Huel - what's wrong with it, if anything?

Nutrition Q&A [Moderated]
1

Hi there,

I have a couple of questions regarding the meal replacement product “Huel”. I have seen it mentioned in passing on here before, but I suppose I wondered if someone would be willing to go a bit deeper into the topic.

Huel is a meal replacement powder that is claimed by its creators to be “nutritionally complete”. Its website is here: https://uk.huel.com/. I know that meal replacement shakes are controversial, but I would respectfully ask to be heard out.

From what I have read elsewhere on the internet, the consensus among health and fitness experts is that it’s a better alternative for busy people than scoffing down cheeseburgers, but still not ideal as whole foods are better. My questions are:

  1. Am I right in thinking that this would be your view?

  2. If so, what’s wrong with it?

The arguments against Huel

From what I have seen, the assertion that whole foods are better appears to be based on generalisations about meal replacement shakes that don’t necessarily apply to Huel, unless I’m missing something. For example:

  1. “It’s processed” - processed in what way? Usually we say we don’t like “processed” foods because they are chock full of fat, salt and/or sugar, which Huel isn’t.

  2. “It contains artificial ingredients” - OK, what ingredients in Huel are harmful? Is something automatically better for you because it’s “natural”? Isn’t that an all-natural fallacy?

  3. “Meal replacement shakes often omit certain key nutrients” - well, Huel is advertised as being nutritionally complete, is that a false statement? What’s missing from it?

  4. “It’s bland/boring” - perhaps, but that’s subjective, and not relevant to its nutritional properties. Surely if you’re willing to put up with it then it’s OK?

  5. “Digestion of food starts with chewing, which shakes omit” - so what if they do? Surely the work of breaking the food down has simply been done already, in which case, what’s the problem? Isn’t that like saying cars are bad because it stops people from using horses? What deleterious impact on the body is caused by the absence of chewing?

Reason for asking

The reason for my interest in this topic is that a diet based on Huel plus whey protein appears, with the exception of the aforementioned concerns, to tick every sports nutrition box whilst also being a lot simpler and easier than having to plan a diet and muck about with the preparation, safe storage and transport of a bujillion Tupperware containers of whole foods. For example:

  1. Consuming enough water? Check.

  2. Getting all of your vitamins and minerals in? Check.

  3. Monitoring calories? Check.

  4. Monitoring macronutrients? Check.

  5. Four-five meals spread throughout the day at regular intervals? Check.

I can appreciate why one might call me lazy for wanting to rely on Huel over whole foods, but in the absence of a clear, objective explanation as to what’s wrong with Huel compared to whole foods, then I don’t see the point in making things more complicated or difficult.

By all means point out if and where I’m going wrong - I’m not trying to sound like a spokesman for the company - but at the moment I’m not clear on this.

Many thanks in advance.

2

I too am interested in an educated opinion on this, I have a Huel shake a few times a week for lunch when I’m working as it’s convenient and it saves me eating junk food instead.

3

I think it could probably be useful for folks who are otherwise unwilling to or unable to adapt their dietary pattern towards varying different environments, but I also think this is a somewhat unlikely comparison. In other words, the people who with poor dietary patterns are unlikely to purchase this and/or use it regularly.

The macros and calories are fine, but sourcing many micros and phytonutrients typically associated with health benefits (e.g. from fruits, veggies, whole grains, etc.) from supplements have repeatedly failed to reproduce those same health promoting effects. We see this with fiber supplementation outside of ASCVD, for example.

It also does not provide individuals with strategies, tools, and resources to make a long-term lifestyle change unless they want to eat huel for all their meals forever.

  1. “It’s processed” - processed in what way? Usually we say we don’t like “processed” foods because they are chock full of fat, salt and/or sugar, which Huel isn’t.

This is not necessarily true wrt processed foods. Certain processing techniques also reduce concentration and availability of health-promoting compounds, e.g. flavonoids, phytonutrients, etc. Processing has a specific definition: https://educhange.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/NOVA-Classification-Reference-Sheet.pdf

  1. “It contains artificial ingredients” - OK, what ingredients in Huel are harmful? Is something automatically better for you because it’s “natural”? Isn’t that an all-natural fallacy?

I’m not sure I would be trying to isolate single compounds in foods that are harmful or health promoting without looking at the rest of the dietary pattern. I also don’t think I’d assume something to be beneficial or harmful without evidence.

  1. “Meal replacement shakes often omit certain key nutrients” - well, Huel is advertised as being nutritionally complete, is that a false statement? What’s missing from it?

The person making the claim must provide evidence to support their claim. Huel doesn’t have any data on humans consuming a Huel-only diet, so I don’t think I’d assume their marketing claims are accurate.

  1. “It’s bland/boring” - perhaps, but that’s subjective, and not relevant to its nutritional properties. Surely if you’re willing to put up with it then it’s OK?

Yea, adherence is important and I don’t think it’s a suitable long-term solution for a healthy dietary pattern.

  1. “Digestion of food starts with chewing, which shakes omit” - so what if they do? Surely the work of breaking the food down has simply been done already, in which case, what’s the problem? Isn’t that like saying cars are bad because it stops people from using horses? What deleterious impact on the body is caused by the absence of chewing?

There are some complex neurophysiological things that occur with chewing/consuming whole foods compared to liquid beverages. In general, we tend to consume more kCal in liquid form than in whole food form, though there are ways to mitigate this, e.g. increasing protein and fiber content, different textures, etc. That said, given similar levels of adherence and similar kCal intake, I’d expect similar results from a weight loss standpoint.

4

Hi Jordan,

First of all, thank you so much for your response and for going into the depth that you did.

