is it not fair to say that the majority of huel users aren’t 100%, but rather eat huel for breakfast and/or lunch?
if at -say - 1000kcal, huel was formulated to give 100% nutrition save for carbs/protein/fat, then it would allow someone greater freedom/less fuss in what they chose to eat for their non-huel meals, something which feels like it would be in keeping with the ethos of the product
as it is, unless one is 100% huel, one still faces having to spend the time and/or money crafting a well balanced diet for the meal of the day they choose not to consume huel.
were someone to launch the argument that its plain lazy not to want to do that, i’d say that that may well be true, but you could say exactly the same thing about giving yourself a balanced diet in general, with no huel. One of the key selling points of the product as I see it is that it replaces the need to do this. One might argue, well it’s at least replacing the need to do this for 2/3 (say) of the time and that’s better than nothing, and I’d wholeheartedly agree, but it seems a shame to have an otherwise excellent product do 2/3 the job I’d like it to do.
If i’m alone in this then it’s a different matter - the creators of Huel are not designing a product just for me afterall - it’s supposed to be as good as it can be for the maximum number of people possible. And that’s what brings me back to where I started - am I really alone in this? Or am I right in thinking that most people don’t use Huel to replace 100% of their diet, and furthermore that of those people, a majority would rather Huel gave them the complete nutrition* they were looking for whilst still being able to enjoy ‘solid’ food once a day without having the caveat of having to ensure that whatever real food they chose to eat was as well balanced in its nutrient content as the huel itself?
By the way, I’d like to add that I absolutely love huel as a product - I’ve had it pretty much all day every day for a year now - and I greatly respect the creators; i’m just curious on the above!
*I appreciate ‘complete nutrition’ would usually be taken to include full carb/protein/fat intake; i’m using the term in a slightly modified manner basically to mean complete nutrition of all the stuff its difficult to otherwise ensure inclusion of in any given diet/meal without excess consideration. It feels easy to have a loose idea of the carb/protein/fat content of a meal but the other stuff less so. (Appreciate veg (for example) is always a good shout for nutrients but again, aren’t a lot of people choosing huel because they don’t want to necessarily have to consider the inclusion of veg + its requisite preparation at every turn when it comes to eating solid food?)