Those seven minutes should be, in a word, unpleasant. The upside is, after seven minutes, you’re done.If you take the time to go read the actual article this is directly contradicted when the authors state:
Because most individuals may not be able to execute the program at an intensity significantly greater than 100% of their V˙O2max, following the established ACSM guidelines for high-intensity exercise of at least 20 minutes is recommended. This may require multiple repetitions (or circuits) of a multistation exercise circuit.How many of the people that read the NY Times article are actually going to go read the source material? I am going to guess almost none. So what does that mean? It means we have a conclusion by the author of the NY Times article (Gretchen Reynolds) that is likely to be taken by most that read that article as fact and it isn't even an accurate representation of the original work. This is either laziness, i.e. Gretchen never read the original article in it's entirety, or incompetence, i.e. Gretchen read the article but failed to understand what it said. Either way why is the NY Times publishing it?
The bottom line is there is no 7-minute workout that is going to solve all your problems folks. There never has been and there never will be. You need to commit to making a change and making the time to do the work if you want results. We all make time to brush our teeth and take a shower we should be making time to exercise now that we live in a largely sedentary world. If you are still living a hunter gatherer lifestyle or doing manual labor you might be able to skip the workouts. If you are like many of us though who work in an office you need to put in the work.