@davidmccarlie, have you explored keto versions?
We’ve just launched the primary Huel formula. We have a lot of plans: one being a low carb version of Huel
“Oats come in a wide variety of forms, including Irish, steel cut, rolled, and instant. Depending on which one you select, the GI could vary from 42 to 66.”
Sure. Plus there’s so much more that influences the GI. We don’t eat foods on their own: we eat them as meals. Huel is a perfect example of this.
@JamesCollier or @Julian, it’s been three months since you’ve indicated you want to obtain a value; do you guys have a GI value for Huel?
1 Like
No sorry the test costs £3500. So it’s not something we can justify at the moment.
1 Like
Hello Julian, i do appreciate huel, and i am 2 meals a day hueler.
I Hope that You have palnned At last to invest to let know all huelers the gi.
When WILL we know. Please tray to fix a date? Thankyou
My blood sugars are lower (but still within healthy ranges)!on 100% Huel than they were when I was eating regular, supposedly low-GI foods. That tells me all I really need to know about the glycemic load of Huel. Like James said, combination of foods plays a huge part in the impact on the body.
1 Like
I was in a meeting the other day and was told that it’s against EU legislation to display / publish GI scores for a food product, which surprised me to say the least. We are currently looking for the relevant legislation.
2 Likes
I just Googled it and this indicates that may be incorrect…just making representation about a low GI is against legislation. Dunno how old the link is, nor how accurate. I just selected the first one I Googled.
1 Like
That is useful, thank you. We are currently awaiting clarification on the issue.
1 Like
OMG!!! One more convincing argument for the Brexit!
2 Likes
Just my thoughts on this, but it would be great to hear from Julian what the current legal situation is.
From what I know, Glycemic Index is not free of critic - see Wikipedia article [1] or the Health Canada’s paper [2] (see Ric’s link to NCBI).
EFSA’s strategy to only allow proven health claims is great - would be a mess otherwise. Problem here seems to be that a panel back in 2010 didn’t see evidence for such a claim (see EFSA journal [3]). A decision that is criticised in return (see this article [4]).
As far as I understand it correctly, it is ok to_display_ the GI. You’re just not allowed to conclude anything because of a “low” or “high” GI (because this would be than a health claim). Pretty much what Ric said.
Anyhow, would be interested to hear what the official situation is (and why, what, …). Just out of curiosity.
And because I’m a new user and can only post two links per post, here are the links:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index#Criticism_and_alternatives
[2] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/12/ajcn.113.061770.full.pdf
[3] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/1491.pdf
[4] http://www.nutraingredients.com/Regulation-Policy/Low-GI-health-claims-are-down-but-not-out
1 Like
We’re looking into this issue.
Thanks for the link - however, it makes no reference to GI and as there isn’t a legally recognised method for obtaining a GI measurement, we have to be cautious.
GI may be taken as an indication that there’s implication of a connection between the food and the person’s health. A health claim, under EU regs, has to state, suggest or imply a relationship.
This is where GI falls into a grey area and is why we’re looking into it.
2 Likes
Hi James. In other ansewers about gi, you referred about it costs to know gi (L. 3500), now about law. Can company afford the test and give the information with the limits that you explained before? Thanks and regards
1 Like
Page 17 makes specific reference to GI:
"Some issues related to the Article 13.1 list, considered within the Code, are commented on below.
Glycaemic index claims
The concept of glycaemic index (GI) is a well-defined way of ranking foods high in carbohydrates owing to their effect on the blood glucose response. Thus, “low GI” would be well defined once an upper value for what is considered as “low” is set. Within the Code this upper limit was set to 55, using glucose as a reference (GI = 100) (8; Box 1). In the Regulation, GI claims might be considered as Article 13.1a claims, i.e. claims referring to the role of a nutrient (carbohydrates) in the functions of the body (blood glucose response). However, since many factors, including food matrix and food processing, influence the GI value of a food, determinations in humans are required on each product. Experiences from handling GI claims within the Code strongly stress the importance of consulting expertise for a standardized evaluation of GI determinations. A premarketing evaluation would be useful to avoid misleading GI claims, at least until the methodology for GI determinations has been further developed and harmonized.
Since specific health outcomes of a low GI food or diet, e.g. reduced risk of a disease or beneficial effects on a risk factor for disease, satiety or body weight, have not been considered as well established 35, no such claims are included in the SNF list."
1 Like
Thanks for that, Ric
This issue needs more fuller investigation.
So are we any nearer knowing what the GI of Huel is? I’d be amazed if not pretty low as I have experienced a much more stable sugar level since using Huel. I used to have real troughs, cold sweats and all. Since Huel (and Yoga) not getting anything like this.
1 Like
Just another person registering their interest in what the GI of Huel is like.