Why is Huel 3.0 so high in protein when Huel Black exists?

[narrill]

@rikefrejut

You can, their cholesterol levels will be bad.

Fair point, but that only applies to the specific example I used. The nature of GFR and kidney disease is such that a diagnosis is often only made after significant damage has already been done. The diagnostic criteria for early stage disease is GFR <90, but when that point is hit matters, because GFR naturally declines with age to begin with. If you’re hitting that at 40 rather than 60 or 50 rather than 70, that’s pretty bad. And kidney disease is both widespread in western society and widely considered to be severely underdiagnosed, so this is not a good grenade for Huel to be playing with.

@rikefrejut

This resource Dietary protein intake and human health - PubMed says “Long-term consumption of protein at 2 g per kg BW per day is safe for healthy adults, and the tolerable upper limit is 3.5 g per kg BW per day for well-adapted subjects.”

Want to know what the very next sentence after your quote is? “Chronic high protein intake (>2 g per kg BW per day for adults) may result in digestive, renal, and vascular abnormalities and should be avoided.”

Including the sentence you omitted, what the article is saying is that while there were some subjects who were able to tolerate up to 3.5 g/kg, 2.0 g/kg was determined to be the safe upper limit across the entire study population.

@rikefrejut

That’s 2g/kg for a 75kg male 175cm tall (average height in UK) with a normal BMI needing 2000kcal/day for maintenance (not gaining nor losing weight) having a sedentary lifestyle. I suspect you did some mistake in your calculations.

I suspect you didn’t actually check my calculations before writing this comment, because the numbers I used are right there in the first comment. 5’ 9", 150lb. That’s a BMI of 22.1, which is right in the middle of the healthy BMI range. 150g of protein and 68 kg of body weight is 2.2 g/kg, which is a level the article you yourself posted recommends should be avoided. And as I stated in the first comment, it’s entirely likely this hypothetical person would require more than 2000 kcal per day. It’s also entirely possible this person could be in their 40s or 50s and could have slightly degraded kidney function (e.g. GFR 90-100) purely due to age, which could make them less able to handle high levels of protein than a younger person.

Edit: In fact, your example is just 4lb shy of being overweight, and it’s still just barely within the intake level recommended by the article you linked. So are you trying to say the protein content of the 3.0 powder is only intended to be safe for overweight individuals? Because that would be a reasonable conclusion from what you’ve posted.

@rikefrejut

Quoting from that study, “Although a tolerable upper level of intake has not yet been set, French Agency [22] used the upper threshold to characterize protein intake and estimated that most children, especially in the younger age groups, had intakes qualified as “high” or even “very high” (i.e., exceeding 3.5 g/kg/day).”

Does it need to be pointed out that you shouldn’t generalize nutritional recommendations from children to adults? If so, I’ll point that out now. You shouldn’t generalize nutritional recommendations from children to adults.

@leejonesjnr

Seems like an odd thing to do when you are so dissatisfied with it.

I’m not dissatisfied with it, I’ve consumed it every day for years. I don’t have to totally swear off something just because I have some specific concern about it.

Maybe you actually don’t get your kicks arguing with strangers on the internet, but you jumped in with a bad faith argument pretty dang quickly here. This should perhaps be an opportunity for some reflection.

@tracy24582

Not all protein is the same though and you are stating animal protein

That was in response to Phil_C, who described a hypothetical diet with 200g of animal protein.

[tracy24582]

Again though you are generalising proteins and not all proteins are equal, if you eat lots of red meat to get 100/150 gram intake then yes it provides protein but it can be bad for your health because of the waste products associated with it which can increase urea etc. but pea protein is generally considered safe and beneficial even for people with kidney disease to help blood pressure.

[narrill]

Please go back and re-read the conversation, because you’re misunderstanding it. The only reason I mentioned animal protein at all was to point out to Phil_C that the hypothetical diet he described (which contained 200g of animal protein) would be dangerous to consume every day, since he seemed not to be aware.

