Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Charlton-Perez, Head of School of Mathematical, Physical and Computational Sciences and Professor of Meteorology, University of Reading

The review of the national curriculum and assessment in England has proposed three big sets of changes for climate education.

First, to prepare learners for a changing world, it suggests that climate education should be one of five big “applied knowledge areas”: key points of focus that cut across all subject disciplines within the curriculum.

Second, as part of making citizenship teaching compulsory for all key stages, it proposes that age-appropriate climate education should be part of primary teaching. Third, it proposes that climate education is expanded and modernised within specific subjects: geography, science and design and technology.

If implemented together, these changes would bring education in England closer to the comprehensive coverage of climate, sustainability and nature that many people in the sector, including ourselves, have long recommended. It would begin to align education in England with countries around the world, such as Lebanon and Argentina that are seeking to bring climate education into their curricula. Young people have also long been clear about their ambitions for climate education.

The review focuses on the school curriculum. But its effects would extend across the whole education system. What is taught in schools shapes the knowledge, skills and expectations that young people bring into further and higher education. The review will influence qualification design, teacher training and school inspection priorities.

The response to the review has, however, been mixed. Laura Trott, shadow education secretary, has said that “forcing primary schools to use precious time to teach deprived pupils about media literacy and climate change before ensuring that they can read, write and add up is not going to encourage social mobility”.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Climate Majority Project expressed disappointment that the review framed climate as a technical or economic issue, “rather than the all-encompassing context shaping every young person’s future”.

Jobs for the future

The backdrop to the review’s proposals is the accelerating green transition and its impact on UK jobs and growth. Without improved climate education, school leavers in the UK are likely to remain at a significant disadvantage compared with their international peers.

In some countries, such as Sweden and Italy, education for sustainable development is a universal entitlement, meaning they’re better suited for the jobs of the green transition.

The case for climate education goes much further. It’s about preparing young people for the world they already inhabit: one increasingly shaped by climate change, biodiversity loss and limited resources. High-quality climate education helps learners make sense of these realities. It allows them to build critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Importantly, they can connect their learning to real-world purpose.

And far from detracting from core learning or social mobility, climate education deepens both. Global benchmarking systems such as Pisa, which compares education worldwide, increasingly recognise environmental literacy as an indicator of quality education.

The UK’s independent Climate Change Committee, which advises government on how to adapt and prepare for climate change as well as holding them accountable, has warned of the dangers of skills shortages. A lack of climate-related skills, the committee claims, are already constraining the country’s ability to prepare for and respond to climate change impacts. These include extreme weather, heatwaves and flooding.

Ensuring that all young people develop strong climate and nature literacy will therefore be essential for both personal resilience and national prosperity. This matters for every learner, regardless of whether they enter an explicitly “green” profession. All jobs and sectors will need to adapt.

There’s work to be done, though, in making the recommended changes a reality in schools. Luckily, there is already a substantial body of work showing how the curriculum could be changed.

Student campaign organisation Teach the Future has carried out a project that systematically reviews the existing English national curriculum. It suggests precise edits to embed climate and ecological education throughout. Sustainability, climate science and ecological justice are integrated into existing subjects, rather than treated as optional extras.

Alongside that sits the curriculum for climate literacy developed by the Royal Meteorological Society. University College London has also put together a detailed policy proposal. Together, these documents provide a robust foundation for the teams appointed to draft the new curriculum.

Curriculum change is much more than a framework for particular subjects. These changes will only make a genuine difference to learners, schools and society when every teacher has access to high-quality professional development and teaching resources. Consistent sector-wide standards should ensure that all young people benefit.

The curriculum review gives the education system in England a clear opportunity. Climate should be part of a high-quality education system.

Andrew Charlton-Perez receives funding from the Department for Education. He is affiliated, in a personal capacity, with the Labour party as a member and campaigner.

Charlotte works for the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC), who are recipients of Department for Education funding to support the delivery of the Climate Ambassadors project. In a personal rather than professional capacity, she is affiliated with the Green Party.

– ref. Climate education proposals will prepare young people in England for changing careers and society – https://theconversation.com/climate-education-proposals-will-prepare-young-people-in-england-for-changing-careers-and-society-270733

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Max Telford, Jodrell Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy, UCL

The oldest fossilised remains of complex animals appear suddenly in the fossil record, and as if from nowhere, in rocks that are 538 million years old.

