How GLP-1 weight loss drugs like Ozempic are changing restaurant culture
Michael Foote was at dinner with three friends at Soothr, a Thai restaurant in the East Village of Manhattan, when he looked up and noticed he was the only one eating.
'We had all ordered all this food, and we were all sharing everything,' he said, 'but I was chowing down, and my friends were all taking these little baby bites.'
All of his dining companions were on GLP-1s, a class of drugs that are increasingly used for weight loss. Most people who take them report feeling hungry less often, and when they do eat, they can feel extremely full after a few bites.
Foote, a lawyer, said that the majority of his friends are on these medications, creating a new dynamic when they go out to eat.
They usually order appetizers and entrees to share; his friends will take a few bites, and he will finish the rest. 'I am a 6-foot-4, 210-pound guy, and I get quite hungry,' said Foote, 36, with a laugh.
They still dine out often, 'even though it's a complete charade for them.' As long as they still split the bill — which they usually do — he is fine with the arrangement. 'I think if I were a more self-conscious person, I would care that I was the only person being a little Miss Piggy over here,' he said. 'But I love food. Some people eat to live. I love to eat.'
Morgan Stanley Research analysts estimate that 24 million people, or 7 per cent of Americans, will be taking a GLP-1 by 2035. As weight-loss drugs soar in popularity, diners on and off them are wrestling with a number of restaurant etiquette quandaries, and in some cases changing their dining habits as a result.
Diners on GLP-1s are figuring out which types of restaurants they feel comfortable visiting; how to leave food on their plates without insulting the chef or their dining companions; and how to get the most value out of the experience. Those not on the drugs are contending with the pros and cons of going out with people who don't do much eating.
'There is a social component to this,' said David Wiss, a nutritionist in Los Angeles with a doctorate in public health. 'We are in a period of flux and change, and people are learning how to navigate this.'
Nine months ago, Will Farmer, a talent agent in London, started taking the diabetes drug Mounjaro, a GLP-1 that many have used off-label to lose weight. Shortly after, he went to a 10-course tasting meal for a work event and could only eat a little of each course. 'I was eating a quarter of a Scotch egg,' he said. The restaurant emailed the event's host to ask if everything was OK. 'They were worried I found the food disgusting,' said Farmer, 34.
Now he eats only at restaurants that serve family-style dishes or small plates so it isn't as obvious when he doesn't finish his food. 'If you go to a steak restaurant, it's weird if you leave most of it,' he said. 'But when we are all sharing, the food disappears and it's not this individual shame of leaving food behind.'
As a self-described foodie in New York City, Lauren Wire loves to go out to eat and order a lot of dishes. 'I want to try everything,' she said.
But as soon as she sits down, she warns everyone from the server to her dining companions that she is on a GLP-1. 'The chef might come out to say hi, or I might be on a date, and I will joke that I need a box because I am on Ozempic,' said Wire, 36. 'I don't want them to think I don't like the food, and also I want to normalise this.'
It's all worth the leftovers: She likes that she can save money and enjoy the same amount of food over a longer stretch of time.
Wire thinks those who dine with her and are not on the drugs only benefit. 'I still over-order, and then they get to eat more of my food,' she said, laughing.
Non-dinner meetings have been the hardest for Joseph Suchodolski, a fashion consultant in New York City who has taken Mounjaro for more than two years to treat his diabetes. He tends to snack during the day, and will often insist on having just a coffee at a breakfast meeting.
But during a recent morning meeting in Los Angeles, he learned his companion was also on a GLP-1. 'We both ordered breakfast, and we were just moving it around the plate,' said Suchodolski, 38. When they finally shared why, they started laughing and opening up.
Wiss said it's important for patients who are new to GLP-1s to consider how they might handle social situations that can arise from eating less in public. 'When people stop drinking alcohol, for example, it's helpful for them to think through how they will respond when people offer them a drink or a waiter is disappointed they don't order grape,' he said. 'We are seeing that re-created with food.'
Some people say GLP-1s have improved the experience of eating at restaurants, though.
After struggling with childhood obesity, Jackson Lemay, a content creator in Atlanta, used to feel anxious that he was eating too fast or too much while dining out. He would obsess over the menu before he got to the restaurant and shame himself if he ordered something unhealthy or too large.
After taking a GLP-1 for a year and a half, that 'food noise' is gone. 'It has made me feel more confident in eating in public,' said Lemay, 27. He has never enjoyed restaurants as much as he does now.
