Black Edition, New scoop size, Reduction in amount of powder per bag?

Personally I’d rather have price per calorie. And calories per bag. Or grams.
Not price per serving and servings per bag.

I used 120g before and use 120g now.
Changing the suggested serving size and the size of the scoop doesn’t change my 120g shake.

Price per serving is irrelevant information as far as I’m concerned. Very few people have the recommend serving of anything.
If I pour juice, I fill my glass, I don’t measure out to the 200ml suggested… same with cereal, rice, pretty much anything.

Price per gram is more meaningful for me personally.


The point of this sentence is to explain the reason why cost per meal has reduced whilst the price of Huel v3.0 has gone up. Which wouldn’t be logical. v3.0 tied in a lot of changes so we didn’t want the serving size to confuse it. This sentence isn’t here to suggest you’re getting a reduced cost now. Sorry it was read like that.

Sorry, your original post doesn’t talk about this, if that was what you meant though apologies for missing that, I read your comments about the total scoops and the weight of pouches, all of which is correct on site for Black Edition and what I replied to. 17 servings; 90g per serving; which is 400kcal; 1.53kg per pouch.

I have a diet plan where I have 500 calories per Huel meal and want to stick with that so does that mean I only get 2 servings per pouch now?

I was gutted when Mcvities took 2 Jaffa cakes out of a box but soon realised they did a big box of 100 Jaffa Cakes :yum:

How so? 1710g x 4kcal = 6840 kcal
6840/400 (current serving size) = 17,1 so you are almost there

Edit: and yeah, I don’t know how to quote properly
Edit2: now I do

Absolute madness.

I talk directly about calories in my original post, which prompts you to reply:

Then multiple posts confirming the maths is incorrect not only by myself but another user, prompting you to reply:

Now you try to say there was no mention of calories and you were commenting simply on scoops/weight of bags/serving size, whilst still completely dodging the fact that Huel is selling less powder for a higher price, there is no way around it.

In all 3 threads that I’ve created over the past week or so there has been a staff member having to apologise for some form of confusion/misinformation etc.

The ineptitude is tiresome.


Any talk of scoops/servings/meals etc is irrelevant, these are the facts:

v2.3 - 1.75kg per bag - 2 bags = £45

v3.0 - 1.71kg per bag - 2 bags = £50

Reduction in powder = Increase in price.

Can’t make it any simpler than this.


When you order 5 bags, info in the shop says 85000 kcal, but in reality you get 84200. The key question is, where are my 4 bars? :slight_smile:
Is it a wank after all??

1 Like

They must be laughing all the way to the wank bank


It sounds like they are going to reduce it even more now because they are going to fill the bags with 17 servings instead of 17.6

Huel Black is even less per bag: 1.53kg

Come on @ChristinaT pay attention please it’s 17.5 not 17.6! :thinking:


The best way would have been to simply keep it the same as it’s always been - 2 bags providing a weeks dietary requirement at 2000kcals a day, clear and easy.

It’s quite obvious the reduction in powder per bag coupled with the price hike when extrapolated out over their total sales is going to make an immense profit in the long run, and is the reason for the change.

All this talk of changing scoop sizes/servings per bag/recommended calories per meal etc are diversion tactics, and judging how nobody else here seems phased they appear to have worked a charm.

1 Like

I prefer stuff to just be sold by weight.
I don’t think people are ‘not phased’ by the price rise and the weight reduction… it’s just that it’s very normal practice in the food industry: servings get smaller, net weights get lower, prices increase… that’s just how it is.
Of course it’s to increase profit. Every decision any company makes is ultimately about profit.
It does also make sense to make the serving size consistent across the range however.
And the 50g scoop also makes sense.
I don’t think anyone is ‘happy’ to pay more for less but to expect any company to not ever increase their prices is not realistic.
I do agree that the exact price increase per gram hasn’t really been advertised, but it’s easy enough to calculate.
I suppose the ‘price per meal’ figure is only really of interest to first time buyers when they are looking to compare the cost to alternative products.
To anyone who’s used Huel before, the price per meal is irrelevant as they will have their own individual serving size.

1 Like

That’s why everyone in the UK is so malnourished.

Sure, it’s the nature of business so no surprises there.

My issue lies with the false advertisement of 7000kcals per bag on the product page, and this:

v2.3 - 1.75kg per bag - 2 bags = £45

v3.0 - 1.71kg per bag - 2 bags = £50

Reduction in powder = Increase in price.

Still only me?


I get what you’re saying but every flavour weighs a different amount.
None of my v2.3 bags weigh 1.75kg

I find it annoying that it’s not sold by weight on the website.

Selling it by the serving is not ideal. Especially when the calculations are all rounded (or wrong!)

Vanilla v2.3 - 1.75kg
Vanilla v3.0 - 1.71kg

Unflavoured & Unsweetened v2.3 - 1.72kg
Unflavoured & Unsweetened v3.0 - 1.71kg

Coffee v2.3 - 1.76kg
Coffee v3.0 - 1.75kg

Berry v2.3 - 1.72kg
Berry v3.0 - 1.71kg

Mint Chocolate v2.3 - 1.73kg
Mint Chocolate v3.0 - 1.72kg

Chocolate v2.3 - 1.75kg
Chocolate v3.0 - 1.74kg

Banana v2.3 - 1.72kg
Banana v3.0 - 1.71kg

It’s an all round reduction in powder and increase in price.


Selling by the calorie suits me. I don’t really care about any other metric, so long as it continues to provide complete nutrition.

Oh yeah, you’re right. It immediately follows several paragraphs explaining that meals are getting smaller though.

Agreed that the calculations shouldn’t be rounded (or wrong!)

1 Like

@geak I like your dedication to the discussion!
Having the patience to find the weights of every bag! (Where did you find this btw? I’ve never been able to find the actual weight per bag except for on the bag itself)

I do see what you mean. But it’s 0.01 kg reduction… 10 grams. And it’s most likely rounded anyway so maybe even less than that.

Vanilla is the biggest reduction in weight, have they reduced the sucralose??

Personally I’d like to see 2kg per bag. Why not.
It would (might?) reduce packaging waste and packaging costs as well.

Here for v2.3

Here for v3.0

Anyhow the thread is getting out of hand, I’ve expended way too much energy on this what with my precious Huel calories now having to be rationed and doled out accordingly :moneybag: :laughing:

All I ask is for transparency and not to be fed lies/misinformation/confusion from Huel and their team.

To word the problem another way: Huel said 1 serving = 500kcal, and included 17 servings in a bag. They then reduced their definition of a serving to 400kcal and said “there are still 17 servings in a bag so the consumer is not receiving any less product” which is clearly not the case.

1 Like

So @Tim_Huel made a mistake, then apologised. I don’t see the need for comments like this:

There has been a post explaining that the price is going up because it hasn’t increased in 4.5 years. At the end of the day it’s a business. They need to make money to stay in business. The cost per meal/calorie/gram is still good value for the convenience of not needing to buy and prepare separate ingredients but still get a balanced diet.

If you are that incensed by a reduction of 10-40g per bag and the first price increase in years then maybe stop buying it.