Huel is too new to have trialed long term efficacy, however I am interested to know at this point in time (- 3 years ?) as to what the findings are on side effects and nutritional efficacy up to this point.
Also how many people are currently being trialed by Huel on using it as their sole nutritional intake ? And who is in charge of these studies ?
There was a proposed year long study quite some time ago but in the end or was just short term. The decision was that any research undertook by Huel would be viewed as heavily biased and ultimately not worth it. More on them over here https://uk.huel.com/pages/one-month-on-huel-trials
What’s needed is a clinical study, but those are H
Huel is healthy convenience food, not a total meal replacement – we have never said that Huel is best used 100%. Our recommendation is to use Huel for your most time pressured meals, often breakfast and/or lunch and enjoy a traditional meal in the evening.
Maybe I should have worded my message differently. Regardless of whether used as a complete replacement or only as a one meal replacement, surely studies are being continually carried out on the efficacy of this product ?
The point really is that anything you put into your body you would hope has been thoroughly tested to a high degree with studies and tests over a long period of time. Would you not agree? I certainly am not one to put just anything into my body only to then find out a number of years later that actually it has now been found to cause x,y or z issues in the body. That’s why there are regulatory bodies to protect consumers and make sure we can be safe in the knowledge that any over the counter product will not harm us in any way.
The other interesting side note is that Huel shows the macronutrient make up for 2000 calories on it’s labelling. This is very roughly equivalent to a day’s food requirements. If you are saying that you never advertise this as a 100% meal replacement, even though many, many people are using it as such, then why would you label the nutritional content as if you are ?
I see your point but it’s just powdered food at the end of the day. I have seen several threads on this forum question health effects of certain ingredients in Huel (flaxseed, oats, coconut and sunflower), the sweetners etc…but Huel as an overall package, I don’t see how it could be studied in relation to nutritional efficiency. There are just too many variables.
I agree about the variables and I’m against animal testing as a rule of thumb, however if this is indeed deemed perfectly safe as it is all natural ingredients, then why not run a study on mice for example. I know this could be regarded as overkill, however when as is evident from this forum, that there are many, many people taking big amounts of this as a large makeup of their diet, then that in itself should be enough to warrant proper testing. Supplements such as l’argenine for example, which have been deemed as healthy, have been found to affect kidney function in some people.
Hi Luke - I’m a medical doctor with a masters in clincial trials, working in a large clinical trials unit. A product like Huel would not typically be something that would warrant a clinical trial, as it is not being sold as, or being claimed to be, a clinical product. Nor is it being sold to achieve anything specific. It is purely a convenience food. There are detailed descriptions and discussions on the site and forum about the nutrients and these are regularly tweaked and updated in line with current knowledge, but as Huel is not claiming to achieve any particular aim, then it would not make sense to conduct a clinical trial. What would you propose the outcomes be? What measurements would be used?
If you look at other food - which to be fair is exaclty what Huel is, just another type of food - we wouldn’t clinically trial every item of food would we? Of course, over time we find things like bacon to contain carcinogens and that probably they are bad for you. But as we known each ingredient that goes into Huel, and know them all to be safe in the quantities they are being consumed in, then I can’t see how a clinical trial would be beneficial.
Sure but people have been educated about the negative affects of eating junk food. It’s been proven to be detrimental to the human body. Therefore people can make their own choices based on information provided. Big Macs age not touted as a healthy food option.
Food manufacturers are cunning though…there are loads of untested alternate health food products on the market…many of which are loaded with fats, sugar, salt etc. They may be healthy in some respects, but in others negate this. Fruit juices seem healthy to average consumer, but aren’t.
Agreed but like I say a Big Mac wouldn’t fall into that category. And my slight wariness about Huel are echoed in the very points you’ve just made. But as someone else pointed out, on the whole I guess it seems all good. I’m just not sure about the sweeteners and xanthum etc. I also come from the school of thought that if it’s too good to be true then it usually is. And in this case cheap, convenient, fast and tastes good too, falls into that category. But maybe I’m being overly cautious
There’s nothing wrong with being cautious. The majority of prepared food we buy from 3rd parties is not as good for us as we might hope it is. Complete Foods like Huel are new to the market. Artificial sweeteners are controversial I agree. Xanthum gum has been in used for 50 years and appears to be safe.
No, I wouldn’t How many long terms studies on the efficacy of sandwiches have you read? Huel is not a medicinal product, it’s just food, so clinical trials and the like do not naturally fall into relevance.
It’s not all free and simple though. As with any food manufacturer; I’d expect Huel to ensure that their products meet the nutrition levels that they claim via some kind of regular ingredient and blind product testing. I’d also want to be sure that food standards checks are carried out and the manufacturing and packaging are done in appropriate environments that meet the relevant ISO requirements.