There are some people not on the drugs who refuse to dine out with people on them, though they were hesitant to say so on the record. They say they're embarrassed by full plates sent back to the kitchen, or insecure about eating more than the person across the table.
But Nathaly del Carmen loves being around people with smaller appetites. Her mother, sister and many of her friends are on GLP-1s, and she estimates that at least one person at her table is on them whenever she dines out.
Del Carmen, a marketing manager in New York, said she finds herself mirroring the behavior of those on the drugs, which means she eats less and doesn't feel pressure to finish her meal if she isn't hungry. 'It helps me with impulse control,' she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
MAHA report's errors are just start of its problems
Lisa Jarvis and Michael Hiltzik, Tribune News Service Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new Make America Healthy Again report offers a road to wellness for the nation's children paved not with the gold-standard science he promised, but with pyrite. The report, created by a MAHA commission that includes all of President Donald Trump's cabinet members, mixes nuggets of truth — like the idea that it's important to focus on kids' health — with gross misrepresentations of scientific research. Some of the studies are even made up. The nonprofit news organisation Notus first reported that some of the commission's findings relied on research that doesn't exist. The document, released last week, includes seven fabricated studies related to kids' mental health and the overprescribing of medications for ADHD, depression and asthma. The New York Times later identified several other fake citations. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt attributed the inclusion of phony publications to 'formatting issues' that would be corrected. An updated report that omits those studies and cleans up bizarre errors in several others has since been uploaded to the White House website. That version contained fresh errors, Notus reported. Many suspect that the fake citations are the product of AI. That alone should be disqualifying. Rather than the thoughtful, evidence-based assessment our kids deserve, the first major report on Kennedy's cornerstone initiative was a slapped-together treatise. But there's a bigger problem. If the MAHA team did rely on AI to generate supporting data — and it seems likely it did — it wasn't just cutting corners. It confirms this project was never a good faith effort to begin with. The team was assembling evidence to reinforce conclusions that supported Kennedy's well-known narrative. That pattern is bolstered by the report's interpretation of the real studies it cites. Data is conveniently twisted to fit Kennedy's personal beliefs. A recurring tendency is to exaggerate the size of the current problem by minimising the significance of those in the past. For example, the report points to a fivefold rise in the rates of celiac disease since the 1980s but fails to acknowledge a dramatic increase in diagnosis and awareness of the autoimmune disorder. The same is true for the report's discussions of inflammatory bowel disease, childhood cancer and autism. None of this should be surprising. In nearly every interview he gives, Kennedy repeats the same inflated statistics to drive home the terrible state of our kids' health. His goal seems to be to scare the public into acquiescence. If the problem is this bad, if our kids are this sick, if health agencies have failed them this profoundly, why not blindly follow his ideas for fixing it? Something more insidious is at play with all of the half-baked or made-up statistics. He is using them to undermine the real experts, making it increasingly hard for Americans to understand whose advice to trust. And ultimately, his willfully misleading analysis provides cover while he dismantles longstanding norms for scientific research and health policy. In just a few short months, the secretary has wielded his authority in unprecedented and dangerous ways. For example, amid the largest measles outbreak in 30 years, instead of emphasising vaccines — which can prevent the disease — he asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop guidelines for treatments. There are no proven treatments for measles. At least three people have died, and nearly 1,100 cases of the disease have been reported. In another disturbing move, Kennedy said he would unilaterally change the CDC's COVID vaccine guidelines to preclude pregnant women and children from receiving shots. That upended the longstanding process that relies on outside experts' careful analysis and open debate before making such decisions. Days later, the CDC amended its regulations to incorporate some, but not all of Kennedy's proposed changes, leaving many confused not only about the actual policy but who sets it. We should worry that his approach to measles and COVID is a preview of how he will treat the value of other routine shots. One of the most alarming sections of the report questions the evidence behind and safety of the childhood vaccine schedule and — without evidence — suggests it could be linked to chronic disease. Kennedy has also used his platform to push policy changes on the use of fluoride in drinking water, which he has repeatedly linked to lower IQs (a tenuous claim that experts say is based on fluoride levels not used in the US). Fluoridation is regulated by state and local municipalities, but Kennedy said he would direct the CDC to stop recommending the practice and the Food and Drug Administration — also under his purview — later banned fluoride supplements based on unsubstantiated claims that they harm gut health. His rhetoric on the topic appears to have emboldened the first two state bans on fluoride in public water. The MAHA report's agenda suggests more changes are to come. Meanwhile, new research in JAMA found that removing fluoride from drinking water would result in 25 million more cavities in children at a cost of $9.8 billion to the US healthcare system over five years. Kennedy's next move appears to be wresting control of health and science research altogether. 