Feed - another huel competitor

Even similar packaging! It seems like Huel is nutritionally better. Do Huel staff know about this copy?


Found via this site https://nutritionallycompletereview.com which reviews Huel too.

Julian made a good comparison of myproteins version here which made me think that there can always be copies but the i’m after the most nutritionally organic and most complete meal replacement. That’s what wins for me, no filler and moving away from the artifical stuff in other brands. And so far, Huel wins the prize…still could be a big cheaper though :slight_smile:

Wow… Feed looks like it’s just shamelessly copied Huel…

The packaging is definitely similar…ingredients not so good…high in soy too.

Definitely looks like a Huel knock off…

Looks a blatant rip off!

I like how they are in individual bottles like that

That is a good idea

Seems to be an unnecessary waste of resources…its not even pre-made…not a fan.

1 Like

Feed nature powder is 18% sugar by energy
Huel vanilla powder is 1% sugar by energy.

I will say no more.


How come you have let all these joylent, soylent, feed, nutberg etc etc competitor topics stay open to be discussed but you shut the myprotein whole fuel topic down ?

Its just like bottled water, super convenient

It not being pre made is obvious, pre making them and giving them a shelf life of a few days or not pre making them and giving them a year long shelf life, its obvious what the choice is. Plus its hardly a chore to make it, you just unscrew the lid and put some water in

Soylent and Mana do have pre-made drinks with long shelf life.

1 Like

If you are too lazy to use a scoop or some scales to measure it, there is no hope.

What’s it like anyway?

You were the one just complaining that feed was not pre made, and you call me lazy, HA !

You misunderstood what I meant. I wouldn’t buy it…and it’s pointless waste of resources…dry ingredients in a bottle…what’s the effin’ point?

Hello everyone, Hello Julian,

I am the community manager of Feed.

We do not wish to be controversial. We respect the work of all other European foodtech.

Concerning the doubtful argument of sugar :

As you know, generally the labelling of sugars is fairly good, as most sugars are high GI (which is what you want to avoid) as a general rule. GI, or glycemic index, is the rate at which something is able to raise your blood sugar, so generally you should avoid high GI foods to avoid blood sugar (and energy) spikes and crashes. Pure glucose has a value of 100, and everything is relative to that.

The ‘sugar’ definition breaks down when it comes specifically to maltodextrin and isomaltulose.

Sugars are either monosaccharides or disaccharides. A saccharide is simply a carbohydrate component that is common to all carbs. Consider saccharides ‘sugar units’ for simplicity.

Monosaccharides contain one sugar unit, and disaccharides contain two. These are both generally classes as sugars, because they are simple, and sugars are simply defined as simple carbs for the purposes of labelling. The problem is this makes no reference to GI.

Isomaltulose is a simple carb - as it is a disaccharide carbohydrate composed of glucose and fructose linked by an alpha-1,6-glycosidic bond - and hence is labelled as a sugar, despite the body taking far longer to break it down (due to it having a GI of ~32).

Maltodextrin, on the other hand, is a complex carb - it is a polysaccharide, composed of multiple glucose units connected in chains of various length. As it is complex, it does not have to be labelled as a sugar. However, due to the ease with which the body can break it down into the individual glucose units, it has a GI of ~85-105, and sometimes higher.

As such, when you see a low sugar content in meal replacement products, look for maltodextrin, as it may well be the reason the sugar is so low (maltodextrin is a very cheap carb to use).

Isomaltulose, on the other hand, could be a contributing factor to a high sugar content on a nutritional label. However, in this case, it is important to remember what the definition of a sugar is on these labels, because isomaltulose is not like a typical sugar (whilst maltodextrin is) so it won’t come with the negative effects of one.

Despite that, due to the common perception around sugars, a lot of companies use maltodextrin instead of isomaltulose to avoid putting customers off by the high sugar content. The law surrounding sugar labelling needs to change in order to fix this.

While it would have been easier and cheaper for Feed. to use maltodextrin, we favored isomaltulose, to offer you superior nutritional quality !

At your disposal for any request,

Good continuation to Huel.

Good evening to all

1 Like

Why use isomaltulose at all?

Also, are your plastic bottles BPA free?

Can I have a free bar to try? :slight_smile: