EY-Parthenon's survey found weight management led reported GLP-1 use. We examine the snack findings, evidence limits and everyday implications.
On 2026-10-22, EY-Parthenon published findings from its third annual GLP-1 Consumer Survey. The firm reported that 54% of surveyed U.S. GLP-1 users named weight management as their primary reason for taking the medications. EY described this as the first time that reason represented a majority in its survey.
EY-Parthenon says the survey ran from March through May 2026. It included 14,883 general-population respondents, including 3,602 current or former GLP-1 users. The report examined medication adoption alongside reported changes in food consumption and shopping behavior.
For adults trying to build sustainable weight-management habits, the food findings deserve attention alongside the headline about medication use. Many respondents described eating fewer sweet and salty snacks. Others reported more fresh produce and protein, raising useful questions about how medication fits into everyday eating routines.
The key distinction is between appetite and action. Appetite concerns the desire to eat. Snack consumption describes eating behavior, while grocery shopping concerns the food available around that behavior. These are different parts of the same everyday experience.
A biological explanation would need to connect a medicine's effects in the body with changes in appetite and food intake. EY-Parthenon's survey did not test that pathway. Its contribution is a description of what respondents said about their habits rather than an explanation of the underlying biological mechanism.
In EY-Parthenon's survey, the reported food changes included:
Taken together, these responses make everyday food choices an important part of the discussion about medication use. The story is not limited to a person's stated reason for treatment. It also includes the foods they report choosing during ordinary meals and snacks.
WeightRestart's focus on sustainable habits provides a useful lens here: pay attention to the pattern without turning it into a test of dietary discipline. The relevant conversation is about appetite, nutrition and routines, not whether someone has enough willpower to eat differently.
One news headline reads: “More people now use GLP-1s to lose weight than for other health issues.” That wording captures the survey's central result, but it loses an important boundary if readers take it as a statement about every prescription or patient.
The supported finding is narrower: weight management was the primary reason reported by a majority of the GLP-1 users surveyed by EY-Parthenon. The distinction matters because a consumer survey answers a different question from prescription records or a clinical trial.
A respondent's primary reason is not a complete medical history. Naming weight management does not establish whether that person also has diabetes or another health condition. It also does not identify a medication's approved uses or measure the share of all prescriptions written for weight loss.
The surveyed group included both current and former users. EY's public release does not separate their results. That means the published percentages combine people whose treatment circumstances may differ.
EY compared its findings with surveys from 2024 and 2025. However, the public release does not provide the earlier figures needed to calculate how much the primary-use share or eating behaviors changed. Its description of a new majority should therefore remain attributed to EY rather than expanded into a quantified trend.
This was a proprietary consumer survey, not a clinical trial. The public release does not provide the questionnaire or explain the sampling frame and weighting procedures. It also omits uncertainty measures and detailed definitions of key respondent categories, leaving readers unable to independently assess representativeness.
The food results are self-reports and do not establish that medication caused the changes. They identify the share of respondents who described eating differently, not the amount by which consumption changed or whether those changes lasted. For example, the sweet-snack finding means that 63% reported eating fewer sweet snacks, not that sweet-snack intake fell by 63%.
Those limits define the appropriate use of the report: it is a prompt for questions about behavior rather than a prediction of an individual's response. The practical value lies in noticing which questions might be relevant to a person's own experience.
Reporting more produce or protein does not establish that a person's overall diet meets their nutritional needs. The survey did not test a nutrition counseling strategy or show that a particular eating pattern improved health outcomes. Its consumer-behavior findings should not be presented as clinical results.
The same distinction applies to clothing changes. EY reported that 72% of surveyed users had changed clothing sizes. That is a shopping-related observation, not a measurement of body composition or metabolic health.
This is why nutrition alongside medication remains a separate subject from the popularity of treatment. A survey about what people buy and eat does not replace an individual assessment of nutrition or health.
The snack results do not establish that sweets or salty snacks must be eliminated. They describe respondents' reported changes rather than a universal dietary prescription. There is no reason to turn the percentages into a standard that every medication user should match.
Instead, the findings can organize a conversation about personal patterns. Useful questions include whether appetite feels different, which foods remain appealing and whether grocery routines have changed. These are observations to discuss rather than instructions to restrict food.
The distinction between medication use and habits is also worth keeping clear. A person may want to understand their current eating pattern while separately considering which routines they would like to maintain. The survey supports asking about those experiences without prescribing a particular menu or set of food exclusions.
Questions about personal nutrition or treatment belong with qualified care. A clinician or registered dietitian can discuss individual circumstances rather than treating a survey average as a personal goal. Similarly, questions about medication safety and unresolved risks deserve their own clinical conversation.
EY-Parthenon reported that 94% of surveyed GLP-1 users were their household's primary grocery shoppers. The firm interpreted this as a reason the reported changes might extend into household purchasing and meal planning. That interpretation is not proof that medication use changed other household members' diets.
For readers who handle most of the shopping, the finding offers a practical discussion point. Grocery decisions involve both personal preferences and the foods other household members want. Considering those needs is more useful than assuming everyone should follow the shopper's changing preferences.
A discussion of medication and grocery routines can therefore stay grounded in ordinary questions. Have the foods on the shopping list changed? Are purchases reflecting one person's preferences or shared household needs? The aim is to understand the food environment without turning another person's treatment into rules for everyone at home.
The next useful step is research that follows eating patterns over time and measures food intake alongside nutritional and health outcomes. Transparent survey methods and separate analyses of current and former users would make future consumer reports easier to interpret. Studies testing nutrition counseling and household food-planning approaches would also help establish which forms of support deserve a place in routine care. Until then, this report is best read as a timely account of reported behavior rather than a standard for how people using GLP-1 medications should eat.
WeightRestart shares research-led guidance on weight loss, metabolism, nutrition, strength, appetite, sleep and recovery. Our goal is to make complex health information clear, practical and useful for people building progress they can maintain.
Learn how to build a weight-management approach around better information, realistic expectations and habits you can keep using.
read the blog
