I made it clear a few times that the kibble is meant as an analogy.
And I am satisfied with the bars however the price ranges makes it out of reach for many of us that do not want nor can pay thrice the amount of what it would normally cost to make traditional food from the supermarket or the powder for example.
I even suggested a possibility on how this could be solved with but I mean a company might have more insight knowledge on how such a product can be developed.
The Huel H&S differs greatly in consistency of solidness, chewing required and bite force, some need more chewing than others. I have not yet tried all but the ones I did, two bags now of different flavours, did not meet my standard at all for chewing. It was more like baby food in consistency.
I agree, Huel is innovative and a great company and I am happy with what it already has achieved and how it listens to it customers but as you mentioned earlier
This is what I referred to with preventing innovation based on fear of loss of face, scrutiny or mockery prevent.
Which I can understand. Such a new product should not be made to resemble animal foods as this can off-put many new customers and cause harm to the image of a company however it was to give an idea of what can be achieved and perhaps it can be developed in cookies or brownie format.
Not at all illogical. If you have two meals of Huel 800 kcal. You now need to figure out how much you need to eat to reach your caloric goals and also make sure that you rechieve all the nutrients one needs. We know that Huel claims to be 100% Nutritionally complete at 2000 kcal so if you have 2 meals that supposedly means depending on which nutrient we are speaking that you are at least half way.
Now it is your job to figure it out for the rest of your diet.
Consider that the average iq is 100 and a lot of older people are not that good at navigating themselves tech-wise or simply as Huel is targeted for busy individuals and they simply do not have time to type in every food item into an app…
On the other side a government formulated diet has already been approved and by entering your age, weight, gender etc. you receive a diet based on your own needs instead of just having 100% complete at 2000 kcal which might not necessarily work with senile, smaller, sedentary people that have lower caloric needs
I actually suggested the opposite. Government agencies have developed diet plans in a simple format to the general public for improved health and longevity.
Now if you sway away from that diet plan it now rests on the individual to make sure that he receives everything he needs and not exactly convenience.
I have already addressed this point in my previous point in this message.
Again, Huel is targeted to convenience and saving time. If you can avoid having to prepare food and calculate your dietary needs that saves time.
If you eat Huel once or twice it now has taken that convenience factor away by having you need to calculate a diet with one/two Huel meals incorporated into it to ensure all nutrients are received and a healthy diet is acquired.
What I referred to is variety in the powder 3.0 singled out as well as the Black edition or bar alone.
If you look at the ingredients list of Black edition and check all the flavours they all contain nearly identical ingredients. So if you were to consume the Black edition 100% and not any other Huel products that would mean no variety.
As opposed to pet foods that have different ingredient lists for their flavours.
I have not yet looked at the ingredients list of H&S but looking at how you get served a different dish with each flavour I assume that this comes the closest of variety in one single product line-up namely H&S exclusively.
Sure but 4-10 people and for a few weeks is really meager. I cannot consider a proper study or to find comfort from it that long-term Huel usage would not negatively affect my health or longevity. so to say that Huel did not find any potential negative consequences being on a Huel diet 100% for only a weeks based on ~ 10 people is not qualitative. Hence why I suggested such a claim or inference can only be made based on a proper study and test group size during a long enough period of time.
Analogies exist for a reason.
I can understand but the article suggests or infers that Huel is safe for long-term usage if consumed 100% of the time and this is why I am so worried about this infernce based on a few test subjects for a few weeks.
If such a claim or inference is made it should be based on proper scientific research.