[Alex_MJ]

Seconded.

I'm a relatively experienced lifter - heavy squats 3x per week is brutal for the first week or so and then your body adapts to it.

I've found that I'll actually stick with a ~hourlong workout, 3-5x a week that I believe in and have goals for over anything quick with no discernible aim. And it's amazing how time magically appears to actually show up at the gym when you prioritize it.

A "scientific" 7 minute workout with no discernible goals is an admirable thing but honestly it's a cheap novelty at best - I've never heard of anybody actually sticking to one, "doing the bare minimum" is just not motivating at all. Scientific according to whom? To what end? Why am I doing this?

Exercise science is inherently a little bit voodoo. Motivation and consistency are much more important than the time requirement.

If somebody's had any success with vague goalless 7-minute workouts, or has even stuck with them consistently, I'd love to hear differing opinions.

[TylerJay]

I agree with most of what you said, except for the part about doing the bare minimum not being motivating. I'm also a pretty experienced lifter (Been lifting for 9 years, can DL 3x my bodyweight, Squat 2.5x bodyweight, BP 1.6x) but I'm always looking for the bare minimum to improve. If that happened to be a 7 minute workout, that's what I would do. I think it's incredibly motivating to use your time really effectively. I spend probably about 1/4 to 1/2 the time in the gym as anyone else there with comparable fitness levels because I've done a lot of research on training methods and have tried tons of different programs and permutations to find the ones that are most effective for me.

I think you're right that the biggest problem with this is that there are "no discernible goals" associated with this "scientific" workout. For noticeable strength and physique improvements, the lowest I've found to be effective are 40 minute workouts 3 times per cycle with a cycle length of 7-10 days depending on the types of workouts done.