'We're probably going to stop publishing in the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and those other journals because they're all corrupt,' he said on a recent podcast with wellness influencer Gary Brecka. Unless those top-tier journals 'change dramatically,' health agencies will 'create our own journals in-house,' he added. In other words, he'll have a ready-made platform to showcase data that justifies whatever policy he wants to roll out next. In another troubling sign of how data could be warped to fit a political agenda, President Donald Trump signed an executive order after the report was released directing a restoration of 'gold standard science.' The goal sounds reasonable enough: to ensure research is reproducible and reverse a decline in public trust in science and health agencies. But the language of the directive is concerning. It not only challenges the credibility of several agencies — including the CDC — but suggests someone like Kennedy could exploit the language of research integrity to crack down on findings that don't fit his personal agenda. Kennedy has called the MAHA report 'the diagnosis' and says he will 'deliver the prescription' in the next 60 days. Given what we've seen over the last few months, we should worry what form that takes — and the far reaching consequences it could have on both American kids and the health infrastructure designed to protect them. Earlier, serious followers of healthcare policy in the US didn't expect much good to emerge from its takeover by President Donald Trump and his secretary of Health and Human Services, the anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But the agency and its leadership managed to live down to the worst expectations May 27, when HHS released a 73-page 'assessment' of the health of America's children titled 'The MAHA Report' (for 'Make America Healthy Again'). A sloppier, more disingenuous government report would be hard to imagine. Whatever credibility the report might have had as a product of a federal agency was shattered by its obvious errors, misrepresentations and outright fabrications of source materials, some of it plainly the product of the authors' reliance on AI bots. At least seven sources cited in the report do not exist, as Emily Kennard and Margaret Manto of the journalism organisation NOTUS uncovered. HHS hastily reissued the report with some of those citations removed, but without disclosing the changes — an extremely unkosher action in the research community.
The National
30-05-2025
- The National
We should consume information like we eat our food
Before the advent of the digital age, for someone to be considered a well-informed person – knowledgeable about news, current affairs and events – was a hard-won status. It wasn't easy to have regular access to the full range of books, newspapers and periodicals we now have at our fingertips. We had to keep our daily appointment with the evening news simply to know what had happened that day. To be well-informed was, to some extent, an aspirational pursuit. The newspaper you bought would say a lot about that aspiration. Yet beyond acquiring facts or being 'in the know', it was also, at its purest, about cultivating judgment, enriching the inner life, and developing the wisdom to make decisions that might help us prosper and thrive. Today, access to information is no longer seen as a luxury but as a necessity, despite the heavy irony of it being in far more regular supply than ever before. Research from Pew, published this month, underscored this, suggesting that the questions of how 'closely Americans are following the news, where they get their news and how much they trust the news they see … are not as straightforward as they once were … as people are exposed to more information from more sources than ever before and lines blur between entertainment, commentary and other types of content'. 'People don't always like news, but they say they need it: while many express negative emotions surrounding news [such as anger or sadness], they also say it helps them feel informed or feel that they 'need' to keep up with it,' according to Pew. While it has always been true that few would readily admit to any kind of ignorance, these days you can inadvertently make such an embarrassing admission by revealing you know too much. This is because the idea that we 'need' information has led, by and large, to no longer consuming it to understand the world but instead consuming it just to consume. This claim isn't revolutionary – 'infobesity' has been around as a term for a while, for example. Like the overconsumption of fast food, many of us are gorging ourselves on information far beyond what we actually need for a healthy life. But the consequences of a data binge are subtler and perhaps more insidious. The deluge often gets in the way of making good decisions. Knowledge isn't enough by itself to let go of our bad habits. We need to want it At least with overeating, the signs of our bad choices are more immediately evident: typically weight gain and a direct correlation with health issues and the general sense of being unwell. With information overload, the links are not always obvious at first. We feel anxious, distracted and overwhelmed, but we often don't connect these feelings to our overconsumption of data. No one would argue anymore that the effects have been far-reaching, creating volatility and uncertainty across the political, economic and cultural landscape. A chief topic of interest at the moment – artificial intelligence – has us excitable and fretful as we hungrily absorb as much information about it as we can get hold of. In a sense, we are each of us behaving like large language models, rampantly ingesting vast quantities of data with abandon. But obviously, we are not machines and this isn't a sustainable state to be in. We do eventually learn to say enough is enough. Parents and teachers are advocating for limits on screen time for children and organising pledges to delay giving them devices in order to protect them from overuse. Beyond these efforts, the US state of Utah, for example, has tried to enact legislation to limit children's screen time, and many others have proposed similar moves. Digital detoxes and digital fasts are wise initiatives, and we should practise them often. But like with any resolution, we eventually we go back to our bad habits. The long-term solution might be found in a lifestyle change. Yes, we need to have access to information but not constantly. Just as we have intervals between meals to allow our bodies to digest, we need periods during each day when we take a break from consuming news and information, particularly from digital sources. This isn't only because we necessarily need a break from our screens, but because our minds need time to digest, reflect and synthesise what we've already taken in. My suspicion is that this will probably happen naturally anyway, over time. Subsequent generations are already highly media and technology-literate, and they are very aware of the risks of wanton consumption at younger ages. It won't be a straight line though. Look how we are still struggling with the consequences of obesity, despite how much we have learnt about nutrition and health. You see, knowledge isn't enough by itself to let go of our bad habits. We need to want it, more than we want to have unfettered access to information, to really experience a change for the better.
