Comparing this workout to Starting Strength is analogous to comparing a half-marathon to walking a mile a day. I agree with you that this workout isn't going to

Comparing this workout to Starting Strength is analogous to comparing a half-marathon to walking a mile a day. I agree with you that this workout isn't going to make you 'ripped,' but to say that it is a "waste of time" is absolute hyperbole. Let me explain. If you take a workout like this--that lasts, say, ten minutes (slightly longer than the one described), you will be getting 70 minutes of somewhat intense exercise per week. It's not as intense as doing deadlifts, but if you follow the routine as prescribed (10-second or so breaks in between exercises on the circuit), you're going to be at least performing somewhat taxing activity. Compare that to someone who works out 2-3 times per week for 30 minutes at the gym. First of all, that time in the gym generally contains at least 5-10 minutes of breaks, waiting for machines/weights, etc. Let's just factor that out to make a more fair comparison. The article, but more importantly the study[1] it references, is stating that you can have much of the effect as a longer workout. It never claims that you can get the full effect of a 30 minute workout in ten minutes, but it does imply that you can more than just the third you'd expect. Now you have efficiency gains on two fronts: first, you're working out almost as much per week as going to the gym a couple times, but spending smaller chunks of time exercising. For a lot of people, that's attractive. Secondly, if the study is correct, then getting more efficiency per time makes you "break even" in terms of generalized fitness. In short, I don't think the authors of the NY Times article or the study behind it are saying that you can become a bodybuilder or a competitive-class weightlifter by following their steps. They are saying that working out for, say, 70 minutes per week is a lot easier than committing to going to the gym several times, and that their technique apparently produces efficiency gains as if you were working out for longer periods of time. I don't know enough about biology and physiology to dispute the claims of the study, and although you mention elsewhere that you're in a biology-related field, I doubt that you have the prowess to dispute their academic claims either. I really think that all of this boils down to the fact that short, intense workouts produces more gains than its percentage of a longer workout. 1: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/05000/HIGH_INTENSITY_CIRCUIT_TRAINING_USING_BODY_WEIGHT_.5.aspx http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050... Edit: Even though I disagree with you about the potential efficiency of the workout described, I'd also like to second your opinion that for those trying to get stronger, Starting Strength really is the way to go. Don't fool yourself into thinking that this workout is going to do anything other than provide the bare healthy minimum of exercise.