As I have already stated, it has been found that substituting plant protein for animal protein reduces mortality, but as far as I can tell there have not been any studies specifically demonstrating that high levels of plant protein (>2 g/kg) are safe for long-term consumption, and recommendations to stay under 2 g/kg of daily protein intake are not qualified only for animal protein.

[rikefrejut]

@narrill

2.0 g/kg was determined to be the safe upper limit across the entire study population.

A decent definition of tolerable upper limit is “The highest level of sustained daily nutrient consumption that is considered to be safe for, and cause no side effects in, 97.5% of healthy individuals in each life-stage and sex group.” Each life-stage means that it included elderly people who by default have worse kidney function.

Using the study you provided, it would be at 3.5g/kg BW. This limit is applicable to people who’ve been eating Huel for 7 years for 100% of their calories (because that means they are adjusted to this protein intake). Huel is 2g/kg BW.

@narrill

So are you trying to say the protein content of the 3.0 powder is only intended to be safe for overweight individuals?

I’m not saying anything about Huel v3.0. What I am saying is that Huel v3.1 is safe for any adult, up to the tolerable upper limit of some micronutrients at ~4000-5000kcal/day of Huel.

At this point, you’re just spreading pseudoscience, because your claims are not backed by research. There is no well-established upper limit for protein, and for individual studies up to 3.5g/kg BW has been shown to be safe.

It’s trivial to prove me wrong - provide a single study that directly links protein intake at 2g/kg BW to causing kidney damage in healthy individuals.

It will be harder to prove scientists in the field wrong, if you read section “7.3. Safe upper limits of dietary protein intake by adults” of Dietary protein intake and human health - Food & Function (RSC Publishing) DOI:10.1039/C5FO01530H

I wasn’t even aware that they managed to get someone to eat 4.4 g of protein per kg of bodyweight, so thanks for that.

[tracy24582]

But I think huel already said, most people do not do huel 100% and I don’t think they market their product in comparison to a keto or paleo or med diet…they don’t market it as “huel diet…have 5 shakes and your all good”, it’s just a meal alternative

[narrill]

@rikefrejut

Using the study you provided, it would be at 3.5g/kg BW.

First, you provided it.

Second, that is literally not what the study says. It states very clearly that 2.0 g/kg is the recommended upper limit for healthy adults. You’re fixating on the 3.5g figure, but all that statement says is that there were some participants who could tolerate 3.5 g/kg. The study explicitly recommends 2.0 g/kg as the upper limit for healthy adults.

@rikefrejut

It will be harder to prove scientists in the field wrong, if you read section “7.3. Safe upper limits of dietary protein intake by adults” of Dietary protein intake and human health - Food & Function (RSC Publishing) DOI:10.1039/C5FO01530H

By all means, cite the specific quotes you think support your claim, because I don’t see anything that disagrees with me. There are examples of subjects tolerating higher levels of protein, but if you actually read the cited studies you will find they were fairly short in duration (a matter of weeks for most) and specifically studied athletes.

Quite the contrary, the end of that section specifically mentions that one of those studies (Bilsborough and Mann) also recommended a maximum intake of 2.0-2.5 g/kg/day for healthy adults.

@rikefrejut

Huel is 2g/kg BW.

Uhm, no. As should be obvious, this number depends on the consumer’s body weight and their caloric consumption. The numbers I gave are for a male of average height with perfectly healthy BMI consuming 2000 kcal/day, and the level is above 2 g/kg.

At this point you are being irrational, full stop.

@tracy24582

But I think huel already said, most people do not do huel 100% and I don’t think they market their product in comparison to a keto or paleo or med diet…they don’t market it as “huel diet…have 5 shakes and your all good”, it’s just a meal alternative

I disagree. While Huel doesn’t specifically market the powders as being intended to replace your entire diet, I think they absolutely market them as being safe for that level of consumption.