The very oldest of these are simple fossilised marks (called Treptichnus) made by something worm-like with a head and a tail. A host of other animals appear rapidly, ancestors of the diverse animal groups we know today: ancient crab-like arthropods, shelled molluscs and the forebears of starfish and sea urchins.

The rapid arrival of animals so different to each other (and their absence in even slightly older rocks) was a headache for Charles Darwin because it seemed to go against his idea of gradual evolution – and it has confused scientists ever since. However, a recent paper may provide a solution.

In 1859, Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species: “If my theory be true … during these vast … periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”

Today, scientists are in disagreement about when these ancient animals evolved. The problem stems from a late 20th-century invention called the molecular
clock.

As I explain in my book the Tree of Life, the molecular clock relies on the idea that changes to genes accumulate steadily, like the regular ticks of a grandfather clock. If this idea holds true then simply counting the number of genetic differences between any two animals will let us calculate how distantly related they are – how old their shared ancestor is.

For example, humans and chimpanzees separated 6 million years ago. Let’s say that one chimpanzee gene shows six genetic differences from its human counterpart. As long as the ticks of the molecular clock are regular, this would tell us that one genetic difference between two species corresponds to one million years.

The molecular clock should allow us to place evolutionary events in geological time right across the tree of life.

When zoologists first used molecular clocks in this way, they came to the
extraordinary conclusion that the ancestor of all complex animals lived as long as
1.2 billion years ago. Subsequent improvements now give much more sensible estimates for the age of the animal ancestor at around 570 million years old. But this is still roughly 30 million years older than the first fossils.

This 30-million-year-long gap is actually rather helpful to Darwin. It means that there was plenty of time for the ancestor of complex animals to evolve, unhurriedly splitting to make new species which natural selection could gradually transform into forms as distinct as fish, crabs, snails and starfish.

The problem is that this ancient date leaves us with the idea that a host of ancient animals must have swum, slithered and crawled through these ancient seas for 30 million years without leaving a single fossil. Researchers expect gaps in the fossil record but this one would be a whopper.

A popular explanation for the missing fossils is that, for 30 million years, complex animals were tiny and squishy and so hard to fossilise. And then, around 540 million years ago, so the theory goes, these tiny animals began to grow larger, perhaps due to increasing oxygen levels. It is this increase in size that some scientists have used to explain the sudden appearance of complex animals in the fossil record.

The new paper by palaeontologist Graham Budd and mathematician Richard Mann gives a different explanation for the chasm between the ancient ancestor predicted by the molecular clock, and the more sudden, later appearance of complex fossils. Budd and Mann suggest that the molecular clock may not tick quite as regularly as we thought.

The new idea is that the moment that any big group of organisms first appears, evolution speeds up.

To return to our example, for a period of a few million years our imaginary clock could have ticked not once per million years but twice. A faster ticking clock would make it appear as if more time was passing, like pressing fast forward on a video, and this would push the age of the animal ancestor further back into the past.

Faster changing genes would also allow the animals’ appearance to change more quickly. This solves Darwin’s dilemma as it would make it easier for the various branches of the animal tree to become different from each other. The first animal ancestor could quickly diversify into vertebrates, molluscs, arthropods and starfish.

The overall effect of the new idea is to bring the age of the ancestor of complex animals much more in line with the appearance in the fossil record of its immediate descendants.

While the speeding clock idea needs testing, it could explain other mismatches between molecular clocks and fossil record. Perhaps the first flowering plants really existed for tens of millions of years before finally leaving a fossil. And it could help settle scientific debates about whether early primates, carnivores and rodents really lived alongside the last dinosaurs.

For the origins of the animals at least, I feel sure that Darwin would approve.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Max Telford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A speeding clock could solve Darwin’s mystery of gaps in animal fossil records – https://theconversation.com/a-speeding-clock-could-solve-darwins-mystery-of-gaps-in-animal-fossil-records-263988

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

It is unlikely that within the first few days of a great global event – one moreover triggered by its closest ally launching a coup and kidnapping a head of state – a British government has said so little. It took 16 hours for it to say anything at all, and then, not much. And it has said not much thereafter.

