Is living off 100% Huel the same, as eating the healthiest meal in the world every day?

21

I feel like this person, whoever they may be, was just a little annoyed we wouldn’t supply them with 6 months worth of Huel for free. Some people use Huel 100% which some doubted to be possible/safe/healthy so we conducted our own investigation on a couple of people, many of you have read the article.

Therefore there is no reason for us to give over thousands of pounds worth of product for 1 person’s self-experiment when we have already done the same experiment on two people. They have just made this up because they were a bit peeved!

9 Likes
22

Oh wow really? Yeah, I can understand not just handing out 6 months worth of product to anyone conducting home experiments. Plus now it’s hard to consider the person unbiased in any way or not have some interest. He should have paid for all of the product. Which also has an extra benefit: the price factor. The quality versus the price should be a factor, but if you just get half a year of free stuff left and right you’ll never feel it in your wallet. Also him misrepresenting facts makes his ëxperiment" very questionable. That’s the problem with all these home experiments. Of course, when done en masse, which is kind of happening right now useful data will surface.
On the experiment: Joylent is cheap but clearly an inferior product. I have some left and sometimes take one for flavor variety. Pulve I only gave it a quick look up, seems a bit high in carbs.

3 Likes
23

We wish Lee all the best with his experiments and his effort to gain attention for the total meal replacement sector.

Regarding the carb comment. It’s fair. But 60 grams of carbs per meal is the least I would opt for.
It’s always difficult to find the perfect ratio for every person with regard to the macro split. But thank you for the post.

Cheers

Ruud

24

So do organic ingredients contain more nutrients than GMO? If this is the case which I strongly suspect, having always preferred organic over anything else, I will give your suggestions a go.

25

Good strategy, that’s what I’m going to have to adopt I think. 100% Huel is too much, with too little flavour and textural variety.

26

No, organic ingredients do not contain more nutrients than GMOs. In fact, in some cases the opposite is true. The reason GMOs exist is generally an attempt to either increase yield of a plant species, or to minimise resources required for their growth. Genetically modifying an organism is simply a more precise, targeted change of some of the bases in the DNA which activate certain genes (oversimplification, but it gets across the point). This is something that occurs in nature all the time but in a less controlled manner, via sexual reproduction. Due to the way we are able to pinpoint what we change, we are actually able to create GMOs with more nutrients than organic products, not less, though that is not the primary focus of GMOs.

In short though, no, organic products don’t contain more nutrients than GMOs.

1 Like
27

Is it really worth worrying about if Huel is nutritionally optimal? The law of diminishing returns would suggest that each tweak makes less of a difference than the previous one. There are probably many other aspects of your lifestyle that have a bigger impact on your health. Physical activity, sleep, stress and stuff.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate that the team keeps developing the product. But it’s pretty improbable that I will notice anything health wise from these changes as an individual.

1 Like
28

Just because you don’t notice doesn’t necessarily mean your body isn’t appreciating the improvements.

1 Like
29

Yes, I agree. WFPB diet is the healthiest. I think Huel is a great option when feeling lazy, or like you say. to build upon. It’s certainly a better option that processed of fast food when on the go.
I have huel for one or two meals per day and have fruit, raw veg and humous between. I also add frozen blueberries to my huel. I try to follow Dr Gregers daily dozen for between foods (greens, fruit, nuts, turmeric, spices etc). x

1 Like
30

I would go as far as saying Huel is WFPB.

The plant-based part is easy - Huel is made from plants.

The whole food part is trickier. Whole foods usually have these qualities in common:

  • low or no processing - Huel is less processed than a cheese sandwich
  • low salt - Huel is low in salt
  • low sugar - Huel is low in sugar
  • high fiber - Huel is high in fiber
  • low glycemic index - Huel has low GI
  • lots of vitamins & minerals - Huel has all vitamins and minerals you need
  • vitamins and minerals are in a bioavailable form - Huel contains vitamins & minerals that are in a bioavailable form, and Huel contains a good amount of fats/proteins to help absorption

I probably missed a few points, but you get the idea.

2 Likes
31

This is not really the case. GMOs exist for two reasons - control of the market, and profit. The yield and resources justifications are mostly marketing spin to disguise what’s really going on.

