Who’s the troll now Raymondcal? James and Julian and others have welcomed constructive feedback countless times on these very forums that they chose to establish. If you don’t care about the nutritional profile of Huel just stick to a potato diet (and don’t forget to add loads of salt and toothpaste to your potatoes). We care that Huel has a great core product but the V2.0 iteration is unusable for a lot of customers. Looking forward to V2.1.
5 Likes
Well, that’s a general description of what a troll is, based on your paradigm that there are trolls on this forum - which is subjective. But hey, we could go back and forth all day on this and probably not gain any true ground mate!
Speaking purely on my own behalf, I will be the first to thank Huel is they review the SF and salt levels. I don’t think this is a bad thing for Huel, it’s a massive marketing opportunity, because if they do amend the levels it makes them amazing - it means we are all getting behind a company who is prepared to listen to their customer base and it means together we are all striving to create something everybody loves. That doesn’t mean I want to become an owner or control the company, it just means I feel more part of something that cares about me as a consumer, and as such I will speak about it in bars and pubs and even get my nan involved.
There seems to be a few smart people on this forum, and there’s no harm in pooling knowledge to improve the drink (I don’t include me in the smart people, seriously I’ve read some posts and I’m like ‘f*ck, I don’t understand a word of that, it’s all numbers and science’).
The bottom line Ray, is that we have Huel in common. We both love the same thing. We are all on the same team, really.
The sun sets
Craig tries to hold Ray’s hand
Ray moves away, just a little bit
Craig smiles, he will be patient. For tomorrow, is another day…
1 Like
This is not directed at you personally as you reply is very reasoned but there is considerable difference between forum users.
Some ask questions, others demand answers. Some wait, some goad.
This is the only product I have bought into that has this debating ability. If I bought something from [insert supermarket] and I didn’t like it I didn’t buy it again. I did not openly demand it changed. I did not pick apart labelling. I did not correct upper case and lowercase typo’s.
Buy Huel or don’t buy Huel. Some are voting with their feet so to speak but what are people buying into as alternatives? Is there a return to mass processed rubbish with questionable levels of everything without it being questioned?
I am not suggesting that every version of Huel is absolute and correct, tweaks are made, mistakes will occur but this is not life long.
Has anyone watched master chef or other cooking programs and witnessed the handfuls of ‘seasoning’ (salt) unmeasured and used in recipies? And people follow and copy. Do people question the levels of seasoning when out for a meal? Do restaurants publish sodium and salt? Do you demand answers of these?
It’s ok to question but the demanders are just draining. I have witnessed posters asking question on one day and because of lack of reply next day making bold sweeping statements about how the lack of reply can be interpreted as a statement in itself.
Huel have promised a response and I’m waiting for that with patience.
As paying customers we can choose to procure more or not. We are not in charge of the formula, we can state liked or not, we cannot make demand. We can comment and suggest. We are not tied into long term. We are not in contract.
How many do not like or like is only measurable by the company, no forum user can suggest every customer does not like v2.
7 Likes
Agree with all of that JJMC! Makes sense.
Also agree, the posts about typo’s etc can be too much. And yes, there are likely variations in how people come across when using a keyboard to express their thoughts on the internet. And indeed, there will be plenty of people who like the changes along with those who don’t.
I too look forward to the response; I guess the passion that can be perceived as demanding can also be perceived as love for Huel. Which can be a good thing too. The people behind Huel have made a product that is so good, people care about it enough to debate it on the internet. That’s no easy feat, and should be cause to celebrate.
2 Likes
Well if Huel lowered the salt content they wouldn’t lose any customers or put any new customers off, as the customer (as with any other food) would add their own salt.
If Huel removed fluoride they wouldn’t lose any customers or put any new customers off, as the customers would use toothpaste with fluoride if they wished.
So by removing these things Huel be saving money, not be putting prospective customers off or losing current customers.
Unless we are saying the bulk of Huels customer base demands they get fluoride not from their toothpaste but from their food and they absolutely will not add salt to their liking but have Huel do it for them, which doesn’t make sense.
5 Likes
The mistake before was that people wanted Huel to increase salt content, without stating by how much to increase salt or to what level to increase the salt. Hence Huel increased the salt to 6.4g per day and said that’s what we wanted - an increase.
Given that we do not wish to repeat mistakes, we should state by how much Huel should decrease salt content, or to exactly what level should Huel decrease salt content. Just saying “decrease salt” might unfortunately lead to them e.g. decreasing salt level to 0.5g per day, which would be too little - and them saying that it’s what we wanted.
Well from what I saw 1 person asked for the salt to be increased.
The answer from Huel should have been “add salt as required” not Huel themselves blanket adding salt.
A bit like, Huel is too runny, so Huel up the Gum Arabic content instead of saying “use more or less water as required”
Or others posting saying “bits in the bottom” when the answer is shake to bottle.
Catering for people who cant think for themselves isnt Huels job. Perhaps they could create a page with life basics like, shake bottle, add salt, use less water, brush teeth etc or maybe in the 10 years they will be sending someone in the box to administer Huel to customers who are just sat like baby sparrows with their mouths open waiting to be fed because they’re incapable of doing anything.