So little said, at such length: the prime minister, in his Sunday morning BBC TV interview; James Kariuki, chargé d’affaires in the UK Mission to the United Nations at Monday morning’s Security Council emergency session; and Yvette Cooper, foreign secretary, for over two hours in the House of Commons on Monday evening.

This is both explicable and arguable. For Britain, Venezuela is not particularly significant. There are trade interests but it is far away, of foreign tongue; absent from domestic political discourse. The last time a British prime minister and a Venezuelan president met – Tony Blair and Hugo Chavez – was in 2001.

However, other than in times of actual war (1812) the nadir in US-UK relations concerned Venezuela. A long-forgotten crisis was triggered in 1895 by a dispute over the border between it and British Guiana. The spat elicited the equally forgotten Olney corollary – a proposition from the US government which nonetheless repays reacquaintance in light of recent developments: “Today the United States is practically sovereign on this continent.”

The present crisis similarly concerns hemispheric hegemony. It evokes the better-known 1823 Monroe doctrine, as a warning to the old world to stay out of the new. It adds resource competition (oil: Venezuela has rather a lot, much of it exported to China), while challenging the post-1945 “rules-based order” (reminding us that it was only ever convention-based) and threatening to replace it with one based largely on power. And there’s the upending of the 1648 Westphalian states system, which found fulfilment 300 years later in the creation of the UN.

Hence fears as to what precedent the president has set. Outrage at the Security Council from Russia and China was purely performative given that Trump could not have done more to legitimise their plans for Ukraine and Taiwan. Moscow was almost wistful, admiring how the Americans had managed with Venezuela in an hour what they had failed to do with Ukraine in four years.

Channelling James Monroe and Richard Olney, but with Ukrainian ally Volodymyr Zelenskyy in mind much more than either, Keir Starmer would never break publicly with Trump over something in the Americas. Canada is the exception, as was made clear in the pushback against the US when Trump suggested a Commonwealth realm should become America’s “51st state”.

Silence buys influence?

Insofar as the UK government has a distinct response, it’s that there should be a transition to democracy in Venezuela, ideally by including opposition figures. Trump has said he won’t pursue so left-field an option.

The lack of contact with the president – Starmer unwisely saying publicly that he was seeking it – is embarrassing, and summoned the inevitable clichés about puppets and poodles. The hope (increasingly more than the expectation) is that silence buys influence.

If that was not a green light from the UK, there is one red line. Greenland. The clarity of the government’s response to Trump’s predations is surprising, if the reason for it is not. Denmark has long been a close UK ally, not least over Ukraine. But siding publicly with Copenhagen over Washington is something else Starmer would not ordinarily have been expecting to have to do.

But American-led international crises have upended other Labour premiers. In 1950, Clement Attlee rearmed for the Korean War, with cuts in public spending to pay for it. Labour was out of office the following year.

The next decade, Harold Wilson declined to have a public opinion over the Vietnam war, thereby infuriating both the Americans and the young he enfranchised in 1969. Labour was out of office the following year.

The best known example remains Iraq. On the back of two landslide election triumphs in 2003, Blair split his party and inflamed the public. Labour’s parliamentary majority was slashed two years later. Unquestioning support for an American president became Blair’s nemesis.

He was comfortable with that. But Trump has transgressed the only recognisable facet of what political identity Starmer actually has: adherence to the rule of law, and international law at that. Yet he can only be mute.

The apparent inconsistencies between Starmer’s past and present can be reconciled by the elemental fact that he’s prime minister. What animated the student, the activist, the lawyer, the MP, cannot in office.

But it is that failure – that refusal – to opine that most exasperates MPs. Cooper’s fractious Venezuela statement highlighted fissures within Labour that are evident whenever the US, or Israel, is concerned.

Maduro was the kind of leader who gives leftwing governments a bad name, which is why only the hard left – Richard Burgon, John McDonnell – are incensed. The main threats to Starmer’s leadership come from the soft left – Angela Rayner, Andy Burnham – where such affairs have less salience, and the right – Wes Streeting, Al Carns – where they’re merely awkward.

For May’s impending local and national elections the impact may be clearer, and graver. The Liberal Democrats, Greens, Your Party, SNP and Plaid Cymru accept gratefully a gift that will go on giving on innumerable doorsteps throughout the spring.

