Group dining while on GLP-1s? It's complicated.
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.
Get Winter Soup Club
A six-week series featuring soup recipes and cozy vibes, plus side dishes and toppings, to get us all through the winter.
Enter Email
Sign Up
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.'
Advertisement
Morgan Stanley Research analysts estimate that 24 million people, or 7 percent 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.
Advertisement
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 and a wine and spirits publicist 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.
Advertisement
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 normalize 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 wine,' he said. 'We are seeing that re-created with food.'
Advertisement
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.
Emerging research shows GLP-1s may also curb one's appetite for alcohol. Del Carmen, 31, said some of her friends on the drugs cannot have more than one or two drinks without getting violently ill, which helps her drink less. 'They are the opposite of the one friend who eggs you on to drink more or have one more martini.'
Advertisement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Weight loss drugs like Ozempic could mess with your birth control — and get you pregnant
A UK watchdog is urging women on GLP-1 weight-loss drugs like Ozempic and Mounjaro to use effective forms of birth control after receiving more than 40 pregnancy-related reports linked to the medications. The warning comes as women flood social media with stories of their so-called 'Ozempic babies' — including surprise pregnancies while on the pill. Trying to shed pounds, not grow a baby bump? Here's what you need to know about GLP-1s, pregnancy and the best contraception options to stay protected. 4 Studies show that at least one in eight US adults have tried GLP-1s. íÅí°íâ¬í¸í½í° íâíµí¼íµíËí°í¾ – What's in your GLP-1? Several GLP-1 drugs dominate the market, including Ozempic and Wegovy. Both contain semaglutide, an active ingredient that mimics a natural hormone in the body that boosts insulin production, slows digestion and curbs appetite. Then there's Saxenda and Victoza, powered by liraglutide, which functions in a similar way. Newer drugs like Mounjaro and Zepbound rely on tirzepatide, a key ingredient that targets a second hormone involved in appetite and blood sugar control. A surprise side effect While gastrointestinal symptoms like nausea, vomiting and diarrhea are common with GLP-1s, the surprise side effect making waves is unexpected pregnancy. The UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has received 28 reports related to pregnancy in patients on tirzepatide, and nine each for semaglutide and liraglutide. 4 Women on tirzepatide-based GLP-1s should use barrier contraception. nenetus – In an alert this week, the agency warned that tirzepatide may reduce the effectiveness of oral contraceptives, especially in women with higher body weight. As a result, it recommended using barrier methods like condoms while on drugs like Mounjaro. So far, there's no evidence that GLP-1s affect non-oral birth control like IUDs, implants, patches, or rings, according to the UK's Faculty of Reproductive Healthcare. And yes, the advice applies even to women previously told they were infertile. GLP-1s have been shown to boost fertility by aiding weight loss, reducing inflammation and improving insulin sensitivity — leading some to conceive just months after starting treatment. 4 GLP-1 agonists can increase your fertility, but they can also interfere with pregnancy. Louis-Photo – Can you take GLP-1s while pregnant? Experts say no — at least not yet. There's not enough data to confirm whether GLP-1s are safe during pregnancy. While a some human studies suggests there is no harm in first-trimester use, testing in animals has shown the drugs could increase the risk of miscarriage and birth defects. 4 Scientists are still working to understand whether GLP-1s can negatively impact a developing fetus. Evrymmnt – Another reason to skip GLP-1s while pregnant: they suppress your appetite and can trigger gastrointestinal issues, which may lead to nutrient deficiencies that impact fetal development. The drugs should also be avoided during breastfeeding, since there's not enough research to confirm safety for infants. Trying to conceive? Here's the timeline If you're planning to get pregnant, the MHRA recommended stopping GLP-1s before you start trying to conceive and giving your body time to clear the drugs. For semaglutide users, that means quitting at least two months ahead. If you're on tirzepatide, stop one month before trying. Liraglutide clears the system faster, so you can stop right before you start trying to conceive.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety.
