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

[narrill]

Are you seriously citing Wiktionary for the definition of a term in a scientific paper?

Even if we humor that, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The listed definition is “having been subject to an alteration or change to fit a different circumstance or medium.” You’re still making the assumption that the “different circumstance or medium” refers to a change in dietary protein level and the “alteration or change” refers to some kind of physiologic change to be better able to process high amounts of dietary protein. In reality they could refer to other things, such as a genetic mutation which results in better renal sufficiency or physiologic changes resulting from a prolonged increase in activity levels or muscle mass.

At the end of the day, the review recommends a maximum level of 2.0 g/kg/day and states that levels higher than that “may result in digestive, renal, and vascular abnormalities and should be avoided.” So you don’t have a leg to stand on here.

[rikefrejut]

@narrill

Are you seriously citing Wiktionary for the definition of a term in a scientific paper?

It’s a term in English language, look up ‘adapted’ or ‘adaptation’ in any dictionary you want.

You’re probably thinking of a very specific meaning of ‘evolutionary adaptation’ as opposed to ‘acclimatization’.

[narrill]

You’re the one with a specific meaning in mind. One which I would expect you to be able to support by referencing the text itself, if the text actually does support its application.

So by all means, explain why you think the text is using the term to mean “acclimatization” rather than “evolutionary adaptation” and why you think the acclimatization being referred to is an increase in protein processing capacity caused by a prolonged increase in protein intake, as opposed to any of the numerous other things the term could mean.

You should probably also explain why the text recommends 2.0 g/kg/day after stating unequivocally, according to you, that 3.5 g/kg/day is a perfectly tolerable level for healthy adults. Because on its face, that wouldn’t really make sense.

[rikefrejut]

We’re getting so off-topic if we can’t even agree on common definition of the words we’re using.

So instead I’ll do what you should have done at the start:

@JamesCollier what are your thoughts on statements presented in Dietary protein intake and human health - Food & Function (RSC Publishing) DOI:10.1039/C5FO01530H and especially section 7 therein with respect to Huel v3.1 having 150g of protein per 2000kcal?

[narrill]

If scolding me for not tagging James even though he has already responded is what you have to do to move on, more power to you. I’m happy to not have to hold your hand through basic logical reasoning any more.

I’ll also point out this review, which is overall fairly inconclusive, but which does point out possible risks to kidney function at protein levels exceeding 24% energy or 2.0 g/kg/day, recommends levels be kept under that amount, and recommends further study.

[rikefrejut]

@narrill

I’ll also point out this review,

“Protein intake was adjusted to 0.88 g/kg BW per day during a 2-week adaptation to the study diet.” There you have a citation for the use of the word “adaptation”

[narrill]

Say I humor you and accept that the use of the term in one review can be applied to another review. All that means is that participants who were well-adapted were able to tolerate higher levels of intake. What about participants who were not well-adapted? As in, they went through an adaptation period and still were not able to tolerate higher levels of protein afterward? I think you’re assuming there were no such people and that all participants who went through the adaptation period were considered “well-adapted,” but that’s another assumption.

I ask again, why would the review state that 3.5 g/kg/day was found to be a safe level for healthy adults then go on to recommend levels be kept below 2 g/kg/day to avoid abnormalities? What you’re claiming does not make sense.

Also note that the review I just linked cites studies which found abnormalities in renal function at levels >2 g/kg/day and <3.5 g/kg/day.

Edit: Let’s actually unpack this. The quote is “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.”

For the term to even be applicable in the way you’re describing, the studies referred to by “these studies” would have to have put their participants on an adaptation diet prior to the study period. Was that actually the case?

• Effect of increased dietary protein on tolerance to intensified training - PubMed - No mention of an adaptation period.
• A whey-supplemented, high-protein diet versus a high-carbohydrate diet: effects on endurance cycling performance - PubMed - No mention of an adaptation period.
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7003706_A_Review_of_Issues_of_Dietary_Protein_Intake_in_Humans - This one is a systematic review, and appears to primarily be a theoretical exploration of protein processing in humans with only occasional case studies, rather than a direct review of large scale studies. So it’s unclear how a dietary adaptation period would fit in, though you’re welcome to peruse it yourself.
• W. McClelland and E. DuBois, J. Biol. Chem., 1930, 87, 651–680 - I can’t find this one anywhere.

I don’t see this is particularly strong evidence for your claim. It seems far more likely to me that “well-adapted” is simply being used to describe individuals who, for whatever reason, are better able to deal with high protein intake.

[Phil_C]

@narrill

who described a hypothetical diet with 200g of animal protein.

No, I didn’t.

The point I made was that people who eat what they perceive to be healthy foods (zero fat yogurts, wholemeal toast, plant based milks, fruit, salads, grilled chicken etc) are probably getting way more protein then either what they imagine or what you insist on being unsafe.).