The Conservatives happen to agree with the government’s policy, if not necessarily its delivery. Few of their voters will care about recondite international law. Fewer still, Reform UK voters. Almost unheard of, Nigel Farage, too, has been mute.

Desperate to engineer a narrative reset in 2026, Starmer, this mildest of prime ministers – politically, temperamentally – now finds himself faced with the so-called Donroe doctrine, Trump’s “update” to the Monroe doctrine.

It would be somewhat to understate to say that this was not the start to the year for which Starmer was hoping. As we gaze upon the most imperial of presidencies, he can only dream of a similar premiership.

Martin Farr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Is Keir Starmer’s silence on Venezuela a mistake? What history tells us – https://theconversation.com/is-keir-starmers-silence-on-venezuela-a-mistake-what-history-tells-us-272837

Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Muldoon, Associate Professor in Management, University of Essex

When Roro (not her real name) lost her mother to cancer, the grief felt bottomless. In her mid-20s and working as a content creator in China, she was haunted by the unfinished nature of their relationship. Their bond had always been complicated – shaped by unspoken resentments and a childhood in which care was often followed closely by criticism.

After her mother’s death, Roro found herself unable to reconcile the messiness of their past with the silence that followed. She shared her struggles with her followers on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (meaning “Little Red Book”), hoping to help them with their own journeys of healing.

Her writing caught the attention of the operators of AI character generator Xingye, who invited her to create an AI version of her mother as a public chatbot.

“I wrote about my mother, documenting all the important events in her life and then creating a story where she was resurrected in an AI world,” Roro told me through a translator. “You write out the major life events that shape the protagonist’s personality, and you define their behavioural patterns. Once you’ve done that, the AI can generate responses on its own. After it generates outputs, you can continue adjusting it based on what you want it to be.”

During the training process, Roro began to reinterpret her past with her mother, altering elements of their story to create a more idealised figure – a gentler and more attentive version of her. This helped her to process the loss, resulting in the creation of Xia (霞), a public chatbot with which her followers could also interact.

After its release, Roro received a message from a friend saying her mum would be so proud of her. “I broke down in tears,” Roro said. “It was incredibly healing. That’s why I wanted to create something like this – not just to heal myself, but also to provide others with something that might say the words they needed to hear.”

Grief in the age of deathbots

As I recount in my new book Love Machines, Roro’s story reflects the new possibilities technology has opened for people to cope with grief through conversational AI. Large language models can be trained using personal material including emails, texts, voice notes and social media posts to mimic the conversational style of a deceased loved one.

These “deathbots” or “griefbots” are one of the more controversial use cases of AI chatbots. Some are text-based, while others also depict the person through a video avatar. US “grieftech” company You, Only Virtual, for example, creates a chatbot from conversations (both spoken and written) between the deceased and one of their living friends or relatives, producing a version of how they appeared to that particular person.

While some deathbots remain static representations of a person at the time of their death, others are given access to the internet and can “evolve” through conversations. You, Only Virtual’s CEO, Justin Harrison, argues it would not be an authentic version of a deceased person if their AI could not keep up with the times and respond to new information.

But this raises a host of difficult questions about whether estimating the development of a human personality is even possible with current technology, and what effect interacting with such an entity could have on a deceased person’s loved ones.

Xingye, the platform on which Roro created her late mother’s chatbot, is one of the key prompts for proposed new regulations from China’s Cyberspace Administration, the national internet content regulator and censor, which seek to reduce the potential emotional harm of “human-like interactive AI services”.

What does digital resurrection do to grief?

Deathbots fundamentally change the process of mourning because, unlike seeing old letters or photos of the deceased, interacting with generative AI can introduce new and unexpected elements into the grieving process. For Roro, creating and interacting with an AI version of her mother felt surprisingly therapeutic, allowing her to articulate feelings she never voiced and achieve a sense of closure.

But not everyone shares this experience, including London-based journalist Lottie Hayton, who lost both her parents suddenly in 2022 and wrote about her experiences recreating them with AI. She said she found the simulations uncanny and distressing: the technology wasn’t quite there, and the clumsy imitations felt as if they cheapened her real memories rather than honoured them.

