I don’t think anyone is ridiculing you.
Well I’m not anyway!
I guess I can’t speak for anyone else.
I’m also a stickler for accuracy, and I think accurate information is really important.
I just think the small difference is due to ingredients change not down to any attempt to con us.
The errors on the website definitely need to be corrected and I think it’s a good thing you’ve highlighted it
That’s fine, the problem is when you start using words like ineptitude and lies. The people you’re talking about use this forum, and don’t deserve to have their minor mistakes blown out of proportion.
Not emotional particularly. Just suggesting you CTFO.
Only one of us felt the need to create 3 threads in the past week and profess themselves to feel lied to, weary, misled. Seems like a bit of an emotional over reaction to a couple of things that slipped through the communication net from a mid sized company whilst major changes including a whole new product launch are happening. By all means point out something wrong with the information on the website. But maybe dial back on the accusing people of being inept or deliberately lying if they aren’t able to immediately fix a data error on a site they don’t personally maintain when they are undoubtedly dealing with lots of feedback about the product changes.
Yet again you have failed to add to/progress the discussion in any meaningful way whatsoever.
I clarified that I may not have presented my statements in the utmost perfect way due the place of frustration that they stemmed from and apologised for this.
You appear to want to continue bickering over personal opinions without actually disproving anything I’ve said or offering any solid counter points, only emotional snapbacks with no real substance. Your response essentially amounted to “pipe down” rather than contemplating how or why someone might feel a certain way after expressing themselves, you simply devalued them.
It’s all perceptional, what one person sees as being “blown out of proportion” or an “over reaction” will not seem so to another. The fact that the standard to which everyone holds each other is going to be a higher or lower level depending on the individuals definition of integrity etc also has to be kept in mind.
Fully aware that we’re burrowing further down the rabbit hole here, I’m gonna need another Huel. 
Reading all this and feel myself losing the will to live…
They got a trivial thing wrong. Nobody’s that bothered, I’m afraid. But we get energised by rudeness!
@Bee I forgot that a few grams is a big deal to a bee 
Ditto to be honest, wishing I had some of those “better things” that I’ve heard about to be getting on with, oh well!
@David As I mentioned, in all 3 of the threads I created there have been multiple staff either giving inaccurate information or causing some sort of confusion for which they apologised.
This is on top of information being incorrect on the main website. I was never directing anger or accusations at one particular member in a personal way at all, which is how it appears to have been misconstrued.
People here seem to have lost the plot over the word “ineptitude” but I guess we have different ideas of the definition.
All perceptional again ain’t it? 
I was more concerned by “lies”.
I really have the impression you are trying to be offended.
I didn’t post in this topic initially as I genuinely am not bothered about a minor mistake on their website which occurred during a major update. As I said, mistakes happen, they’ll fix it.
I didn’t post at all until you decided to refer to Huel staff as inept which I thought was rude and uncalled for. You also made an accusation that they were deliberately lying to you without any evidence of intent.
You accused me of missing your point. Which I didn’t. I just happen to think the way you extrapolated being given incorrect information into a deliberate attempt to mislead was an over reaction.
I also made the point that in my opinion it was a simple mistake with no ill intent and that I personally don’t consider either the price rise or the change in bag size unreasonable.
You specifically asked for opinions on the statement about no reductions and I gave my opinion. I couldn’t give a toss as it was clearly human error. It appears you don’t like that opinion as you then felt the need to tag me and accuse me of an emotional response.
I’m not sure what discussion you think you are having that I need to be progressing or adding to. The discussion I was trying to have is:
I’m done posting here. I certainly have better things to do that reading random strangers accuse me of bickering and emotional snapbacks.
Seriously dude, rein in the outrage. People get things wrong on the interwebtubes all the time. The world isn’t ending.*
*Well it might be but I don’t think any of the Huel staff are directly responsible.
I detailed earlier what I was referring to with regards to a miscalculation vs a statement of untruth.
First you brushed it off as being “miniscule” and later called it “trivial” stating nobody is bothered.
Also this:
Some will give Huel the benefit of the doubt, others won’t.
Regardless it’s nothing but opinions again, all of which are against the principle of the matter.
Once Tim clarifies his statement/position we’ll have a better understanding, until then we’re just going round and round in circles.
That post was meant to be a reply to @David as I included his “miniscule” quote, looking back at it now though I see I forgot to include the reply function.
So in my mind your reply came a bit out of the blue and felt a little hostile and personal which was why I replied tagging you, not because:
Or to:
There was no “accusation” here, wasn’t even implying it in a derogatory way which is how you seem to have taken it. I was just trying to clarify my position as a fellow lover of Huel and not the enemy.
I apologised in that same reply in case I had come across as argumentative, and stated it was never my intention to upset anybody.
This wasn’t satisfactory however as I was met with you telling me to chill the f*ck out as I was having an “emotional over reaction” as well as calling me a tin foil conspiracist elsewhere. 
I know my style of writing may appear quite cold and clinical to many, I’ve never been a fan of communicating via words on a screen as it can be difficult to convey tone/emotions in quite the way I’d like, but I assure you there is no outrage here. 
I feel remorse picturing @Tim_Huel waking up to this clusterf*ck of a thread, good luck mate! 
They should sell Huel in 2 kg bags. Then if people use it for either 400 or 500 calorie meals there is an exact amount of servings. If anyone wants a random other serving size that’s up to them.
Hi @geak and all
I have read a number of posts in this thread, but not all, and I feel I should to a couple of points:
Folks, please debate politely and respectfully; if another member has a different perspective than you, please respect that and don’t berate them. We’re all cool Hueligans here!
