Glycemic Index of Huel

You can definitely publish GI scores. You can’t make misleading GI claims.

NCBI link

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.

We will probably get it tested once new version is out, in the next couple of months.

The cost of testing at £3500 is the problem.

1 Like

And I’m guessing you’d need to pay £3.5k for ‘normal’ huel, then £3.5k for ‘gluten free’ huel, then £3.5k for the sweetener packs, then £3.5k for the next version, and £3.5k for the gluten free version, etc, etc.

1 Like

@nickymoo yes that is correct if we wanted to be 100% accurate. But in theory the difference between the different versions of Huel should be very small, especially between gluten free and non gluten free, in terms of GI.

@Julian are you able to share what the new version is?

@Coup not just yet, sorry.

@Ric we have finally had Huel tested for GI.

The result is: 27 (Low)

Please see the document from Oxford Brookes University.

5 Likes

Amazing. Great work guys!

1 Like

Don’t know much about these things. How does that compare to other foodstuffs?

About the same as milk

@RDW

Here are the broad categories of GI.

I am researching Huel as a part of my diet. I’ve done DNAfit (www.dnafit.com) test which recommended daily Glycaemic Load below 70. Taking into account that GI for Huel Vanilla is 27, and the way to calculate GL, according to http://www.dummies.com/food-drink/special-diets/glycemic-index-diet/how-to-calculate-glycemic-load/, is GICarbs_in_portion/100, and the portion of Huel is 121g, then GL of Huel Vanilla must be 2738.1*1.21/100=12.4. This means that I can have 4 portions of Huel in a day and still have 20 GL “to spare”. Very nice, thank you!

Would you recommend the dnafit test? Which one did you go for?