Awesome thanks @Kizeree
Hi user133
Weâre hoping to update on this in the next few days; just finalising a few things. In the near future, we will be responding to both the salt issue and the fluoride issue. Things will change; I just donât want to respond half-heartedly until decisions have been finalised.
Thanks for your continues enthusiasm in Huel
5 Likes
FYI: A recent update from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine on August 17th 2016 with some more research linking fluoride consumption to type 2 diabetes.
Water fluoridation prevents dental cavities, which are a costly public health concern. But despite the benefits supplemental water fluoridation remains a controversial subject. Some indicate it may cause long term health problems, but studies reporting side effects have been minimal or inconclusive. The long-term effects of ingested fluoride remain unclear.
A recent study published in the Journal of Water and Health examined links between water fluoridation and diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is a growing epidemic in the United States. Incidence rates have nearly quadrupled in the past 32 years and show no signs of stopping. According to the study, fluoridation with sodium fluoride could be a contributing factor to diabetes rates in the United States, as the chemical is a known preservative of blood glucose.
The sole author of the paper, Kyle Fluegge, PhD, performed the study as a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. Fluegge now serves as health economist in the Division of Disease Control for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and co-director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Cleveland, Ohio.
In the study, Fluegge used mathematical models to analyze publicly available data on fluoride water levels and diabetes incidence and prevalence rates across 22 states. He also included adjustments for obesity and physical inactivity collected from national telephone surveys to help rule out confounding factors. Two sets of regression analyses suggested that supplemental water fluoridation was significantly associated with increases in diabetes between 2005 and 2010.
âThe models look at the outcomes of [diabetes] incidence and prevalence being predicted by both natural and added fluoride,â said Fluegge.
Fluegge reported that a one milligram increase in average county fluoride levels predicted a 0.17% increase in age-adjusted diabetes prevalence. Digging deeper revealed differences between the types of fluoride additives used by each region. The additives linked to diabetes in the analyses included sodium fluoride and sodium fluorosilicate. Fluorosilicic acid seemed to have an opposing effect and was associated with decreases in diabetes incidence and prevalence. Counties that relied on naturally occurring fluoride in their water and did not supplement with fluoride additives also had lower diabetes rates.
The positive association between fluoridation and diabetes was discovered when Fluegge adjusted fluoride exposure levels to account for estimated per capita tap water consumption.
âThe models present an interesting conclusion that the association of water fluoridation to diabetes outcomes depends on the adjusted per capita consumption of tap water,â explained Fluegge. âOnly using the concentration [of added fluoride] does not produce a similarly robust, consistent association.â For this reason, Fluegge adjusted his calculations to incorporate tap water consumption, instead of sticking to calculations that rely on âparts per millionâ measurements of fluoride in the water.
Fluegge used several estimations in his study, including calculations of county-level water fluoride levels; per capita county tap water consumption; and county measures of poverty, obesity and physical inactivity. Although he doesnât suggest the study should trigger policy changes, he does indicate it should serve as a call for additional research on the important association between fluoridation and diabetes.
âThis is an ecological study. This means it is not appropriate to apply these findings directly to individuals,â explained Fluegge. âThese are population-level associations being made in the context of an exploratory inquiry. And water is not the only direct source of fluoride; there are many other food sources produced with fluoridated water.â
In addition to being found in food like processed beverages or produce exposed to specific pesticides, fluoride is found naturally in water in the form of calcium fluoride. Supplemental fluoride was first added to community water supplies in the 1940s.
Said Fluegge, âThe models indicate that natural environmental fluoride has a protective effect from diabetes. Unfortunately, natural fluoride is not universally present in the water supply.â
https://casemed.case.edu/newscenter/news-release/newsrelease.cfm?news_id=368
1 Like
James, can you comment on whether youâve changed from the natural form of Vitamin E in v 1.2 to the synthetic form in v 2 (as it seems from the packaging)
Iâm down to my last bag of V1.2 and not keen on the thickness and salt changing in a bad way so waiting to hear before I cancel my subscription.