There are also important ethical questions about whose consent is required for the creation of a deathbot, where they would be allowed to be displayed and what impact they could have on other family members and friends.

Does one relative’s desire to create a symbolic companion who helps them make sense of their loss give them the right to display a deathbot publicly on their social media account, where others will see it – potentially exacerbating their grief? What happens when different relatives disagree about whether a parent or partner would have wanted to be digitally resurrected at all?

The companies creating these deathbots are not neutral grief counsellors; they are commercial platforms driven by familiar incentives around growth, engagement and data harvesting. This creates a tension between what is emotionally healthy for users and what is profitable for firms. A deathbot that people visit compulsively, or struggle to stop talking to, may be a business success but a psychological trap.

These risks don’t mean we should ban all experiments with AI-mediated grief or dismiss the genuine comfort some people, like Roro, find in them. But they do mean that decisions about “resurrecting” the dead can’t be left solely to start-ups and venture capital.

The industry needs clear rules about consent, limits on how posthumous data can be used, and design standards that prioritise psychological wellbeing over endless engagement. Ultimately, the question is not just whether AI should be allowed to resurrect the dead, but who gets to do so, on what terms, and at what cost.

This article includes a link to bookshop.org. If you click the link and go on to buy from bookshop.org, The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

James Muldoon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. James is the author of Love Machines: How Artificial Intelligence is Transforming Our Relationships (Faber).

– ref. Should AI be allowed to resurrect the dead? – https://theconversation.com/should-ai-be-allowed-to-resurrect-the-dead-272643

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adeola Y. Oyebowale, Assistant Professor in Banking, University of Doha for Science and Technology

Buy-now-pay-later is an appealing proposition. You get what you want now, but you delay settling the bill until later, with no interest and no fees.

It’s how lots of things are bought. The UK’s buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) sector has nearly 23 million users and was worth £28 billion in 2025.

In 2026 though, it will face a major transformation. From mid-July, its lenders – the likes of Klarna and PayPal – will be regulated in the UK for the first time by the Financial Conduct Authority watchdog.

This marks a major change for a sector that has largely operated outside consumer credit regulation – and could fundamentally change how millions of people manage their their finances.

The government says the new legislation is designed to protect shoppers, end the “wild west” of some BNPL schemes, and even drive economic growth.

So from July, BNPL lenders will have to run affordability checks. They will also need to be more transparent about terms and conditions, establish a proper system for handling customer complaints, and prove that they are financially stable.

And it’s easy to see why the sector might require a bit more oversight. A quarter of UK users have experienced late payment charges, with younger shoppers increasingly affected by missed payments. (BNPL providers make money out of this, but their primary revenue comes from taking a percentage of each BNPL transaction from the retailer, plus a service fee.)

There is also research which suggests that many people use credit cards (typically carrying interest rates of around 20%) to make their interest-free BNPL payments, raising serious questions about financial literacy and debt spirals.

But the coming protections may significantly change the market, imposing operational costs that could affect smaller providers. This may lead to greater market dominance by major players like Klarna and Clearpay, potentially stifling innovation and reducing choice.

And choice is surely what has made BNPL so appealing and successful in the first place. It was an innovative new payment method that disrupted the world of traditional credit.

Research in behavioural economics shows us that people tend to favour instant rewards and consider split payments to be more manageable.

Aussie rules

The UK’s change to BNPL regulation follows a similar move in Australia in June 2025. And while it is too early for a definitive evaluation, not everything there has run as smoothly as anticipated.

Banks, now legally required to scrutinise all financial commitments during credit assessments are reportedly advising some customers to close BNPL accounts to improve their borrowing capacity. It has also been claimed that consumers who used BNPL to manage cash flow sensibly now face barriers to accessing mortgages.

The same problems may be avoided in the UK, if affordability checks are designed to fit BNPL’s short-term, interest-free nature. Yet whether this provides sufficient protection remains contentious. Research shows that nearly one in five BNPL users are layering debt, using credit cards to fund their payments.

But strict regulation creates a significant risk of its own. Research on consumer credit regulation suggests that if BNPL becomes inaccessible, vulnerable consumers do not simply stop borrowing. Instead they borrow elsewhere, often at much greater cost.

They may turn to overdrafts with punishing fees, payday lenders with minimal oversight, or informal lending with no consumer protection.

