I tried the 12-minute daily workout Helen Mirren's used for her ‘whole life' – here's why it's stood the test of time
Helen Mirren's acting career spans six decades, seeing her jump from stage to screen while tackling a wide range of genres. But one thing has remained constant: her workout routine.
The 79-year-old uses a 1950s fitness programme for women, developed for the Royal Canadian Air Force, called the XBX plan. And she says she's done so 'off and on my whole life'.
'It just very gently gets you fit,' she previously told Hello! magazine. 'It is 12 minutes [long] and they have charts you follow. Each day, you have to do the exercises within the 12 minutes, and until you can you can't move up. Two weeks of doing that and you think: 'Yeah, I could go to the gym now'.'
The plan exclusively uses bodyweight exercises, lining up nicely with Mirren's belief that exercise doesn't have to 'mean joining expensive gyms'. And, after a bit of digging online, I found the original XBX booklet.
Here's what happened when I gave it a go, and why I think it has, by and large, stood the test of time.
How to do Helen Mirren's workout - the XBX plan
The XBX pamphlet is 51 pages long, and pretty wordy, containing a series of charts and numbers which look far from inviting. I've done my best to simplify it for you.
XBX is shorthand for 10 basic exercises, and that's exactly what the plan entails: a 10-move, 12-minute workout. There are 48 difficulty levels, with each one challenging you to complete a few extra reps than the level before. Every 12 levels, the 10 exercises are also tweaked to make them slightly more challenging.
The idea is that everyone starts on level one. Once you can complete a level fairly comfortably, you progress to the next one. The booklet gives you a level to aim for eventually, depending on your age – 26-30 year olds are told to aim for level 30, while it reckons those aged 46-50 should target level 16.
Below you can find the prescriptions for levels one and 30 to see how the chart progresses.
Level one of the XBX plan:
In two minutes, complete:
Toe touch x3
Knee raise x4
Lateral bend x5
Arm circle x24
Then complete:
Level 30 of the XBX plan:
In two minutes, complete:
Toe touch x12
Knee raise x18
Lateral bend x14
Arm circle x30
Then complete:
How I got on trying Helen's Mirren's workout plan
I limbered up to try Helen Mirren's military workout routine in my living room, which wasn't on my 2025 bingo card. It took some time to decipher the 51-page XBX booklet, but after reading it cover to cover I felt like I had a pretty good grasp of what was going on: 12 minutes, 10 exercises and a target number of repetitions for each one, to be performed within a time limit (usually one or two minutes).
'Start at level one,' the booklet says. 'The XBX has been planned for gradual, painless progression. Follow the plan as outlined in the booklet. Do not skip levels. Do not progress faster than is recommended.'
I did as I was told and tried level one. As Mirren said, it 'gently' encouraged me to move my body with it's Pilates -esque exercises, which felt lovely after a morning of sitting at my desk. For this reason, I think it's a solid option for people looking to introduce a little bit more movement into their routine, sans-gym, although those newer to exercise may want to ease into moves like the lateral bend and toe touch.
But the workout left me wanting more. So, in the name of experimentation, I abandoned the instructions and jumped straight into level 30 – the target level for women aged 26-30. This proved considerably more challenging than level one.
The first four flexibility-focussed exercises felt rushed, as I had to squeeze 74 reps into the allocated two minutes. Even at a canter, these wound up taking me a little over three minutes, and I would have liked more time to focus on moving well.
Next came the straight-leg sit-ups – an abs workout staple, which I was able to work through in the two minutes provided. A set of 33 chest and leg raises (an exercise sometimes called the Superman) followed, which I finished right on the buzzer of my 60-second time limit. These also did a decent job of working my upper back muscles, which can be tricky to do in the absence of weights or equipment.
Working to a strict time limit for each exercise did raise the intensity of the workout, and by moving quickly my heart and lungs were put to work alongside my muscles, not unlike modern HIIT workouts. But there were downsides to racing the clock too.
The side leg raises again felt hurried, with nearly one per second needed to hit the target mark, and I went well over the allotted time with the leg-over tucks. The press-ups were on time, then I rounded things off with the run and half knee bends – running on the spot, bringing your knees up so your feet are at least six inches from the floor, and doing 50 steps on each leg followed by 10 partial squats. These raised my heart rate, but didn't provide any further complications.
By the end, my abs felt like they had come under the most scrutiny, followed by some of the smaller muscles around my hips and thighs. My breathing was slightly heavier than normal, but the larger muscles in my thighs, chest and back felt a little overlooked.
