Calling it poison upset the fanboys. Maybe this title is better. Did huel reduce the salt to below the WHO recommended maximum yet? Do they still add the sodium flouride neurotoxin?
No. Huel is still V2.
1 Like
That can mean anything, since they can change the formula without changing the version number.
1 Like
They will change the version number if they change the formula.
1 Like
No, only if they Permanently change the formula. Temporary variations won’t receive a new version:
However, I hope the removal of sodium flouride and salt will be permanent.
It will be revised in 2.1 - Pls make unsalted version
2 Likes
Thats good news, hadn’t seen that postng, so thanks. He failed to mention removing the sodium flouride though, but I think Julian intended to do that a while ago.
Now its just waiting until they sell off all the v2.0 I suppose.
They say they will be reducing salt, but not clear to what level.
They haven’t said anything about flouride but I suspect they will keep it. The website changed from 100% of 27 (including salt) to 100% of 26 (the ones that the EU gives a recommended value). I think they have started to prioritise marketing over nutrition so I suspect the flouride will stay as long as the EU give a nutrient reference value for it. Its funny that I don’t that any general purpose multivitamin includes flouride, and I have never seen any vitamin enriched food product featuring flouride.
1 Like
Not so unfortunately. Another example is the change of gum between batches of v2.0.
1 Like
You haven’t even read the few existing threads about this soooo important question, but you post 2 (two!) new threads, insulting the team and fair users with words like “poison”. And you don’t want to be called troll or hater.
Seems legit.
8 Likes
Different title but the same, rude, author.
3 Likes
And same rude responses.
So there are formula changes within the same versions?! Huh?!?!
How is that even possible?
That is imposible.
Presumably the product information page would have information regarding the nutritional values of the current formula being sent out. Have you checked it yet?
I work with teenagers all day and I’m going to offer the OP the same unsolicited advice I give my pupils. If you treat people with respect, they’ll generally respond in kind and your life will be easier; you’ll be more likely to get what you want. If you make inflammatory remarks, your life will generally be more difficult. Had you asked, “Does Huel still contain fluoride and too much salt?” first go around or even said, “Sorry, that may have been a bit overboard,” after receiving harsh reactions from your original posts, people would have likely responded with useful information. As it is now, posters don’t seem inclined to be helpful towards you. What sort of response would you prefer, people calling you a troll or people answering your question?
5 Likes
The guidelines we have relied on for so long for daily intake of salt were written around the same time that they said that eggs were bad because they contained cholesterol, dietary cholesterol which doesn’t increase LDLs in all but very rare cases (hyper responders and even then a tiny amount) in fact it has a positive effect in terms of all the many benefits contained in eggs.
As with eggs so with salt, we shouldn’t be relying on the older figures but up to date nutritional research. In the American Journal of Medicine a study compared the daily sodium intake of 78 million americans to their risk of dying from heart disease over the course of 14 years. It found the more sodium people ate, the less likley the were to die from heart disease, and a 2007 study published in the European Journal of epidemiology followed 1500 older people for five years and found no association between urinary sodium levels and hte risk of coronary vascular disease or death. For every study that suggests that salt is unhealthy another does not (scientific american credit)
And as I replied on your other thread Sodium Fluoride is only toxic, and only referred to as toxic by the sources you mentioned in extremely large doses, as everything is I might add. Those same bodies still support fluoridation of water.
3 Likes
Do you have any links or citations to the studies you mention?
Just because one historical nutritional recommendation was wrong (eggs) doesn’t mean others are. This is a logical fallacy.
I’m certainly open to the idea that salt may be less harmful than popularly believed, but it would be helpful if you provide the details of the studies you mention.
The reason I have been asking for a change on the forum is primarily the taste - I just could not eat v2.0 because it was too salty. But the health aspect seems a better argument. While greatly exceeding the maximum daily salt intake recommended by every major government and public health body might not be as bad for you as thought - it is certainly unlikely to be healthy, and will only serve to make Huel even more of a niche product than it already is. Imagine any person over the age of 45 asking their doctor what they think about a Huel diet with 7-8g of salt a day for a man.
Are you sure about this? It was my understanding the guideline daily amount has constantly been revised downwards over the past years - for example according to someone on this forum it was once 8g/day in France, then EU 6g/day, then faster moving public health bodies (WHO) now suggest 5g/day maximum.
Anyway my point is it is quite a bold move to try to claim that so much salt is not a health issue - and since it is so very easy for any user of Huel to add any amount of salt they want (since it is so cheap, easily available, easy to dissolve in) it seems it would be better for Huel and better for the majority of customers if it was returned to the old salt level.
Well consider this almost all of the nutritional information except for you know basic stuff like eat more and a variety of vegetables has been wrong. Nutrition is one of the most challenged fields in all health, hell all scientific research. It should be noted and it will upset an awful lot of people on this forum but most vegan nutritional information is propagated using old disproven research such as scare stories about saturated fat.
In fact I’m reading the aforementioned reports that showed no effects or negative effects to a low sodium diet, further to that one of the largest studies to date followed 100000 people across 17 countries for 3 years, found that those who consumed fewer than 3000mg of sodium per day had a 27% higher risk of death or a serious event such as a heart attack stroke than those with 3000-6000mg per day, but there was a correlation of risk with intake above 6000mg New England Journal of Medicine (summary credit WSJ)
Another study the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology Study showed that participants followed on average of 3.7 years showed the following profiles. Those who consumed less than 3000mg of soium either died or suffered a heart attack or stroke or developed heart failure in that time 4.3%, those who consumed 3000-6000mg 3.1% and those who consumed more thant 6000mg 3.2%
So current evidence seems to indicate a sweetspot between 3-6000 with a marginal increase above 6000 (though I suspect people like me in active demanding hot very sweaty jobs probably benefit a little from a higher dose) but the real danger lies in low sodium diets.
Further to all of this, in my travails through medical literature, news on the topic I have yet to find recent studies that find positive results for a low sodium diet. Oh except the BHA which used a very shaky method taking direct correlation between lowered heart disease with lower sodium levels which is quite a ludicrous way to go about things for a supposedly professional organisation that engages in research.
If there is one thing I’ve learned in my recent years of exploring health and nutrition its not to listen to supranational and national bodies regarding nutrition and also to take the GPs advice with a grain of…aha…salt because they have very little in the way of nutritional training or information and tend to draw upon the same porrly informed sources for recommendations. Recently I quizzed a doctor friend on the old dietary cholesterol issue and he really hadn’t gotten himself up to date on the new evidence. He was still relying on the 60’s literature which was largely speculative that because at the time cholesterol is bad, eggs contain cholesterol ergo eggs are bad.
Now should Hule make a low sodium option for those that want it, I opined in another thread I thought they should, give the people what they want! But if there is evidence that low sodium diets poses a health risk that may in fact pose an ethical and legal issue for them to do so.
3 Likes
As for links to the studies I am naming them I assure you there are not two different studies of the same name so simply googling them will show them up. I apologise for not laboriously cutting and pasting them in but I’ve been working a hot loft all day up to my eyes in muck, I’m sitting with the keyboard on my knees being incredibly lazy in a horizontal repose.
1 Like
For everyone concerned with Sodium Fluoride I recommend switching to Nano V2.0.