Must say I don’t think these bars are for me. Tried one in my last order but personally I found them too stodgy/thick.
Some great feedback here - thanks all! Rest assured I’ve read it all and fed back to the relevant teams.
If we were to release new flavours in this range, what would you want to see? 
2 Likes
Coconut, almond, pistachio, mint, hazelnut, walnut, orange, strawberry, dark chocolate, coffee?
Personally no new flavours but a bar that resembles more of a “meal” 250-350 calories, 170 cal snack bars are ten a penny and there is far too many out there adding a few vits & mins in it doesn’t make it worth it over all the others
Rose and pistachio would be great.
Cashew and coconut.
1 Like
That’s not going to happen. The original bar launched at 250kcal but it was reduced to 200kcal on the last revision (I think) to make it more snack sized.
Not really sure why it’s now ~180kcal though.
I know but I can always hope 
Maybe down to the ingredients used? The new Greens/3.1 hybrid product in the US is marketed as a meal but calories are less than 300 so the FAQ recommends mixing it with plant milks to bring the calorie density up. I can only assume that is because the greens part of the equation is very low calorie.
Will you consider increase the kcal per bar and reduce the maltitol?
@Cam_Huel I’ve had multiple boxes of the new bars over the past 2 months, and have to say they are so damn delicious it’s unreal. The peanut one is nice, but the chocolate caramel is where it’s at 
It’s like Mars and Milky Way had an ethical baby. Soft fudgy gooey beauty. It’s now my favourite chocolate bar and I hope Huel continues the chocolate caramel flavour for eternity.
Essentially:
- The old bars accomplished the task of condensing Huel into a bar form. I’m afraid not a single person I ever gave one to said it tasted nice, and I always microwaved mine to make it softer, or used them for more ‘desperate’ times like hiking. TL;DR: An edible flavoured brick-like bar good for certain situations. (Protein bars were better, but still not great IMO, still felt like a sacrifice in taste and texture.)
- The new bars accomplished making a gorgeously delicious chocolate bar that just so happens to have Huel condensed into it. It’s now a treat. I’ve given a bunch to several people so far and all loved them wanting more, with 1 friend now also subscribed to take the bars to work. Most preferred chocolate caramel, but both were enjoyed. Wish these were available when I was a kid. Once I have 1, just want another
I tried all the previous bars over the years and the new one is lightyears beyond them. The texture, taste, appearance, softness, everything. Huel, you’ve cracked it This is the first time I’m now regularly ordering Huel bars. Would love to see these in stores, and after releasing a few more flavours, how about we make a Huel version of Celebrations? A collection of nutritious vegan chocolate treats with Huel’s branding and marketing? Perfect.
Only downside is they are over far too quick. Had 3 at once the other night and enjoyed every sweet moment ha hah ha. Need a cheese block size version pls.
Pro-tip: Hold the bar in your hand for 20 seconds to warm it up a little, then open it 
Even more gooey baby. Don’t get me started on pairing this with a can of A-Z…
4 Likes
I don’t know how much Huel it would take to top Trump but if someone starts a crowdfunder I’ll definitely donate
1 Like
I don’t really think you are comparing apples to apples. Huel could have made a chocolate covered caramel bar in the first place, but that wasn’t the objective of the product. The objective was to create a solid version of Huel, whilst being as nutritious as possible, with sugars kept to a minimum and it was gluten-free (using GF ingredients have a big effect on a products texture compared to using wheat).
The new version is covered in chocolate filled with caramel, so of course it tastes more “gorgeously delicious” in comparison. ~23% of the new bar is chocolate which is sweetened with a sugar alcohol. The nutritional profile of the new bar is not as strong as the old bar, and it’s also not gluten-free anymore either, helping the texture further but at the expense of losing Coeliac’s as customers.
I’m not knocking it, I wish it all the best, and I understand why it was done, I just think your comparison is unfair.
I still have a couple of the old bars and just loaded up the Wayback Machine.
- The old bar contained 7.6g of sugar, while the new chocolate caramel bar has 1.6g sugar, so it now has 78.95% less sugar.
- The nutritional profiles are highly similar. In fact the new bar has higher amounts of B2, B3, B6, A, C, D, E, K, calcium, magnesium, manganese, phosphorous and zinc, along with more protein and fibre, as well as less calories and salt.
So I don’t think your depiction of this bar being a less nutritious sugary bar is correct nor fair. It’s a huge improvement in almost every area.
Regarding the objective of the product, they have now accomplished this even more and I think the comparison is fine. Significantly more people are now able to replace their unhealthy chocolate bars or other snacks with a healthier version without sacrificing taste and texture. We went from an edible, flavoured, nutritious brick that is not fit for widespread enjoyment and will never capture the masses, to a highly delicious fudgy bar that tastes like a mix of Mars and Milky Way while still being as nutritious (in fact more so in numerous vits/minerals), that way way way more people will actually enjoy and buy.
Huel bars were never meant to match/replace the core powder product – only to be a snack/top-up. I think what you’re asking for primarily is a gluten-free version, and for sure that would be excellent if Huel offered this to further expand reach.
I disagree with this. Huel has put out a product that is very similar to a dozen other products already on the market. This adds nothing to what’s available for people who are thinking about what they eat It’s just putting themselves in a market which they perceive as lucrative on the back of the success of RTD in retail and the brand visibility that has brought. It’s good old brand leverage and in my opinion underlines a change in priority.
We will see but I don’t think it will do the brand any good in the long run. In retail the bars are lost amongst the fulfil, grenade, et cetera et cetera.
