I totally agree with you guys, and I got that impression from the article as well. I don't have kids, but I still think kids should be having fun and playing instead of structured physical training. I remember when I was a kid, my brother and I used to lift weights for fun. My dad had a bar and plates in the basement, and it was competition to see who could lift more or do more reps.
However, my issue goes beyond just this article. There seems to be an aversion to allowing kids to lift weights. I know growing up, people told me that lifting weights would stunt my growth. And while, yes, there is a risk to kids hurting themselves with improper form, there are worse things that kids could be doing than lifting weights in a gym.
As for the rest of the article, I know I don't workout 2.5 hours a week. I mean, maybe if you count my rest time between attempts on heavy days. But let's say I do Fran, Helen, Diane, Grace, Angie, and Jackie one week. I wouldn't even have an hour total time. They're specifying a quantity but completely disregarding quality. I could probably argue that my half hour walk to Pitt's campus is exercise. I go there and back sometimes 5 days a week. I still wouldn't call that 5 hours of exercise.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but articles like this really get under my skin. Just like how Derek responded to the Food Pyramid advice. You could flip the pyramid upside down, and it would be healthier.