In the late nineties and early noughties, wellness wasn’t a thing. Vegans were weirdos, yoga was for hippies and shakes weren’t “immune boosting” or “detoxing”, they were what you got after a big night out.
In the world of glossy magazines, thin was in. Kate Moss famously said, “Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels,” and staying sample size was the number one priority for the models and celebrities I worked with daily.
We magazine girls wanted to fit into those outfits too, so we carefully monitored our food consumption. That said, I mostly failed to get into those fashion cupboard clothes because I liked boozy nights out and jacket potatoes too much.
In the nineties, models, celebrities and mere mortals didn’t get super slim by following a balanced diet with lean protein, slow-release carbs and plenty of veggies. No, it was about copious Diet Coke and Marlboros.
Sugar was somehow okay to eat because if you looked on the back of the packet of Frosties or Party Rings, there weren’t a high number of calories. It hadn’t occurred to us all that sugar would be converted to fat.
So accepted was sugar that they even handed out Chupa Chups lollies backstage at the fashion shows.
INSPIRATION: Why I’m not too old to wear a mini skirt at 50
Bridget Jones’ battle with her body image was representative of so many of us. We all had a calorie counter ticker taping in our heads. Toast plus a biscuit in the office, plus Pret sandwich plus seven cocktails and accompanying bowls of nuts = 3,000 calories = self-loathing.
To counter such excess, we would then go on horrendous diets such as the cabbage soup diet, the cayenne pepper diet, and the Atkins diet. And do depleting spin/legs bums and tums sessions till we thought we were going to pass out.
Despite all the angst, all the sweat, and all the deprivation I still didn’t look how I wanted. And I suspect Victoria Beckham, who recently said she feels stronger now than in her twenties, when she said she was “addicted” to green juice, was equally dispirited.
VB and I are both now 50, and we have changed up our approach to exercise.
© InstagramWhen it comes to exercise, Victoria says she’s her strongest ever now, and I think she looks happier in her body. She says she now does weights rather than cardio in her five weekly personal training sessions.
I still run with my dog, but using my own body weight (think press ups, triceps dips using a chair) plus free weights in twice-weekly workouts has changed the way I look and feel. Creating muscle means my body burns more calories at rest, which means I can eat more food.
Ahh calories. I don’t have a running total in my head like I used to. I’m just trying to eat nutritious foods that haven’t been too messed about with. To quote author Michael Pollen: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”
FITNESS INSPIRATION: I became a swimsuit model at 57 – and I feel more confident than ever
Of course, I don’t think VB has changed tact completely. She says she is still “Very disciplined with the way that I eat, the way that I work out and the way I work. That’s just who I am.’
© Photo: InstagramThere are many who would question if she is too slim. But it does feel like she has relaxed a little and arrived at her desired shape in a better way. I’ll leave the final words to her.
“I’m not going to be one of these, ‘Ah, there are too many calories in a glass of wine,’ types. Life’s too short. Let’s have a nice time.”
Cheers to that.
© GettyHELLO! wanted to create a space dedicated to sharing incredible stories from midlife; somewhere you can find inspiring stories of like-minded women, living their best life beyond 45.
Enter, Second Act…
For too long, we were expected to fade into the background when we hit 45, but we’re here to reframe your Second Act as a celebratory, exciting new chapter with endless possibilities ahead.
From women who embarked on new careers in their fifties, to those who travelled the world alone after their children left home, to women who finally felt confident when they reached their forties, Second Act is devoted to celebrating the incredible stories of midlife, and we’d love to have you along for the journey – because being part of a community makes everything more enjoyable.
Visit HELLO!’s Second Act hub
You check your smartwatch after a run. Your fitness score has dropped. You’ve burnt hardly any calories. Your recovery score is really low. It’s telling you to take the next 72 hours off exercise.
The worst bit? The whole run felt amazing.
So why is your watch telling you the opposite?
Ultimately, it’s because smartwatches and other fitness trackers aren’t always accurate.
Using wearable fitness technology, such as smartwatches, has been one of the top fitness trends for close to a decade. Millions of people around the world use them daily.
These devices shape how people think about health and exercise. For example, they provide data about how many calories you’ve burnt, how fit you are, how recovered you are after exercise, and whether you’re ready to exercise again.
But your smartwatch doesn’t measure most of these metrics directly. Instead, many common metrics are estimates. In other words, they’re not as accurate as you might think.
Calorie tracking is one of the most popular features on smartwatches. However, the accuracy leaves a lot to be desired.