Helen Mirren's workout plan: My verdict
Taking a deep dive into this 1950s workout plan was fascinating. What struck me most was how, no matter how much we try and complicate exercise with fancy terms and equipment, there are certain simple principles that persist.
First and foremost among them is progressive overload. This simply means increasing the intensity of your workouts over time, in line with your rising strength and fitness levels, to ensure continued progress. By gradually making your workouts more challenging, you send a clear message to the body that it needs to adapt, leading to all manner of fitness gains. The structured way XBX implements this is one of my favourite things about the plan.
It also hit some marks missed by many modern gym plans, such as maintaining mobility by using all three planes of motion; sagittal (up, down, forward and backward movements), frontal (side to side) and transverse (twisting). Workouts nowadays tend to be rather sagittal-dominant, leaning heavily on exercises like squats and press-ups, whereas the XBX plan regularly encouraged me to bend and twist. As a result, my body (and spine in particular) felt enjoyable fresh and mobile afterwards.
Another thing I was impressed with was XBX's accessibility and democratisation of exercise. It takes just 12 minutes, the exercises don't require any equipment, and it provides a range of difficulty options to suit most fitness levels. If you have a bit of floor space, you can do it.
However, there are many women I train with who would rather chuck a 60kg barbell overhead than follow a plan like this. Put simply, they want to push themselves to become stronger, and there's a ceiling on the progress you can make with these 10 bodyweight exercises alone.
The male version of the programme, 5BX, might present a more worthy challenge, with the most difficult version of its workout featuring more advanced moves like V-ups and clapping press-ups. But lifting weights is the obvious solution.
On the flip side, some people might need to work up to exercises in XBX that demand more mobility, such as the toe touch and lateral bend. The plan's use of blanket exercise prescriptions remains a problem with cookie cutter workout programmes to this day. They come at a reduced cost, but don't account for the fact that everybody, and every body, is different. An in-person instructor or specialist coach can solve this by adapting each session to suit those doing it.
XBX also looks a bit unwelcoming at first, with its booklet containing reams of charts and numbers. Perhaps I've been spoiled by follow-along video workouts for too long, but it took a considerable amount of time to fully understand the plan, and this extra effort might turn people away.
But, for me, the most important thing to take away is that the XBX plan works for Mirren, and has done for decades. In an age where the internet is constantly reacting to and critiquing things, workout plans included, it's hard to argue with success. And given the longevity of Mirren's career, you can't deny this plan has been effective for the actor.
Which brings me to the crucial point: the best fitness advice I can give is to find a form of movement that works for you, then make that the foundation of your future exercise plans. For Mirren, that's the progressive XBX plan, and if that's a good fit for you too, fantastic. If it's a CrossFit class with friends, Pilates session or dog walk, these all work too. Just find a way to move, and enjoy doing it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
90s one hit wonder, 51, has barely aged a day 27 years after topping the charts – do you recognise her?
SHE shot to fame with a chart-topping hit back in the '90s - but nearly three decades on, the pop sensation looks just as fresh-faced at 51. The singer stunned fans with her youthful appearance in a new social media snap - but would you recognise her? 4 4 Jennifer Paige - the voice behind 1998's chart-topping smash "Crush" - who wowed fans with her age-defying looks in a recent Instagram post. She wrote: "New music and art projects on the horizon. My hubby's art will be released on Friday, as well. "Very happy for him, as it's been a long time in the making. I'll share it here so you can let him know what you think! Let's go, men! 👏 You were born for greatness." Fans took to the comment section shocked to see her looking as ageless as ever, with one writing: "You still look just as beautiful." Another added: "Wow! You were the soundtrack to my 5 year old self & you haven't aged a day! 🔥 thank you for sharing your talent with the world." A third penned: "You look exactly like you did in 1998!" Jennifer's song 'Crush' shot to No 1 in 16 countries and sold 11 million copies. It then went on to become the station's most requested song of the summer. Crush was also the top three Billboard chart hit in the US, while in the UK it listed in the top 10. Her debut album was released the same year and Jennifer went on to record three more - although they failed to gain the same traction as her first. She even recorded a duet with Backstreet Boy Nick Carter called "Beautiful Lie", featured on the deluxe edition of her 2008 album Best Kept Secret. Once dropped into semi-retirement after chart success, Jennifer faced childhood heartbreak, melanoma and the loss of both parents in 2008. She later retreated from fame, moved into song writing for commercials, charity music and podcasts. She then eventually crowdfunded a comeback album, Starflower, in 2017. Jennifer is married to artist Jason 'Hawk' Carter. The couple tied the knot in 2010 and have a daughter named Stella Rose, born on October 5, 2014. Jason made a surprise cameo in Jennifer's 2017 music video for "The Devil's in the Details." The original actor dropped out, meaning he had to step in last minute. The American star still has her blonde hair and regular posts on her Instagram account. 4 4
