Agree on both counts.

About the article: I have a strong dislike when the distinction between scientific facts, advertisements and some hot-shot favourite programme gets blurred. It trips my B.S. meter. This article is very typical: It sets the stage by quoting scientific results (article X,Y,Z says marathon is bad for you), then slides into promoting whatever programme (definitively not marathon, so it's goot to be good for you - right?).

I am also very sceptical about those maximum intensity excercises. By stacking up so you can't do more than four to eight reps - max - then you're also at high risk for permanent injuries. Such a programme requires supervision by someone who knows what he's doing.