Wearable devices can under- or overestimate energy expenditure (often expressed as calories burned) by more than 20 per cent. These errors also vary between activities. For example, strength training, cycling and high-intensity interval training can lead to even larger errors.
This matters because people often use these numbers to guide how much they eat.
For example, if your watch overestimates calories burned, you might think you need to eat more food than you really need, which could result in weight gain. Conversely, if your watch underestimates calories burned, it could lead you to under-eat, negatively impacting your exercise performance.
Step counts are a great way to measure general physical activity, but wearables don’t capture them perfectly.
Smartwatches can under-count steps by about 10 per cent under normal exercise conditions. Activities such as pushing a pram, carrying weights, or walking with limited arm swing likely make step counts less accurate, as smartwatches rely on arm movement to register steps.
For most people, this isn’t a major problem, and step counts are still useful for tracking general activity levels. But view them as a guide, rather than a precise measure.
Smartwatches estimate your heart rate using sensors that measure changes in blood flow through the veins in your wrist.
This method is accurate at rest or low intensities, but gets less accurate as you increase exercise intensity.
Arm movement, sweat, skin tone and how tightly you wear the watch can also impact the heart rate measure it spits out. This means the accuracy can vary between people.
This can be problematic for people who use heart rate zones to guide their training, as small errors can lead to training at the wrong intensity.
Almost every smartwatch on the market gives you a “sleep score” and breaks your night into stages of light, deep and REM sleep.
The gold standard for measuring sleep is polysomnography. This is a lab-based test that records brain activity. But smartwatches estimate sleep using movement and heart rate.
This means they can detect when you’re asleep or awake reasonably well. But they are much less accurate at identifying sleep stages.
So even if your watch says you had “poor deep sleep”, this may not be the case.
Most smartwatches track heart rate variability and use this, with your sleep score, to create a “readiness” or “recovery” score.
Heart rate variability reflects how your body responds to stress. In the lab it is measured using an electrocardiogram. But smartwatches estimate it using wrist-based sensors, which are much more prone to measurement errors.
This means most recovery metrics are based on two inaccurate measures (heart rate variability and sleep quality). This results in a metric that may not meaningfully reflect your recovery.
As a result, if your watch says you’re not recovered, you might skip training — even if you feel good (and are actually good to go).
Most devices estimate your VO₂max — which indicates your maximal fitness. It’s the maximum amount of oxygen your body can use during exercise.
The best way to measure VO₂max involves wearing a mask to analyse the amount of oxygen you breathe in and out, to determine how much oxygen you’re using to create energy.
But your watch cannot measure oxygen use. It estimates it based on your heart rate and movement.
But smartwatches tend to overestimate VO₂max in less active people and underestimate VO₂max in fitter ones.
This means the number on your watch may not reflect your true fitness.
While the data from your smartwatch is prone to errors, that doesn’t mean it is completely worthless.
These devices still offer a way to help you track general trends over time, but you should not pay attention to daily fluctuations or specific numbers.
It’s also important you pay attention to how you feel, how you perform and how you recover. This is likely to give you even more insight than what your smartwatch says.
Hunter Bennett is a lecturer in exercise science at Adelaide University. This piece first appeared on The Conversation.
If you’ve ever started a new workout routine with the best intentions only to find yourself skipping sessions by week two, you’re not alone. I’m the type to get trapped in the same cycle of burnout, where I go hard for a couple of weeks, feel exhausted, feel guilty, and repeat. For me, what finally broke that cycle wasn’t a new gym membership or a fancy fitness app, but a simple scheduling hack: the “3-3-3 rule.” I’d seen this rule applied it to general productivity, and all the same principles can apply to your fitness habits, too. Here’s how you can use the 3-3-3 rules to structure your workouts and create a habit that sticks.
The 3-3-3 “rule” (or “method,” or “gentle suggestion”) is essentially a weekly workout framework built around three types of movement, each done three times per week:
Three strength training sessions. This includes lifting weights, bodyweight circuits, resistance bands, whatever builds muscle and challenges your body.
Three cardio sessions. This includes running, cycling, swimming, jump rope, a dance class—what counts as “cardio” is up for debate, but here, I think of it as anything that gets your heart pumping.
Three active recovery days. This includes light walking, yoga, stretching, foam rolling, and so on.
And yes, I realize this math adds up to nine intentional days of movement across a seven-day week. Here’s the thing: You do double duty some days, or skip workouts here and there, or adjust to a nine-day cycle, because the point isn’t rigid scheduling. The point is rhythm over a strict structure. For me, the 3-3-3 rule provides a sense of momentum that’s flexible enough to fit into real life, but consistent enough to actually stick to.