In response to:
v2.3 Vanilla - 1.75kg per bag - 2 bags = £45
v3.0 Vanilla - 1.71kg per bag - 2 bags = £50
Please explain how that is not a reduction in powder and increase in price.
Let me break this down…
Firstly, the price rise issue:
The price rise has been explained here and debated previously here. Tim posted above that we hadn’t been clear on the filling amounts and apologised. This wasn’t a ‘lie’; that’s not the Huel way: never has been; never will be.
Next, the serving size:
Legally, we’re not supposed to fill to half servings, so we had to label to a rounded 17 servings. 400kcal (which is approx 100g of Huel Powder and approx 90g of Huel Black) makes sense and puts it in line with the US (as we are aligning or products globally, which was previously causing confusion). 500kcal is big and is off-putting to many people who mentally associate Huel as ‘health product’ and calories as being ‘unhealthy’ (so-to-speak). This is our reason for moving to 400kcal; it’s nothing sinister: it just makes sense. This is the right decision and one we’ve been wanting to do for ages.
Onto Back Ed:
This is a new product, so nothing has changed. Both flavours are filled to 1.53kg, ie 17 x 90g servings of 400kcal each. No one should feel diddled here in any way. The only issue one may take is that Tim noted her previously mentioned there was 7,000kcal in a pouch. This was due to poor communication to him from other colleagues, most notably myself.
And now, Powder v3.0 as is being shipped:
This @geak, you seem to have a particular issue with, when actually it’s a separate point to the filling decisions being discussed based on calories. Here’s why (Warning: Boring Huel Recipe Information!) …
With every version change, there’s been different bag-filled weights and that’s why the flavour have different weights too. There was 7,000kcal in v2.3 and there’s currently 7,000kcal in v3.0. This is because ingredients weigh differently. Due to the improvements we made with v3.0, including better ingredient sourcing, we’ve managed to need to add fewer vitamins and minerals, and coupled with the sunflower oil and MCT powders being more concentrated, we have less carrier in the final product. (Also, for those of you who are really interested in the boring stuff that excites nerds like me, we now actually have two components to our vitamin-mineral blends and the larger one needs even less carrier as the potassium chloride and calcium carbonate themselves act as a carrier as well as providing minerals). Less carrier = fewer ingredients and this explains the lighter pouch weights.
Why didn’t we mention this previously in our version update info? Because it’s really not very interesting, let’s be honest!
And lastly, Powder v3.0 that’s coming in a few weeks:
At the moment, the pouch and website say 17 servings when actually this is a ‘lie’ as you’re getting 17.5 servings, ie 200kcal extra. As we shouldn’t be giving this additional, we’ll be reverting to 17 servings straight in a few weeks (we can let you know when this is happening).
I hope I’ve covered everything as well as not misunderstanding anyone. If anything needs clarification, please let me know. The way I see it, with what everyone is currently receiving with v3.0, there should be no issue, despite the fact that it may seem so due to the 17-servings-labelling. We do acknowledge, that we haven’t been clear - apologies.
Which makes perfect sense. I think the confusion arises because although the ingredients weigh differently, the stated 100g = 400kcal hasn’t changed. And some people overlook that this is an approximation and use that as an absolute accurate starting point for calculating calories per bag. If I had to guess I assume it’s rounding. So:
V2.3 Vanilla = 1.75kg = 7000kcal = 4kcal per gram
V3.0 Vanilla = 1.71kg = 7000kcal = 4.09kcal per gram
But 4.09kcl per gram looks crap on the packet (and you probably can’t legally quote to two decimal places) and gets rounded to 4kcal per gram. Unfortunately that leads to people crunching the stated numbers and finding unexplained discrepancies. But basically what is going on is that with the ingredient change the powder becomes marginally more energy dense per gram so the variation in the 400kcal per 100g approximation increases. The filled bag weight adjusts to reflect this but the difference in approximation isn’t explicitly stated which is what leads to confusion.
@JamesCollier is that right?
Hi @Liath - yes, kind of. Using Atwater, which is the required method of calculating calories for labelling, the calories per 100g do vary slightly between the flavours so we round. But as calorie-counting is imprecise due to numerous factors and a 20% tolerance (yes, it’s a lot) is allowed legally (we are typically within 3%), we have to round. This is standard.
Yup. Which is why personally I’m not that bothered. Calculating calories derived from food is one of the less exact sciences as far as I understand it. That’s before you try and look into thermic effect of food and variations in energy expended during digestion.
I think the concerns being raised by some people on this thread were that if you take 100g = 400kcal as an absolute accurate figure then the filled weights didn’t relate to 7000kcals per bag. This is what seems to have led to the misunderstanding and accusations of lying which is what I objected to.
Personally I’m quite okay with both the price increase and the variations in filled weights caused by recipe/formulation changes. But some people had the perception that a reduction in filled weights meant a reduction in calories and therefore reduced value to the customer. A misunderstanding which seems to have escalated very quickly.
@JamesCollier Appreciate you taking the time to respond thanks.
So if v3.0 is soon to contain 17 x 400kcal servings:
v2.3 - 7000kcal per bag = £45
v3.0 - 6800kcal per bag = £50
Essentially the point stands that the customer is getting slightly less for a higher price.
Of course it’s the nature of business and one scoop short per bag isn’t really going to affect the consumer on an individual level, whilst it will save Huel a nice sum in the long run.
I’m not fundamentally against this just wanted confirmation and clarity, and the confusion caused by this thread did snowball out of control a little.
Make a black scoop, and give it away with Black Edition.
Make it the same size as the white scoop.
Sit back and watch.
