Brooke Burke says Ozempic causes 'terrible' metabolic issues, warns against trying to 'cheat the system'
"When it comes to the world of Ozempic, which has changed the landscape of obesity, I'm not mad at it, I'll be really honest," the fitness guru and TV personality, 53, told Page Six in an interview.
"But I'm not mad at it if someone is disciplined enough to weight train, to do their blood work and to eat. What drives me crazy is people that want a quick fix, they want to starve their body, and they don't understand the value of weight training."
Burke, whose Stronger Together 90‑day guided challenge begins later this month, said denying your body food is "terrible" for your metabolism.
"We're seeing this depleted look because people are losing their appetite," she explained. "That's the hormone, right? It helps you curb your appetite. They're not eating. That's terrible for your metabolism. That is terrible for everything."
"I know we wanna cheat the system as Americans, we do," she said. "We're looking for that quick fix; it's not necessarily sustainable."
"Everything from hormones to Ozempic to fad diets to tips and tricks to what's real, what's BS. And I am really honest with my community," she continued.
"If any of us think that we're going to go take a prescription, and it's going to solve all of our problems, and we're gonna be able to stay on that, we're in big trouble," she added.
Last year, Burke spoke candidly about the dangers of drugs such as Ozempic.
"I think the lazy person that's turning to quick fixes for numbers on a scale, that doesn't have boundaries, that's not disciplined, that doesn't understand the value of muscle, of weight training and of boundaries within a nutritional plan, is going to crash and burn. I think it's super dangerous."
"Somebody who can't move the needle for whatever reasons it may be, diabetics, hormones, there's a long list of them, that can work with a doctor under their care, manipulate the system, bring down glycemic levels," said Burke. "I think it has some great benefits, but it requires a purposeful plan."
The Brooke Burke Fitness founder explained that she takes a holistic approach when helping her clients achieve their health goals.
"The type of work that I do with people isn't about that quick fix, that pill, that diet, that fad thing that's going to fade away," she said. "It's about longevity. It's about a sustainable lifestyle. It's about mobility, strength. For me, it's really this marriage of strength and weakness. Can I understand my own body?"
WATCH: BROOKE BURKE ADDRESSES CRITICS WHO BELIEVE HER MORNING ROUTINE IS TOO DIFFICULT
"I struggle with a lot of different autoimmune diseases, so I know how to manipulate my body," Burke added. "I know how to biohack my system. I know what my body needs. I know about anti-inflammatory foods. I know about energy. I know about cellular repair."
Burke previously revealed that she is battling three autoimmune diseases.
The former "Dancing With the Stars" host suffers from vitiligo and inflammatory bowel disease as well as Hashimoto's disease, a chronic autoimmune disorder which can cause hyperthyroidism.
In 2012, Burke shared that she underwent a thyroidectomy after being diagnosed with thyroid cancer. She has remained cancer-free since the surgery.
Fox News Digital's Larry Fink and Ashley Hume contributed to this post.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
11 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Criminalization or support? President Trump's executive order on homelessness gets mixed reaction
An executive order signed by President Trump purporting to protect Americans from 'endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks' attributed to homelessness has left local officials and homeless advocates outraged over its harsh tone while also grasping for a hopeful message in its fine print. The order Trump signed Thursday would require federal agencies to reverse precedents or consent decrees that impede U.S. policy 'encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.' It ordered those agencies to 'ensure the availability of funds to support encampment removal efforts.' Depending on how that edict is carried out, it could extend a lifeline for Mayor Karen Bass' Inside Safe program, which has eliminated dozens of the city's most notable encampments but faces budget challenges to maintain the hotel and motel beds that allow people to move indoors. Responding to the order Friday, Bass said she was troubled that it called for ending street homelessness and moving people into rehabilitation facilities at the same time as the administration's cuts to Medicaid have affected funding 'streams for facilities for people to stay in, especially people who are disabled.' 'Of course I'm concerned about any punitive measures,' Bass said. 