Review: 7 Minute Research Based Whole Body Workout

I recently came across an interesting article on lifehacker. It was a quick whole body workout based on scientific research. If you would like to read the original journal article you can here. I can see several benefits from the workout although it is lacking if you are in better shape.

I think the strongest point of the workout is that it can be done in only 7 minutes. The article states that the routine should be done for twenty minutes but going through once to get acclimated would work if you haven't exercised for a while. Each exercise is done for thirty seconds with ten seconds of rest in between exercises (this actually comes to more than 7 minutes but I guess it sounded cooler like that?). This kind of high intensity interval training has been shown to be great for you. The exercises are setup to work different muscle groups in rapid succession. The most common excuse for not exercising I hear is that people don't have time and since this can take less than ten minutes I think most people could fit it into their schedule.

Another great aspect of this routine is that it only requires a chair. I think the next biggest obstacle that keeps people from exercising is the cost of equipment and gym memberships. I myself have avoided joining a gym recently do to the high cost of all the gyms in my area. Also if for some reason you don't have a chair only two of the exercises in the routine require one and you may be able to find other objects to substitute for the chair if needed. This routine could easily be done in a hotel room or while traveling. It is always good to have an idea of an easy body weight routine you can employ if you want to exercise and can't get to the gym.

This workout is obviously targeted towards a person who is sedentary. This isn't a negative if it fits your current level of fitness but I would also imagine that this routine could become unchallenging in a short amount of time. If it serves the purpose of getting someone motivated to exercise again than that is all that matters. It would work to do more rounds of the routine but that also has limited potential. I couldn't imagine someone doing this for more than three rounds before they would get bored and the workout wouldn't be short then either.

I think the largest shortcoming of this routine is the lack of back exercises. I can understand why they are left out. The two most common and effective bodyweight exercises are pull ups and rows and both of those would require more equipment than just a chair. It is possible to do bodyweight rows with a table or two chairs but it is difficult to grip the edge of a table and chairs often lack the weight and balance to be safe to do a row with. Also most people who are sedentary would lack the strength to do pull ups and rows with proper form. A pull up bar and a chair can be used to build up strength until you are able to do pull ups without assistance but once again that requires more equipment which doesn't work with the concept of this routine.

Overall the 7 minutes research based workout is a great routine for a sedentary person to start getting back into shape. Quick simple routines that don't need much equipment and use bodyweight are an excellent starting point for most people who don't exercise. The lack of back exercises is the main flaw I find with this routine. A pull up bar is a small investment and pull ups and rows could easily be added in the routine. Exercise is very important and if you are short on time or have been putting in too many reps on the couch this could help you get back up on your feet and full of energy.

One last question though ... does anyone actually do crunchs anymore? (The abdominal crunch is exercise four in the routine if you haven't check it out yet).

Article Review: "Happy April Fools' Day: 12 'Health' Foods Fooling Us All"

While the premise of Happy April Fools' Day: 12 'Health' Foods Fooling Us All from the The Huffington Post is definitely on point and I'm all for articles pointing out unhealthy foods that masquerade as healthy options it falls short in focusing on processed food options. I definitely agree with the article that all of the options presented are touted as healthy and that all can have drawbacks or are just plain awful food choices. If made at home these foods would be perceived as a healthy but showing unhealthy mass produced items from giant corporate chains won't fool us all.

I thought the article would be fairly informative since it starts out with granola. I do enjoy granola occasionally but you definitely need to read the label and check the serving size and ingredients. It is very easy to over indulge in calorie dense foods and granola is a perfect example of this. You can definitely find healthy granolas but you will most likely want to avoid most store bought options and try and make it at home.

All of the drink options presented: vitamin water, sports drinks, and smoothies/pureed fruit snacks are definitely healthy living landmines. If you are extremely physically active then grabbing a sports drink makes sense but very few people are depleting their body to the point where this will ever be a regular necessity. If you need more vitamins than you get in your diet it is better to turn to a supplement then to grab a vitamin water. I like an occasional homemade smoothie but any store bought option will contain more calories than some of your daily meals. More and more people have difficulty maintaining a healthy weight and one of the best options is to restrict or eliminate liquid calories. Fresh squeezed juice can be okay to drink but pureed fruit snacks are just another calorie adding problem. These options were some of the better "health foods" called out by the article.

I was a little surprised that cold cuts and muffins were included in this. Do people actually think these are health foods? I feel these items were thrown in there as filler and take away from the article much like the inclusion of items from Burger King, Starbucks, and McDonald's. Yes a turkey burger, oatmeal, or egg white wrap could all be very healthy if prepared in your home or from certain restaurants but I think it is a bit odd to include them here. I do understand pointing out that seemingly healthier options on a fast food menu are far from healthy but health food and fast food are not concepts that share space in my mind. I did find the  inclusion of Kind Bars interesting and thoughtful though. I'm not very familiar with them but I do generally with any company that makes bars reading the labels is extremely important.

The best slides from the article aren't food items but the words "natural" and "gluten free". I've been fooled before by the natural label and I think it is deceiving for many people. So many unhealthy things are natural and there is no guideline for labeling a product as such. Anymore it might actually be good advice to avoid any product touting itself as natural. The article points specifically to gluten free sweets but I would go as far as to include any product that includes gluten. People who have gluten allergies have been greatly helped by this influx of products but it doesn't make sense to spend hard earned money to avoid gluten if you don't have an allergy. One can make a case for avoiding breads and other calorie dense items containing gluten but if you are planning on eating a dessert there is no reason feel that gluten free is healthier if you don't have a gluten allergy. Being gluten free won't mean it is low in calories or sugar and it isn't an indicator that it is healthy.

I definitely liked the premise of this article but wished it would have excluded the processed and fast foods from the list. I know knowledge on healthy food various widely person to person but many people are already aware of the short comings of these kinds of foods. The article definitely did a good job pointing out that some trendy health buzz words are products of advertising and not of nutrition information. I hope you enjoyed my review and I look forward to your comments.