Terminology around Huel

The longer I browse this forum the more I feel like the terminology around Huel is damaging (albeit slightly) its integration with society.

Day after day posts are made containing verbs such as “use” or “take”, or you’ll get posters stating they’re “on” Huel.

The very nature of these terms and their origin within a context relating to consumption is detracting from exactly what Huel represents and what it’s capable of achieving.

We don’t take Huel. We’re not on Huel. We don’t use Huel.

We eat Huel and we drink Huel, in the same way we eat chicken or perhaps drink juice.

I’ve never walked into a chippy and said “I’m looking to take some fish and chips tonight mate”. I’ve never stated “I’m on omelette” when making breakfast or discussing it.

The more accurately we refer to our verbs of consumption around here the more accurately it will convey the fact we all want to convey - Huel is just food.

My middle aged mum (who’s one of those people who will take this and that to try and “strip her fat”) will constantly ask if I’m “still on that stuff”. This embodies the problem. The middle aged hoards driven here by weight loss ambitions are conditioned into seeing Huel as yet another entity to take, rather than realise what they’re actually doing - Eating and drinking less calories.



Great post!

Yes, we ‘have’ Huel, is what I like to say.


Maybe we should share around our brand guidelines!

I agree, I was having dinner with some friends on Sunday and they had heard of Huel and the conversation went something like:

“Yeah Huel they do supps right?”
“Well no they aren’t supplements it’s more healthy convenience food”
“So meal replacements”

Trust me we’re doing a lot of work around awareness and education of Huel.