims.

Secondly the most important thing is what is the objective of this workout.
Clearly it is neither to keep your weight in control or to build strength. It
is merely to provide "some" exercise.

There are some fundamental truths about workouts which everyone should know.

1\. Your body starts burning fat at higher rate only when you heartbeat is
above average for around 20 minutes. Till then your body is mostly burning
calories from the carbs. So no matter how hard you work for those 7 minutes
you are not gonna lose that extra fat.

2\. Even if you do these exercises regularly it is only within a week that
your muscles will get strong enough to get used to your body weight. After
that same number of reps wont have any effect on your body. (Yes it might be
little better than being idle).

3\. Actually no matter what is your goal if you keep your regimen fixed you
very soon find yourself in a local minima. After that the law of diminishing
returns kicks in and the benefit of exercise becomes negligible compared to
the time you spend doing it.

Here is a quick checklist to see if the advertised regimen should be taken
seriously

1\. Is the lower limit on duration around 20 minutes ?

2\. Is there any variable that can be changed with time to increase difficulty
level ?

3\. Does it cover all core muscle groups ? Arms, Chest, Back, Abs, Legs and
shoulders?

------
H3g3m0n
I couldn't even do some of these ☹

I think I'll try the bike peddling one first, repeatedly sprint for eight
seconds, then pedal slowly for 12 and repeat.

[http://lifehacker.com/5989669/researchers-claim-to-
discover-...](http://lifehacker.com/5989669/researchers-claim-to-discover-the-
single-most-efficient-exercise-regimen)

~~~
alangfiles
I read about this and put together a quick js page so that I can run it in the
corner of my computer while I bike, or watch a movie.

<http://alangfiles.github.io/bike-workout/>

------
jvdh
This reminds me a lot of the 5BX (5 Basic Exercises) plan.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5BX>

That has 5 exercises which you should be able to do in 5 minutes. It has a
complete scheme of exercises building up in intensity as you get better at
them.

------
krat0sprakhar
If you're a beginner and looking to start a bodyweight(BW) program see
this[0]. Intermediate fitness enthusiasts can have a look at this[1]. If
you're clueless about what the jargons are checkout this[2] 'cheat sheet' for
a list of youtube videos for guidance

[0] - <http://i.imgur.com/MwbAD.png> [1] - <http://i.imgur.com/o3bRo.png> [2]
-
[http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/comments/15bou5/ex...](http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/comments/15bou5/exercise_cheatsheet_for_the_basic_beginner_routine/c7l3osw)

------
charlesju
I have struggled with fitness my whole life, and I have realized that not
everyone is genetically disposed to the same effects of specific exercises.
However, I believe that most people can get in shape, it's just a function of
resistance.

Diet and fitness is one of those things in life where you should just overkill
the plan. Keep your diet stricter than you have to, lift more weights than you
have to, do more cardio than you have to.

When you overkill the situation, you will get in and stay in excellent shape,
trying to walk the line of "just enough" gets your burned and loses precious
time towards proper progress.

~~~
gaius
Fitness is environmentally specific. For example, a predisposition to fat
storage, in most of human history, was a powerful survival trait. Your body
doesn't know that you want to look good on the beach, only that winter is
coming.

Speaking from experience, don't overkill. You won't be able to sustain it over
the long term.

------
Kurtz79
“There’s very good evidence” that high-intensity interval training provides
“many of the fitness benefits of prolonged endurance training but in much less
time""

Sorry, but there's no way that I'll believe that a 7 minute "heavy intensity
workout" can burn the same number of calories of an involved 45 minute run,
and have the same beneficial effect on weight control.

Better than nothing, maybe very efficient in terms of results/time, but in no
way "combines a long run and a visit to the weight room" as the article
claims.

EDIT : It's useful to separate what the NYT says and the actual article does.

~~~
H3g3m0n
From your years of work in scientific medical research or just 'cus'?

You do understand this is scientific research and not just an idea someone
thought up on a whim.

~~~
Goladus
Most of the science you need to reach the same conclusions as Kurtz79 is high
school biology and some basic physics and thermodynamics.

Calories are a measure of work (Force x mass). To burn Calories your body has
to be doing work of some sort. To burn the same number of Calories in 7
minutes as 45 requires doing an equivalent amount of work.

In my case, 45 minutes running is 800 calories. 800 calories in 7 minutes is
like 114 Calories/minute. I don't think even maximum anaerobic sprinting comes
close to 114 kcal/min, and even if it does I certainly can't maintain that
intensity for more than 15-20 seconds.

For a comparison, my 2800 lb Honda Civic burns probably 400 kcal/minute in
gasoline during city driving at an average speed of 20mph.

The article is very vague about how reasonable this 7-minute set of exercises
actually is. From the article:

 _Interval training, though, requires intervals; the extremely intense
activity must be intermingled with brief periods of recovery._

How intense? It doesn't say. This should be possible to measure. To explain
more though I will have to read the original paper to see exactly what sort of
"benefits" they were talking about and how intense this exercise has to be.

------
mathattack
I'm absolutely not a believer of this. It's beyond just their bad math. (It's
an 8 minute workout)

To do a proper sprint interval workout, you'd need to warm up (5 minutes at
least), and go so hard in those 30 intervals that you'd need 90 seconds to
recover. So 120 seconds * 12 + 5 = 29 minutes. Add in stretching and you're
beyond a half hour.

The other issue is many of these exercises won't get your heartrate up to the
right threshold to be good interval training.

Yes, it's better than nothing. No, it's not better than a real workout, and
not scientifically valid.