For clarity, I used Huel before a couple of years ago and lost a lost of weight in a short space of time when combined with lifting and not drinking beer. During that period, I flitted between either using Huel alone or using it for most of the day and treating myself to a “normal” meal when I got home (which, again, I calculated a nutritional breakdown of so that I would stay on track). But obviously, going by my experience alone is going to give me a somewhat limited window into its efficacy.

Point taken. Perhaps I’m an outlier, but for me, I’m a bit of a foodie - I even have my own YouTube cooking channel! - but the types of meals you have to eat if you are really focused on nutrition in the way you you are supposed to for lifting are quite boring to me. Huel is not exciting either, but it’s quick, easy and does the job during my working day.

The macros and calories are fine, but sourcing many micros and phytonutrients typically associated with health benefits (e.g. from fruits, veggies, whole grains, etc.) from supplements have repeatedly failed to reproduce those same health promoting effects. We see this with fiber supplementation outside of ASCVD, for example.

When you say they fail to reproduce them, do they fail in absolute terms or are they just less effective?

Looking at the list of ingredients and the website, the majority of the nutrients appear to come from natural (albeit powdered) sources anyway, such as oats, rice and peas: The Huel Powder Formula Explained. One point that does jump out at me is that the protein sources are plant-based, but Huel itself purports to be a source of complete protein due to the various types, and I am proposing topping the protein intake up with whey.

It also does not provide individuals with strategies, tools, and resources to make a long-term lifestyle change unless they want to eat huel for all their meals forever.

Good point. I suppose this could depend on motivation. Or perhaps it could be a baby step in the right direction when it comes to changing long-term habits.

This is not necessarily true wrt processed foods. Certain processing techniques also reduce concentration and availability of health-promoting compounds, e.g. flavonoids, phytonutrients, etc. Processing has a specific definition: https://educhange.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/NOVA-Classification-Reference-Sheet.pdf

I’m not sure I would be trying to isolate single compounds in foods that are harmful or health promoting without looking at the rest of the dietary pattern. I also don’t think I’d assume something to be beneficial or harmful without evidence.

The person making the claim must provide evidence to support their claim. Huel doesn’t have any data on humans consuming a Huel-only diet, so I don’t think I’d assume their marketing claims are accurate.

I take the point about the burden of proof. However, my understanding (I am a lawyer, though food regulation and advertising are not within my areas of expertise) is that there are certain standards they need to be able to meet in order to make these claims and that they would be in a spot of legal trouble if they made those claims falsely, so I considered that I should give them the benefit of the doubt with this. This is what their website says:

“Huel is more than complete nutrition. Not only does Huel meet the UK and EU Reference Nutrient Intake (RNI), Reference Intake (RI) and Nutrient Reference Value (NRV) for all macro- and micronutrients, it also provides a sustained source of energy and has a wealth of other benefits.”

Yea, adherence is important and I don’t think it’s a suitable long-term solution for a healthy dietary pattern.

Point taken.

There are some complex neurophysiological things that occur with chewing/consuming whole foods compared to liquid beverages. In general, we tend to consume more kCal in liquid form than in whole food form, though there are ways to mitigate this, e.g. increasing protein and fiber content, different textures, etc. That said, given similar levels of adherence and similar kCal intake, I’d expect similar results from a weight loss standpoint.

Thank you very much for clarifying.

5

I am just here to state my thanks to Jordan due to his detailed explanation.

6

I can understand where you’re coming from, however I would make a point that that this barrier limits adherence and finding ways to work through it, e.g. creating meals that fit your dietary pattern goals yet also are fun, tasty, etc. would be a major part of life-long adherence for you. Huel is a band-aid in that regard.

Fail in absolute terms.

I don’t think protein needs would be higher and plant protein produces comparable results to whey when dosed high enough, e.g. 1.6g/kg.day.

That said, the processing of the nutrients is a major issue with this supplement.

I really don’t think so given the main barriers for behavioral change cited in this space.

Yea, this is only true when claiming to treat or cure a certain condition. Otherwise, people can claim what they want in the supplement industry.

This is marketing schtick.

7

Thanks again, Jordan.

Point taken.

Fail in absolute terms.

In light of this, what is the reason why doctors continue to prescribe micronutrient supplements, e.g. iron tablets for pregnant and anemic people, or vitamin D supplements for someone like me who has a vitamin D deficiency? Genuine question, I know doctors buy into certain myths as you have pointed out previously.

I don’t think protein needs would be higher and plant protein produces comparable results to whey when dosed high enough, e.g. 1.6g/kg.day.

OK, noted, thanks.

That said, the processing of the nutrients is a major issue with this supplement.

As in the addition of their “micronutrient blend” or what they do to the natural ingredients?

I really don’t think so given the main barriers for behavioral change cited in this space.

OK, noted, thanks.

Yea, this is only true when claiming to treat or cure a certain condition. Otherwise, people can claim what they want in the supplement industry.

This is marketing schtick.

I can see how claims like “contains a wealth of other benefits” are just sales puff, but surely they can’t lie about objectively quantifiable claims e.g. that they contain X amount of nutrient Y? If they can, then doesn’t that call all food nutritional information (including that of whole foods) into question?

Thanks again for your time.

8

This is a complicated question with no single answer.

Iron supplements are not derived from food, but also have a relatively good base of evidence for their efficacy.

Supplementing Vitamin D doesn’t really improve outcomes attributed to low vitamin D status, though again this is a much larger topic.

Both.

Sure, but it’s an appeal to authority at some level. For example, the RDA for protein is 0.8g/kg/day despite there being a push from a number of national and international health organizations to increase this number based on current evidence. Saying, “meets RDA for protein” is kind of meaningless from a health or performance standpoint in this regard.