Ultra-processed foods (which apparently include meal replacement meal as well as ice cream, pizza and breakfast cereal) are mooted to be bad for you in this study. Maybe chugging down your Huel is not as good for you as sipping it over the course of 30 minutes or so.
Early days, nothing conclusive really.
Thoughts on it?
Itās a cool study and every month the nutrition team presents a topic/study to talk about so we can all learn a bit more. I did mine a couple of months ago on this study when it was on final review (it was published this month).
You can check out how the term āultra-processedā is defined here, which can be difficult.
The authors arenāt really sure why people ate more calories with the ultra-processed foods. Eating quickly is just one idea. Another could be the ultra-processed foods are more calorie dense so take up less space in the stomach, so less satiety.
By NOVA definitions Huel is group 4 (ultra-processed) but so are a lot of healthy foods. A chicken salad will be classed as group 4 - chicken, 2 different salad leaves, tomatoes, cucumber = group 4 because it contains 5 or more ingredients.
The premise of NOVA is a good idea but itās too simplistic and tying processing into health doesnāt always work e.g. a tin of tomatoes is seen as worse than raw tomatoes even though the phytonutrients are more bioavailable.
Personally, I think a really important point is the ultra-processed diet resulted in an increase in calories from carbohydrates and fat, but not protein. It comes back to the idea that protein is filling and if you get enough per meal vs carbs and fat, it can help reduce overeating.
Great reply - thanks Dan.
Hi Dan,
I donāt disagree with the overall conclusion of inconclusiveness, but I donāt think that your chicken salad classification is correct. From the definition of NOVA, ā[Group 4 foods] are not modified foods but formulations made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, with little if any intact Group 1 foodā and ā[b]ut ultra-processed products also include other sources of energy and nutrients not normally used in culinary preparations.ā
So Iām pretty sure that your hypothetical (undressed) salad is going to be Group 1.
https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1451
The above, similar, study published yesterday in the BMJ also found a link with Ultra-Processed foods.
In the Interpretation section, they give lots of hypotheses for the findings, though Iām not sure which (if any) could apply to Huel. Some of these are:
Interesting stuff, but Iām definitely none the wiser.
I get where you are coming from, sorry I should have been clearer.
When looking at the full document, thereās some key added bits in there and a lot left open for interpretation. It says in group 4 that " These are industrial formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients." So while a home made chicken salad is group 1 if you buy it prepackaged from a shop and itās gone through certain processes it could be group 4 but you could argue that same product is group 1.
What Iām getting at is that itās really difficult to use these classifications alone to determine the effects on health especially when a lot is open to interpretation. Bread and yoghurt is group 2/3 but add an emulsifier (which has no effect on health) and thatās instant group 4. Beer is group 3 but vodka is group 4 because it is distilled but beer is not.
Itās another interesting study, but I agree it doesnāt help much. The authors looked at levels of education and found that the lower the level of education the more ultra-processed foods eaten. But, and itās a big but, income or some sort of indicator of food security was not measured.
Processed foods i.e. tinned, dried, frozen, prepackaged foods will have a longer shelf-life so less food waste, are cheaper and likely are no less nutritious than fresh foods. It also takes time to make these meals and with a long hours working, kids etc it can make it more difficult. Such a person is less likely to exercise, may be more stressed, sleep less etc. I think processed foods play a part but can also be an indicator of other areas of personās life which can act as cofounders, and so affect the results.
Yep. Thatās about it. A certain amount of common sense has to prevail. But then if you are the sort of person who eats like a vacuum cleaner there is not likely to be a superabundance of that (foodwise anyway). 
I think personal experience is a really important and valuable indicator in regards to this.
My diet has varied massively over the last 15 years and so I know how various diets affect me personally.
-For 4 years I had a super clean, healthy, whole food diet that consisted of only home made Dahl, organic brown rice, quinoa, fresh organic steamed vegetables and eggs, and healthy oils ie coconut, olive, hemp, avocado. No dairy, no meat, no wheat or gluten, no sugar, no processed or tinned food, no alcohol. I also supplemented with vitamins and minerals.