If Huel intends to base the nutritional content of the powders around fewer than five servings per day, I’m fine with that. But they need to actually communicate that somehow.

[rikefrejut]

@narrill

First, you provided it.

You’re the one who provided Dietary Protein and Amino Acids in Vegetarian Diets—A Review - PMC

@narrill

all that statement says is that there were some participants who could tolerate 3.5 g/kg

No participants suffered kidney damage at those levels either.

@narrill

you will find they were fairly short in duration (a matter of weeks for most) and specifically studied athletes.

Quoting, “Based on these studies, it appears that well-adapted healthy adults can tolerate a dietary intake of 3.5 g protein per kg BW per day for a prolonged period of time.” So it is for a long time.

Point remains that protein consumption at 2.0g to 2.5g of protein per kg of bodyweight for adults, or up to 35% of daily calories (in the presence of sufficient carbohydrates and folate and B vitamins and water … all of which is ensured by Huel) is safe. Huel is in those levels, hence Huel is safe. It is up to you to provide evidence of it not being safe, we’ll be waiting.

[narrill]

@rikefrejut

You’re the one who provided Dietary Protein and Amino Acids in Vegetarian Diets—A Review - PMC

Yes, which is a different study than the one you’ve been citing…

@rikefrejut

No participants suffered kidney damage at those levels either.

I don’t see how you could possibly make this claim, given that the study this data point comes from does not seem to be publicly accessible beyond its abstract, which cites an upper limit of 2.0 to 2.5 g/kg for healthy adults.

@rikefrejut

Quoting, “Based on these studies, it appears that well-adapted healthy adults can tolerate a dietary intake of 3.5 g protein per kg BW per day for a prolonged period of time.” So it is for a long time.

In that section, I see a three week study, a seven day study, an eight week study, and another systematic review whose full text is not public. So… no, I would not say it is for a “long time.”

Also, “well-adapted” does not mean any healthy adult. You are simply misinterpreting that statement. Most if not all of the studies cited in that section were of athletes. “Well-adapted” means an individual who happens to be personally able to tolerate high levels of protein, which could be the case for any number of reasons, including genetics and activity level.

@rikefrejut

It is up to you to provide evidence of it not being safe, we’ll be waiting.

Given that the systematic review you cited specifically recommends an upper limit of 2.0 g/kg/day multiple times, I’d say you’ve provided my evidence for me. If you read section 8, there are numerous explanations given to support that figure from a physiologic perspective.

Also, since this is getting lost in the weeds, I’m not saying Huel’s level of protein is unsafe. I’m saying that it could be unsafe, because it’s above the recommended upper limit of 2.0 g/kg for a person of average height and healthy BMI. In fact, I have stated multiple times that it is not known whether this level of protein intake is generally safe in the long term, and given that systematic review seems to only cite studies that have run for two months or less, I feel confident that statement is accurate.

[rikefrejut]

50 million meals sold in 80+ countries

Huel hasn’t been banned in any country for causing kidney disease yet, take it as a study on its own if you wish.

If you want to wait 70 years to find out if eating Huel for 70 years is safe for kidneys, then you’ll just have to wait. In the meantime, I’ll continue consuming Huel for those 70 years because I haven’t seen any evidence of it causing kidney disease so far and that’s good enough for me.

[narrill]

I honestly have no idea why you went to all this trouble just to declare that anecdotal evidence is enough and you personally will not stop consuming Huel over this. As if my pointing out that it’s exceeding a maximum intake level is some kind of crusade to get people to stop buying the product, all while I myself still consume it every day.

Not that every community doesn’t have people who jump out of the woodwork at any kind of criticism, but seriously, can we not? Huel makes nutrition a priority. It’s reasonable to point out that the product violates a nutritional recommendation for what I would imagine is a meaningful part of its userbase.

Also, lard isn’t banned in any country even though eating nothing but lard will kill you. That just isn’t how anything works.