------
chasb
80% intensity is no joke - this should not be comfortable. Might want to do a
little easy warmup first.

------
tibbon
While I don't think this workout is actually a great one, I have found that
you definitely can do a killer workout in a short period of time, depending on
your fitness.

I started Crossfit a few months back, and its entirely possible to do 2-3
simple movements (thrusters + pullups for example) in a short time period
(2-10 minutes) and really push yourself to complete exhaustion.

------
dmourati
Consider the source. Periodicals are in the business of selling you content
(and advertising). Therefore, it is in their interests to create the latest
"fad" and to sell it to you as tested. And then create something new and sell
it to you again. And then...

Is this workout terrible? No. It beats nothing. Is it the key to your ongoing
physical fitness? Of course not.

The fitness world is overrun with so-called experts. One problem is that we
are all different. We have different body types, different goals, different
strengths, different weaknesses, and different likes/dislikes. What works for
me may not work for you.

Can a periodical take this into account for all readers? Of course not.

Consider their workout as a first step. If you are doing nothing, do the
7-minute workout. It _will_ help you, to a point. Thereafter, you'll need to
challenge your body to do harder things.

Also, consider the physics definition of mechanical work: W=f*d.

So, go apply some force of a distance. That's a workout.

Do work.

------
nazgulnarsil
I have a secret about fitness to share. It's the reason there are so many
snake oil programs out there. _Everything works_. For a sedentary person ANY
random stimulus is going to give you a couple months of improvement.

The true measure of a program is if after the first year you are still making
quantifiable improvements.

------
kleiba
Fellow HN'ers - I'm slightly disappointed.

How come I go to the comments and all I see is a battle of the anecdotes?
Where's the fact-checking?

This being HN, I would at least have expected someone pointing out that 12
exercises à 30 seconds plus 11 x 10 seconds rest between them is closer to an
8-minute workout than a 7-minute workout ;-)

------
fatjokes
The authors of the study actually recommend you do it 3 times. So it's
actually a 21-minute workout.

------
5partan
I'm all for bodyweight training (you are your own gym, convict conditioning,
al kavadlo, naked warrior, barstarzz, coach sommer, calisthenic kings...), and
have better results than with metal, without the pain, but this is not it.
Seriously, not one exercise for your back, but useless crunches? Do some yoga
sun salutation, add some resistance by tensing your body and you have a by far
better workout in the same amount of time than this.

------
sdoctor86
There's a good chance this will be able to deplete most of the glucose stores
in your muscles just like lifting does. You do have to make sure you aren't
cheating and are actually teetering on the brink of the activation of golgi
tendon reflex (overload). As far as strength goes this is not quite as good at
lifting for actually creating new muscles. But this will definitively improve
overall use of muscles and cardio system.

------
desireco42
I think this would be excellent starting exercise for people who don't
exercise much. As soon as they would gain some strength, hackers as they are,
would explore and find better things to do. I think criticism of this article,
which is legitimate, is missing the point of this being targeted to beginners
who are just starting.

------
thret
Lift some weights, 2-3 minutes a day, every day.

Eat/drink/do whatever else you want and you will stay fit regardless, because
it is about increasing your metabolism and not how much or even what you do,
just that you do it every single day before eating.

Oh and don't drink sweet drinks of any kind.

#unsubstantiated personal experience

------
XEKEP
Am I the only one who noticed, that the other, more realistic number _20
minutes_ is omitted in the NYT article. See "the established ACSM guidelines
for high-intensity exercise of at least 20 minutes is recommended" in the
original article.

------
kawsper
Interesting, this is very close to the training exercises they use in the
danish military.

------
novakinblood
The illustration for the air squat shows the worst possible form. The push-ups
diagram looks incorrect too. I'm pretty sure the chest should touch the
ground. What's the use of rapid succession if you are using bad form?

~~~
shardling
The nytimes illustration, or the original article?

~~~
novakinblood
The nytimes illustration. The subject keeps straight back in the original
article. Doing this exercise wrong can really screw things up.

------
mtext
It seems great. if people spend less time at the gym and more time doing
interesting things, like learning to play a violin or reading james joyce, the
world would be a little less boring.

------
orangethirty
I actually like spending time exercising. It allows me to relax and think more
clearly. I run about 15 miles a week, and enjoy every minute of it.

------
D9u
It doesn't take much endurance to do 7 minutes of training... If you're not
going to expend the hard work then you shouldn't expect to see much
improvement.

"Sua Sponte!"

------
scottcanoni
I have developed the 6-minute workout and it is by far superior to the
7-minute workout. Anything done in less time is technically impossible.

------
androtheos
Nothing worth having is easy. Anything easy isn't worth having

Getting fit is hard work. If it was easy everyone would look like a Greek God
/ Goddess!

No Pain, No Gain

------
GigabyteCoin
About 50% of those moves look like the yoga poses I do every week.

------
aet
aka circuit training

~~~
edtechdev
Here are videos showing the 7 exercises, along with some tips for avoiding
potential damage (don't slide down after the wall sit, for example, push up,
so you don't damage your knees):

[http://lifehacker.com/these-12-videos-show-the-proper-
form-f...](http://lifehacker.com/these-12-videos-show-the-proper-form-
for-a-7-minute-ful-499199366)

~~~
Detrus
Squat form video is wrong. Don't do that with weight.

Your toes need to be pointed out 30 degrees and knees spread apart, crotch
opened as far as possible.

You'll find a lot of wrong YouTube videos. It's a minefield of fitness non-
experts trying to make a profit. Follow Starting Strength form recommendations
and make sure the videos you're watching follow them approximately.

------
hydralist
this is a workout WARMUP

