EXCLUSIVE I spent £1,700 on Ozempic only to GAIN weight... this is what you're not being told
A woman has revealed how she spent more than £1,700 on a six-month course of Ozempic - only to gain weight.
Emma Warner, 42, weighed just under 17st when she was given the opportunity to try weight loss drugs from a private clinic in 2022.
The Plymouth native was prescribed a six-month course of Ozempic, which is approved for treating Type 2 diabetes but is sometimes used off-label for weight loss.
She spent £1,712 on the course in the hope she would lose weight as the drug is meant to suppress her appetite.
Ozempic contains the active ingredient semaglutide that reduces appetite and slows digestion, which can aid in weight loss.
But this wasn't the case for Emma, who said: 'I was just as hungry as ever and over the six months, I gained 22lbs (10kgs). I was so disappointed.'
While semaglutide can aid weight loss for many who are prescribed it, there are some people who simply don't respond to the drug. However, scientists do not know yet why this is the case.
Emma's disappointment was so deep she never returned to the private clinic, but the weight didn't budge.
Though proven to be 'incredibly effective tools' for many, weight-loss medications aren't 'magic bullets', said Robbie Puddick, nutritionist at NHS-backed healthy eating plan Second Nature.
What many fail to realise, the expert said, is that sustained weight-loss requires users to work foster 'lifestyle and habit change' alongside use of the drug.
'These medications work by reducing appetite and slowing digestion, which creates an ideal window for developing healthier eating patterns,' he said.
'However, if someone relies solely on the medication without building lasting habits, they're likely to struggle when they reduce or stop the drug. The appetite suppression disappears, but without new behavioural patterns in place, old eating habits typically return.'
It's a fact that became all too clear to Emma, who recalled feeling feeling immense disappointment at not having shifted the weight she hoped to.
The turning point came in the summer of 2023 when she attended a family wedding in Greece with her eight-year-old son, Arlo.
'When I saw the photos, my heart sank,' she said, as she weighed almost 18st at the time.
Fortunately, all hope was not lost, however, and she managed to lose weight by turning to diet programme Slimming World.
She said: 'When I got back and showed the photos to family and friends, I was mortified at how I looked. I spoke to my sister Laura and she suggested that we join Slimming World together.'
Emma admitted she was nervous about attending a Slimming World support group for the first time, as she worried 'everyone would be looking at me'.
However, her sister provided some much-needed reassurance that everyone in the group would be 'all in the same boat.'
Emma said she lost 9lbs in the first week, after she and her sister began to think about everyday habits and make simple changes to their lives.
According to Puddick, the only sustainable solution for long-term weight-loss, is to combine the powers of the drug with improving 'behavioural patterns' around food.
Indeed, by working to 'recognise genuine hunger cues', weight-loss hopefuls can develop 'a sustainable eating framework' and ditch 'emotional eating' habits.
Harnessing these methods proved successful for Emma, who admitted she'd previously never given much thought to what she ate.
'I'd been commuting to and from London and I'd often grab food on the go without thinking about it,' she said.
HOW EMMA HAS TRANSFORMED HER DIET
BEFORE
Breakfast: Nothing, or a coffee on the go with croissants.
Mid-morning snack: Biscuits.
Lunch: Meal-deal sandwich with crisps, chocolate and a full-fat fizzy drink.
Dinner: Fish and chips from the chip shop, followed by a ready-made cheesecake dessert.
AFTER
Breakfast: Overnight oats.
Lunch: Leftovers from the night before or anything from the Slimming World food range, with water or diet coke.
Dinner: Sweet potato curry, followed by fresh fruit, Hi-fi bars or yoghurt.
'Lunch might have been a sandwich, crisps or a chocolate bar and a fizzy drink as part of a meal deal, or a ready meal, like mac 'n' cheese.
'I realised it was all about convenience for me - it was such an eye opener!'
Emma began to learn how to change her eating habits and cook meals from scratch so she could make them healthier without losing flavour.
Puddick said learning to improve habits and 'rewire your relationship', was essential to fostering habits that could 'last a lifetime'.
