I find it perfect. I had to blend the older version with White to make it sweet enough.
1 Like
they used a better quality/more refined source of stevia - that was it.
1 Like
Good to hear. My reaction is opposite! Hopefully this really is just another case of diversite palates.
Ok - hands up time - I may have had a bit of a knee jerk reaction. I tried the new version at dinner time after having the previous for breakfast - it seemed very sweet and I wasn’t keen. Now though, more than a week later, I can honestly say that I like it! Lesson learnt to give things a few tries before coming to a conclusion!
3 Likes
As someone who has come back to Huel I was very disappointed to find that all of the flavours are now overly sweet. What more disappointing it that the ‘natural’ sweetener used leaves the disgusting artificial taste in my mouth for hours after drinking. It is as bad a the aftertaste of Aspartame which I won’t tolerate under any circumstances.
I have been using the Jimmy products which don’t have the same problem. I came back to Huel because I prefer the Oat base to Soya (and Huel is produced in the UK) but I am seriously considering going back because of the artificial sweeteners
1 Like
The purpose of sweetness is masking the bitter flavour of amino acid. That is also the reason why most protein shakes are very sweet.Black Edition contains much more protein, so it is just a logical consequence that it has to be sweeter. If you don’t like that, why don’t you use the regular edition? Maybe that would solve your taste problem.
Hey Simon,
I’m sorry you’re not a fan of the flavour tweaks. We offer an unsweetened and unflavoured version of Black Edition and this is also available for v3.0 too.
v3.0 is sweetened with sucralose, an artificial sweetener, which other competitors use so you may prefer those flavoured versions.
Something similar here, although more subtle. Definitely my first impressions of the new flavours (particularly Chocolate 1.1) were very, very negative. However, it has been possible, mixing in 40% U/U with either Vanilla or Chocolate, to get something drinkable. And the Chocolate, with the reduction in sweetness from the U/U, does now seem… okay. Not as good as 1.0, but, maybe it is possible to live with it. In this respect, my first reaction was too extreme, and I wish I’d given it a bit more time before originally posting about it.
One further thought on this: Elsewhere a comparison has been made with software development (with respect to Huel version numbers). Some Linux distributions have the suffix “LTS”, an acronym for Long Term Support. Companies/individuals know that an LTS version will be around for several years, and the period is precisely guaranteed (even though the software is Free). This makes it reasonable for developers and companies to invest their time and effort into infrastructure around those versions, and to be prepared for support to end, because the date is known in advance.
If Huel is such an important part of the diet of some people, then it might be helpful for the company to mark some versions/ flavours as LTS, thereby guaranteeing that these will not be changed before a particular date.
For a very small number of people (not including myself), that could be life-changing.
1 Like
That’s OK, don’t worry! I think a lot of changes can seem extreme because it’s different and inherently we don’t like change (that’s not a comment on you personally, just human nature). But we can get used to stuff really quickly, especially when we don’t compare taste side by side.
Thanks for the LTS idea, I hadn’t heard of this. I guess that is what we are looking to do. We used to make changes quite regularly, but have been with v3.0 for a long time. Black Edition has been around less time so perhaps hasn’t reached that ‘LTS’ stage yet.
I wish I had seen the changed version of the Black Chocolate. It compounds my disappointment when not only is it a completely different ‘chocolate’ taste but I didn’t spot it resulting in a) unused product and b) uncertainty about where to go next. I would say that it was inevitable that some people won’t like it because chocolate isn’t about sweetness - that’s the modifier - it’s the cocoa, that IS the taste.
unfortunately most of the customers griping about the taste originally didnt get that either - clueless about what chocolate actually was - hence the new sweeter version to keep the mars bar crowd happy I guess.
They might as well have called them Chocolate A and Chocolate B because 1.1 is not A.1 it’s like a distant cousin, taste-wise. I would not go down the subscription route when there’s a chance this could happen. I remember it with the Huel Vanilla (must seem like ancient history to most Huellers)
So I’ve just tried it and I personally think it’s way better than 1.0. But I guess we all have our preferences.
I don’t think one is inherently better than the other. My point is that it is significantly different - if it was called v2.0 I would have been warned but V1.1 lulled me into a false sense of security. Shame I couldn’t buy one of each version for a period of time 