A key advantage of barbell and dumbbell exercises is that they can be progresively loaded in small increments. Bodyweight exercises tend to have larger jumps in difficulty.
Most of the most popular weights programs for beginners are linear progressions. You literally add a fixed amount to each exercise, each session, until you can't. Folk are amazed at how quickly they can progress from struggling with a bar to squatting their own bodyweight.
I totally agree with you. But I think of exercise programs like the described blog post as the gateway drug to real strength. For most people, the idea of getting into a strength program is intimidating in the same way that doing a waltz in front of 200 people is. But if you can get someone dancing in their kitchen, eventually they might turn to real lessons with real instructors.
If I can get people doing 7 minute exercise routines in their living room, eventually they will see the results and want more which leads them to the next step, a true strength program.
Totally agree on the casual thing. I don't even think it takes a full 7 minutes. It can be done in much less.
I don't agree on "true strength", whatever that may be. I don't care to be any stronger than I am, frankly. I can pull myself up anything; I can easily lift my dates. I don't need to impress on the beach. And I don't enjoy gyms, I'd rather do something else. So "getting strong" really isn't on my priority list.
I feel differently: that training at home makes it easier to give up. "Oh, I'll just sit on the couch for a minute. Hmm, I'll just check facebook for a second".
A gym, meanwhile, is an environment dedicated to training.
Still, we're both spitballing. Each trainee has their own path to exercise. I would prefer to put them onto something that won't run out of room to improve within a month or two.
The way I see it you should treat it like any other UX problem: The user is going to be at home anyways, so if you can get a "conversion" (even a short 7-minute one) that can easily bridge them into the next step. Just like video games start you off in tutorial levels and help you develop the skills you need (e.g. Mega Man X [1]).
For example I tried out the 7-minute exercise simply because I could, it was easy. If I can't even be bothered to spend 7 minutes on exercise there's no way I'm going to the gym, so it's not as if the short exercises are interfering with work at the gym.
The problem with bodyweight training is that there's no smooth gradient from wall sits to, say, pistol squats. The difficulty increases lumpily and frequently requires a new motor pattern to be learnt.
Whereas going from a 20kg squat to a 100kg squat can be done 1kg at a time with the same movement pattern throughout.
For people who genuinely can't or won't go to a gym, I'd first suggest installing a power cage, adjustable bench, barbell and some plates. Failing that kettlebells and resistance bands. Only after those are exhausted would I suggest a purely bodyweight training regimen.
> Bodyweight exercises tend to have larger jumps in difficulty.
What's worse is that the exercise actually changes. So you're doing a exercise that requires more strength, that you haven't and cannot practice at a lower level of difficulty.
Most of the most popular weights programs for beginners are linear progressions. You literally add a fixed amount to each exercise, each session, until you can't. Folk are amazed at how quickly they can progress from struggling with a bar to squatting their own bodyweight.