'But first and foremost, if you want to end street homelessness, then you have got to have housing and services for people who are on the street.' Kevin Murray, president and chief executive of the Weingart Center homeless services and housing agency, saw ambiguity in the language. 'I couldn't tell whether he is offering money for people who want to do it his way or taking money away from people who don't do it his way,' Murray said. Others took their cue from the order's provocative tone set in a preamble declaring that the overwhelming majority of the 274,224 people reported living on the street in 2024 'are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.' The order contradicted a growing body of research finding that substance use and mental illness, while significant, are not overriding factors in homelessness. 'Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.' A February study by the Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative at UC San Francisco found that only about 37% of more than 3,000 homeless people surveyed in California were using illicit drugs regularly, but just over 65% reported having regularly used at some point in their lives. More than a third said their drug use had decreased after they became homeless and one in five interviewed in depth said they were seeking treatment but couldn't get it. 'As with most executive orders, it doesn't have much effect on its own,' said Steve Berg, chief policy officer for the National Alliance to End Homelessness. 'It tells the federal agencies to do different things. Depending on how the federal agencies do those things, that's what will have the impact.' In concrete terms, the order seeks to divert funding from two pillars of mainstream homelessness practice, 'housing first,' the prioritization of permanent housing over temporary shelter, and 'harm reduction,' the rejection of abstinence as a condition of receiving services and housing. According to the order, grants issued under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should 'not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called 'harm reduction' or 'safe consumption' efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.' And the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should, to the extent permitted by law, end support for 'housing first' policies that 'deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency.' To some extent, those themes reflect shifts that have been underway in the state and local response to homelessness. Under pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California legislature established rules allowing relatives and service providers to refer people to court for treatment and expanded the definition of gravely disabled to include substance use. Locally, Bass' Inside Safe program and the county's counterpart, Pathway Home, have prioritized expanding interim housing to get people off the streets immediately. Trump's order goes farther, though, wading into the controversial issue of how much coercion is justified in eliminating encampments. The Attorney General and the other federal agencies, it said, should take steps to ensure that grants go to states and cities that enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering and squatting. Homeless advocacy organizations saw those edicts as a push for criminalization of homelessness and mental illness. 'We'll be back to the days of 'One Flew Over the Cuckcoo's Nest,' 'Berg said, referring to the 1962 novel and subsequent movie dramatizing oppressive conditions in mental health institutions. Defending Housing First as a proven strategy that is the most cost-effective way to get people off the street, Berg said the order encourages agencies to use the money in less cost-effective ways. 'What we want to do is reduce homelessness,' he said. 'I'm not sure that is the goal of the Trump administration.' The National Homelessness Law Center said in a statement saying, 'This Executive Order is rooted in outdated, racist myths about homelessness and will undoubtedly make homelessness worse.... Trump's actions will force more people into homelessness, divert taxpayer money away from people in need, and make it harder for local communities to solve homelessness.' Murray, who describes himself as not a fan of Housing First, noted that key policies pressed in the order—civil commitment, encampment removal and substance use treatment—are already gaining prominence in the state and local response to homelessness. 'We all think if it came from Trump it is horrible,' Murray said. 'It is certainly overbearing. It certainly misses some nuances of what real people with mental illness and substance use are like. But we've started down the path of most of this stuff.' His main concern was that the order might be interpreted to apply to Section 8, the primary federal financial tool for getting homeless people into housing. What would happen, he asked, if someone with a voucher refused treatment? 'It might encourage more people to stay on the streets,' he said. 'Getting people into treatment isn't easy.'
