Having been trained by the government to think in terms of ‘5 fruit and veg a day’ as a good indicator of healthiness and ‘greasy burgers’ as a bad indicator of healthiness, how does the Heel Bar stack up to this rather unscientific metric?
I understand, of course, that Huel is ‘nutritionally complete’, and the same claim is made of the bar. So, theoretically (at least with the powder, I appreciate it’s not possible to eat 2000 calories of bars a day) Huel is the equivalent of adhering perfectly to your government-reccomended 5 a day (or likely even better)?
Another example - I have in front of me a standard bar of Dairy Milk and a Huel Bar. Obviously the Huel Bar is healthier - but by how much? How much of a benefit am I getting by substituting my daily chocolate bar for a Huel bar? To what extent will it ‘offset’ the other bad choices I have made that day viz my food choices?
A further example - An Apple and a Banana. Is the Huel bar technically ‘healthier’ than eating those?
It’s very hard to look at a solid block of brown matter and think ‘this right here is more healthier than plain fruit or plain vegetables, so I’d better eat this first’.
Hopefully this makes sense… I’m just trying to place a Huel Bar mentally in my head health-wise?