Interesting answer you got there.
From my experience with Feed. SM they tend to be very protective towards their products, and not very keen to criticism. By no means, I am suggesting this is always the case, though.
In the comparison they gave to you they bring up some valid points, but they are skewed towards their read of “healthy nutrition” and what they believe to be optimal intake of nutrients. For instance:
This statement while not completely false is masking facts to their advantage. Recommendations on macronutrient intake are given in acceptable macronutrient distribution RANGE (AMDR) -NOTE: terminology varies with countries and organization. This is, a span of values that are OK for the 97% of the population.
According to the European Food and Safety Agency (ESFA), the main food institution in the EU, the AMDR for the macronutrients are as follow (2010 summary):
-
The intake of total carbohydrates should range from 45 to 60% of the total energy intake for both adults and children.
-
A daily intake of 25 grams of dietary fibre is adequate for normal bowel function in adults. In addition evidence in adults shows there are health benefits associated with higher intakes of dietary fibre (e.g. reduced risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and weight maintenance).
-
Intakes of fats should range between 20 to 35% of the total energy intake, with different values given for infants and young children taking into account their specific developmental needs.
Regarding protein, one of the most recentreports on Dietary Recommended Values by ESFA, stated the following:
- The Panel considers that the value of 0.66 g/kg body weight per day can be accepted as the Average Requirement (AR)and the value of 0.83 g/kg body weight per day as the Population Reference Intake (PRI) .
This values are for the average adult in order to maintain muscle tissue.
This recommendations are not an exception, but follow the trend of most health organizations, including WHO and US Health department.
So, coming back to the original point, this figures are not set in stone.
Now, what I think the Feed. representative is trying to say is that Huel Powder’s macronutrient range is “off” the recommended. They are right, since it is below the recommended “carbohydrate” intake (45%). Another discussion would be whether this is good or bad, if it depends on the person or if it can be good to balance your diet out (since we tend to consume a lot of carbs otherwise).
One of the main issues it seems is the protein content in Huel. There have been some good points on why the protein recommendations might be “outdated” or should require more consideration by @Dan_Huel:
but here are some more articles:
- Protein RDAs might need to be increased (2016) Protein "requirements" beyond the RDA: implications for optimizing health - PubMed
- Protein for older people to be 1 to 1.3g/kg/day(2015) Protein Requirements and Recommendations for Older People: A Review - PubMed
- Daily protein intake to be 1.2-1.8g/kg From Examine (yes, this is but a site) Optimal Protein Intake Guide - Examine
- How much protein per meal to build protein How much protein can the body use in a single meal for muscle-building? Implications for daily protein distribution | Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition | Full Text
There has also been some evidence showing that high protein diets cause no harm in healthy kidneys:
However, the opposite is true for “damaged” kidneys:
And some feel that more research about the whole topic is necessary:
One thing is clear, the ESFA guidelines are safe, but more active individuals will require higher protein content. For most (assuming healthy conditions), even up to 2g/kg of bodyweight seem safe. The “upper limit” of when high protein is too much is “unclear”.
As for this point:
The first (if its about protein) does not seem to match the literature. Up to 2.2g/kg or more (depending activity levels) seem “optimal” How much protein can the body use in a single meal for muscle-building? Implications for daily protein distribution | Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition | Full Text. Not sure about the fat, but I think similarly to protein it depends on goals and bodytype. I think for people with specific goals in mind with very high dietary restrictions (such as bodybuilding), Huel might not be optimal but good.
From their statement it seems that they believe all their products are nutritionally superior to Huel’s (hard task to do this judgement in most circumstances); but even Feed has products with “suboptimal” ingredients and nutritional values (such as “crunchy” or the chocolate spread).
Besides the nutritional argument where I agree with @JamesCollier
the point about the products
is very weak:
- You can easily engineer a 600kcal meal, or a 300kcal meal or a 1000kcal shake just by adding more or less g of Huel. Same with Feed. Recommended servings are just that, guidelines. I personally enjoy a ~400kcal breakfast +coffee.
- About the bars, it has been discussed in other threads (Huel Bar v3.0 now available - improved texture - #12 by ryanhellyer) that some would prefer a bigger bar (like Feed and other brand’s). It is personal preference whether you use the bars to snack or as a meal; or it will depend on your dietary requirements. Huel has made a bet for 250kcal bars. Whether you disagree or not is up to you. Must say, I enjoy the taste of Feed. bars. (opinion that others seem to share @ChristinaT
- Also, as a side note, I feel like the bars (both brands and others) tend to be nutritionally weaker to powders due to limitations in manufacturing them.
This is one of Feed.'s main strengths; the variety on flavours, products and the taste.
To other points in this thread:
There are other brands with similar or higher protein % in some of their products:
- Jake Light
- Queal Athletic (slightly lower)
- Powdermatter (v small company)
- Anapur (slightly lower)
- Athlete Fuel by SBF
etc
But, yes, Huel is the main brand with that much protein.
Overall, there must be said that
+1
Not sure if first rule or not, but I agree that Guerrila marketing can backfire, and personally I prefer to hype each other rather than undermine.
Market is big, there are different niches and people with different taste and needs. Similar to some people buy Nikes, others prefer Addidas trainers and the climbers might favour some specialist brands.