But it doesn't happen overnight, he cautioned.
'This process takes time, which is why the medication can be so valuable, as it provides the breathing space needed to establish these new patterns of behaviour.'
Adapting her eating patterns was an essential move in creating lasting changes to Emma's weight.
She learned how to make her favourite dishes such as spaghetti bolognese, stew and chilli with cheesy garlic bread. She even learned how to make healthy changes to the meals her Ghanaian husband loves.
'I've even adapted some Ghanaian meals, which are typically cooked with a lot of oil, to healthier versions - my Jollof rice is a favourite!' the mother said.
'We're both eating more healthily and cooking meals at home like Slimming World's sweet potato curry or if we're pushed for time, then we both love cauliflower mac and cheese from the Slimming World food range at Iceland.'
Now, Emma has lost a total of 3st 6lbs and says 'life is so much easier', adding: 'I don't get out of breath so much and I'm able to play with Arlo and take him to the park.
'I've gone from trying to find a quick fix that cost a fortune to feeling in control of my weight. I've started planning my meals and I batch cook my favourites at the weekend.
'When I commute – which I do less now as I have a new role closer to home – I take something I've cooked at home. I'm losing weight yet I feel fuller than ever and I'm saving money.'
The nutritionist maintained that gaining weight after using fat jabs was rarely the failure of the individual or the medication.
He said: 'It simply highlights that sustainable weight loss requires addressing the behavioural and psychological factors that contributed to weight gain in the first place.
'When someone experiences weight regain after stopping medication, it's not a failure of the drug or the person. It simply highlights that sustainable weight loss requires addressing the behavioural and psychological factors that contributed to weight gain in the first place. '
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
30 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Doctor leaders warn GP practices ‘on the brink' as demand intensifies
The snap survey ran from 6 May to 21 May this year and received 1,670 responses, with 38% of GP partners in Scotland taking part. Nearly half of GPs in Scotland who responded to the survey said the future of their practice is precarious or not sustainable. A total of 45% of GPs said this was the case, representing a rise of 10% since 2023. Four out of ten GPs (41.61%) said their practice is unable to meet patient demand for access and there is 'no realistic chance of this in the near future'. Most GPs (98.5%) believe urgent and sustained investment into General Practice is necessary. Meanwhile, more than nine out of ten GPs say they would take on additional GPs if they had sufficient funding (95.62%) Nearly all participants indicated that they could take on more General Practitioners (GPs) if they received adequate funding. The BMA found that an additional 160 whole-time equivalent (WTE) GPs could potentially be available, which would provide approximately 700,000 additional appointments annually. READ MORE: Doctors demand 1800 more GPs to improve patient care Scottish Government urged to improve NHS governance to deliver reforms This increase in capacity would be achievable if all sessional GPs seeking more work were able to secure their desired number of working hours. Dr Iain Morrison, chair of the Scottish general practitioners committee (SGPC), said the findings were "stark" in revealing the pressures GP practices are under. Dr Morrison also said the survey showed the 'devastating' impact of years of underinvestment and the results must act as a wake-up call to Government, with an urgent plan needed to see £290m deliver full funding restoration for GP practices and stabilise the position. The chair of the SGPC said: 'The findings of this survey show the crisis that GPs across the country are facing and must act as a wake-up call to government that we need a radical change of approach as to how it supports General Practice. 'At a time when we have record levels of demand, general practices are having to think about reducing services – we simply cannot continue to provide more and more for less and less resource. 'It is a situation which is completely unsustainable and is taking a toll on GPs who are all too aware of the challenges patients can face in accessing services. GPs want to deliver a service they can be proud of, rather than one they need to apologise for. 