Looking at who uses BNPL, the demographic data complicates this further. With usage concentrated in deprived areas and among younger populations, the regulatory framework will disproportionately affect financially constrained groups.

For these users, BNPL often serves as a budgeting tool allowing the cost of groceries or other essential purchases to be managed over time. Affordability checks might protect some people from overextending themselves financially, but they will also mean transactions are declined for responsible people using BNPL to manage predictable, necessary expenses.

The regulations will succeed or fail based on outcomes we can only measure later on. So if BNPL default rates decline but unauthorised overdraft usage rises, a problem has been shifted rather than solved.

Likewise, analysing which demographic groups are most often refused BNPL permission will show whether regulation disproportionately excludes the vulnerable populations it aims to protect.

Either way, millions of BNPL users will experience material changes to a financial tool many have integrated into routine spending patterns. For some, particularly those at risk of debt spirals, increased protections will prevent financial harm.

For others, including responsible users managing cash flow during temporary shortfalls, affordability checks may create new barriers without providing any meaningful protection at all.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Buy-now-pay-later rules in the UK will change in 2026, but will they offer protection or exclusion? – https://theconversation.com/buy-now-pay-later-rules-in-the-uk-will-change-in-2026-but-will-they-offer-protection-or-exclusion-263763

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Collins, Associate Professor of Nutrition, University of Surrey

For millions of people, weight-loss injections such as Wegovy and Mounjaro have felt like a breakthrough that finally makes eating less feel easier. In a few short years, these so-called GLP-1 drugs have reshaped how obesity is treated and how people think about appetite and willpower. But their success raises an awkward question that more people are now facing: what happens when you stop taking them?

People come off GLP-1 drugs for many reasons – cost, side-effects or because they have reached a weight they are happy with. Growing numbers are looking for ways to ease off these injections or replace some of their effects with food. One surprisingly simple option worth considering – whether you are still using GLP-1 drugs, tapering them down or stopping altogether – is the humble egg.

The central problem with almost all weight-loss methods is weight regain. After weight loss, the body pushes back, increasing hunger and nudging metabolism in ways that encourage weight to return, driven by a powerful physiological and metabolic drive. Long-term studies of GLP-1 drugs show that once people stop taking them, they regain more than half of the weight they lost.

This rebound may be even stronger than other dieting methods because of how GLP-1 drugs interact with appetite hormones. Evidence suggests that the body’s own release of the satiety hormone GLP-1 after meals may be reduced, either because GLP-1 is broken down more quickly or because the body becomes less sensitive to it. Hunger then returns faster, making weight maintenance feel like an uphill struggle.

Eggit strategy for life after Wegovy

This is where eggs might help. They are naturally nutritious, providing high-quality protein that contains all essential amino acids, along with vitamin D and a wide range of micronutrients. They are also the most sustainable form of animal protein and among the most affordable.

Historic concerns about eggs and health have steadily faded as the evidence has become clearer. Earlier health scaremongering around eggs has now been much diminished. In the UK, egg consumption is rising, with around 37 million eggs eaten each day – roughly three to four per person per week.

One reason eggs matter here is their effect on appetite. Eating eggs has been repeatedly shown to help people feel fuller for longer and eat less at later meals, including among people who are overweight or obese. This is partly because protein in eggs triggers the release of the body’s own GLP-1, while also suppressing the hunger hormone ghrelin.

In this sense, eggs act as a natural GLP-1 agonist rather than a drug. The effect is amplified when eggs are combined with fibre-rich foods, such as wholegrain toast, which further boosts GLP-1 release and brings additional health benefits. This makes eggs a useful surrogate for some of the appetite-controlling effects of injections, particularly for people reducing their dose or stopping altogether.

Eggs also have a role for people who are still taking GLP-1 drugs. Losing weight does not just mean losing fat; muscle is often lost too, particularly when taking GLP-1 drugs. Preserving muscle requires adequate protein intake, yet this can be difficult when appetite is suppressed and food intake is low.

Studies suggest that protein intakes of around 1g per kilogram of body weight or higher are associated with greater preservation of muscle. Eggs offer a practical, portion-controlled way to reach these targets when larger meals are unappealing.

