Lizzo and Serena Williams Break Silence Amid GLP-1 Drug Backlash—Here’s What They Said

The conversation around GLP-1 medications — a class of drugs originally developed for type 2 diabetes and now widely prescribed for weight management — has moved from clinics into the culture wars. In recent months a string of celebrity disclosures and social-media posts have thrust the debate into the spotlight. Two of the most high-profile names caught in the crossfire: pop star Lizzo and tennis legend Serena Williams. Both have publicly addressed rumors and criticism about their bodies and their use (or non-use) of GLP-1 drugs, and their responses show how complicated and emotionally charged this topic has become.

Below I break down what each star actually said, the wider backlash they faced, and why these conversations matter far beyond celebrity gossip.

What Serena Williams said — and why people reacted

Serena Williams has been unusually candid about her recent weight loss. In interviews and a national marketing partnership, the former world No. 1 disclosed that she used a GLP-1 medication as part of a weight-loss journey that led to a roughly 30-plus pound reduction — a change she described as improving her energy, mobility and overall well-being. In reporting on the story, Serena herself framed the medication as part of a broader regimen of diet, activity and medical supervision rather than a mysterious shortcut. “I just can do more. I’m more active. My joints don’t hurt as much,” she told outlets discussing her experience.

The tennis icon has also taken a visible commercial role in the space: she signed on as a celebrity ambassador for a telehealth company (Ro) that offers weight-loss programs using GLP-1 medicines. That partnership intensified scrutiny because it folded a highly trusted public figure into a medical marketing campaign — and because her husband, Alexis Ohanian, has financial ties to the company. Reuters reported on the arrangement, noting both the campaign and the optics around corporate ties.

That combination — a beloved public figure endorsing and discussing a medical treatment that a growing number of people are using — triggered two overlapping public reactions. Many fans applauded Serena for speaking openly about a medical decision and for helping de-stigmatize treatments for obesity and post-pregnancy weight struggles. Others were critical, arguing that a person of Serena’s stature might normalize a drug they believe is being overused or turned into a quick-fix beauty trend. Headlines and think pieces asked whether Serena’s voice would change how society views medications for weight and whether that shift is good, bad, or both.

Finally, some sports-specific concerns were raised because anti-doping agencies monitor a variety of substances and because elite athletes have traditionally resisted medicalization that could alter competitive fairness or public expectations about training and body image. Those points are part of the broader conversation even when they don’t relate directly to Serena’s individual choice.

What Lizzo said — denial, art, and later context

Lizzo’s relationship with public speculation about weight is a long story: she’s been an outspoken body-positivity advocate for years, and when her appearance changed critics and fans alike speculated about whether she had used weight-loss drugs. Lizzo has responded in multiple ways. In music and on social platforms she has both pushed back against rumors and leaned into defiance: in a recent Instagram/freestyle clip and in lyrics she cheekily asked, “Let me guess, is that Ozempic?” — a rhetorical jab at the tabloids and relentless online chatter. That kind of artistic response sent a message: the rumors are tired, intrusive and not her problem to entertain.

But the story isn’t a single, simple denial. Over time Lizzo has given more detail about how she changed her diet, training and lifestyle (including hiring a chef, shifting from a vegan diet to higher animal-protein meals, regular strength work, lymphatic massage and sauna sessions) — and in at least one interview she acknowledged having “tried” drugs like Ozempic at some point, although she emphasized that her sustained changes were the result of disciplined calorie control and intense training rather than any single magic bullet. Media summaries of those remarks were mixed: some outlets highlighted her denial; others reported her later admission to experimenting briefly. The net result: Lizzo’s narrative is complex, and the back-and-forth fed both sympathy and skepticism among different audiences.

The backlash: what critics are saying (and why)

Across social platforms and in opinion columns, the criticism surrounding celebrity GLP-1 disclosures has clustered around a few common themes:

1. Promoting unrealistic or unhealthy beauty standards. Critics argue that when celebrated figures show dramatic weight loss, it can reinforce a “thin = desirable” message and pressure ordinary people to seek pharmaceutical solutions to aesthetic problems rather than broader public-health supports. Some commentators worry celebrities normalize medication as a cosmetic tool rather than a therapeutic option for people with metabolic disease.
2. Medicalization and equity. GLP-1 drugs are expensive and — at times — in limited supply. Several pundits raised concerns that celebrity demand and promotion steer scarce resources toward affluent users, exacerbating inequities for patients with diabetes who rely on similar medications for medical care. This practical access issue has been a recurring theme since GLP-1s first became widely sought after for weight loss. (Multiple outlets have covered shortages and access tensions in the past year.)
3. Commercialization and conflicts of interest. When celebrities participate in paid campaigns or ambassador deals with telehealth or pharmaceutical companies, critics underline the potential for mixed motives. If a medical decision is showcased alongside a paid marketing relationship, skeptical audiences may assume the promotion is financial rather than informational — which can erode trust. Serena’s Ro partnership was cited in precisely this vein.
4. Moralizing and policing bodies. Not all backlash is purely policy or public-health oriented. Some of the loudest critiques take a moral tone — accusing celebrities of abandoning body-positive principles, of “selling out,” or of hypocrisy. These arguments often get emotionally charged because they strip a person’s complex health choices down to a single social meaning.