NBC News
12 minutes ago
- NBC News
The next big health care fight that's splitting Republicans: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. Happy Friday! In today's edition, Sahil Kapur notes that a looming Obamacare deadline is dividing Republicans on Capitol Hill. Plus, Kristen Welker breaks down the political fallout thus far from the Jeffrey Epstein saga. And Scott Bland answers this week's reader question on Texas Republicans' redistricting efforts. — Adam Wollner The next big health care fight that's splitting Republicans By Sahil Kapur After passing President Donald Trump's sweeping megabill that included steep cuts to Medicaid, Republicans have another big health care fight on their hands. GOP leaders are facing growing calls from their members to extend a bucket of funding for the Affordable Care Act that is set to expire at the end of this year as some look to avert insurance premium hikes and millions of Americans losing their health coverage. But the cause faces opposition from conservatives who detest Obamacare and don't want to lift a finger to protect it. Some argue it'd be too expensive to continue the premium tax credits, which cost over $30 billion per year and were initially adopted as part of a Covid-19 response. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that about 5 million Americans will lose their insurance by 2034 if the money expires. The divide: Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., who represents a swing district that Trump lost in 2024, said that Congress should continue those ACA tax credits in order to avoid price increases. 'I think we gotta be doing everything to keep costs low across the board — health care, groceries, energy, all of the above. So I am currently working on addressing that as we speak,' he said. But Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., the chair of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, said he 'absolutely' wants that funding to end. 'It'll cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Can't afford it,' he said. 'That was a Covid-era policy. Newsflash to America: Covid is over.' For now, top Republican leaders are keeping their powder dry about whether — or how — they will take up the issue. 'I think that goes to the end of the calendar year, so we'll have discussion about the issue later. But it hasn't come up yet,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said when asked about an ACA subsidy extension. 'But it's on the radar.' A midterm warning: Veteran GOP pollsters Tony Fabrizio and Bob Ward recently released a memo warning that extending the health care tax credits is broadly popular, even with 'solid majorities of Trump voters and [s]wing voters.' They warned that the GOP will pay a 'political penalty' in the competitive districts in the 2026 midterm elections if the funding expires on schedule. Analysis by Kristen Welker The Jeffrey Epstein saga is the political headache that won't go away for President Donald Trump, as the drip-drip of new reporting on his past relationship with the convicted sex offender and repeated attempts to deflect have only fed the story. It's the first time we've really seen Trump's base break with him to this degree. Even though the impulse to rally around their leader remains as each new story breaks, no matter how Trump tries to change the subject, the calls for his administration to release more information from the Epstein files are only growing louder. The issue transcends politics — it's a devastating reminder of the victims of the crimes committed by Epstein and those who enabled him. As far as how it's playing out on Capitol Hill, Democrats and even some Republicans are trying to hold the Trump administration's feet to the fire. Both parties believe the GOP could pay a political price on the issue as they look to defend their congressional majorities in next year's midterms. That includes Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., one of our guests on 'Meet the Press' this Sunday. 'People will become apathetic again. They'll say, we elected President Trump. We gave him a majority in the House and the Senate, and they couldn't even release evidence of an underage sex trafficking ring. They couldn't even bring themselves to release that. I thought we were the party of family values, and I guess we're not,' Massie said this week on the 'Redacted' podcast. And Democrats, including Rep. Ro Khanna of California — another one of our guests this Sunday — argue the issue has salience on multiple fronts. They note it divides Trump and his base while also making a relatively popular appeal for transparency, one piece of a broader Democratic line of attack that the administration isn't being open with the American people. While it's unsurprising that Democrats overwhelmingly disapprove of how the Trump administration is handling the Epstein files, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, 71% of independents disapprove, too. And Republicans are about evenly divided, with 40% approving and 36% disapproving of the administration's handling of the issue. The political cost for Republicans isn't clear yet. Will it depress the enthusiasm of voters Republicans are scrambling to motivate to turn out with Trump not on the ballot? Will it force the party onto the defense at a time where it needs to be cementing public sentiment about its landmark tax cuts and spending bill, which Democrats are already weaponizing as a key midterm issue? Could Democrats overplay their hand if it overshadows their message on the most important issue to many voters, the economy? We'll discuss this and more on this Sunday's 'Meet the Press.' In addition to Khanna and Massie, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., will also be joining us. Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on Republicans' attempts to draw new congressional maps in Texas. 'Is it legal what Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Republicans want to do for Trump?' To answer that, we turned to senior politics editor Scott Bland. Here's his response: Redistricting happens every decade after the decennial census, so that each state has representation in the House of Representatives reflecting its official population and each district in a state has the same number of people in it. But this isn't the first time someone has moved to change the maps mid-decade. In fact, this isn't even the first time it's happened in Texas. In 2002, Texas Republicans gained full control of the state Legislature, and they decided the following year to draw a new map to replace a court-drawn one that had been imposed for that decade — and to increase the GOP advantage in the state. 'I'm the majority leader and we want more seats,' Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told reporters at the time. What flies in Texas doesn't necessarily fly everywhere, though. Colorado Republicans also tried to redraw maps in their state in 2003, but the state Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution forbade revisiting the maps more than once per decade. While Democrats are eager to fight back against the GOP's effort to draw more red seats in Texas, such obstacles could stand in their way. As New York Democratic Party Chair Jay Jacobs told Politico this week, 'I understand those in New York who are watching what's happening in Texas and Ohio want to offset their unfair advantage.' But, he added, 'The [state] Constitution seems pretty clear that this redistricting process should be done every 10 years.'