Beyond protein, eggs provide nutrients that many people struggle to get enough of. The UK population is generally at risk of low vitamin D intake, particularly during winter. And a 2025 study found that people taking GLP-1 drugs were falling short on several key nutrients, including calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and vitamins A, C, D, E and K.

This matters because people with obesity may already have deficiencies in nutrients such as vitamin E, selenium and zinc. Eggs may be a cost-effective way of addressing nutritional shortfalls, particularly for those using GLP-1 drugs.

So this may be a good moment to rediscover the virtues of an everyday food. Eggs are not nature’s Wegovy or Mounjaro, and it would be misleading to frame them that way. But their effects on appetite, protein intake and nutrition should not be overlooked.

Whether you are considering GLP-1 drugs, currently using them or planning your exit strategy, eggs may turn out to be a quiet ally. As more people come off these powerful medications, simple foods like this could play an important role in what comes next.

Adam Collins is a member of the British Lion Eggs Nutrition Advisory Group, serving as a paid consultant.

– ref. How eggs can help you come off Wegovy – cracking the problem of weight-regain – https://theconversation.com/how-eggs-can-help-you-come-off-wegovy-cracking-the-problem-of-weight-regain-271883

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ioannis Kratsiotis, Lecturer in Organisational Psychology, Manchester Metropolitan University

Most people know what a difficult day at work feels like. It can be tiring, draining and tense, leaving you unable to switch off. But there are also days when work feels lighter and more energising.

These good days are not necessarily defined by big wins or major achievements. In fact, they tend to come from harmonious experiences in the workplace that support our psychological needs.

Research I carried out with colleagues suggests that when people feel genuinely supported by the people around them, it helps to meet three basic needs: a sense of autonomy, a sense of competency and a sense of connection.

Meeting these needs is often what makes some days feel better than others. And workers can create these better days for themselves and for the people around them with these five simple suggestions.

1. Ask for help and offer it in return

Support does not need to be formal or time consuming. A brief check in, a quick question or an offer to share advice can make a real difference.

These small interactions help people feel connected and supported, which lifts mood and motivation throughout the day. Support works best when it goes both ways, so look for opportunities to both ask for help and offer it when you can.

2. Recognise the small wins

Feeling effective is one of the strongest drivers of wellbeing, so take a moment to notice the small things that went well.

Perhaps you made progress on a task or finally completed something on your to do list that you’d been avoiding. Recognising these small wins builds a sense of competence that carries into the rest of the day and into life outside work.

3. Give people (and yourself) some space

A sense of freedom in how we approach our work plays an important role in how we feel each day. Give yourself permission to make small choices about how you complete your tasks and allow colleagues this same freedom when possible.

Showing trust in others can strengthen your relationships, while giving yourself space can help you maintain focus and motivation.

4. Reach out before the end of the day

Short moments of genuine connection can change the tone of the entire day. A simple thank you, a message of appreciation or a short conversation with a colleague can lift your mood more than you might expect.

Reaching out to someone before you finish your day can help you leave work feeling lighter and more energised. Building positive workplace relationships not only feels good but also provides a reliable support network you can draw on when needed.

5. Stay balanced

Sometimes we feel drained because one of our basic needs is not being met. Perhaps we have had too little freedom in our work, too few moments of progress or not enough human connection.

Restoring balance matters more than maximising any one need, so taking a moment to notice what feels low is the first step towards bringing back a sense of equilibrium. The next step is to do one small thing to address it.

Choose the order of your upcoming tasks if you need a greater sense of autonomy, complete a manageable task if you need a sense of progress and check in with a colleague if you feel isolated. Encouraging others to do the same helps build a team climate where balance and support are shared responsibilities. When this happens, good days become more common.

Small changes, big differences

The main message of our research is simple. Good days at work do not require major changes or perfect conditions. They are created through small everyday moments of support that help us feel free, capable and connected.

When these needs are in balance, people feel better during the workday and have more energy when they get home. Work will always have its difficult moments, but we have more influence over our daily experience than we sometimes realise.

By paying attention to the small moments that shape our day, and by supporting each other in simple but meaningful ways, we can create more days that leave us feeling fulfilled at work and refreshed at home.

Ioannis Kratsiotis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Five ways to make your day at work feel better – https://theconversation.com/five-ways-to-make-your-day-at-work-feel-better-272217