Best advice ever.
Switch haters, switch!
1 Like
Obviously I can only speak for myself but the reason I am spending time on this forum discussing this issues is not because I hate Huel but becuase I really really liked it.
I have IBS and some other digestive complications and having used Huel for nearly a year my digestion was the best its ever been. I miss v1.2 every day.
So I love Huel, and I related to the company which is why I am so disappointed about the salt mistake (it must be clear from staff responses now that it was a mistake based on misinterpreting the maximum āreference intakeā as a recommended daily amount ) and particularly the way they have handled communication about this. Also the whole fact that marketing considerations are having such a strong influence on the product design. It seems clear that the addition of salt was driven by the misinterpretation of the EU value, not any independent evaluation of the nutritional benefit.
The thing is Huel is not a normal product right - eating is a fundamental thing everyone does and buying Huel means you are doing that in quite a new way that is different (and obviously so) to that of anyone around you. So it is not like which brand of porridge or muesli I have in private at home for breakfast. For me all my coworkers, friends, family etc. all see that I use it and of course ask about it. So with every one I know basically I have had a conversation about what Huel is, why I use it and why I like it. There is certainly no other product like that in my life.
I hope you can see that that explains a little why people feel a bit more strongly about the product - it is an identity defining product in a very real and tangible sense (completely different from say a fashion brand).
So when they made such a big mistake, and donāt get in front of that with any official statements or make any proactive effort to rectify it makes us revaluate our relationship with the company and, again speaking for myself, that made me sad. This is obviously tinged with emotions of embarrassment etc. with regards to people we have recommended it to which lead to feelings of betrayal. I have recommended it to so many colleagues at work I will have to send a company wide email disavowing my recommendation and warning everyone about the salt content if they donāt make a change soon. Obviously that makes me feel bad (although I have tried to keep my posts here civil). But I think you should keep that in mind as you are angered yourself by posts from people you think hate Huel.
I understand why people still want to defend the company, but I have yet to see any real logical argument for keeping these two contentious things (salt and flouride) as they are and not removing them. OK some people donāt subscribe to the maximum recommended salt level, or want more because of their lifestyle - but it is so easy to add. You can buy it extremely cheaply in a readily mixable form on any street in the country. There are so many other solutions - put it in a flavour pack, add pouches, let people add their own. It just makes no sense to have it in the base product. Same with flouride - of course many people donāt care (I donāt particularly) but there is really no reason to have it in other than the arbitrary box ticking exercise of meeting the EU NRV.
I have tried nutberg but find it much less appealing taste wise. I will have a look at Nano but I think there was something about it that put me off (maybe the main carb source?).
6 Likes
https://www.blendrunner.com/ is a great resource. The funny thing about Sodium Fluoride and Huel is that the information was intentionally omitted when it came to the newsletter. I asked why they decided not to include that information among other changes in the formula but no one was bothered answering. I completely agree with your post.
1 Like
Im my humble opinion, StonerShake is way better than Nano. Nano is like Joylent or Queal, its a cheap powder whose main ingredient is maltodextrine (yes, almost 20% of the pouch!). The best alternative to Huel is StonerShake.
Like thrope said, I am on this forum and discussing the issues not because I hate Huel, but because I really like it, and I want it to be the best it can be. You are misinterpreting that, and in fact you are simply encouraging people to migrate to other products.
But you donāt get that. It is easier for you to rant on about trolls and haters, and try to break this community up.
Hi guys - we are aware of your concerns and we will be address both nutrient issues as soon as we can. We will also be keeping you up to speed with changes as we do them.
Thrope your salt concerns are not based on scientific research. Lastest medical studies show 6000mg is just at the upper end of the sweet spot.
1 Like
I am not sure we can really determine these issues in a useful way on a forum. If you go to any anti-vax forum there will be plenty of people posting references to studies. But yes fine, if you like my concerns are not driven solely by scientific research (which as with all these things is highly mixed).
