You need to get out more, mate. All those skinny waifs you knocked around with in the sixties are gone.
1 Like
Completely missing my points.
Multiple errors by multiple staff over multiple threads is what inspired the ineptitude comment, and I stand by it.
As mentioned myself numerous times the small difference in grams is not the end of the world, I was simply seeking a quick clarification as to why the calculations didnât add up. Only since then have I received misinformation, lies from staff and confirmation of falsely advertised products.
Saying âitâs still good valueâ is totally sidestepping these issues and adds nothing of use to the discussion.
3 Likes
I donât think any of the information has been intentionally wrong. They know what hawk-eyed bastards we are, they arenât gonna try fooling us.
I just feel thereâs a difference between a miscalculation or typing error etc to a flat out statement such as:
TimOfficialHuel:
@geak Essentially Huel have lowered the amount of powder per bag whilst increasing the price.
Sorry it seems like that, we havenât done that at all.
v2.3 Vanilla - 1.75kg per bag - 2 bags = ÂŁ45
v3.0 Vanilla - 1.71kg per bag - 2 bags = ÂŁ50
Please explain how that is not a reduction in powder and increase in price.
2 Likes
Oh itâs definitely an increase in price. But the change in weight is so minuscule that an error there is totally understandable.
The formula changed as well between v2.3 and 3, so if they sell it by serving or calorie then the weight may well change.
1 Like
Hmm seem to be missing the point again âminisculeâ or not it isnât the issue.
Try it this way:
Huel said 1 serving = 500kcal and included 17 servings in a bag.
They then reduced their definition of a serving to 400kcal.
They then say âthere are still 17 servings in a bag so the consumer is not receiving any less productâ
What is your opinion on that?
1 Like
Luluâs still churning 'em out. Well, regurgitating âShoutâ.
1 Like
How many servings was it again?
Thatâs obviously a mistake. No one would believe that there are still the same number of servings if you reduce the size of the servings by 20%.
Edit: the figure for v2.3 should actually be 14 servings, and Iâm pretty sure it used to say so. My guess is when they updated the amount for v3.0 it was the same text box that the v2.3 page uses. (I am not a web developer, but I shook hands with one once)
2 Likes
I agree that the price has gone up and the serving size they recommend has gone down
Huel have been upfront about both those things so I have no complaints other than the removal of the matcha fb to replace it with a range of ânaturalâ flavours.
The product info on the order page is obviously something they just missed and will correct so that all messaging aligns.
Honestly? I couldnât give a toss or to misquote @Dan_Huel âIts not not worth a wankâ
I like the product. Itâs reasonably priced, tastes good and is convienient and I appreciate the effort of the team at Huel to talk to their customers via the forum. Sometimes theyâll make mistakes and get things wrong. Theyâre human, they are allowed to. Itâs Tim so heâd probably been in the pub anyway according to popular rumour. No need for tinfoil hats and conspiracies that they are deliberately spreading lies and misinformation.
I have better things to do with my life than calculate the impact of a 10g change in bag weight on the total calories in a bag and then repeatedly demand explanations only to then accuse those who try to respond of being inept.
2 Likes
âTim! I know youâve had a few pints but can you update the store page?â
âErrrrrwhaaaâ
âJust change the meals to 17, then you can go for lunchâ
âWhaaaaaaâ
âNot the black edition, the white bags, k?â
âOhhhhyeeaaapâ
I like Tim and I donât think heâs drunk at work very often
I am green with envy. 
3 Likes
How many calories per lie? Are there more calories in a serving of misinformation or a serving of confusion? How many pieces of information per thread and is it higher or lower than it used to be?
The public demand to know!!!1!
P.S. @David - the âbetter things to do with my lifeâ
is entirely subjective and may include being facetious on forums when Iâm bored. Others may disagree with my definition of better 
1 Like
No idea who would say such a thing.
I think David is right on this. That explains the discrepancy re the number of servings.
As for the 10gram difference per bag, I would be surprised if after a formula change, the weight of the ingredients didnât differ slightly
Oh come on. For me the price rise is ok, I like the product and will continue to buy it, but it is all about trust. They put wrong number of calories in the shop and after few threads it is still there. I know there were a lot of changes - size meal, new formula, new products, but if I canât trust them with calories in the bag then how can I trust them with all the complicated magic inside?
I will answear thatđ I can because I read about huel more than average new user, which could be lost because of that mislead
1 Like
The info on the bag is right. They arenât the first company to make a mistake updating their website and they wonât be the last. Shit happens. Theyâll fix it. In the grand scheme of things the biggest error they have is that one of the bags of one of their products is 160 kcal fewer than it states on their website. How many people buying it will care?
Plus in any case itâs standard food industry practice to overfill bags to allow for discrepancies so the bag probably does contain 1.75kg and not 1.71kg. Anyone who has used it knows you lose a small amount of powder every time you take out a scoop because it is a fine light powder that flies everywhere.
Storm in a shaker to be honest. Itâs a non issue. No one is deliberately trying to mislead you or short change you.
@ChristinaT Even if that was the case:
14 x 500kcal servings = 7000
17 x 400kcal servings = 6800
So still short? Either way besides the point again, Iâm not losing sleep over a bag being a single scoop short of powder. Itâs simply the confusion resulting from a product being advertised incorrectly, me raising it on the forum, having the incorrect information reinforced by a team member, me raising this again, the issue being sidestepped by almost everyone, to having forum members attempt to ridicule me for badmouthing their precious Huel 
@Liath Not sure what elicited such an emotional response from yourself but no need to try and defend Huel to me. I rate it highly, been using it for years, defended it myself to friends/family/work colleagues and even converted a couple non-believers.
Never had an issue with Huel in the past, 2 bags of original flavour a week provided my 2000kcals a day precisely, simple, easy, healthy, cost effective, no complaints!
Only recently have the big shake ups thrown a spanner in the works and become a source of frustration. Tried to voice my opinion on the forum but donât feel weâre getting anywhere productive. This thread in particular was already convoluted and only appears to be getting more so.
Fell into the old trap of thinking that âgetting it off my chestâ here might make me feel a bit better but clearly not, only myself to blame. Nothing stays the same (Huel included) and to expect otherwise will only bring suffering. 
My apologies if I came across argumentative, it was honestly never my intention to aggravate anyone here.
3 Likes
But I thought the bags currently contain 17.5 servings?
Hence why they said they would now reduce it to 17 to make it a round number.
Shoulda kept our mouths shutâŚ