So-called “liquid meals” are becoming increasingly popular, marketed as convenient options for people who don’t have time for a traditional meal. But how healthy are these meal replacements really?
A Filling Alternative
According to the German Consumer Goods and Product Testing Authority, liquid meals can indeed be satisfying and nutritionally complete, as they provide all the essential nutrients the body needs. Containing between 400 and 515 calories, they are roughly equivalent to a full meal — meaning they are far from being just a light snack.
When time is limited, experts note that liquid meals are a healthier choice than typical fast food options like currywurst with fries and mayonnaise. Compared with such meals, liquid alternatives generally offer a better balance of vitamins, minerals, and proteins, while maintaining an acceptable overall fat content.
Potential Drawbacks
However, these convenient products come with several downsides. Even when no added sugar is included, many contain short-chain carbohydrates that are quickly absorbed into the bloodstream, causing a sudden spike in blood sugar levels — a particular concern for individuals with diabetes.
As blood sugar levels drop again, this rapid fluctuation can lead to increased hunger and cravings. Some products also use the artificial sweetener sucralose, which has been linked to stimulating appetite.
Another disadvantage is that liquid meals eliminate the need for chewing, an important physiological process that contributes to the feeling of fullness and satisfaction. Without it, people may be tempted to consume more calories overall.
Finally, many of these products contain high levels of protein, which can pose risks for individuals with kidney problems, as excessive protein intake places additional strain on the kidneys.
In short, while liquid meals can serve as a practical, nutritionally balanced option in a hurry, they are not a sustainable substitute for regular, whole-food meals in the long term.