I felt AMAZING - physically, mentally, emotionally. Only downside was if I deviated from this diet, the difference was so noticeable that it really put me off ever having a social meal out or at someoneās house. It really limited my options when out and meant I had to take my own food everywhere I went and always be prepared.
-Prior to this super healthy wholefood diet I ate whatever I felt like and noticed that if I ate processed food: tinned, ready meals, takeaways, bakery, frozen food (other than frozen whole food or veg), processed meat etc, I would feel terrible. Headaches, lethargy, fatigue, poor concentration, joint pain, emotional mood swings, to name just a few really debilitating symptoms.
-Now my diet consists of a combination of healthy whole food (vegetables, fruit, eggs, very occasional organic high welfare unprocessed meat or fish, beans, pulses, rice, quinoa, corn etc), some minimally processed food (e.g tinned beans, pulses, tomatoes, frozen veg, plant milks), and Huel.
I feel almost as good as I did on my purely whole food diet, but with the advantage that my lifestyle doesnāt seem so restrictive anymore and I donāt have to spend all my free time cooking and freezing my dinners for the week, and donāt have to be so prepared when I go out (I now can grab a huel or a huel bar and stick it in my bag).
Soā¦ although I personally would consider Huel āprocessedā, it is at least minimally processed in my opinion, and it does consist of whole food and doesnāt have added salt, sugar, msg, and preservatives which is what makes most processed foods unhealthy. Plus, most processed food has been so processed it has very little nutritional value, but Huel is the opposite and actually has very high nutrition for itās calorie content.
Also, from personal experience, Huel is very satiating and I donāt feel the need to over-eat (either in terms of extra huel or other food).
Meal replacement drinks or protein shakes have the same effect on me as eating ready-meals or processed foods.
Huel seems to have the same effect on me as whole foods.
Proof is in the pudding I guess
Would that be a group 1 pudding, a group 2 pudding, a group 3 pudding orā¦? zzzzzz 
There already considering taxing them
Good idea, and bacon and sausages should be top of the list.
A crucial clue as to why the ultra-processed foods caused greater calorie consumption may be that participants ate the ultra-processed meals faster and so consumed more calories per minute. This can cause excess calorie intake before the bodyās signals for satiety or fullness have time to kick in.
If youāre drinking 450 calories of Huel from a shaker then it doesnāt matter if you drink it in 10 seconds or 30 minutes. Itās always going to be 450 calories.
Now if you had a row of shakers lined up and were told to ādrink as many as you can until you feel fullā then that might change the situation, but nobody does that.
I dunno, it could be a new man vs food challenge.
If you use Huel to replace a healthy, balanced meal consisting of group 1 or 2 foods, then this study would be a slap on the wrist. I doubt many of us are in that situation though!
I use Huel to replace a meal which Iād either miss or would eat something rubbish (probably in group 3 or 4 - so cereal, pre-made sandwich, entire pack of biscuits, etc).
So the way I see it is that I am no worse off, processed food wise, by having Huel - and the likelihood is that Iām getting far better nutrition than what I would have eaten otherwise.
@Howl-UK has a good point as well, my Huel shake is a specific size, so Iām not over eating. Sure, I could go and make some more, but thatās much less likely to happen than I grab another slice of pizza, and another, and anotherā¦ 
Well, took a while, but guess here is something again @jeffy89 
This time, you canāt blame me for the idea 
not just me then!
I would never say that
Eat 3000 kcal in a single lunch and the day after eat those 3000 kcal splitted in 5 lunchs
Youāll percieve immediately itās not the same at all
Same for your body
For me, huel being ultra processed food is a real concern and thatās why i tend to limit to the lower possible. I personnaly use huel for mass gaining. I eat regular food as much as i can and i add some huel to reach my quotas. Iām impatient to be able to eat enough regular food but it is too time consuming for now (and too hard !).
The second concern is the fact you can swallow 700 kcal in 30 seconds. Try to do that with the regular food we have been made forā¦ I donāt think your body likes this.
I came across this guy from last year, who has supposed to have eaten 30,000 Big Macās since 1972 and has normal cholesterol and blood pressure
