Adjusting to the GLP-1 Menu Paradox

Restaurant operators are encountering a GLP-1 menu paradox: guests want smaller, protein-forward options, yet they reject menu items explicitly labeled “GLP-1-friendly.” This tension is reshaping menu design, according to research from Curion.

Among the highlights in the study of more than 8,500 U.S. consumers:

• 58.5 percent say they would choose a smaller, protein-forward version of a favorite dish if it were available
• 56.9 percent of people who say they will never take a GLP-1 medication want those same options
•  37.4 percent of consumers actively reject menus or items labeled “GLP-1-friendly,” but not the food itself
• Flexible portions (39.2 percent) and protein-first framing (28 percent) far outrank calorie counts and diet labels as what consumers actually want guiding their food choices
• 24 percent of current GLP-1 users say they regularly order from the kids’ menu as a portion workaround

Part of a Broader Lifestyle Focus

Rejection is most likely driven by social stigma and many are not open about their GLP-1 usage given the negative media and social narratives that are currently circulating, said  Rachel Buss, VP of Strategic Insights at Curion.

“The drugs are often framed as the ‘easy way out,’ which adds another layer of judgment. In contrast, ordering something high-protein or high-fiber reads as someone simply trying to eat healthier, whether in that moment or as part of a broader lifestyle.”

Buss said GLP-1 has brought those needs into sharper focus as the same menu architecture that works for a GLP-1 user also works for the macro-tracker, the runner, and the fitness-focused consumer. 

“This is not a niche, it’s the mainstream, and restaurants that treat it as one will miss the opportunity entirely,” she emphasized. “They might be trying to lose weight, but they also might have had a big breakfast or be planning a heavier dinner later. The point is that those choices don’t signal anything specific to the person taking the order or to others at the table, which gives guests a level of privacy they tend to prefer.”

Buss suggests that not labeling items as GLP-1 is likely the safer long-term choice for operators as a menu section that calls out GLP-1 could turn off guests who want similar macros but are not using a GLP-1 drug. 

“And if GLP-1 usage doesn’t grow the way many expect, or the trend fades, those same items should still stand on their own. Smaller, protein- and fiber-forward options already appeal to a broader group of guests looking to improve the balance of protein and fiber in their diet.”

Operators should position these offerings as options anyone might choose depending on the day, their mood, or how they want to eat in that moment, she added. While a section of the menu can highlight smaller or protein-forward items, the labeling should avoid medical or diet language. Instead, the framing should lean into lifestyle cues such as balance, protein-forward, or smaller portions. 

“The goal is to normalize the choice so it feels broadly appealing rather than targeted at a specific group.”

The Impact of Flexibility

Buss noted brands that successfully engineer satisfaction in smaller formats and let guests choose for themselves will be the most successful, listing Chipotle’s high-protein menu as an example.

“The items are built from the same ingredients guests already love, whether they are trying to eat healthier or not. The menu also lends itself well to flexibility in portion size, letting guests easily dial up protein or fiber depending on their mood.”

Chipotle’s business model naturally supports this trend because customization is already expected as part of the ordering process, she said, adding that brands where customization is less typical for each entrée may have a harder time finding that same balance without adding complexity.

“What Chipotle also did well was lean into menu hacks that were already circulating on social media. Other established brands can take a similar approach, using those organic hacks as a starting point to identify how their own menus could evolve.”

If smaller, protein-forward eating patterns become ingrained, the impact could extend beyond a single segment and begin to influence overall menu architecture, Buss said. 

“Operators who treat it as a side offering may miss the shift and fall behind competitors who adapt earlier. At that point, the challenge becomes winning consumers back rather than retaining them and capturing share early, which is a much higher hurdle.”

A Different Blend of Value

Like any other consumer, GLP-1 users are still looking for the best bang for their buck, but the difference is that value is less about volume, since appetites are smaller and they fill up faster, Buss explained, making traditional value menus built around getting the most food for the lowest price are less compelling for this group. 

“In some cases, consumers may even start thinking about value in terms of protein per dollar. For smaller portions of indulgent favorites that are not protein-forward, guests will likely expect a lower price, so operators will need to find the balance between adjusting portion and pricing while still maintaining margin and delivering a worthwhile amount of food. The offering also needs to feel satisfying and intentionally designed, not like a reluctant or watered-down version of a full portion.”