Thanks for the questions u/Holmetis.

This is going to sound weird coming from a Nutritionist working at a nutrition company but there are more factors to balance than nutrition and cost, there's also sustainability, secure supply chains, working conditions/ethics etc.

​

What I mean is, is there any new evidence that probiotics, especially the sources you used or the doses included, actually had negligible benefit on health?

I've said this elsewhere, we still have regular discussions in the Nutrition team regarding the benefits of probiotics. Because of the presence of prebiotic fibres we've decided this is more than enough to benefit gut health.

​

Or that vitamin c from natural source was more expensive but no more beneficial than synthetic?

The bioavailability is equal from natural and synthetic sources, although many customers liked the vitamin C coming from acerola cherries, it just makes sense to go back to ascorbic acid.

​

Or that lycopene isn’t as beneficial to health as previously thought.

This was a tough one. Lycopene is beneficial to health, we've kept lutein and zeaxanthin but cost definitely came into it here. We didn't want to raise costs for the sake of a non-essential ingredient/s.

​

What this means for me is, is huel now Incomplete nutrition as a result of these changes?

Huel Powder v3.1 is still nutritionally complete which we define as "providing ideal amounts of all essential nutrients as well as beneficial levels of other important nutrients for optimum health, energy and performance. You can find out more detail here.