7 ms·

Yet they seem to be spending more in restaurants: > Ozempic Users Actually Spend More Dining Out. > ..In casual dining establishments, they spend 25% more tha

Yet they seem to be spending more in restaurants: > Ozempic Users Actually Spend More Dining Out. > ..In casual dining establishments, they spend 25% more than non-GLP-1 households do, the market researcher says. Data firm Numerator shares similar findings, noting that while GLP-1 users report eating out less and cooking at home more, their spending says otherwise: “Verified purchase data reveals that their fast-food buy rate is up 2%.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-02/ozempic-glp-1-users-spend-more-at-restaurant-chains-like-olive-garden https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-02/ozempic-g... (archive: https://archive.ph/V6Erv https://archive.ph/V6Erv)

potato3732842 10mo ago
GLP-1s are a fairly strong proxy for having enough discretionary income to justify luxury expenditures like eating out or whatever.
ChromaticPanic 10mo ago
Maybe a bias on wealthier households in the US who can afford these drugs. Personally, my total food spending is down 30%. GLP 1 is $66CAD after insurance.
- rootusrootus 10mo ago
  I can't say exactly what the numbers are, but anecdotally, there are a lot of "research" users buying tirz (and reta, for that matter) for a few bucks a week on the gray market. The better known sources sell out batches in a week or two, which amounts to 750K-1M worth of product (at gray prices, not retail). There's a reason you're starting to see regular news stories about it. I'm curious how these below-the-radar users skew the numbers. Maybe not at all?
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
ChadNauseam 10mo ago
Wow, it's hard to think of a better example of a correlational study measuring something that would obviously be confounded by the thing being studied. Don't forget that most GLP-1 users are obese and many will continue to be after treatment (as it only causes a reduction in 10%-20% of body weight). And they're rich. So the headline is "rich obese people spend more in restaurants than average". No shade on people taking the drug btw. I'm on tirzepatide myself.
- firecall 10mo ago
  Do we know what the reason is for the limits of around 10-20%?
  - hsuduebc2 10mo ago
    As you lose weight, your body needs fewer calories to run. That “needed amount” keeps dropping with your size, until it eventually equals what you’re eating on the medication. At that point you’re no longer in a deficit, so weight loss slows or stops.
    - doubleunplussed 10mo ago
      That is true but requires some extra assumptions to explain why people don't keep losing weight - because the strongest influence on most people's appetite in the short run is how much of a deficit or surplus they're currently in. Thus as TDEE drops, so does hunger. In "setpoint theory" there's an additional hunger drive based on whether you are below or above a given level of adiposity - your "setpoint". This is often given as an explanation for why people can't keep weight off, and is the sort of thing you'd need to posit to explain why people on GLP-1 inhibitors can't as easily get to lower levels of adiposity.
  - rootusrootus 10mo ago
    I don't know that there's a consensus on what the limit really is. Semaglutide is good for about 15%, tirzepatide about 20%, and retatrutide about 25%. Some people don't get that much, some people get a lot more. Personally, tirzepatide got me just over 35%. I never got anywhere near max dose, either, I am what is colloquially referred to as a super responder.
quesomaster9000 10mo ago
Not GLP-1, but moved onto an OMAD diet which is essentially a 23hr daily fast with nothing but neat espresso, cigarettes and water in between - although occasionally I have a small treat or sugary drink. But now I eat almost exclusively at restaurants and enjoy it, and overall it's cheaper than cooking at home given wastage with many ingredients and desire for variety. I do eat very simply though, usually south & east asian food.
- drivebyhooting 10mo ago
  How can eating at a restaurant be cheaper than at home? Could you give examples?
  - quesomaster9000 10mo ago
    Sure, any kind of non-veg protein adds up quickly, especially if you're doing 3 meals a day. Most local Indian places will do you a solid 1500 calorie meal for £10 if you know what to look for. Versus, go to supermarket... get stuck in a routine every day of "buying stuff", wanting snacks, meat, and so on adds up quickly to the point where sticking below £10 a day becomes a constant battle. It's the routine and constant food noise that really got to me, and when even a chocolate bar can be 10% of your budget for a day the decision fatigue is real. So by breaking the routine, sticking to OMAD, I lost weight, had much less decision fatigue, and no constant food noise - that was the major change that saved me a load of money, time & effort. For example yesterday I found a tiny cantonese place, got wonton soup and some duck, vegetables and watermelon for about £8
    - NoLinkToMe 10mo ago
      I don't understand the point. Supermarket food is cheaper than restaurant food, virtually without exception. But the 'routine of supermarket shopping' creates 'noise' that makes you want to eat more / more often? How does that work. I tend to go to the supermarket once a week and make this buying decision on a full stomach. I've not bought snacks or soda during this type of shopping since I was a teenager, I simply refuse to buy these things, like cigarettes or alcohol. There is no decision fatigue, the decision was made once and stuck to. The discipline required is about 30 minutes a week. The rest of the time I'm not at the supermarket, and travelling to the supermarket to buy a snack just isn't worth the trouble. This way sticking to the decision becomes easy: I only shop once a week. Then I have to cook the food (I only buy ingredients). I'm not a big fan of cooking, so I wouldn't go out of my way to cook more often than I need or want, and overspend in this way. This seems like a lot less noise or fatigue than going out for food 3 times a day and being presented with ready-made menu's of tens or even more than a hundred food options per day, and making a healthy and budget-friendly decision 21 times a week, on an empty stomach -- there's no way I could ever spend less at restaurants than cooking. I get eating out, I've been doing it solely for the last months due to travel and I love it. But I'm absolutely not spending less or eating more healthy.
protocolture 10mo ago
Doesnt surprise me honestly. I have done this too. I buy a few things and eat only a small amount of each. Like a taster.

potato3732842 10mo ago

GLP-1s are a fairly strong proxy for having enough discretionary income to justify luxury expenditures like eating out or whatever.