New York Post
41 minutes ago
- New York Post
Sorry, New York: West Virginia won't clean up your climate mess
West Virginians mined the coal that forged the steel that built New York City. The Empire State Building, the Brooklyn Bridge, even the subway — none of these iconic landmarks would exist without the blood and sweat of West Virginia coal miners. West Virginia still powers the nation, supplementing its coal production with oil and natural gas. An overview of the city is seen on Wednesday, May 31, 2023, in Welch, McDowell County, West Virginia. AP But New York elites want to punish West Virginians for doing the very jobs that provide them so much comfort in their ivory towers. The Climate Change Superfund Act, which the Democrat-run state Legislature passed and Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law in December, imposes liability on energy producers for doing just that — producing energy. It declares that carbon emissions cause climate change, and are therefore to blame for any and every undesirable weather condition the state faces. New York's state government has bungled disaster response time and again. Its politicians want someone to blame, and they chose the energy industry. They chose wrong. West Virginians don't back down. And we won't allow political elites to serve as judge, jury and executioner against the industry that employs thousands of West Virginia coal miners and gas and oil technicians and operators. New York's law imposes strict liability on any company producing a certain, arbitrary amount of carbon emissions, to be determined by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. Worse, the law targets past emissions, punishing producers retroactively for lawfully running their businesses. One World Trade Center rises amongst the downtown Manhattan skyline in New York City, U.S., July 22, 2025. REUTERS The DEC doesn't have to find fault. It doesn't have to file a lawsuit and convince a judge or jury that a particular energy producer caused specific harm to New York. No, the law declares energy producers to be automatically 'responsible' just because politicians say so. That's not justice, and it's not the rule of law. That's authoritarian bureaucrats picking winners and losers. And the losers will be many. The statute requires energy producers to pay $75 billion to the state of New York — money that could be spent on salaries and benefits for workers, or for new infrastructure projects to make everyone's energy more affordable. That $75 billion loss will cause three things: job loss, higher prices at the pump and higher utility bills — hurting hardworking Americans across the board, New Yorkers included. The only winners are the political elites who aim to bend America to their radical agenda, no matter the cost. Fortunately, the United States Constitution has something to say about this lawlessness. For starters, it prohibits any state from unduly regulating commerce in another state. West Virginia can't tell Idaho potato farmers how to harvest their spuds — and New York can't tell West Virginia energy companies how to mine coal or extract gas and oil. The Constitution also doesn't allow states to come up with their own regulatory schemes when the federal government has rules controlling specific conduct, especially in areas of unique federal interest. The US Environmental Protection Agency regulates greenhouse-gas emissions; New York doesn't have that power. So New York can't go back in time and penalize energy production in other states that the EPA said was lawful. In fact, a federal appellate court ruled against New York City when it tried to do much the same thing just a few years ago. On top of that, the law is simply unfair. Our country was founded on the principle of due process of law. Every citizen has the right to be heard, and every citizen has the right to conform their conduct to the law. New York's law takes away those rights. Imagine a state lowering the highway speed limit from 65 to 55 miles per hour — then ticketing you for going 65 last year. That's what this law does to energy producers, slammed with a staggering $75 billion fine by unelected backroom bureaucrats without any meaningful chance to defend themselves. It blatantly offends the Constitution and the fundamental sense of fairness that has existed in our country for 250 years. That's why I, along with 21 other state attorneys general, three energy trade associations and one energy company, have sued the New York politicians responsible for implementing the Climate Change Superfund Act. Our coalition is asking a federal court to issue an injunction stopping this unconstitutional overreach that would wreck our nation's power grid and put thousands of Americans out of work. New York's political elites may think they can seize control of America's energy industry, but we won't allow them to go unchecked. This is a fight for America's energy independence, for American jobs and for the rule of law. West Virginia won't go quietly. J.B. McCuskey is the attorney general of West Virginia.