Huel is great, the taste and consistency make it a pleasure to consume on V1.2
1 Like
Some of the vitamin E in both V1.2 and V2.0 comes from the natural ingredients, topped up with DL-Alpha Tocopheryl Acetate. However, in V2.0 we managed to reduce the DL-Alpha Tocopheryl Acetate by two thirds
Are you kidding ? So there is one study in the US thatâs telling us that fluoride could cause diabetes ? In the country where there is the most number of obese in the world ? Donât you just think that itâs not actual number of people who have diabetes that grew during this period, but simply the number of people diagnosed with diabetes, and thatâs a big differenceâŚ
I would like to see where the fundings come from for this studyâŚ
they talk about type2 like itâs an epidemic. Yeah, itâs just people eating too much (and not only too much sugar)
You should just try it, and not be driven by the commentsâŚI stopped Huel 4 months ago on V1.2, now i tried 2.0, and if it wasnât for this forum, i wouldnât have noticed any differenceâŚMake your own opinion
Ok thanks. Mine is a big subscription so donât want to be left with lots of Huel I donât want.
I have no issues with the taste, sweetness or thickness of v2.0 - I never tried 1.2 but i have no complaints on that front.
1 Like
Yes, itâs just one study⌠To go with the other studies to make up a larger body of information. Itâs posted here because the article was dated in the last month or so and itâs relevant to the conversation Feel free to post links to scientific studies that provide the counterview to this research.
Which batch number is your V2?
Edit: forgot to ask if unsweetened or vanilla also?
I agree. People should not be driven by the comments alone. For a completely rounded opinion, they should read the forum, check the ingredients on the back of the packet and try Huel - then form an opinion based on what they think, supported by the most available evidence.
The above quote from you is a bit insulting to the intelligence of what is a forum of health conscience adults âdrivenâ by those who care about what they put into their bodies. It implies people are convinced Huel v2.0 is salty because they have read on here that it is and that the words on this forum have somehow brainwashed their minds - so on behalf of all of the intelligent people on this forum (if I may be so bold): your words and implications are a falsehood. Huel v2.0 leaves a salty aftertaste in my mouth, this is not imagined. It is real. And it is real for others.
I for one would rather listen to the words of those who check the details, if I am not interested in checking the details myself. Life is about the details, especially when it comes to health, and this is not the army.
Besides, because so many people on here are saying Huel v2.0 tastes salty, it is quite likely that anybody who tries it and hasnât read the forum will join the forum to see if other people are having a similar experience (which is actually happening).
You joined the forum 3 days ago, and all of your posts (except the first one) are defending Huel and attacking anybody who has an opinion that asks reasonable questions about the product, while exaggerating what people are asking in order to illicit sympathetic responses in an attempt to create an arena where those who are asking reasonable questions are deemed fools, and those drinking a salty version of a previously fantastic product without questioning it are deemed heroic, or brave/strong in some way.
The language you use like âAre you kidding?â and the below quote points to someone who thinks they know best; you are attempting to be instructive, using emotive language and appearing defensive.
âŚSo I can leave feedback, but only positive feedback that helps the promotion of Huel? I must have missed that in the small print of the forum. To be clear: It is absolutely OK for me and anybody else to suggest whatever I/they want, and the nutritionist is absolutely allowed to ignore this request or act on it. Thatâs because we are not in the army or in prison.
And remember, whatever you or I think about Huel is irrelevant, itâs about the experience of the individual, and many individuals are thinking v2.0 is salty. There is a problem, hence the reason James is preparing a statement and the amount of salt in the drink is being looked at.
Instead of attempting, and failing to instruct people what their experience of Huel 2.0 should be, and then trying to demonise anybody who is sharing their perfectly valid experience of Huel v2.0 to a forum intended to do just that, perhaps you should focus on opening up a new thread that shares your positive experience. Which you are absolutely entitled to do. Then other people will be encouraged to share their own happy experience of v2.0.
It will be interesting to read how many people are enjoying v2.0 more than v.1.2, and would certainly balance the conversations of those who are not enjoying v2.0 as much.
3 Likes
Well i should then let you all âdriveâ your forum as it is,
I really donât know what youâre on about here. They have explicitly said the reason they add salt was to make sure 2000 kcal a day exceeds the EU Reference Intake. This is obviously driven by marketing reasons - you will notice since v2.0 the website is covered with text about 100% of nutritional needs and matching 100% EU intake for 27 vitamins and minerals.
The problem is the EU Reference Intake for salt and other nutrients are MAXIMUMS not guideline daily amounts. This is a really terrible mistake for any food company to have made, let alone one where a qualified nutritionist is supposed to be designing the product. This is the mistake that they only half admit too but that I think it would be better for the company if they got right in front of and came out to explain the mistake and rapidly change the product, removing v2.0 from sale as soon as possible.