ChromaticPanic 10mo ago

Maybe a bias on wealthier households in the US who can afford these drugs. Personally, my total food spending is down 30%. GLP 1 is $66CAD after insurance.

rootusrootus 10mo ago
I can't say exactly what the numbers are, but anecdotally, there are a lot of "research" users buying tirz (and reta, for that matter) for a few bucks a week on the gray market. The better known sources sell out batches in a week or two, which amounts to 750K-1M worth of product (at gray prices, not retail). There's a reason you're starting to see regular news stories about it. I'm curious how these below-the-radar users skew the numbers. Maybe not at all?

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

ChadNauseam 10mo ago

Wow, it's hard to think of a better example of a correlational study measuring something that would obviously be confounded by the thing being studied. Don't forget that most GLP-1 users are obese and many will continue to be after treatment (as it only causes a reduction in 10%-20% of body weight). And they're rich. So the headline is "rich obese people spend more in restaurants than average". No shade on people taking the drug btw. I'm on tirzepatide myself.

firecall 10mo ago
Do we know what the reason is for the limits of around 10-20%?
- hsuduebc2 10mo ago
  As you lose weight, your body needs fewer calories to run. That “needed amount” keeps dropping with your size, until it eventually equals what you’re eating on the medication. At that point you’re no longer in a deficit, so weight loss slows or stops.
  - doubleunplussed 10mo ago
    That is true but requires some extra assumptions to explain why people don't keep losing weight - because the strongest influence on most people's appetite in the short run is how much of a deficit or surplus they're currently in. Thus as TDEE drops, so does hunger. In "setpoint theory" there's an additional hunger drive based on whether you are below or above a given level of adiposity - your "setpoint". This is often given as an explanation for why people can't keep weight off, and is the sort of thing you'd need to posit to explain why people on GLP-1 inhibitors can't as easily get to lower levels of adiposity.
- rootusrootus 10mo ago
  I don't know that there's a consensus on what the limit really is. Semaglutide is good for about 15%, tirzepatide about 20%, and retatrutide about 25%. Some people don't get that much, some people get a lot more. Personally, tirzepatide got me just over 35%. I never got anywhere near max dose, either, I am what is colloquially referred to as a super responder.

quesomaster9000 10mo ago

Not GLP-1, but moved onto an OMAD diet which is essentially a 23hr daily fast with nothing but neat espresso, cigarettes and water in between - although occasionally I have a small treat or sugary drink. But now I eat almost exclusively at restaurants and enjoy it, and overall it's cheaper than cooking at home given wastage with many ingredients and desire for variety. I do eat very simply though, usually south & east asian food.

drivebyhooting 10mo ago
How can eating at a restaurant be cheaper than at home? Could you give examples?
- quesomaster9000 10mo ago
  Sure, any kind of non-veg protein adds up quickly, especially if you're doing 3 meals a day. Most local Indian places will do you a solid 1500 calorie meal for £10 if you know what to look for. Versus, go to supermarket... get stuck in a routine every day of "buying stuff", wanting snacks, meat, and so on adds up quickly to the point where sticking below £10 a day becomes a constant battle. It's the routine and constant food noise that really got to me, and when even a chocolate bar can be 10% of your budget for a day the decision fatigue is real. So by breaking the routine, sticking to OMAD, I lost weight, had much less decision fatigue, and no constant food noise - that was the major change that saved me a load of money, time & effort. For example yesterday I found a tiny cantonese place, got wonton soup and some duck, vegetables and watermelon for about £8
  - NoLinkToMe 10mo ago
    I don't understand the point. Supermarket food is cheaper than restaurant food, virtually without exception. But the 'routine of supermarket shopping' creates 'noise' that makes you want to eat more / more often? How does that work. I tend to go to the supermarket once a week and make this buying decision on a full stomach. I've not bought snacks or soda during this type of shopping since I was a teenager, I simply refuse to buy these things, like cigarettes or alcohol. There is no decision fatigue, the decision was made once and stuck to. The discipline required is about 30 minutes a week. The rest of the time I'm not at the supermarket, and travelling to the supermarket to buy a snack just isn't worth the trouble. This way sticking to the decision becomes easy: I only shop once a week. Then I have to cook the food (I only buy ingredients). I'm not a big fan of cooking, so I wouldn't go out of my way to cook more often than I need or want, and overspend in this way. This seems like a lot less noise or fatigue than going out for food 3 times a day and being presented with ready-made menu's of tens or even more than a hundred food options per day, and making a healthy and budget-friendly decision 21 times a week, on an empty stomach -- there's no way I could ever spend less at restaurants than cooking. I get eating out, I've been doing it solely for the last months due to travel and I love it. But I'm absolutely not spending less or eating more healthy.

protocolture 10mo ago

Doesnt surprise me honestly. I have done this too. I buy a few things and eat only a small amount of each. Like a taster.