'This survey has found most practices would be able to take on more GPs if they had the funding available, as well as showing there are GPs who are looking for work. "Patients will rightly be bewildered that there are GPs struggling to find enough work while they can face a struggle to get an appointment. If the required funding was made available, patients would be able to rapidly see the benefits with the equivalent of 160 WTE GPs currently seeking to take on work.' The BMA's Scottish general practitioners committee has recently launched a campaign calling for a £290million funding gap to be addressed, which includes posters in GP surgeries explaining the issues to help patients understand why they may be struggling to get the service or access they want and need. Patients are also being urged to 'Stand with your Surgery' and back the call for general practice to receive more funding. Dr Morrison said: 'The survey also reveals an alarming number of practices are on the brink, with nearly half of GPs expressing concern about the sustainability of their practice in the future. 'Surgeries are at the heart of communities and we simply cannot afford to lose one more as a consequence of erosion of funding and rising cost pressures. That's why we are also calling for everyone to 'Stand with your Surgery' and advocate for General Practice to receive more funding, to be able to better serve their communities. 'This must begin with urgent action to deliver £290m for full funding restoration – around one percent of the Scottish NHS budget - which would initially help to stabilise General Practice and then grow the GP workforce to improve access and services for patients. 'The survey shows the devastating impact of years of lack of action and we cannot allow any more practices to close or GPs to leave the profession as a result. The government must now take the opportunity to support general practice and reverse years of decline before it is simply too late. 'General practice provides 90% of patient contact and can deliver the solution to the perpetual NHS crisis – but only if it is given the resources to do so.' One GP said despite working "harder than ever" she has recently faced more negativity around her line of work. Dr Karen Hopkins, a GP Partner in Stepps, North Lanarkshire, said: 'I used to be proud to tell people I was a GP; it used to be met with respect and appreciation. Now when people ask me, I tell them and brace myself for the barrage of frustration I know is about to be thrust upon me. 'Not out of malice, but because people - my friends, my family, parents in the playground- are increasingly frustrated with the NHS and service that is not fit for purpose. Yet my colleagues and I in primary care are working harder than ever. Longer hours, no lunch breaks, logging on at home on unpaid days off or holidays. 'Primary care is both the first point of access and the backbone of the NHS. Funding restoration would mean better access. It would mean more appointments with GPs and nurses. It would mean your chronic disease checks could be done promptly and on schedule. It would mean being a GP would once again become a more attractive job – 11-hour days with no break is not something any of us thought we were signing up for becoming GPs. 'Our nation has never been more unhealthy-obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease. Preventing and treating this is the bread and butter of general practice, and yet while we are fire-fighting the insatiable demand, this important work cannot be done. Funding restoration needs to happen for the future of General the future of the NHS.' In its report, published in March, Audit Scotland, found Scottish Government ministers were "unlikely" to hit their target of delivering 800 more GPs by 2027. The BMA has previously said £290m is needed to plug a funding gap for GP surgeries and has warned if it is not addressed in the coming months then the "current direction of travel" is leading towards a formal dispute with Scottish ministers. The Scottish government said it has increased investment in general practice and is determined to increase the number of GPs in Scotland. Scotland currently has the highest number of GPs per head in the UK with 82 GPs per 100,000 population, compared with 64 in England. Health Secretary Neil Gray said: 'We want to make it easier for people to see their GP and are taking steps to address the challenges facing general practice. That includes ensuring that a greater proportion of new NHS funding goes to primary and community care. "We are in bilateral discussions with the Scottish GP Committee about core funding for general practice. 'GPs play an incredibly important role and we want to see more of them in Scotland. That is why we are determined to increase the number of GPs by 800 by 2027, with an additional 360 GPs added since 2017."
