The head of the Government's flagship obesity programme has made a striking suggestion: restaurants should offer women smaller portion sizes than men. Professor Naveed Sattar argues this could help tackle the nation's weight crisis.
The Proposal for Smaller, Calorie-Controlled Meals
Speaking in a personal capacity, Professor Naveed Sattar, chairman of the Obesity Healthcare Goals programme, said menus should be adapted. He proposes offering a second, smaller option alongside standard portions, containing roughly 25 per cent less food. This, he says, would be more suitable for women and shorter men, whose daily energy requirements are lower.
The recommendations, detailed in an article in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, apply broadly. They cover pre-packaged supermarket sandwiches, ready meals, takeaway pizzas, and even coffee shop lattes and cakes. The core idea is that food outlets should offer at least two portion sizes for single-portion products, differing by that key 25% figure.
The academics highlight the science: an average man needs about 2,500 calories daily, while an average woman requires 2,000. When only one large portion is available, women, children, and shorter individuals routinely consume more calories than they need, leading to average weight gain over time.
Addressing Value and Waste Concerns
Professor Sattar and his team from the University of Glasgow and Glasgow Royal Infirmary acknowledge behavioural hurdles. People often choose larger portions for better value and feel social pressure to clear their plates to avoid waste. Their solution includes a crucial stipulation: the smaller portions must be 'priced fairly' to ensure they are a viable choice.
The team believes this change could help address the slightly higher obesity rates observed among women in England. By providing more appropriately sized options, the policy would also benefit all smaller individuals, including children.
A Vocal Counter-Argument: 'Get Your Mitts Off Our Dinner'
The proposal has sparked a passionate rebuttal. Columnist Liz Jones argues the suggestion misunderstands how women experience dining out. She contends that for many, eating out is a rare 'special occasion' for which they might 'save' calories all day.
Jones vehemently rejects the idea that women need protecting from indulgence in such settings, stating: 'We want them to tempt us, lure us, indulge us.' She shifts the focus of blame for unhealthy eating away from restaurants, pointing instead to pre-packaged supermarket foods and ready meals with 'addictive, unhealthy padding.'
Her closing argument is emotional: 'Women bleed. We go through childbirth... We suffer enough. Get your mitts off our dinner. It’s the only pleasure we have left.' This starkly contrasts with the clinical, public health perspective offered by Professor Sattar, highlighting the deep cultural and personal dimensions of the debate around food, choice, and health policy.
