Why not just mention the brand name? We are all adults here…
My bet is that it’s Nutrilent Vegan. Some other brands come close, but Nutrilent is the only one that is exactly 160g per single serving, as per the “hints”. Anyone with google could yada yada the rest.
Other posts with other lent brand discussion have been locked by… hrm… Huel staff, so it’s sort of a legitimate concern that it could happen again. @ryanhellyer can of course dodge this until the end of days, as is his prerogative. His alternative wasn’t the point, in any case.
eatcomplete.co, if anyone wants to branch out. It’s not exactly exclusive to Huel, and everybody knows that.
If it’s 160 grams per 667 calories, it’s a bit of a shame they don’t pack in multiples of whole days. 160 grams per 667 calories would be 480 grams per 2000 calories, and that would allow a whole number serving size (in grams) regardless of if you want to consume 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 meals per day. The only mass achievable by 'lents that would allow more whole number serving sizes would be 420 grams, which allows 1-7 meals.
I believe it is a different brand than that.
Is that selling now? It was “under reorganization” when I last checked in June, and now I get an https security error trying to access it.
I’m not concerned about the thread getting locked. I just consider it impolite to go bashing their product, then advertising something else here.
Huel has reached out to me and I’m going to try their new recipe and see how that works out.
I doubt it will be as convenient as the other product I am consuming at the moment, but I do trust Huel more than other companies. I think trust is important when you are dealing with a Frankenstein like powder food that could be full of all sorts of junk without you realising. So if it suits me sufficiently enough, I’ll switch back to Huel.
I think those are all fair comments.
I just shake it like a mad thing and I’ve been lucky/fortunate perhaps not to have the lumping issue others describe.
Even without the lumps, it’s still too thick and viscous. Most of Huel’s competitors don’t have that problem. I think the lumps are just a symptom of the problem, rather than the problem itself. Lumps can always be removed with a blender.
The viscosity is not a problem as such. It’s very much intentional and was introduced in 2.0.
I like the viscosity of Huel and don’t even mind the lumps to be honest. Within reason of course - I just make sure to give the shaker a damn good thrashing!
Why the heck would anyone intentionally make it more viscous!?
No wonder I prefer the competitors if that’s the case.
It was highly requested and one of the major complaints at the time that Huel was too thin. It did have a tendency to settle at the bottom a few minutes after mixing.
1.2 could be mixed at 100g to 400mil to water and it was still… watery. As in, milk kind of watery. I’ve read the descriptor ‘dishwater consistency’. You had to go to with less water to even approach thickness.
Polls were put out. The majority of users now go from pleased to very pleased about the new viscosity, mouthfeel, calorie to water ratio and satiety. Others quit.
@Gen is referring to Unflavoured Huel not Vanilla.
Since you use Vanilla @ryanhellyer this change in November 2016 to the viscosity of U/U Huel would not have affected you.
That sounds much better, more the like the competitor that I’m drinking now. I find that very confusing that people would actually prefer it that way. I’d actually been concerned that the other products had a better consistency due to adding something like maltodextrin to drive the food into solution and so had been avoiding many of them out of concerns of that.
You mean they add something to make it thinner? No. Huel adds to make it thicker. Not to say gum blends are inherently bad for you, they’re just extra, and minimal.
To be fair, a smoother and more homogenous mouthfeel that neither settles or clumps would probably appeal the the greatest amount of people. Business is business, in the end, and probably why some brands have gone straight to selling pre-mixed bottles. It’s similar to what’s already on shelves.
Water to calorie ratio hasn’t exactly been something I’ve seen mentioned anywhere. Although pretty much every brand goes with the “meal replacement” and “all you need in a day”, 2k calories marketing wordpoopery, as some sort of day-to-day solution, they don’t address how well some would find it at an aggressive surplus. Some of us like to do that. I suspect the vast marketable consumer base prefer losing or maintaining weight. Appealing to them is important.
This also makes sense, but from someone who just wants to buy calories to certain macro and micro values, overconsumption of some values be damned, I prefer caloric density. I also can’t drink thick liquids without discomfort. So a 1:1 calorie to milliliter ratio is one of my highest rated metrics. Aside from that, satiety levels are also pretty important. Then again, I had no trouble being sated on 2k calories of Huel 1.2 UU. Maybe some did.
At some point “add more water” just means “piss all the time”, and I could do with way less of that.
That’s what I thought it was. It didn’t dawn on me that Huel would have been adding something to intentionally make it thicker. I had assumed that making it thinner was one of the main goals of the Huel team. But it seems their goal was the exact opposite of what I had thought they were trying to do
There’s value in finding a good middle ground.
Not for me, of course, I hate it. But I understand the idea.
I suspect a middle ground is a bad idea. I assume people will either want thick viscous goop or buttery smooth. In between may satisfy nobody.
I had incorrectly assumed nobody wanted thick viscous goop and also incorrectly guessed that there was a valid nutritional reason for Huel being thicker than it’s competitors.
If the middle ground yields a higher return, retains more customers and yields greater satisfaction while outnumbering the number of people who simply don’t buy, it is at the very least a viable idea.
Whether or not the values look different with a greater spread of products through a greater number of variables is worth exploring, but if you’re simultaneously banking limited amounts of real hard money on these decisions… you know, you don’t gamble and you follow through on the decisions. At least before setting out to make new ones.
1.2 UU, among all the lents I’ve tried, was my favorite. I bought it by the pallet load at the end. But the market is new, brands are popping up all over the place, and I’ve high hopes I’ll find my perfect alternative one of these days. Might even be Huel, who knows.
Until then, compromise