3 Likes
What exactly do you think a forum is for? Is it to allow the customers to give their opinions or so they can rain down unconditional praise on the company and keep their concerns to themselves? If people don’t like the changes, and stop buying it, don’t you think Huel would like to understand precisely why customers chose to do this? Isn’t that exactly what customers are doing right here in this thread?
5 Likes
Wasn’t that actually an ad-hominem filled whine too? Just sayin’.
Huel have INVITED their customers to be involved in the development of their product by having a public forum and this is the whole point of it, so that they can get feedback and have a discussion with what their customers really want.
Or maybe they should just close the forum completely and do A-B testing on all new developments and see which variations sell most without the need for any discussion?
I’d say open discussion is more productive and friendlier, even with the inevitable occasional name calling that seems to happen when people express their opinion.
1 Like
A fact, eh? 6 percent? 6 percent of what?
It appears you don’t have much of an understanding of the topic at hand.
You are clearly spreading what is unknown to you, certainly not facts, so I guess that means you’re spreading fear.
The first step is to educate yourself. Only then should you post what you claim to be “facts”.
…about to head out Eldrin, but please educate me if I am wrong. I’m not here to shout and defend ego etc, just concerned about the salt intake. On the back of the Huel packet, it reads “% GDA Salt 106%” (which to me is saying that it’s over the 100% intake)- it also reads on the back of the packet 6.4g per day (which I believe to be daily allowance).
The back of the packet also informs me that the 106% is “**EU Reference intake of an average adult per day” - so Huel are also saying they recognise that Huel 2.0 is over the RDA. Every website I have read, including British Heart Foundation, NHS etc, says the RDA for an adult is 6g, and I’m assuming these websites have based their conclusion on some sort of science or evidence.
I don’t claim to be a scientist, if the RDA is not 6%, please explain and reference your sources and I’ll change my stance. Though, to me, Huel 2.0 still leaves a salty aftertaste in my mouth. Highly reminiscent of a night in Amsterdam back in '98, which I can’t tell more about for legal, and pride, reasons.
My posts are not personal, I have loved all previous versions of Huel. I am sure I will love future versions of Huel, I’m just not particularly keen on this one. If you like this one, that’s great, I’m happy for you and it’s OK for people to be different.
I agree, I found it required more shaking to mix V2 to get rid of gloopy bits, my first taste had lots of lumps, and it seemed thicker than 1.2. Not keen on the new version as yet. I used to look forward to my Huel lunch but with V2 it’s not something I look forward to 
3 Likes
That is incorrect. The RDA is not 6g of salt per day. The 6g of salt per day was claimed as the maximum safe limit (not a target recommended value) of salt consumption per day in EU, and is an outdated value.
The RDA, as recognized by the most trusted organizations on this planet is 1.5g of Sodium per day (which is 3.75g of salt per day). This recommendation is the same even for people who are moderately active.
The maximum safe limit is 2.3g of Sodium per day (which is 5.75g of salt per day) - anything above this safe limit is proven to cause irreversible health damage when consumed over a long time.
Huel contains 2.56g of Sodium per day (which is 6.4g of salt per day). This is 171% of the RDA, and 11% above the maximum safe limit.
Make your own conclusion about Huel from this.
Edit 1: To make it perfectly clear, for future reference, I would not advise Huel to lower Sodium levels below 1.5g per day (equivalent to 3.75g of salt per day).
Edit 2: For those who’d like to know my personal opinion, I would be perfectly happy with 3.75g to 4.50g of salt per day, or even higher if it is based on scientific evidence that even higher is better. I can always add more if I need it, but I can never remove it from Huel once it’s there.
Edit 3: For those who claim Huel is just following some EU values - we already know many of the EU values are plain wrong, and Huel already follows better practices with e.g. Vitamin D. EU recommends 5μg per day, Huel has 15μg per day, and the latest recommendations are 25μg per day. These values are based on consumption of vitamin D3, and because Huel contains vitamin D2 instead, it should include even more than 25μg per day, but that is a discussion for another time.
Edit 4: Huel v1.2 contained 1.36g of Sodium per day (which is 3.4g of salt per day). I agree that this amount was too low, given that the label did not advise users to add salt as needed. This amount could have lead to a few users (who did not study or understand the nutritional values) suffering headaches. Most users will not study or understand the nutritional values, so the default values need to be safe.
9 Likes
thanks for the info!
And yes, for me personally speaking I would love the salt content to be around 3.75-4ish…that would be fab.
EDIT: Hmm…Eldrin you have deleted your second post. The below is in response to your second post, unclear why you deleted it.
well, it’s a shame you won’t teach me Eldrin, because you are saying I’m wrong and not explaining why. Like I say, if I am wrong I would love to know why, so I can continue enjoying Huel v.2.0!
Explain why the salt level is good then, please? I think you are being a bit annoyed with me, when I’m just asking you to explain. I’ve explained my reasoning, and it’s there to be picked at and I’ll change my thinking when educated/shown facts that state I am wrong.