For me, personally, it’s a significant reduction in the quality of what huel offer. I used to eat 3.1 as part of my lunch at work or a snack. I can’t do that anymore, because of the sugar alcohol.
1 Like
@Cam_Huel it strikes me that If Huel Were to put out a bar that contains no sugar alcohols Or artificial sweetener and advertise it, as such, it would separate them from the rest of the market
1 Like
Respectfully, I think it would be a good idea to stray from hyperbolic terms and slamming a group of people with negative perceptions and claims on their business strategies, by just stating what you’re after instead.
A “significant reduction in the quality” does not really equate to reality. The bar is clearly a major improvement in taste and texture while also improving its nutritional profile, including 79% less sugar. The key concern you have appears to be the addition of sugar alcohol, which is certainly a shame if it prevents you from keeping this as a regular snack.
If releasing a sugar alcohol free and artificial sweetener free version would be perfect for you, then frame it like that. Creating a dramatic, provocative, doomed outlook doesn’t really help. I’m sure if the first 2 flavours are successful, then Huel will of course be listening and looking into something like a version without gluten, sugar alcohol or artificial sweeteners. Praise the improvements, offer constructive feedback.
The sugar alcohol (maltito) is not declared on the nutritional facts and Huel will not disclose the amount used as its part of the recipe, so without that information it’s not possible to know the total amount of sugar in each bar, so your figure above isn’t accurate.
Regarding the overall nutritional profile, if you read post 91 of this thread by someone who runs a complete food comparison website, they would disagree with you. How can a product which is now smaller than before, almost a quarter chocolate and contains a large portion of caramel, be nutritionally better than the old one?
I’m not asking primarily for a gluten-free version. I’m not a Coeliac, although my girlfriend is. The point I was making is making foods with as fewer allergens as possible used to be be a priority for Huel. Now it’s been discarded in the interest of making a product “more luxurious”, at the expense of these people. You trumpeting the amazing improvement in texture compared to the previous bar is not fair given this bar is no longer gluten-free. If you want to experience first hand the difference gluten makes to a products texture, try some gluten-free Warburton’s crumpets and compare them to the standard version, then you’ll understand why your comparison isn’t fair.
1 Like
Sugar:
Sorry, that’s just incorrect. Including sugar alcohols like maltitol has no effect on the 1.6g total of sugar, because sugar alcohols are not sugar – they’re sugar alcohols. Both are different types of carbohydrates with different categorisations. We could be pedantic and say they’re chemically similar to sugar sure, but they affect metabolism and blood glucose completely differently. We should not confuse sugar alcohols thinking they are sugar because they contain the word “sugar”, in the same way that they do not even contain alcohol despite the name (the “alcohol” naming is from their chemical structure, as it includes hydroxyl groups that are characteristics of alcohols in chemistry – not their contents).
Simply put, sugar alcohols are not sugar, so no, Huel are not lying – the bar contains 1.6g of sugar, which is 79% less than the previous bar.
Maltitol is in the ingredient list. Huel, like every other company, are under no obligation to provide the specified amounts of each ingredient in their recipe, nor would it make any sense to do so from a business perspective. I understand this may be useful to know for some, however this is an extremely unrealistic expectation that, if you think should apply to Huel, should apply to every company in that case and the courts would be chaos with copycat recipes.
Profile:
To your second point regarding the earlier post. Sure, we can cherry pick all day long. As I said before, the nutritional profiles are still highly similar. The previous person said the new bar contains lower omega-3 and micronutrients. If they were fully transparent in their analysis, they would have also said the new bar contains higher amounts of B2, B3, B6, A, C, D, E, K, calcium, magnesium, manganese, phosphorous and zinc, more protein and fibre, and less calories and salt.
Feedback:
To your third point, the comparison is fair. A company made a nutritional chocolate bar, and this is the next version, with similar aims and nutritional benefits. Rather than take to Huel’s forum to slate them because the first 2 flavours of their new product didn’t cater to a specific allergy or ingredient, offer constructive feedback to request new flavours/versions. Taking things too personally gets nowhere. It’s a chocolate bar. No-one at Huel is reading the forums and spending millions of pounds to actively try to target people with chocolate bars designed to miss a specific ingredient that rattles them.
Huel is not discarding their founding priorities or doing things at the expense of others. They released the first 2 flavours, and obviously want to hear feedback on what to work on next. Huel have built up a lot of respect from how they treat their customers beyond patiently and excellently for years – people’s voices would reach the right staff at Huel more if they conducted their feedback in a way that is less emotionally charged, hyperbolic and accusatory.
Example: “Hey, this tastes significantly better than the last one, but unfortunately it contains [ingredient] which didn’t sit right with me, so I won’t be buying anymore. This is a big shame as it was a regular snack so I’m afraid I’ll be looking elsewhere, but if you released a [specific requirement] version, I’d probably buy them regularly. Thanks.”
You’ll have to convert if you ever want to marry her.
7 Likes
Ok but huel marketed the original bars with the standout that they DONT contain sugar alcohols & the reason for the sugar content & that’s why they were a bit pricer than grenade bars cuz they don’t contain alcohols, the main reason ppl take issue with sugar alcohols over normal sugar is sugar alcohols are known to cause digestive discomfort in a lot of ppl it can be a small amount or a large amount that can quiet easily start the tummy gargles for a lot of ppI so preference is to avoid altogether regardless of the actual figure, I can eat a Mars bar no issue but someone gives me a grenade bar & I’m in agony all day with insane bad gas, so yeah I will take 10g of sugar over hearing my stomach gargle all day long because I’ve only had 1.8g of actual sugar but 20g of sugar alcohols
1 Like