Apologies for coming off as a curmudgeon here, but here goes:
Do you also assume that the nutrimental profile labels of your regular diet are independently tested, and are you confident about the quality of the ingredients of your normal diet?
Your question definitely warrants answering, but I would think that whatever the answer, that answer applies not just to Huel, but to your normal diet. You seem to be holding Huel to a higher standard than regular food, when in fact, Huel is most likely better for you than your previous diet.
(Unless you ask every restaurant and grocery you frequent these same questions.)
I can’t imagine what would happen if I print a few copies of Derrick’s post, take them to supermarkets and restaurants, and make videos of the responses. I can’t even imagine how many hits that would generate on youtube
I’ve actually thought the same many times. Putting aside Rics comment, has anyone actually taken Huel and had it tested for what the ingredients are according to a 3rd party?
I know there are labs you can send samples to and they’ll break it down and tell you exactly what nutritional values are in there, but I’ve only ever seen them on TV and not available to the general public. It’s something I wouldn’t mind doing but I’d imagine it’d be expensive.
I’m not saying Huel is untrustworthy, but like Derrick says, long term use of the same product warrants a little research and in a way it’s my own fault for not doing it before I started eating Huel.
“The standards provide guidance and tools for companies and organizations who want to ensure that their products and services consistently meet customer’s requirements, and that quality is consistently improved.”
It’s an assurance that the facility you are using provides consistently quality products and uses quality materials/equipment.
What’s the difference between Tesco value oats and any other? I would expect a company to source their products at the best price possible (perhaps with the exception of not using human slavery!), and especially when mixing it up into a powder. The only difference with oats i could think of is the way oats are rolled, the size of the oat, etc all of which do not effect Huel. Oat is oat, no? It’s a raw ingredient…The only benefit i could see to buying expensive oats is for Huel to be able to label them organic, which i have seen discussed on here a lot as a very expensive option (look at Ambronite for example). Now when we are talking about the form certain vitamins are delivered in, yes, i can see potential issues, but Oats, nope - i’m happy for Huel to source at the best possible price to keep price down for us and ensure they make a profit too. If they went organic and tripled the price, they are missing out on the gap in the market which they currently occupy.
Going back to the main topic of the nutritional profile, i can see why some people want more reassurance if they are intending to use Huel for 50%+ of their food source for the indefinite future. I myself am around 90% for the past 2 weeks. Personally, i’m not worried in the short term, happy to be 100% Huel for 6 months +, but in the much longer term, it would be very reassuring for Huel to get any tests done that they can and share them with us so we can be reassured, if Huel is popular than the cost of these should not be prohibitive further down the line.
Yes, they don’t have to do them as they are ‘just a food’ and no, we don’t generally expect other foods to do the same, but it’d be very nice all the same and would encourage a lot of people to convert from short term, to very long term use of Huel, not a problem for the company now (infact, they are riding a wave which i myself rode about 7 years ago, it’s a great feeling!) but which WILL become an increasing issue in 2 years + down the line. I’m so confident of this as i’ve seen this progression many times in businesses, including my own online business of 8 years. They will have to evolve from the current position and this will likely have to take the form of testing and certifications of some kind to convert people to lifetime use alongside adding new folk (there’s only a certain amount of new folk that will come, this is sure, the pace WILL slow down at some point and then it’ll be ‘what now’?) I’d be surprised if this wasn’t already in the long term plans at Huel HQ.
Anyhow, “hi” everyone, sorry if my first post was a little contentious, but i’m happy to be here and feeling good on Huel
The way I see it it’s totally acceptable to hold huel to a higher standard than other food because they’re setting a higher standard for themselves. It’s being sold as a health food which can replace food completely and will give optimum health, so it’s understandable that people want to be sure the ingredients are good quality.
But on the other hand, logically, if people generally tend to not be overly concerned with the exact nutritional makeup of the food that it is intended to completely replace, should they really be overly concerned about the product that claims to replace it? Like if you would happily eat rice, beans and salad without needing to know exactly what nutrients each food contains; but as soon as a new product is created that can replace all that, we need to know.
Maybe it’s the fact that Huel states the nutrition facts on its label that means it has to hold itself to a higher standard?
It’s not a case of whether people should be concerned about the nutritional value, but the fact that it’s being sold as a health food means people who buy it are going to be more interested in health and want to be sure that it is indeed optimal. The claims huel make, that it can completely replace all food and are the healthiest way to do so, are big, and they should be able to back it up
A while back I had some dealings with a cooperative of farmers in the UK. They dealt with storage and sale of the commodities, while the farmers deal with the farming. The value in doing this is that when you have 100 farmers bringing their grain to one place, you can “average out” the variations in quality rather than suffering price penalties.
For example, if the % of protein is too low, the commodity is good only for animal feed, while if the % of protein is too high, there really isn’t any bonus paid to the supplier. ie: If the commodity price is X per tonne for Grade A, that’s what you’ll get even if your product is “too good” for Grade A.
On the buyer side, the company who is looking to sell premium products with the best ingredients will buy the cereal that is Grade A , while the buyer who wants to sell “value range” will be OK with getting Grade B, C, D, etc…
From the supplier’s point of view, if Farmer Jim has a bad year and all of his crop is grade C, he maximises his earnings through the cooperative if his product gets mixed across enough loads of grade A and B.
Another example is that the % of water in the cereal changes according to the weather, to the time taken to get the product out of the field during the harvest season, even due to how much it rains on the lorry that is taking the grain from the fields. A full year with good weather can turn into a disaster if it rains on those few days when they are harvesting the fields.
I had no idea, but wheat is not just wheat and oats is not just oats
Respectfully, if someone is making an informed decision, for health/wellness reasons, to purchase a particular product based on that company’s assertions as to the health/wellness benefits of their product then it is perfectly reasonable to assume a greater degree of accountability than companies not marketing their products on the same basis. I’m a restaurateur and if I put ‘healthy option’ on a dish, say our superfood salad then I fully expect for my staff to be able to explain WHY and exactly HOW it is more healthy than other options on the same menu, whether du to lower carbs/sugar, fat, gluten, whatever…