Huel v2.0 tastes salty to me, and to me (as someone who does not understand how % and how weight works) it looks like there is too much salt in. But this willingness to condemn a different opinion, rather than explain why the opinion is wrong is part of the problem - when your intelligence could become the solution.
I have to go out now (wife calling me with the baby) but seriously, mate, please take 10 minutes out at some point this week and explain - cos I want to enjoy Huel v2.0 worry free, and if I’m being an idiot because I’m not as educated as you are, then educating me would be much better for me than worrying and not consuming my favourite thing!
Seriously, I’ve been on 100% Huel until recently, and want that again!
1 Like
@craigstone It wasn’t me. It was Gulliver from Huel who deleted it.
The jist is this: 6.0g does not have the same meaning as 6 percent.
But its removal hasn’t been explained as yet.
1 Like
@James has already said he is looking into it. To do that seriously and thoroughly requires time. In the meantime, there is just a lot of noise being created here. And we seem to be going over much of the same ground repeatedly.
- Yes, the addition of fluoride has been questioned. James knows this and is looking into it.
- Yes, the addition of extra salt has been questioned. James known this and is looking into it.
- Yes, many of us think they should have asked us about the changes in advance. @Julian has said why they didn’t, and it’s because they want to keep their cards close to their chest during development. Maybe we just have to accept that. Or maybe they will consult some of us in the future. Maybe it’s not really up to us.
At the end of the day, whether someone manages to dominate someone else in a forum argument will have little effect on what decisions James ultimately makes. He’s busy off looking at scientific information, and his decisions will be based on that, not on whoever has argued the best on this forum.
Meanwhile, it’s a sunny summer evening. Anyone up for a bike ride? 
2 Likes
Ah, fair enough
Then, he will read the following recently published paper:
Fluoride consumption linked to diabetes using mathematical models
A recent study published in the Journal of Water and Health examined links between water fluoridation and diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is a growing epidemic in the United States. Incidence rates have nearly quadrupled in the past 32 years and show no signs of stopping. According to the study, fluoridation with sodium fluoride could be a contributing factor to diabetes rates in the United States, as the chemical is a known preservative of blood glucose.
The sole author of the paper, Kyle Fluegge, PhD, performed the study as a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. Fluegge now serves as health economist in the Division of Disease Control for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and co-director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Cleveland, Ohio.
In the study, Fluegge used mathematical models to analyze publicly available data on fluoride water levels and diabetes incidence and prevalence rates across 22 states. He also included adjustments for obesity and physical inactivity collected from national telephone surveys to help rule out confounding factors. Two sets of regression analyses suggested that supplemental water fluoridation was significantly associated with increases in diabetes between 2005 and 2010.
“The models look at the outcomes of [diabetes] incidence and prevalence being predicted by both natural and added fluoride,” said Fluegge.
Fluegge reported that a one milligram increase in average county fluoride levels predicted a 0.17% increase in age-adjusted diabetes prevalence. Digging deeper revealed differences between the types of fluoride additives used by each region. The additives linked to diabetes in the analyses included sodium fluoride and sodium fluorosilicate. Fluorosilicic acid seemed to have an opposing effect and was associated with decreases in diabetes incidence and prevalence. Counties that relied on naturally occurring fluoride in their water and did not supplement with fluoride additives also had lower diabetes rates.
The positive association between fluoridation and diabetes was discovered when Fluegge adjusted fluoride exposure levels to account for estimated per capita tap water consumption.
“The models present an interesting conclusion that the association of water fluoridation to diabetes outcomes depends on the adjusted per capita consumption of tap water,” explained Fluegge. “Only using the concentration [of added fluoride] does not produce a similarly robust, consistent association.” For this reason, Fluegge adjusted his calculations to incorporate tap water consumption, instead of sticking to calculations that rely on “parts per million” measurements of fluoride in the water.
Fluegge used several estimations in his study, including calculations of county-level water fluoride levels; per capita county tap water consumption; and county measures of poverty, obesity and physical inactivity. Although he doesn’t suggest the study should trigger policy changes, he does indicate it should serve as a call for additional research on the important association between fluoridation and diabetes.
“This is an ecological study. This means it is not appropriate to apply these findings directly to individuals,” explained Fluegge. “These are population-level associations being made in the context of an exploratory inquiry. And water is not the only direct source of fluoride; there are many other food sources produced with fluoridated water.”
In addition to being found in food like processed beverages or produce exposed to specific pesticides, fluoride is found naturally in water in the form of calcium fluoride. Supplemental fluoride was first added to community water supplies in the 1940s.
Said Fluegge, “The models indicate that natural environmental fluoride has a protective effect from diabetes. Unfortunately, natural fluoride is not universally present in the water supply.”
Residents can learn more about fluoride levels in their communities through the Centers for Disease Control My Water’s Fluoride database.
This work was supported by a National Institutes of Health National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NIH NHLBI) training grant T32HL007567.
1 Like