Before I get into how the 3-3-3 rule helped me specifically, let’s talk about why so many workout plans fall apart in the first place. I believe most of them make two classic mistakes. The first is doing too much, too soon. You go from zero to six days a week at the gym, you get burnt out, and the whole thing unravels. The second mistake is having no real structure at all—just vague intentions, like “I’ll work out when I can,” which never materializes into anything real for a lot of people.
For me, the 3-3-3 rule solves both of those problems. It gives me enough structure to build habit and momentum, but not so much intensity that my body and brain feel overwhelmed. I personally adore running, but I struggle to motivate myself to lift weights; the 3-3-3 rhythm here helped me find a middle ground between those two workouts. When I know I have three strength sessions to hit in a week (or nine-ish day cycle), I can look at my calendar and find three slots without too much drama or dread.
There’s also plenty of breathing room built into the plan, which was the biggest game changer for me. I used to have the (toxic) thought that my rest days were wasted days, which is a mentality that led to either overtraining or complete inactivity with pretty much no middle ground.
Plus, there’s something psychologically satisfying about the number three. I know and love the rule of threes in photography, comedy, survival tips, and all over the place.
The 3-3-3 rule has a ton of wiggle room for customization. Here are some ideas for how you can approach it:
What do you think so far?
For strength days, pick a format you actually enjoy. That might be a full-body circuit, a push/pull/legs split, or a class at your gym. (Boxing, anyone?) Your focus on these days should be a progressive challenge—push yourself, yes, but don’t obliterate yourself.
For cardio days, variety helps. Mix a longer, easier effort with a shorter, more intense session (like a 20-minute interval run). I know I’m biased, but cardio really shouldn’t feel like punishment.
For recovery days, resist the urge to “make them count” by sneaking in extra work. The whole point is to let your body consolidate the gains from your harder days. Walk, stretch, breathe, and trust the process.
Another practical tip: Pick a night to map out your 3-3-3 week ahead of time. You’ll probably find that the week arranges itself pretty naturally once you’re looking for those nine windows.
As always, consistency should always be your priority in fitness. If you’ve been struggling to find a rhythm, if your past workout plans have always fizzled out around week three, give the 3-3-3 rule an honest four-week try. Maybe start with a 1-1-1 month! After all, the 3-3-3 rule isn’t a hack to totally transform your physique, but I do think it can provide something way more valuable. Finding a routine that works for you—like the 3-3-3 rule works for me—is the first step to make exercise a reliable, sustainable part of your life.
Why you can trust TechRadar
We spend hours testing every product or service we review, so you can be sure you’re buying the best. Find out more about how we test.
Most running shoes feel familiar for a reason: the formula has barely changed in millennia. We have archaeological evidence of shoes being fastened with “shoelaces” as far back as around 3,500 BC, yet the basic lace-up running trainer remains the default.
QLVR (pronounced “clever”) set out to challenge that. Its debut shoe, the ENDVR, is a laceless “running slipper” built around a women-specific mechanical structure, with a slip-on Wing Fit system inspired by the way a bird’s wing opens and closes around movement.
The brand’s core argument is blunt: most athletic shoes are designed on men’s lasts (the mechanical devise used by manufacturers to create the foot shape) and scaled down for women, even though women’s feet tend to have different shapes and pressure points. So, they decided to literally break the mould and design something specifically for women’s feet.
It sounds like a noble ambition, although it didn’t necessarily start out as one. Originally the company was focused on doing away with laces. But co-founder and footwear designer Martin Dean soon realised this would be impossible with a unisex shoe.
“We were tweaking the design but we couldn’t get it to work. The unisex fit system means it would just be too loose on the back of a woman’s foot,” said Dean.
“That’s when we realised that the majority of footwear is made to fit a man’s foot. So we thought ‘let’s launch this for women’.”
As a runner who often struggles with shoe fit, I could immediately relate to Dean’s explanation. I spend an inordinate amount of time fiddling with laces trying to get the fit around my ankle just right. I don’t want the laces to dig in, but I also don’t want my ankles rocking around. I also struggle with the width of running shoes finding that the toe box shape is never quite right. Typically, a lot of running technology, not just shoes but also some of the best running watches, are male by default.
