Slight Change to Huel v2.2 Formula


#21

Great news! Looking forward to seeing some reviews of the updated formula.


#23

Bone powder? That’s an odd suggestion. Didn’t that fall out of favour decades ago? Any addition of animal products would affect huel’s sales as it would stop it being vegan.


#24

Why not add some bone powder to the mix to get enough good calcium? We need around 1500 mg per day depending on body weight…

I missed this comment. Of course, that would not work because it’s not vegan


#25

It’s great that Huel is always being improved and that you’re so open about it, so few companies are this honest.

One minor suggestion though, I’m sure you’ll be familiar with the major.minor.patch scheme a lot of software projects use. Why not use a third number for just such a purpose here?

If I remember rightly, Huel Vanilla and U/U 2.2 have already undergone a revision, so we’d now be at 2.2.2. It’d beat looking up batch numbers and comparing. There would be no doubt or need for anyone to question what they’ve got.


#26

Semantic versioning:

There are some other threads on this topic in the forum. Basically Huel don’t use a proper version numbering system at all and don’t intend to change to one. There’s single point releases, but following those numbers is mostly useless as there’s a batch number as well and at arbitrary points between batches there are recipe changes.

My personal opinion is that if you are going to break the version numbering system, then use one properly. In the case of Huel it just seems to be for branding purposes. If someone in the software industry did what Huel is doing they’d be slammed hard by their customers, as it’s totally unacceptable to not update version numbers between software releases.

This problem affects some of Huel’s competitors as well. It makes zero sense to me and is ultra confusing.


#27

Hi guys - I’m really sorry that you’re unhappy with our version numbering system. As a nutritionist, my primary goal is making better products. I will speak to my colleagues about this to see if it’s possible as some of you seem to be finding it confusing. We hoped that our version summary would iron out the possible confusions.


#28

Couldn’t you at least call it v2.21 so that people can distinguish between versions.

Also your not a software company, so why are there version numbers… do other food companies (none soylent do it?).

Good work though, I hope it wootks
Out and is smoother.


#29

It goes so far, but then falls short – hey, even Apple are guilty of confusing version numbers, ‘Apple releases second iTunes 12.6.1 update with new build number’.

The beauty of using version numbers is that once learned they’re easy to understand*. Something like SemVer wouldn’t cause any confusion or require anyone to look up any arbitrary web page to compare batch numbers.

Strictly speaking SemVer is intended for libraries and dependencies, and as Ryan says, there would be near rioting if this happened with, for example, Ruby.

But maybe using years would be better?

As another point of interest, Docker moved to yy.mm numbering, so we’re now at 17.09. The thing with that is they’re releasing on a fixed schedule.

To round this out, I’ll mention a popular Mac application called Espresso. The developer switched to a X+1 version number where no matter how trivial a change the version number would be incremented. But then after some vocal opposition ‘Updates and licenses are going back to the traditional model.


* Of course there’s a number of other things to learn, like how versions numbers aren’t decimal and 10.4.9 can be followed by 10.4.10. Of course that number ‘10’ is pure marketing.


#30

Whilst I don’t think the versioning has been that bad so far, there is always room for improvement so it’s a good thing if the team are going to look at updating the way the versioning works :slight_smile:


#31

I have to say I agree with Ryan but then I was a programmer too. Logic &
reason rule. Trying to find the reasoning behind your system is, well,
impossible. A readily available history of the product & a bag’s version
number should be enough information to infer the contents.

TBH it might not seem important to normals but a lot of your customers are
quite weird; what can I say? :wink:


#32

I’ll certainly raise it with the team. I personally think that it could just confuse some people. Clearly you all think in this logical way with version numbers but many do not. By updating our version history we get the benefit of not confusing many and you can all stay updated too.

We only change the ‘version number’ when we feel there has been a significant change. Changing the source of one micronutrient to another isn’t a large change so we didn’t feel we needed to update the version number.

Most food products are based around taste, once they hit the perfect taste many companies stop adjusting. Didn’t Coca Cola roll back when they updated the formula because it got such a bad reaction? Whereas we’re constantly looking to improve the nutrition of Huel so that each version is nutritionally better than the former. The version numbering I guess highlights our want to keep improving. Clearly not all changes are nutritional, some are for organoleptic purposes, but in general we change Huel to make it more and more nutritious.


#33

Received my dispatch notification today for my recurring order, but the product in the email states “v.2.2 (old)”

Was really eager to try the improved version without the lumps as so far I’ve always had to blend each meal which takes some of the convenience factor away. Would be awesome to be able to simply shake and drink.

Anyone else end up getting the new version despite being told it was the old?


#34

You will get the latest version. I’ll find out why your order said [old], as it definitely shouldn’t. I guarantee you will receive the version with the tweaks highlighted in this thread.


#35

Reassuring to know, many thanks for that.

Also feel it worth pointing out that the courier link in the email seems to contain an old, completed order from May 2017. Not sure what’s happened there.


#36

Hmmm - got v2.2(old) at home and v2.2(new) in the office. After taste testing to compare, I think I prefer the mouth feel of v2.2(old). v2.2(new) is definitely a little bit “chalkier” and less smooth on the palette.

And whilst there were lumps in v2.2(old) from time to time, they were soft textured and broke up with additional shaking (or indeed were quite nice in a cookie dough kind of way), v2.2(new) has more, smaller drier textured lumps that aren’t half as pleasant when you encounter them…

I think on balance v2.2(old) is the better formulation. Without wishing to set off any sort of war, I do hope we’ll get back to the calcium citrate in a future formula. :smiley:


#37

No problems with lumps in my v2.2(new) anyway. Going from 2.1 seems very smooth (yes, pun intended).


#38

I was starting to like the lumps! but to me 2.2(new) tastes fine. The texture is slightly different, in a good way.


#39

Does this apply to the US version as well? I noticed that my bag I ordered 4 months ago, and the bag I ordered on 2 Oct both list calcium carbonate.


#40

my order done today: Huel (Original) the UK’s leading nutritionally complete food v2.2 [OLD]
why is the old version?
(not complaining just asking)


#41

No, the US formula is different and has had since launch calcium carbonate