Gulf Today
27-05-2025
- Gulf Today
Boost SNAP to make healthy eating easier
Vijay Das, Tribune News Service Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants to make it harder for poor Americans to buy unhealthy food. Together with Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins, he is asking some 15 states to submit waivers to bar beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from using those funds to buy soda and other specific items. Unfortunately, this approach is unproductive, in part because it does nothing to make it easier for Americans to buy healthy food. The nation does face an obesity crisis. But banning SNAP beneficiaries from buying a Hostess cake at Safeway will not address it in any significant way. Families on SNAP purchase approximately the same amount of unhealthy food as those not enrolled in the program. Restricting SNAP is about stigmatizing people living in poverty, not helping them. A 2023 Cleveland Clinic study found that almost half of survey respondents considered the cost of healthy food to be the largest barrier to healthier diets. President Donald Trump's tariffs are expected to drive up the cost of groceries even further, especially fresh fruits and vegetables. SNAP is already inadequate to pay for the rising cost of groceries. SNAP provides only about $6 per person per day in food assistance. To make better food purchases more feasible for recipients, we need to increase SNAP payments, not cut them by imposing new rules and shifting responsibility to the states, as some Republican members of Congress are now looking to do. Evidence supports this strategy: When the child tax credit was expanded following the pandemic, low-income parents bought more healthy food with their extra cash. Poorer Americans (like richer ones) do buy too much junk food and consume too much ultra-processed crap — but the reasons are just as important as the facts. Poor families often lack access to stores that sell healthy fruits and vegetables. Meanwhile, billboards for fast food restaurants blanket poorer neighbourhoods, with images of attractive people savoring deep fried treats and pounding highly caffeinated sugary drinks. Studies show poverty leads to increases in illness due to factors including the stress and financial strain of surviving with a shrinking safety-net and a lack of decent, stable paid work. With less access to healthy food and crafty ad campaigns targeting low-income youth, it's no wonder poor families dedicate a large portion of their spending to sugary and sodium-enriched junk. One model for expanding SNAP recipients' access to better, healthier food is already in place. The Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive, launched as part of the 2014 Farm Bill, distributed more than $73 million to local SNAP incentive projects between 2015 and 2018. The program is now known as the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP). In 2019, Congress set aside $250 million to fund GusNIP. Allocations since have varied but the program continues. GusNIP has a competitive grant program that funds state and local non-profit organisations to provide financial nutrition incentives that subsidise purchases of fruits and vegetables for SNAP customers. Less than 1% of SNAP beneficiaries can access GusNIP, however. We must expand the programme. SNAP's 'Double Bucks' programme, now operating in more than 25 states, also helps local farmers and families. This program provides SNAP participants with matching funds to purchase locally grown produce. Congress should also pass the Supporting All Healthy Options When Purchasing Produce (SHOPP) Act, a bipartisan bill backed by Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville, R-AL, that increases SNAP incentives to buy frozen fruits and vegetables. If Kennedy wants to boost healthy eating, he should address nationwide poor nutrition at its root by boosting programs that drive consumption of whole foods, fruits and vegetables. We should teach healthier cooking practices. We should reduce the sticker shelf price tags of healthy groceries while encouraging buying fresh and frozen vegetables. As Kennedy and Rollins tour the nation, they'll learn that good jobs are scarce. Child care is difficult to find. Grocery stores with decent produce are not on most corners. Life is tough already, and we should help families in need leverage wide use of SNAP.
