Adjusting Huel for lower carbs - 2 recipes

Some Huelers desire lower carbs with a higher proportion of protein or fat. I have devised two easy recipes where you can ‘hack’ Huel to around 20% carbs by adding other ingredients. One recipe is higher in protein, the other higher in fat.

Read my Low Carb Huel - Two Hacks blog post for information and the recipes.


I like this, particularly for higher protein after gym sessions.

An idea…

Could you explore something similar to the flavour packs that cover us for this? Like… we’d buy our bags of Huel as normal, but we could also buy a ‘protein pack’ or ‘keto pack’ that we can combine as we mix things to adjust things?

Alternatively, could you suggest any recommended products to use? Or, you know, sell tubs of ‘Huel protein isolate’?

1 Like

Huel already contains excessive protein, more so than any competitor. There is no need to add more protein after gym sessions. (Even @JamesCollier acknowledges as much in this thread):

Ah ok, thanks!

Correct @Ric, there’s enough protein in Huel without adding extra for muscle gain. However, I work with a lot of bodybuilders in my other lines of work, and there are times where they like to be more flexible with their carb intake; pre-comp, for example. Whether I agree with them or not, is a different matter, it’s what they desire.

I think its not a question of whether there is enough protein in fuel or not. It’s the fact that to keep building muscle and be lean, you need to go in Ketosis state which means very low carb intake. With Huel, since carbs and proteins come in a single powder, you would have to reduce quantity therefore reduce proteins as well.
I am not in that diet and have not tried yet. But I do add some proteins to Huel shakes. I use Vega Sport Protein, plant based with Stevia, the berry flavour is actually very nice.

I left this comment on the blog post a week or two ago, but it never appeared, so I thought I’d try commenting on this thread.

James, I’m confused at how, on each of the modified recipes, 100 grams of powder can have more than 100 grams of macronutrients. E.g., the first recipe generates a powder that has 157 grams of fat, carbs or protein per 100 grams, and the second recipe generates a powder that has 156 grams of fat, carbs or protein per 100 grams. Is there a typo of some kind, or am I missing something obvious (or that should be obvious)?


@fitnick - thanks for pointing this out! I’m looking into this.

Thanks to @fitnick for pointing out this error. My apologies, all. The calculations were off, so the blog post is now revised and correct.

I hope you enjoy the recipes!

Thanks James, I appreciate the updated info!

  • Nick

What about carb loading for a long event - it is recommended around 600g/day for 3 days before the event and 150g for breakfast.

1 Like

How many calories in the 1st hack?

James, perhaps you should also point out somewhere that Huel can be adjousted in the other direction, high carb, moderate protein and low fat, by simply adding fresh fruits and veggies! Broccoli could be the best.

I guess all these “hacks” should be visible in your home page to maximize sales… :slight_smile:

1 Like

The higher protein hack has about 434 calories per 100g

1 Like

Going off the recent research around high carb low fat diets that’d be a bad idea.

Nice to see research finally debunking the whole ‘fat is the demon’ mindset.

I absolutely hammer fat into me and have done for 3 years now, had unrelated tests recently and absolutely everything is tickety boo. Almond butter and whole milk are our friends, not enemies!

1 Like

If someone publishes “research” showing that cows can fly, should we start believing that cows can fly?

If someone publishes “research” showing that water intake causes weight gain, should we stop drinking water?

I can come up with more analogies, but I think you should see the pattern here…

If someone publishes one paper then no; of course not. But if there is peer review and scientific consensus then yes; we should start to check the skies.

Your example is terrible though. You cannot compare deliberately ridiculous hypothetical research into something that quite obviously could never be true to the changing understanding of what constitutes a healthy diet.

Ok, let me defend the flying cow analogy. First, have you ever seen a cow in real life? If you’ve not seen it, then how can you say it’s ridiculous? What’s ridiculous depends on your perspective. Second, fine, a single paper is not enough. Let’s suppose there are a few 100s of them in “peer reviewed” journals.

Moreover, i think the “low water” diet analogy is much better. We know that carbs are exactly water and carbon and that low carb diets tend to cause dehydration. And we know for sure that 1) dehydration is extremely effective for weight loss and that 2) excessive hydration (water intake) can be deadly! Would you be willing to believe “low water” bullshit similar to this if enough “studies” and “research” were published?

Changing understanding of what constitutes an healthy diet! Ahah! William Banting (1796–1878) was the first low carber and he sold millions of copies of his “Banting diet”. Low carb is very old and very discredited.

Tristan, just tell me, how many calories do you eat per day, how old are you, and how big are you? If you give me an honest answer to these questions, I will provide a simple proof that low carb is harming you.