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Hollyoaks star Sarah Jayne Dunn stuns in sizzling gym wear snap after hitting back at mum-shaming over OnlyFans pics
SARAH Jayne Dunn looked incredible in in sizzling gym wear snap after hitting back at mum-shaming over OnlyFans pics The ex-Hollyoaks actress, 43, showed off her toned abs in a fuchsia pink sports crop top and shorts. 3 Sarah flashed a smile while at the gym, as she put her trim physique on display. She finished her workout look with bronzed makeup and went on to defend her choice to wear cosmetic products in the gym. Sarah wrote alongside the snap: "Someone actually asked me… 'Are you seriously wearing makeup to the gym?' "Yep. I am. I'm not doing it for you, I'm doing it for ME! "A bit of tinted moisturiser and mascara. Not full glam. Just enough to feel like I've got my sh*t together before I throw some weights around. "And honestly? I'm bored of the judgement. "Since when did wearing makeup mean you're not serious about your workout? "Some women feel their best fresh faced. Some love a bit of glow and gloss. Some genuinely couldn't care less. ALL of it is valid." She added: "Wearing makeup doesn't mean I'm insecure. Not wearing it doesn't mean you're more confident. "Let's not turn personal choice into a personality trait. Soap star hits back as she's mum-shamed over racy pics "So yeah, I lift, I sweat, I push myself hard… with a bit of blush and mascara on. Shocking, I know." The former soap star, who played Mandy Richardson on Hollyoaks from 1996 to 2021, famously left the show after being issued an ultimatum by furious bosses. Despite the star admitting that she's thriving in her new OnlyFans role, it doesn't come without it's criticism. Sarah recently hit back after being mum-shamed over her racy photos. They ordered her to quit adult subscription site OnlyFans, where she was flogging risque shots, or be axed. While she's been making big money on the platform, having claimed to have taken home £700,000 in 2022, Sarah has found herself the target of cruel trolling. Taking to Instagram to confront her latest bully, she sarcastically responded to their nasty comment. The follower had written: "Yeah why not just make sure your kids get bullied because of your content just so you can get a little validation from people you don't know, good idea." But Sarah - who shares son Stanley, nine, with her husband Jonathan Smith - made sure to clap back with humour, pretending to read a positive one in a get-ready-with-me video. With the aforementioned jibe shown on the screen, she instead read: "Thanks for your inspiring content. Your son is really lucky to have a mom like you that loves him so much. Please show us some more of your outfits." Sarah then enthused: "Of course I will! What a kind, kind comment. Thank you. I will happily show you another outfit," before proceding to talk her fans through what she had been wearing. At the end, she concluded: "Thanks again for that really, really lovely, positive comment." The actress quit the Channel 4 soap for a career on OnlyFans three years ago. Hollyoaks said it doesn't allow cast members to be active on certain 18+ websites because of the show's responsibility to its young audience. Speaking about posting on OnlyFans before, Sarah said it was "about taking back control, about empowerment and confidence and having full power over my choices". 3
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
America is showing us football in its final dictator form – we can't afford to look away
Should we give it a miss? Is it best to stay away from next summer's Trump-Infantino US World Cup? Depending on your politics the answer may be a resounding no or a bemused shrug. Some will see pure drive-by entertainment. Why would anyone want to boycott a month-long end-of-days Grand Soccer Parade staged by two of the world's most cinematic egomaniacs? But it is a question that has been asked, and will be asked a lot more in the next year. Those who intend to travel will need to answer it by action or omission. Would it be better for dissenting media and discomfited football fans to simply no-platform this event? The picture is at least clearer now. After a week of the new steroid-fed Club World Cup we know what this thing will feel like and who it will benefit. There is no mystery with these events now, no sense of politics lurking coyly out of sight. Under Gianni Infantino Fifa has become a kind of mobile propaganda agency for indulgent regimes, right out in front twirling its pompoms, hitching its leotard, twerking along at the front of the parade like an unholy Uncle Sam. So we had the grisly sight this week of Donald Trump not just borrowing football's light, but wrestling it on to his lap and ruffling its hair, burbling like a random hot-button word generator about women and trans people, while Juventus players gawped in the background. We have the spectacle of both club and international football hijacked as a personal vanity platform for Infantino, the dictator's fluffer, the man who sold the world not once but twice. Infantino's status as a wildly over-promoted administrator has always had an operatic quality. But there is something far more sinister in his political over-reach, out there nodding along at the latest Oval Office freak-off, helping to legitimise each divisive statement, each casual erasure of process. Nobody gave Fifa a mandate to behave like this. Its mission is to promote and regulate. And yet