1 Like
32

I mean you can say the same thing about literally anything. The point is, due to increased yield and the decreased resources required, billions of lives have been saved. The reason they have been developed for profit is because they have the ability to generate such profit due to the increased yield and decreased resources required to make them. Otherwise there’d be no profit there.

4 Likes
33

The largest GM seed producer is Monsanto, the same people who brought us Agent Orange - hardly a trustworthy brand! And the increase in yield is increasingly being shown to be a myth. As for saving billions of lives… nah.
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html#.WVYkqIqQzdQ

3 Likes
34

Oh for Christ’s sake.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil/answers/9740807

2 Likes
35

Care to actually expand on this or are you just going to say “nah”? Literally billions of people across Asia have not starved to death as a direct result of GMOs. If you wish I can provide sources for this.

The rest of your post quotes a study from 2009 which focuses exclusively on GMOs in the US - already a very developed nation, and not one which requires the benefits of increased yield so much as poorer countries.

This 2014 meta-analysis states that:

“On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries”.

The overwhelming majority of evidence is in support of GMOs. You’re welcome to your opinion, but to suggest Monsanto in not trustworthy simply for bringing us Agent Orange, despite the fact they’ve moved on to completely different goals, is absurd. Of similar absurdity would be boycotting Hugo Boss for their work on Nazi uniforms during the Second World War.

5 Likes
36

I’m waiting for someone to claim that article was written for, or by, Monsanto. Sorry, The Evil Monsanto :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like
37

You cant be seriously suggesting a natural product is more harmful than GM modified? If you are serious, it means you believe the food eaten by humans over millions of years wasn’t healthy until Genetically modified food was developed!!!

1 Like
38

In terms of actual harm from various foods, that’s exactly what I’m suggesting. What you’re forgetting is even natural, organic foods today are grown very differently than they were in the millions of years of our evolution. Carrots, for example, used to be purple until we selectively bred them (and what is selective breeding when you really get down to it than a less targeted form of genetic modification?)

More importantly though, the issue lies in farming methods of organic produce, including types of manure and pesticides used (contrary to popular belief, organic foods still use just as many pesticides, they’re just more regulated). As there are so many extremely strict pieces of legislation on GMOs, they simply don’t have as much leeway for these mistakes as organic foods. That’s why GMOs haven’t led to a single death despite feeding (and saving the lives of) billions and billions of people, whilst organic produce is linked to many cases of disease and death every year (see here and here).

What you have to realise is the organic produce we have around today is nothing like the foods our ancestors used to consume for millions of years. In addition to that, we have a better diet now than we did for those millions of years, and are seeing such in our increased lifespans. So yes, I am saying GMOs are healthier than organic.

6 Likes
39

It’s really nice to hear someone talking sense on this subject for once. Kudos!

2 Likes
40

They might have moved on - but their victims still suffer today. As I said, hardly a trustworthy brand.

Of course they have their defenders, and there’s possibly some good people working for them. But do I want a big chunk the food supply of the human race in their greedy, grubby big mitts? I don’t think so.

OK, let’s take this slowly.

Billions = multiple billions, right?

There’s not far off 7 billion people on the planet right now, and we’re not all hungry! In fact, at any one time, there are around a billion people in the world who are suffering from hunger - and not all of them die, or are going to die!

GM foods have been available since the mid-1990s - let’s say 20 years, for ease. Now, the number of those dying from hunger has been climbing since the 1990s, since GM foods have been available, but let’s leave that to one side as some of that, at least, may be down to the overall growth in global population.

More interesting, around 36,000,000 will die from hunger this year. For now, let’s take this number as an annual number for the past 20 years, since GM foods have been available, and 20 x 36,000,000 = 720,000,000. Which is, without doubt, way too high, and also LESS than a single billion. And if hunger deaths have been climbing for the past 20 years, even that number will be too high as it takes a 20-year peak number of annual deaths. But that get’s a bit too detailed for our purposes here.

I know you can challenge any number, and we could trade links till the GM cows come home - but let’s not. The point is, your “billions” saved by GM is a massive exaggeration, and that’s the only point I wanted to make - for the benefit of others at least, even if you choose not to accept the obvious.