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Young carer who unwittingly breached allowance rules forced to repay £2,000
A young carer who had looked after her disabled mother from the age of eight was forced to repay more than £2,000 when she unwittingly breached carer's allowance benefit earnings rules after joining a government youth employment scheme. Rose Jones, 22, said she was twice wrongly advised by her jobcentre work coach that her wages earned under the Kickstart scheme would not affect her eligibility for carer's allowance. Less than a year after she completed the six-month scheme, under which the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) paid her wages, she received a demand from the DWP demanding she pay back £2,145 of overpaid benefits. 'I was shocked when the letter arrived – it came on my 20th birthday – and I really didn't know what to do. I thought it was a mistake because my work coach had told me it was fine. It was a really scary letter to receive,' Jones said. The case is the latest in a stream of carer's allowance injustices highlighted by a year- long Guardian investigation and a relatively rare case involving a young carer – most unpaid carers are much older adults. At least 144,000 UK carers are repaying more than £250m in earnings-related carer's allowance overpayments caused by what MPs said were 'human mistakes' on the part of carers and repeated DWP administrative and policy failures. Thousands of carers have been prosecuted and millions of pounds of public money wasted. The government last year vowed to reform aspects of carer's allowance after widespread public outrage. It commissioned an independent review of carer's allowance overpayments which is expected to report to ministers in July. Jones began caring for her mother, who has physical and mental disabilities, at the age of eight, helping around the house and with shopping, looking out for her safety, and accompanying her to hospital appointments. Being a carer affected her childhood and education, she said: 'I was always quite hesitant to be away from my mum. I'd worry about her all the time when I was at school and struggle to focus. I wouldn't want to go on sleepovers at friends' houses.' When she turned 16 she started to claim carer's allowance and it was only when she took up a place in 2021 on the DWP's Kickstart scheme aimed at young people at risk of long term unemployment, introduced during Covid in 2020, that it became an issue. Jones said: 'Before I'd accepted the job [though the Kickstart scheme] I told him [the job coach] I was on carer's allowance and I told him the exact amounts I'd be on and that I'd be working from home so I'd be doing the same amount of caring as always. 'He assured me that he was confident that my carer's allowance would not be affected. I asked him a couple of times, not just one phone call. I checked again after a couple of months once I had started earning my wage, and he reassured me, so I thought at this point everything was fine.' The demand, when it came, felt massively unjust. 'I'd been told by the work coach it was fine. I'd been a carer for my mum all my teenage years and felt my experiences had just been disregarded.' Under Kickstart, the DWP paid employers £1,500 a month towards wages and training costs, with participants guaranteed to be paid the equivalent of 25 hours a week at the national minimum wage, in Jones's case £164 a week, or £656 a month. Jones was taken on as a digital marketing assistant by a local firm and under carer's allowance rules was allowed to earn up to £128 a week on top of her carer duties, equivalent to 19.5 hours at the minimum wage for 18- to 20-year-olds. Because she had unwittingly breached the weekly earnings limit, carer's allowance rules meant she forfeited her £67.60 carer's allowance. This 'cliff edge' rule meant had she gone even £1 a week over the limit for six months she would have had to repay over £2,000. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Jones said she was frustrated by different branches of the DWP – the jobcentre, the employment section and the carer's allowance unit – which did not seem to be clear on the rules and had not routinely shared information about her case. She was also shocked that the DWP had known about the earnings breach but had waited months before alerting her, allowing a debt to accrue that will take her years to repay. 'It's left me with a bit of distrust towards the DWP,' she said. Emily Holzhausen, the director of policy at Carers UK, said: 'It's devastating to see a young person who has had a more challenging start in life be badly let down by the DWP. 'It's not the first time that hard-pressed carers have been given the wrong information by people working for the DWP; the very people they trust to get the rules about benefits and entitlements right. 'The fact that the DWP's computer systems don't speak to each other have left many unpaid carers with unacceptable overpayments – despite the DWP having information that could have been used to stop them earlier.' A DWP spokesperson said: 'We understand the huge difference carers make as well as the struggles so many face. 'The carer's allowance overpayment rate is now the lowest on record and we are increasing funding and bringing in more staff to check 100% of alerts to help prevent carers falling into debt. 'But we want to go further, that's why we've launched an independent review of carer's allowance to explore how earnings-related overpayments have happened and what changes can be made.'
