Thought it would be good to get some harder statistical data regarding preferences towards amount of calories in the new RTDs. I’ve done a bit of market research myself amongst friends who can’t fault the packaging, taste and nutrition but just feel a little short of calories.
As I said before, I feel that it is better to have some Huel left over in a bottle for later rather than having to take two bottles just in case. And of course it saves on packaging. 5-600 calories just seems like a more reasonable and standard meal size.
Whilst the bars are clearly a snack, the RTDs are advertised as a meal replacement, but imo for the vast majority, they are too calorie-short for a full meal.
I haven’t actually bought any RTD but being short and female, 400 calories is plenty for a meal for me. If I’m out for a long days cycle ride I’d rather have one RTD and one bar for a snack, than one huge drink.
500 calories would also be ok. But 600 would be too much for me personally.
@Africorn if I could tolerate it, I would be drinking about the same so I suppose I should vote for 600 calories which would cover a couple of meals.
I won’t be ordering any unless at some stage it is possible to add one bottle in order to try it.
Where I side with a smaller portion is in terms of portability. If I have space in my bag for a shaker (ie when going to the gym, or at work, or on a long drive) I would rather take powder than an RTD.
Where I would want an RTD (eg long bike ride) I wouldn’t want a massive heavy bottle in my bag, I would much prefer the 400 calories as it’s lighter and smaller and therefore more convenient and portable. For bike rides im currently relying on bars because it’s just not practical to stick a massive shaker in my tiny rucksack. But I’m thinking of trying the RTDs for this purpose.
So I’m with @coup again (and not cos she implied I’m crazy). 400 calorie RTD please