The conversation around GLP-1 drugs and restaurants seems to have largely focused on volume: fewer calories, smaller portions, smaller checks.
This isn’t a demand problem. It’s a decision-making problem.
I’ve spent much of my career working across restaurant operations, systems, and customer behavior, and I’ve also seen firsthand how GLP-1s change how people think about food choices; I used to run an Open-Late Brewery/Restaurant – lots of late night pizzas, and a “Shift Beer” of course.
That combination leads to a simple conclusion for me:
GLP-1s don’t reduce the desire to eat out, it simply changes how many customers decide what’s worth eating.
Rewrite the Mental Model, Not the Appetite
I think when appetite stops being the primary driver, something else takes over: risk avoidance. Customers are no longer optimizing for maximum value. They’re optimizing for minimum regret.
The questions shift from:
Before (appetite-led):
- “What’s the best value here?”
- “What do people usually get?”
- “What feels worth the price?”
After (decision-led):
- “What’s the easiest choice?”
- “How much of it will I actually eat?
- “What will I feel good about finishing?”
This is why traditional levers like bundles, upsizes, aggressive add-ons will underperform with this customer segment. Not because they’re unhealthy, but because they introduce friction into a decision process that now favors simplicity.
Some Menus Are Quietly Starting to Win
Operators seeing resilience aren’t necessarily the ones leaning hardest into wellness messaging. They’re the ones reducing cognitive load.
They’re designing menus that:
- Eliminate “what if” moments
- Reduce forced trade-offs
- Replace aspiration with intention
This customer will still want enjoyable food. They just don’t want to negotiate with the menu to get there.
The Shift No One Is Modeling Yet
Here’s the quiet change I don’t see enough operators talking about:
People are choosing items they believe they can finish.
Completion matters now. Emotionally. Physically. Psychologically.
I believe that single insight explains a lot:
That’s why “small but intentional” works.
That’s why protein-forward defaults outperform upsells.
That’s why clarity converts better than variety.
The winning menus aren’t louder. They’re calmer. They remove doubt instead of adding too many options.
If I Were Running a Chain Today
A few no-nonsense moves I’d make immediately:
- One, clearly labeled, satisfying-but-small anchor item. Something that signals confidence and completion.
- Protein-forward defaults. (opt-out, not opt-in) Make the “safe” choice the easiest one.
- Menu language that signals completion, not excess. Finishable. Balanced. Thoughtfully portioned.
- Loyalty nudges that understand appetite, not just spend. Frequency and trust matter more than check size.
No wellness theater. No moralizing.
Just fewer regrets per order.
I see all of this belonging in the same category as every other behavioral shift restaurants have learned to model over time: alcohol mix changes, daily demographic dynamics, daypart rebalancing, and emerging consumption patterns that sit just outside the four walls.
That Brewery/Restaurant was right across the street from the home of the Bruins and Celtics, and we needed to be completely in tune with what was happening just outside the four walls.
Something else just came to mind….living in a legal state with a growing number of cannabis dispensaries, it’s hard not to acknowledge that adjacent behaviors, quietly and indirectly, continue to shape the same demand equation. Is there a “Munchie Economy” balancing this out?
For more insights like this, subscribe to our blog here:
