I approach exercise from a theoretical perspective. 39 years of doing it instinctively did not yield the results that theory is yielding for me these days. Anyhow, here are some thoughts on theory: There are three kinds of exercise: 1. mobility 2. conditioning ("cardio") 3. strength No exercise is an island. All exercises contain elements of all three. If you play a sport a few/several times a week like Lacrosse, soccer, running, (in my opinion even things that "look" strong like judo but really aren't) you're getting your mobility and conditioning in, but not your strength training. This means that a purely strength focused programme would work well, like Naked Warrior or Power to the People. If you play a sport only once a week or less often, you'd likely want an exercise programme that has all three elements in it, so S&S would be better - the swings and getups use a lot of movement. If you don't play any sports then you likely should not only do conditioning and strength exercises - you should do mobility ones too, to make sure your body doesn't get creaky and brittle, and to keep the neuroplasticity flexible. Again, S&S seems like it fits the bill well. I did notice that I felt the need still to move a bit more over and above S&S to be in optimal condition. I'd go for long walks, and I eventually ended up rejoining some martial arts clubs. I'd say S&S MOSTLY covers the "mobility" requirement, but not perfectly. Real chaotic-environment movement is still needed - our bodies and minds seem to expect it.