The workout that the New York Times to presenting is something that anybody can do even if you are on the road and don't have access to a gym. The workout that you're referring to, has significantly more overhead, requires a gym, and certainly takes more than seven minutes out of each morning. With that said, as a fan of starting strength, I highly approve of your workout.

Your workout costs money. The other workout is free.

True, but the other has no effect for people with an average fitness level. It lacks intensity.

People who work out less than 6 minutes per day are all below average fitness level.

Consider the audience. For an overweight person who only walks to their car and back the routine in the article could get them to a meager level of fitness. For someone who walks or bicycles for any of their transportation or for pleasure it won't have any effect. As a European this is most people I know.

The nyt article is pretty high intensity - walking alone (i speak as one who walks everywhere) doesn't get your heart rate racing unless you really put some effort into it, and certainly doesn't stress any muscle groups. Your average sedentary individual would not be able to complete the 7 minute workout. If they were signicantly overweight they would likely collapse 2 minutes into it.

The goal of this type of training is to yield the greatest amount of impact with the least amount of effort in the shortest amount of time.

Anybody who did the nyt 7 minute exercise at max intensity for a couple months is going to be in good shape. Do it everyday for 6 months and they will be in the 90th percentile of physical fitness in the United States for their age group.

Which I think is a pretty good return for 7 minutes out if your day with no equipment other than a chair.

It's actually pretty good for warming up and helps with back problems.

True. That's the price of pulling 300 pounds.

Fitting all that into 7 minutes will likely lead to injury for someone who is in the audience for any kind of short N minute workout, IMO. I concur with your general sentiment and good intentions though. :)

Disclosure: at my peak I back squatted 350 and deadlifted 400.

Yes it would be a good idea to spend time reading and practicing technique instead of going heavy for a while. The general population might have trouble with this but I believe the people reading here can handle it.

This is a good start! When you say olympic press, you are referring to the clean and press, right? I'd try to fit bench press in there and maybe some hyperextensions in also.

I think there is one key that needs to be stressed to people starting to work out: anything* is better than nothing. You may not see great gains by doing only 5x5 dumbbell curls every day, but you will start to generally feel better.

* With good form. Bad form will do more harm than good (I know from experience, having pulled a back muscle trying to speed through a warm-up set of squats). Having someone to give you form advice is another important aspect.

Olympic press meaning an overhead press with significant layback. Pressing with layback involves enough chest to get you balanced development. It's also better for posture, joint health, abdominal and posterior chain strength, and requires one less piece of equipment than the bench press. As long as layback comes from the hips it's perfectly safe for your back. Working on hip flexor mobility should get most people to the point where they can perform it properly fairly quick.

At the risk of stating the obvious, good form implies you do not try to lift more than you can lift with good form.

Fitness programs founder on three points

1. Ceasing to do the workouts.

2. Overdoing it and injuring yourself. This includes: not having rest days, too heavy weights,excessively exhausting workouts.

3. Lack of nutritional support.