This isn’t really the way I’d compare similar products from the off unless someone is stating wrong information about a product. Companies such as Jimmy Joy, Soylent, Feed and Huel are providing food that is relatively affordable compared to shop bought alternatives while also lowering peoples’ environmental impact, in that sense, we have shared goals. Where we differ is in nutrition, ingredients, taste, etc etc. I know I’m slightly bias but I am yet to find anything that beats Huel nutritionally. Strap yourself in butt (if that is your real name).
Based on 500kcal Huel costs £1.61/€2.13 as a single purchase and £1.45/€1.93 on subscription (based on two pouches) while Feed costs £2.27. A meal can vary in calories if you want more/less just add more/less powder that’s the beauty of powdered meals, that doesn’t mean Huel isn’t nutritionally complete. The bars are a snack, not a meal so there’s no point going any further there.
Yes, Huel contains twice as much protein as protein contributes to 30% of the calories in Huel vs 11% for Feed. That’s a good thing, find me up-to-date nutritional research that recommends having only 10% of your calories from protein. I actually cannot believe a “nutrition-focused” company would suggest that high protein can be harmful to health and cause kidney problems. That research is at least 25 years out of date. Here are two studies in the last 6 months showing that consuming high amounts of protein is not an issue. A systematic review of 28 studies and a 1 year trial on high protein diets: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30383278 and https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5142/3/4/62. I appreciate it can be difficult to keep up with research when the data you use was published BEFORE I WAS BORN.
This moves us on to satiety. Satiety is not just about calories (we have tackled this anyway by just adding more powder) there’s more to it than in that. In fact, one of the great benefits of protein is that it is the most satiating macronutrient, while fat is the least: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17824197
The quality of both Feed’s and our carbohydrate sources are good, as the main carbohydrate source in both is oats, although in Huel we add more. This is because Feed also uses isomaltulose. This is classed as a sugar for labelling reasons, but to be fair it probably shouldn’t be. However, isomaltulose provides less micronutrients gram for gram than oats. As a result, some of the vitamins and minerals which come from the main ingredients in Huel must be added to Feed to ensure it is nutritionally complete. Zinc is one example. Where vitamins and minerals are added in Huel the forms used appear to be of a higher quality. For example, we use L-methylfolate calcium as a source of folate while Feed use folic acid, this is 1000 times more expensive but the bioavailability is higher. Huel also contains chloride and choline, unlike Feed.
We have fantastic nutrition and NPD teams here at Huel so we stray away from the European recommendations where we feel they are a bit out-of-date. Protein is one example, vitamin C is another, where there is ample evidence for consuming amounts above recommended levels. You can see a bit more here: https://uk.huel.com/pages/nutritional-information-and-ingredients#protein and here: https://uk.huel.com/pages/iron-in-huel-and-the-effects-of-antinutrients-and-vitamin-c
It’s interesting to note that Huel contains a source of MCTs (from coconut), while Feed does not. MCTs are a type of saturated fat that are metabolised differently to most saturated fats and therefore have different effects on the body. You can find out more here: https://uk.huel.com/pages/benefits-of-medium-chain-triglycerides-mcts
All the Huel powders are vegan, lactose-free and GMO-free ( but it’s worth noting that we don’t believe all GMO is bad). We also offer a gluten-free version of our powders so this is completely wrong.
Put it this way Butt, there is a reason we are nutrition first here at Huel.