So I am not really interesting in arguing the health merits of the salt content - Huel certainly havenāt, and thats certainly not why salt was added. They have explicitly stated it was added as a box ticking exercise to meet the EU value (which you say is wrong anyway).
For me - it was simply too salty to drink. That is primarily why I want salt removed.
My other argument is that it is already quite a niche product. Whether correct or not, every public health body and goverment clearly, directly and strongly states the maximum healthy salt intake is below Huel levels. Of course you can take issue with that but you must see how it pushes Huel even further out of the mainstream and into a truly niche product only for the most iconoclastic alternative lifestyle people. It is one thing if it was the crucial foundation of the product but as has been noted salt is the easiest possible thing to add. Every house, office, canteen, restaurant will have salt available to add for free. You can buy it anywhere. It is powdered and dissolves easily so it is fine to add it to the drink. If you really want to be ahead of the field with salt consumption add as much as you like. Iām sure I get enough in my non-Huel food.
1 Like
Heres some links for the other view. But as I say I am not sure debating this in the forum is hugely productive. I donāt think Huel should be or needs to be making such a controversial statement regarding salt when it is so easy for people to add. Perhaps you should be forwarding those studies to the WHO, or the NHS, or the UK blood pressure and heart disease charity. One would imagine there would be people in those organisations who would be aware of these but perhaps not.
āThe largest and most rigorously designed observational study of sodium and blood pressure was INTERSALT, which studied more than 10,000 men and women in 32 countries. Both cross-population and within-population analyses supported the same conclusions, that sodium intake, measured by 24-hour urine collections, was associated with blood pressure (27). Subsequent analyses that used more sophisticated statistical techniques made the relationships even stronger than previously reported (28).ā
Full text of original INTERSALT study:
Follow up article with a reanalysis that found a stronger link:
Abstracts from a whole serious of studies that were used to inform the CDC levels:
http://www.cdc.gov/salt/pdfs/sodium-references-abstracts.pdf
1 Like
Thrope I just named a 100k study so that certainly isnt the largest study to date
In fact Iām 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)
Is there a possibility you, or the secondary articles you are copying and pasting from without reference, are mistaking salt and sodium?
To which are you referring here?
6g of sodium is 15g of salt - so if that is the target you are aiming for for healthy consumption you will still have to be supplementing Huel v2.0 with a substantial amount of additional salt.
Again, is it possible salt and sodium are confused here? 3000mg sodium (x2.5) is 7.5g of salt per day, still above Huel v2.0 and well above every public health recommended maximum. So what you are proposing is quite extreme. If the figures were for salt not sodium then I would think they would be more inline with the recommendations. Hard to check though since you give no links.
Incidently the journal name (NEJM above) is not sufficient to allow people to easily find the study. Normally at minimum the first author, ideally a list of authors and the title of the article would allow people to find it easily.
This is the first relevant thing I could find from that journal (from last month):
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1607161
In science, conflicting evidence from studies with methods of different strengths is not uncommon. Studies that measure sodium intake vary widely in their methods and should be judged accordingly. Accurate measurement matters.23-26 Paradoxical findings based on inaccurate sodium measurements should not stall efforts to improve the food environment in ways that enable consumers to reduce excess sodium intake. Gradual, stepwise sodium reduction, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine,27 remains an achievable, effective, and important public health strategy to prevent tens of thousands of heart attacks and strokes and save billions of dollars in health care costs annually.
.
Using the gold-standard measure of individual sodium intake ā multiple (three to seven) nonconsecutive 24-hour urine collections over 1.5 to 4 years ā the Trials of Hypertension Prevention (TOHP) showed a ālinear 17% increase in [cardiovascular disease] risk per 1000 mg [per day] increase in sodiumā from levels starting at 1500 mg per day among 2275 participants, approximately 10% of whom had a sodium intake of less than 2300 mg (P=0.05).40 The association reported in the TOPH analysis40 is much stronger than that reported in studies based on less accurate measurement methods.29-32,38,42 Furthermore, potential participants with diabetes, preexisting cardiovascular disease, and hypertension at baseline were excluded from this study40 to equalize these cardiovascular risk factors across sodium-intake groups. Similarly, a study involving patients with chronic kidney disease that used the average of three nonconsecutive 24-hour urine collections over about 2 years of follow-up revealed a strong linear association between higher urinary sodium excretion and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.41 Studies that use better measures and methods are more likely to show actual health effects.
They conclude:
Reducing the average sodium intake by just 400 mg per day could potentially avert as many as 28,000 deaths and save $7 billion in health care costs annually in the United States.28 Reducing population sodium intake, through reducing excess sodium in manufactured and restaurant food in the United States, represents an important opportunity to prevent heart disease and stroke and reduce health care costs.28,67
NB: 400mg sodium = 1g salt. Huel v1.2 ā v2.0 was a 3g per day increase (based on 2000kcal).
So I think the picture you are presenting that this is all out of date and refuted by recent research is not necessarily true. This is an article published August 2016.
Here is the resource page at the WHO which lists the systematic reviews they used to inform their guidelines (maximum 2g per day sodium / 5g per day salt):
http://www.who.int/elena/titles/sodium_cvd_adults/en/
If you donāt trust their own in house systematic reviews (from 2012) this is in the British Medical Journal in 2013:
High quality evidence in non-acutely ill adults shows that reduced sodium intake reduces blood pressure and has no adverse effect on blood lipids, catecholamine levels, or renal function, and moderate quality evidence in children shows that a reduction in sodium intake reduces blood pressure. Lower sodium intake is also associated with a reduced risk of stroke and fatal coronary heart disease in adults. The totality of evidence suggests that most people will likely benefit from reducing sodium intake.
We could go back and forth on this all day but Iām going to tap out now from the science bit. As I say for me there are compelling arguments against salt in Huel regardless of the studies you quote:
- because there are a large number of users who need to follow low salt for specific health reason
- because there are a large number of users who are not 100% Huel and get plenty of salt from their non-Huel foods
- because salt is so easy to obtain and add so any user could easily hit their target intake if the baseline level was reduced (at the moment those who want less canāt)
- because the idea extremely high salt intake is healthy is lets say, not a mainstream view, despite the papers you mention (but donāt actually link) and I donāt think it behoves Huel to push to the boundaries quite so much given having food in shake form is already a pretty niche concept.
1 Like
Good find! Pity it is not vegan though 
Im replying whilst at work Ill post links later
should be noted I have always been talking about Sodium.
http://www.westonaprice.org/press/fda-warned-dangers-salt-restriction/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266170/
Iām absolutely certain that we need more research and there is little certainty on the issue and a lot more research is needed. I also concur with some of the reactions to the research that overall diet and exercise is the most important factor, for instance one of the criticisms was that we donāt know about other factors like the patients diet. Fortunately we do know that with Huel.
2 Likes
Guys, lets try not to argue about this, and instead work towards making the Huel product better. Too many smart people wasting their time pulling in opposite directions and going nowhere. There are good arguements presented from both sides, Iām sure the sideline readers have plenty to think about.
To make huel better, I suggest lowering the salt, and then those who think more salt is better can add as much as they like. Itās harder to remove the salt once itās in there so the other way around wonāt work. Can we simply agree to disagree on the health aspects of salt, and maybe just agree on a low-salt huel being the solution which meets everyoneās needs in the best compromise possible?
1 Like
Can you provide a link to this study - I donāt see it in the three you just posted. The idea that less than 7.5g salt a day is harmful to health seems so far out of line with any others I would be curious to read it.
This text from the Millbank paper you linked suggests it is in fact salt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266170/4
Perhaps more striking, the second article based on the same epidemiological study concluded that those who consumed 3 g to 6 g of salt each day had the lowest risk of death and cardiovascular events.
^ Haha āHuelās poison, gross! But letās not argue about it!ā
2 Likes