So there is nothing about carefully balancing the taste or some deep reason we donât understand. They threw the salt in to hit 100% of EU Reference Intake - thinking they were RDAâs not tolerable upper limits. The US actually has clearer guidelines with recommended amount separate to tolerable upper limit.
I could post links to this all day but here is one from Sainsburys:
https://livewellforless.sainsburys.co.uk/multi-traffic-light-labelling/
âReference Intake (RIs) are a guide to the maximum amounts of calories, fat, saturates, sugars and salt an adult should consume in a day (based on an average female adult).â
For flouride they use the Nutrient Recommended Value from the EU which at least is indeed a recommended value. But for flouride the recommended value (4mg/day) and the Tolerable Upper Limit (7mg/day) are quite close, and anyone in a flouridated water area will exceed that. Read the report below (starting p366) you will see that dietary supplementation of flouride at this level is not expected outside of the flouridated water supply:
I am not sure what you are talking about with sodium. According to UK law all sodium has to reported on the packaging as âsaltâ - so the âsaltâ figures we are referring too include all the natural sources of sodium and the added sea salt. To go from sodium amount to salt amount multiply by 2.5. All this has already been covered in the threads on salt, and I think in this thread. You might benefit from reading through some of that material. I donât think anyone has made any comments about potassium. Do you think the potassium levels are too high? What do they have to do with salt? For food labelling salt refers only to sodium chloride and is equivalent to sodium content (with the 2.5 factor).
On the Huel nutritional information they even label it as GDA (Guideline Daily Amount). Excuse the caps but this is the real error. EU REFERENCE INTAKES ARE NOT GUIDELINE DAILY AMOUNTS.
I donât understand why they design Huel to reach 100% reference intake for salt, but not for example Sugar or Saturated Fat? Why not? Obviously because it doesnât make any sense. Why does it for salt?
2 Likes
I made the comment about potassium - the important figure for concerns about blood pressure and cardiovascular disease is the ratio of intake between sodium and potassium (sodium can increase blood pressure, potassium lowers it). The problem with a processed diet is usually that itâs BOTH high in sodium AND low in potassium.
I suggested that increasing the potassium as well as lowering the sodium might be something Huel could consider.
1 Like
I agree, and it seems that the Potassium content in V2 has been lowered by over 200mg per 100g. As a competitive long distance runner, the high amount of potassium included was a big selling point.
@JamesCollier
The potassium in Huel is both naturally occurring and from our vitamin & mineral blend. The amount in V2.0 is adequate and meets minimum requirements at 2000 calories. @xenonp, as youâre a long distance runner, Iâm guessing that you consume a lot more than 2,000 calories per day âŚ? If this is the case, then if youâre consuming 100% Huel, then you will be consuming a lot more potassium; if youâre consuming part Huel, then you must still be having a considerable intake from other foods which would include high potassium foods.
Why do people compare Huel to ânormalâ unhealty food that most people eat? Thatâs not what Huel is meant to be! Huelâs not meant to be a more convenient way to have a standard sub-optimal diet!
A bit of background based on what I heard Julian say in an interview in a podcast:
The origins of Huel come from Julian trying to improve his health through nutrition (and exercise). He had nutritionally optimum meal plans to follow. Then he realised that most people donât have the time to prepare such nutritious meals all the time, so he set about creating a more convenient way for people to get healthy nutrition quickly and easily. He got James (a very experienced, qualified nutritionist) on board to make sure the recipe is nutritionally complete.
Huel IS intended as a quick and convenient version of HEALTHY food. Huel is NOT intended as a way to replace a standard unhealthy diet. If it was, there would be no vitamins added, there would be far more carbs (probably from maltodextrin or sugar) compared to fat and protein. Why do you think they add the vitamins and calculate the macro-nutrient ratios if itâs not intended to be optimum nutrition?
Saying that most people consume more than the recommended amount of salt in a ânormalâ unhealthy diet is no argument for the presence of too much salt in Huel. A lot of people also drink more than the recommended units of alcohol (much to the detriment of their health), but I donât want alcohol in my Huel either.
4 Likes
Just tried my new delivery, batch number 2476.
Lumpy, gelatinous⌠doesânt taste as salty though.
2 Likes