here is it acting as a commercial disruptor in its own sport and as a lickspittle to the powerful, disregarding the human rights fluff and political neutrality enshrined in its 'statutes', offering zero transparency or accountability. To date Infantino's only public interface in the US is a 'fireside chat', AKA approved PR interview, at the Dick's Sporting Goods stage in New York. There he is, up there on the Stage of Dick's, mouthing platitudes to pre-programmed questions, high on his own power supply, the newly acquired Gianni glow-up eyebrows arched in a patina of inauthenticity. They say celebrity is a mask that eats into the face. Take a look at what football can do to you. And so far this tournament has presented the full grotesquery in store. What is the Club World Cup like on the ground? Pretty much the same as it is on the screen given this event is invisible in physical form beyond the stadiums. The key takeaway is confirmation of the weirdly jackboot, cult-like nature of the Infantino-shaped universe. Even the optics are trying to tell you something, all black holes, hard surfaces, gold, power-flash. Why does Fifa have its own vast lighted branding on the pitch like a global super-corporation or a military dictatorship? What is the Club World Cup logo supposed to represent, with its weird angular lines, the void at its heart? An obscure Stalinist plug socket? Darth Vader's space fighter? Not to mention the bizarre obsession with that shapeless and indefinable trophy, present on the big screen in every ground in weird scrolling closeup, one minute a Sauron's eye, the next some kind of finger-snapping torture instrument, with its secret draws full of ectoplasm, a dead crow, the personal effects of Pol Pot. Mainly there is the very openly manipulative nature of the spectacle, football in its final dictator form, with a sense of utter disdain for its captive consumer-subjects. Yes, they will literally put up with anything if we pipe it into their smartphones. So here is beauty, love, colour, connection, the things you're hard-wired to respond to, cattle-prodded into your nervous system for the benefit of assorted interests. Here is football reimagined as a kind of mass online pornography. Fifa even calls its media website Fifahub. With all this in mind some have suggested a World Cup and US boycott is the correct and logical response, not least in two recent articles published in these pages. The organisation Human Rights Watch has carried a warning about the implications of staging the tournament under the Trump regime. Guardian readers and social media voices have asked the same question from all sides of discourse. The hostile versions of this: if you don't like it then just don't come, we don't want you anyway [expletives deleted]. If you were worried about us in Qatar, western imperialist, why are you going to the US? And from the liberal left a concern that to report on sport is also to condone a regime that sends deportation officers to games, imposes travel bans on Fifa members and is edging towards another remote war. And all the while marches football around in a headlock, snapping its underwear elastic, saying thanks, Gianni, for the distracting firework show. This is not a normal situation. So why normalise it? Why give it legitimising light and heat? And yet, one week into the World Cup's rehearsal dinner, the only logical response is: you just have to go. Not only would a boycott serve no practical purpose; it would be counterproductive, an act of compliance for a regime that will happily operate without an opposing voice on the stage. There are two structural reasons for this. And a third that relates to the United States itself, or at least to the idea of the United States, to its possibilities, which are not defined by Trump, by the latest military action, or by Infantino. Most obviously, if you leave the stage you abandon the argument to the other person. Dissent remains a useful commodity. However pointless, ineffective and landlocked the process of pointing out the flaws and contradictions may have become, it is necessary to keep doing so. Qatar 2022 was a dictator show that simply sailed above the criticisms. But someone, however minor, has to make them, to offer at least some kind of counter-view. No-platforming an autocrat's show makes no sense on a basic level. These people would prefer you weren't there in any case. Whereas in reality the people platforming and enabling Trump and Infantino are not journalists trying to give another version of events, but the people who keep voting them into power, friendly dictators, subservient football associations and client media who will be present whatever happens. Fifa and its Saudi-backed broadcast partner Dazn are glossing up an army of in-house influencers and content-wanglers to generate a wall of approving noise. Is it healthy if these are the only voices at the show? Shouting into a void may have little effect. But you still have to shout. Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion Second, football does still have a value that steps outside the normal rules of show and spectacle. This is why it is coveted, courted and used like a weapon. Last week these pages carnied a logical, entirely legitimate wider view, written by two academics from City University New York, which concluded that a boycott was not just an option but 'necessary'. At the same time, the article defined the football World Cup as something that basically has no value, 'spectacles of recreation designed to distract people from their day-to-day lives, cultural and political branding opportunities for their hosts. For authoritarians, they have long been used as a tool to distract from or launder stains of human rights violations and corruption.' Which is definitely true. But it also reads like a vision of sport defined by the most joyless version of AI invented. Under this version of events no World Cup or Olympics would have taken place, because they are essentially worthless, home only to malevolent actors, lacking any notion of colour, human spirt, joy, art, beauty or connection. Who knows, maybe this is accurate now. It is undeniably true that the idea of football as a collective people's game is fairly absurd. Fans of football clubs struggle with this state of cognitive dissonance on a daily basis, the contrast of legacy identity and hard commercial reality. Liverpool are a community club owned by a US hedge fund. Manchester City see themselves as outsiders and underdogs, and are also owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family. Football is the enemy these days. But both sides of this are important, because without that emotional connection, without the act of faith that enables the warm, human part, everything becomes diminished, all our institutions toxic shells. To give up is to abandon sport for ever to the dictators and the sales people, to say, yeah, this just belongs to you now. No-platforming something that still means connection and culture and history. Are we ready for that yet? There will be another version of the present at some point. The final point is about the US, a deeply divided and unhappy place right now, and a much-derided host nation, not least by members of its own populace. What has it been like here? The evidence is that an actual World Cup is going to be very hard to negotiate, spread over vast spaces, with baffling travel times, unreliable infrastructure, and a 24-hour attention industry that is already busy gorging on every other spectacle available to the human race. The US has a reputation for peerless razzmatazz around public events. And while this is undeniably true with cultural spectacles it invented – rock'n'roll, presidential races, galactic shopping malls, enormous food, rural tornadoes, its own continental-scale sports – the US's version of other people's specialities, from cheese to professional football, can seem a little mannered. But the fact remains the actual games have been quite good. There has been a European-flavoured focus on tickets and empty seats. But 25,000 people on a weekday to watch Chelsea in an ill-defined game is decent evidence of willingness to stage this thing and develop the market. The dismay at 3,500 turning up to Mamelodi Sundowns v Ulsan HD in Orlando overlooks the upside, the fact that 3,500 people actually turned up to Mamelodi Sundowns v Ulsan HD in Orlando. Sundowns get 9,000-odd even at home. How many of their South African fans can afford to travel for this? Fifa, which uses its faux-benevolence cleverly, will point out an African team received $2m (£1.7m) for winning that game. Do we want to develop something or not? A wider point is that football here is a game beloved of immigrant populations. There is a different kind of warmth, often among people without a platform or the means to make it to the matches so far. The waiter who adores Cristiano Ronaldo. The taxi driver who wants to talk for 40 minutes about Chelsea's wastefulness with academy players. The cop who loves the Colombian national team and is desperate for his son to see them in the flesh. As for the US itself, it still feels like false equivalence to state that this is now an actual dictatorship, a lost land, a place that doesn't deserve this show because of its flaws and structural violence. This has always been a pretty brutal nation, human life as a constant pressure wave, mainlining heat and light into your veins, but also always taking a bite. The opening week in Miami captured this feeling, football's most hungrily transactional event staged on a sunken green peninsula, a place where the sea seems to be punching holes in the land, but which is still constantly throbbing with life and warmth and beautiful things. There is a nostalgic attachment to the idea of the US for people of a certain age, 20th-century holdovers, brought up on its flaws and imperialism, but also its culture and brilliance. But for the visitor America does seem in a worse state than it did 20 years ago. There is an unhappiness, a more obvious underclass, a sense of neglected parts and surfaces. All the things that were supposed to be good – cars, plenitude, markets, voting, empowerment, civil rights, cultural unity, all the Cokes being good and all the Cokes being the same – seem to have gone bad. But this is also a democracy with an elected leader, albeit one with a lust for executive power and some sinister tendencies. Mainly the US seems to have a massive self-loathing problem. Perhaps you can say it is correct in this, that Trump is enacting actual harms. But Trump is also a symptom of that alienation and perceived decline. He's an algorithm-driven apparition. Say his name enough times and this cartoon will appear. America remains a great, messy, dangerous, flawed idea of a place. What else is the world currently offering? This is in any case where football will now live for the next year, an unquestioning supplicant in the form of its own autocratic leader. The game is not an indestructible product. It can be stretched thin and ruined by greed, is already at war with itself in many key places. It will at some point be necessary to pay the ferryman, even as the US is packed away a year from now and the sails set at Fifa House for all corners of the globe and then Saudi Arabia. However stormy the prospects, it is not quite the moment to abandon this ship for good.