How Serena and Lizzo answered — words and framing

Both Serena and Lizzo responded in ways consistent with their public personas.

• Serena framed her choice as healthcare and self-care. In interviews she stressed that the drug helped her to be more active, reduce joint pain, and reclaim mobility and energy — benefits that tie directly to quality of life and athleticism rather than vanity. She also stressed that the medication complemented, rather than replaced, diet and exercise. That framing — “this is not a shortcut” — addresses one of the most persistent fears critics voice.
• Lizzo used both humor and detailed exposition. On one level she joked in song and on social platforms, signaling that tabloid speculation was beneath her. On another level, she laid out the real, mundane actions behind her transformation — meal planning, a personal chef, targeted training, and lifestyle adjustments — which is intended to reorient the conversation from “what pill did you take?” to “what consistent daily choices did you make?” Yet the media cycle’s appetite for quick answers meant mixed reports about whether she had tried GLP-1 drugs at certain times, which added fuel to the rumor mill.

Both approaches speak to larger rhetorical strategies: Serena leaned into medical legitimacy and personal health utility; Lizzo leaned into artistry and process transparency. Neither answer completely ends the debate because the cultural questions at stake — fairness, access, and the moral valence of pharmaceutical solutions — are bigger than any one celebrity.

Why these celebrity moments matter

You might reasonably ask: why should what celebrities say about their bodies change policy, supply chains, or medical norms? The answer is that high-visibility figures function as cultural accelerants. When someone like Serena or Lizzo publicly discusses medication use, several things happen at once:

• Public awareness increases. More people learn about GLP-1 treatments — sometimes in informative ways, sometimes in distorted ways. Increased awareness can be positive if it leads people with clinical need to consult doctors, and negative if it sparks demand from people seeking quick cosmetic fixes without understanding risks.
• Market and demand signals change. Celebrity disclosures influence consumer interest and, by extension, market demand. That can exacerbate shortages and drive up prices for both prescription access and telehealth services.
• Norms about what’s acceptable to discuss shift. Open talk about medicalized weight loss can reduce stigma for people seeking treatment — and that can be a net public-health gain — but it can also normalize pharmacological routes to body change in contexts where structural support for health (nutrition, affordable care, community resources) is still lacking.
• Commercial incentives intensify. Telehealth companies and drug manufacturers see opportunity when celebrities share personal stories. That can increase access in some ways (telehealth lowers some barriers) but can also blur lines between education and marketing. Reuters’ reporting on Serena’s Ro partnership sharpened questions about corporate influence in the conversation.

What experts say (short primer)

Most medical experts emphasize nuance. GLP-1 medications are effective for many patients when used under medical supervision; they’re not risk-free and aren’t universally appropriate. Side effects, contraindications, and long-term outcomes are still under study in real-world populations. At the same time, experts caution that demonizing or romanticizing the drugs isn’t helpful: the right conversation is about careful prescribing, equitable access, accurate public information, and individualized clinical decision-making. News analyses and academic commentaries over the past year have urged precisely this balanced framing.

How to read celebrity disclosures responsibly

If you find yourself scrolling through coverage and feeling confused or outraged, here are a few quick heuristics:

1. Distinguish personal story from medical advice. A celebrity’s experience is anecdote, not a treatment guideline.
2. Look for clinical context. Was a physician quoted? Were risks mentioned? Did the person emphasize supervision?
3. Watch for commercial ties. Paid partnerships change incentives; they don’t automatically negate truth, but they do matter.
4. Ask about access and equity. If a medication is scarce or costly, think about systemic effects of celebrity promotion.
5. Talk to a clinician if you’re curious for yourself. If you or a loved one are considering a medication, a licensed medical professional who knows your health history is the right place to start.

Bottom line

Lizzo and Serena Williams have both spoken up amid a charged cultural moment around GLP-1 medications. Serena framed her experience as a health-focused choice that improved her mobility and energy and partnered with a telehealth company to share that story; Lizzo used both art and candid disclosures to push back against rumor while describing the hard, everyday work behind her transformation. Both responses have generated praise and intense criticism — and both reveal why celebrity health disclosures matter: they shape public understanding, market demand, and even policy conversations around access and equity.

The conversation isn’t going away: as GLP-1-class drugs remain in demand, celebrities will keep being pulled into arguments about medicine, image and responsibility. The healthiest outcome would be more transparent, clinically grounded public discussion — one that centers patient safety, equitable access, and clear information rather than moralizing headlines.