When I heard about the QLVR ENDVR I was keen to try them out. Maybe, finally, this shoe would fit! Over the past couple of months, I’ve been testing the shoe on a range of activities. Treadmill intervals, 10k easy road runs, gym sessions and as an everyday trainer for trips around the shops.
As soon as I slipped the pair on they immediately felt different. But were they the shoe I was ultimately looking for?
The ‘women-first’ part is not just a marketing line. QLVR is designed around a more ‘triangular’ female foot shape, with a narrower heel, wider toe area, and higher arches, rather than shrinking a men’s shoe and relying on laces to make up the slack.
The laceless part is the standout: the Wing Fit system is designed to sit in a closed, ‘laced-up’ position, flexing as you step in and then holding the rearfoot securely once your heel drops. In practice, it’s the first slip-on I’ve tried that feels like it’s meant to be run in. There is an immediate locked-in feel, and the foot is held snugly inside with minimal slippage. Being able to slip on a shoe and have the perfect heel fit straight away is a revelation.
Then there’s sustainability. QLVR leans hard into bio-based materials: a dandelion-derived foam it calls Dandelite, a Pebax Rnew polymer (from castor beans) for the Wing Fit system and propulsion plate, and a Tencel yarn upper made from eucalyptus fibres.
The fit is the first shock. I used QLVR’s sizing guidance and went down to a UK 6.5 (I usually size up to a 7 in running shoes). Straight out of the box, they felt very snug: secure around the ankle and heel, with noticeably more arch presence than I’m used to.
But that sense of the arch’s prominence faded fast. Once I started moving, the shoe relaxed into something closer to a slipper-like comfort, without the wobbly, overly soft feeling some max-cushioned shoes can have. For easy treadmill miles, it’s been especially pleasant: quiet, stable, and easy to forget about.
The laceless convenience is not a gimmick, either. If you’re popping out for a short run, going from work to gym, or fitting training into the cracks of a day, sliding in and heading off is genuinely freeing. No lace bite across the midfoot, no fiddling to get heel lockdown just right. The rearfoot hold is simply “there” every time.
QLVR positions the ENDVR as a shoe that can handle everything from intervals to cross-training. Based on my testing, that checks out. It feels comfortable and controlled for steady running, and supportive enough for gym sessions where you’re moving laterally or lifting lightly.
But that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. For me, the snugness may be a limiter. On longer distances, feet swell and I like a little more room up front. With my toes close to the end of the shoe and a hint of heel rub developing, I’d be cautious about taking these beyond half marathon territory. But then again, they are designed as an all-round training shoe rather than a long distance running pair.
Grip has been mostly fine on roads, but on icy patches I felt less confident than in some of my regular winter-friendly trainers. And, subjectively, the look will be divisive: the Wing Fit silhouette is unapologetically bold, and personally I think they’re pretty ugly.
One extra practical win: QLVR says you can machine-wash the shoes cold after removing the insoles and using a laundry bag.
The QLVR ENDVR costs £165 ($233, AUS $311) and is sold direct from the QLVR website. QLVR says it ships worldwide, although its FAQ notes US shipping is temporarily on hold while it assesses the impact of new import tariffs. The pricing is pretty much on-par with mid-range running and gym shoes.
|
Type |
Neutral multi-training |
|
Drop |
9mm drop with 35mm rear / 26mm forefoot stack height |
|
Weight |
270g (women’s size 6) |
QLVR’s current guidance is worth considering carefully, as it is a little contradictory. The product page and FAQ suggest the shoe can size up a bit small, recommending going up half or a full size if you’re between sizes. But the size chart says if you follow its guide you don’t need to go up in size, as toe wiggle-room is built in. This is why I opted for a 6.5 after measuring my feet according to their metrics. If I wanted to run longer distances in these shoes, I would definitely size up to 7.
|
Category |
Comment |
Score |
|
Value |
Appropriate for mid-range shoes |
4/5 |
|
Design |
Innovative and interesting |
4/5 |
|
Performance |
Great for mid-distance |
4/5 |
First reviewed: March 2026
The Vergecast Vergecast, 2026 edition
Mexico pyramid shooter who took hostages and killed 1 is identified
Byron Donalds cracks down on persistent border blind spot leaving US vulnerable to overstays
Healthy diets spark lung cancer risk in non-smokers as pesticides loom
PGA Tour signals new era with axing of Hawaii events from schedule
Alexa+ lets you order food like a real conversation
New lawsuit alleges Uber is violating drivers’ rights. Here’s how
Review: Trigger warning? ‘For Want of a Horse’ gives new meaning to the term ‘animal lover’