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
Parent says no, stop the screen rot in schools
Bravo to the education committee for finally saying what we all know to be true: for young children, screens are like — and I'm paraphrasing here, but not by much — crack, in terms of rotting their brains and being ludicrously addictive. In its new report, 'Screen time: impacts on education and wellbeing', the committee concluded, 'The overwhelming weight of evidence submitted to us suggests that the harms of screen time and social media use significantly outweigh the benefits for young children.' In other words, it's not social media that's the problem. It's screens themselves. So, boy oh boy, that education committee will be really angry with whoever just made this decision: from September the national statutory tests for five-year-olds, the 'reception baseline assessment', will require at least two touchscreens — one for the teacher and one for the very young child (adult and child, side by side, both on screens, just as God intended.) Who on earth thought it was a good idea to test five-year-olds on tablets? Oh wait, it's written here in small letters, let me get my glasses …It was the Department for Education. Ah. By now, bodies ranging from the World Health Organisation to the NHS have published guidelines about screen time for young children. But these guidelines are arguably too little and definitely too late: a 2020 Ofcom report found that an astonishing 57 per cent of five- to seven-year-olds in Britain have a tablet. As a result of this large-scale outsourcing of parenting to screens, last week a coalition of schools, nurseries and colleges published a letter saying that children were now starting school with speech and emotional difficulties 'that are likely to have been exaggerated by or are even directly attributable to excessive screen time'. And yet the DfE has decided that those same screen-addicted kids should be tested on screens. And just to prove that too much screen time rots adults' brains too, I'm going to respond to this mess with an internet meme: DfE! Make! It! Make! Sense! • Schools issue parents with screen time limits from birth to age 16 So I emailed the department to ask — politely — what it was thinking. Why was it telling parents to give their kids less screen time while telling schools to give the kids more? Alas, to judge from the computer-says-no response I got, the DfE is now run by AI, which might explain its compulsion to test kids online: 'Digital assessments reduce the administrative burden on teachers, freeing up their time to focus more on teaching and supporting pupils' learning.' So young children will get to interact with teachers more by interacting with them less. Or something. Schools switched to digital learning during lockdown, and many found they enjoyed this easing of the 'administrative burden' so much, they never switched back. No surprise, given how much investment has been lavished on it: the UK-based primary school educational platform Atom Learning raised £19 million in 2021 and is now near ubiquitous. In April I wrote about the rise in primary schools of 'ed tech', aka education technology, aka teaching children via the medium of computer games, whizzy apps, tech portals and emojis. You don't need to be Mr Gradgrind to query the benefits of this gamification of education, teaching children from the age of five to expect lessons to be taught in ten-second bite-sized graphics. And we wonder why today's kids have such decimated attention spans. • Book holidays with bad wi-fi to get teens reading, says Winchester head Since then, I've heard some truly fascinating defences of education technology in primary schools. I was told that screens 'enrich students' learning experience', although when I asked if there was any proof of said enrichment, answer came there none. In fact, studies show that primary school kids experience what neuroscientists in one study describe as 'deeper reading' when learning from a paper text, whereas when they learn from a screen 'shallow reading was observed'. I was told that it's important to teach children how to use these devices for their future employment prospects, as though the devices weren't designed to be entirely intuitive, and addictive. And in any case, they will be utterly obsolete by the time these kids are in the workplace. Some argue that ed tech isn't social media, and that's true. But telling young children to do their school projects online is as ridiculous as telling them to do their homework in front of the TV: distraction is always a click away. And my personal favourite: 'The students really enjoy it.' They'd also enjoy eating sugar all day, so let's provide glucose on tap and see how that pans out. The one decent defence schools have for putting young kids on screens is that this is how they will increasingly be tested. Most GCSEs and A-levels will be online within a decade — so why not start them in primary school, seems to be the thinking. But five-year-olds are not 16-year-olds. One educator said to me breezily that this is simple 'market forces'. But schools — and certainly the DfE — should not be uncritical, passive consumers of tech. Mike Baxter, principal of City of London Academy, said last week, 'Over the past 20 years, schools and families have too often blindly trusted technology to aid and even enhance the education and wellbeing of our young people. However, the reality couldn't be further from this.' I have yet to meet anyone who can explain why it's better for children to write an essay online and upload it to Google Classroom than write one by hand in a notebook. If schools can't say how any of this benefits the pupils, they shouldn't do it. Computers aren't the only thing that can say no.