[rikefrejut]

@narrill

Not that every community doesn’t have people who jump out of the woodwork at any kind of criticism

I’m one of the more critical people of Huel, because I depend on it for 100% of my calories for many years now.

@narrill

It’s reasonable to point out that the product violates a nutritional recommendation

And I’m pointing out that Huel doesn’t violate any nutritional recommendation here. We read the same studies, but you disagree with the conclusions made by the authors of those studies, and keep pushing some claim that Huel has higher than some limit values of protein, which it does not according to those studies.

@narrill

lard isn’t banned in any country even though eating nothing but lard will kill you

Is lard nutritionally complete?

[narrill]

@rikefrejut

We read the same studies, but you disagree with the conclusions made by the authors of those studies

The systematic review you linked explicitly recommends a maximum intake of 2 g/kg/day for healthy adults. You are the one disagreeing with the conclusions.

I don’t know how to make this any more clear to you. You are literally denying reality.

@rikefrejut

Is lard nutritionally complete?

By all means, explain what you think that has to do with the banning of foods by a regulatory body.

[rikefrejut]

@narrill

The systematic review you linked explicitly recommends a maximum intake of 2 g/kg/day for healthy adults. You are the one disagreeing with the conclusions.

The systematic review I linked explicitly states “Based on these studies, it appears that well-adapted healthy adults can tolerate a dietary intake of 3.5 g protein per kg BW per day for a prolonged period of time.”

[narrill]

@rikefrejut

The systematic review I linked explicitly states “Based on these studies, it appears that well-adapted healthy adults can tolerate a dietary intake of 3.5 g protein per kg BW per day for a prolonged period of time.”

Yes, and you’re making assumptions about what “well-adapted” means (spoilers, it means athletes and young people) while ignoring the maximum intake level the study goes on to recommend.

You’re also making assumptions about what “a prolonged period of time” means. Based on the studies that are actually cited for that quote, it means a period of, at most, two months.

[tracy24582]

I personally do not believe they market it as a full complete Huel diet to replace every single meal…that is a persons choice…and if you look on their website it is marketed as a convenient, easy and affordable way to replace a meal, not food in general, so you are basing the protein intake on a persons choice to consume nothing but huel which as far as I can see they do not state to do that.

When, where, how to use Huel

Now we’re clear on the “why” you might ask when, where and how to use Huel. It’s simple, Huel is ideal for those time-pressured meals, when you’re on the go, in a rush, and away from the kitchen. Typically this means breakfast or lunch during the working week, leaving room to enjoy a more “traditional” meal with family and friends in the evening or at the weekend.

[rikefrejut]

Well-adapted means people who’ve undergone adaptation period to the tested diet…

So anyone who follows Huel recommendation to start off slowly will become well-adapted after some time.

Anyone who eats 0.8g of protein per kg bodyweight and then immediately starts eating 3.5g instead will get big diarrhea and other issues. A lot of Huel users report massive gas at first.

[narrill]

Please cite in the review where it defines the term that way. That is an assumption you’re making.

Meanwhile the review explicitly states multiple times that the maximum chronic intake level should be 2.0 kg/g/day, and that levels above that should be avoided. You’re conveniently ignoring that.

[rikefrejut]

I invite you to read section 7 of Dietary protein intake and human health - Food & Function (RSC Publishing) DOI:10.1039/C5FO01530H again.

[narrill]

I invite you to not dodge the question and actually quote where the term is defined, because as far as I can tell it isn’t.

In fact, the string “well-adapted” appears only twice in the entire review, once in the abstract and once in that section. In neither location is it defined.

This should be completely trivial for you, all you have to do is quote the sentence or two where the article makes clear what the term means. The fact that you aren’t doing that suggests there is no such excerpt, and that you’re inventing a definition that supports your argument.

[rikefrejut]

@narrill

actually quote where the term is defined

It’s defined in a dictionary. For example adapted - Wiktionary, the free dictionary