I presented a hypothetical daily diet of mixed animal and plant based proteins. If I replaced the meat with something like seiten or impossible it would have made little difference to the overall protein count – perhaps 3-5% less. If I had replaced the zero fat Greek yogurts with commercially available vegan ones – then the total protein daily intake would have increased another 7%.

You chose to skew and (continue to) misrepresent what I said as it didn’t fit your narrative and ‘you didn’t want to talk about it anymore’.

[narrill]

@Phil_C

You chose to skew and (continue to) misrepresent what I said as it didn’t fit your narrative and ‘you didn’t want to talk about it anymore’.

You were objectively wrong. A wide variety of studies across a wide time range consistently place average daily protein intake in the US at roughly 80g. People are not accidentally consuming 200g of protein every day, and claiming they are is simply a falsehood. And if they are accidentally consuming 200g of animal protein every day, studies have consistently shown that they are, in fact, putting themselves at risk of kidney disease (depending on some other factors like their body weight and activity level).

[rikefrejut]

@narrill

studies have consistently shown that they are, in fact, putting themselves at risk of kidney disease

You keep repeating this statement as a fact, but haven’t provided a single study that would show protein intake at the levels it is in Huel v3.1 causes kidney disease in healthy individuals.

[epicure]

& that single study would have to be specific to plant protein in order to be relevant.

[JamesCollier]

Hi @narrill I’ll respond to your last post to me last week. Please be aware that I haven’t read most of the replies since.

There is no perfect macro ratio; people respond to different macros, this has been demonstrated empirically and by the ever-evolving (excuse the pun!) science of genetics.

The risk of extremely high protein consumption is of course kidney disease…

The consensus indicates that there is no issue with consuming the amount of protein in Huel Powders for the vast majority of the population. Sure, you could show me evidence, I could counter this and we’d be having a game of evidence tennis

Fundamentally, yes, Huel v3 is ‘high protein’, I’d even go as far as to say that it is also objectively high in protein, but the level of protein is far, far from excessive. Granted, you may have formed a different opinion from the evidence you’ve read. I could demonstrate this, but to be completely fair to you, to do the argument justice, I could only do this through several thousand words.

We could be having the same debate in another thread with someone else about carb levels, and with someone else about fat levels; indeed, I have. I hear you, we have Black Edition for those who dislike carbs, but we don’t have a minimal fat option for the ‘Antifats’. Admittedly, I can’t recall a debate such as this, however.

I would move the calories to carbs, since that aligns with diets that are known to promote longevity.

This is not as clear-cut as you imply. Carbs promote insulin; insulin has been linked to ageing, metabolic diseases and reduced longevity. Sure, carbs have been linked to promoting longevity too. My point? It’s simply not as clear as you imply.

More generally, my concern here is really over what Huel is trying to be, as a product. Is it a weight loss aid? Is it a souped up protein powder aimed at gym bros? Those seem to be the aims based on the nutritional content, but the marketing suggests Huel is supposed to be a high-nutrition meal replacement, and IMO that’s clearly the best option if Huel wants to continue to expand their user base and have mainstream appeal.

At the same time, it’s both none of the above and all of the above. Huel Powder has not been designed as a weight loss aid, but, like most other foods, can be used as a weight loss aid. It’s not been designed for gym goers, but is great for gym goers; like other foods. Huel is not a ‘meal replacement’, Huel Powder is a food in powdered form. It’s not just weight reducers who need to feel satiated postprandial, none of us should over-eat (again, for highly complex reasons).

I’ll admit that Huel has one limitation: the macros are ‘set’. We aimed to get around this by introducing the other three powders (BE, Complete Protein and Essential) so people can consume one or the others, or, indeed, they can combine different ratios to get the macros closer to what they desire.

I’m genuinely sorry that you’re unhappy with the macro ratio of Huel, as well as that no one here is able to provide a satisfactory response to your objections. Nutrition is a highly complex and nuanced field with many unknowns (as I discuss in my article here), and, as I said above, to fully explain one’s position on something is a huge task and would take thousands of words and would be highly referenced. A half-hearted attempt at doing this frankly, would be disrespectful to you.

Thank you

[Indigo]

It seems they have been festering for this argument for some time.

[mbs]

Renal insufficiency is multifactorial. If protein helps you to keep a low body weight and avoid metabolic syndrome it might not be as bad as some suggest. Getting rid of the nitrogen may be a problem if you have excessive amounts of protein, sure, that’s also why I recommend using other brands, too - if you want to have a full liquid diet. That’s my strategy. Each company has a different formula, so you get more diversity with regard to the nutrients. Some are cheaper - especially those with a lower amount of protein (like JJ).
Another possibility would be replacing the water with something else and just having one instead of two scoops for your shakes.
Apart from that, I still think that using supplements is a good thing, mainly because I believe in Vitamin C megadosing. I have no evidence supporting this, so I would not recommend it to something else, but I am convinced that it works for me; and I don’t want to stop it.