Why are people so hypocritical that they claim soylent is not nutritionally complete but ensure is, despite the obvious fact that nutritional labelling laws allow us to see that soylent contains everything ensure does and more?
Here in we see why marketing matters. A product marketed as a supplement to help round out a diet that's affected by age, jaw-being-wired-shut, chrons..., that the company is willing to cop to[1] as "yes it's designed to fully replace food" on their website's faq is positioned very differently than a product marketed as "100% food replacement, oh and maybe we'll save Africa" with heavy notes of fuck-the-establishment and some questionable understandings of how people eat[2].
[1]actually abbot and the like will advertise as being a full meal replacement... for situations where people have medical need and are being monitored by a medical staff, which is to say, in situations where problems might be caught and addressed.
[2]Don't want to eat three multi dish meals a day at 8,12,7? Human bodies have plenty of reserves to deal with out getting 100% of their RDI every single day, just so long as it averages out over a week or two.
But you still want something to keep the stomach from rumbling? Great, the supermarket is chock-a-block full of foods that need no preperation and supply a wide variety of nutrients, either in the form of specialized products (Ensure, Clif bars, various other supplements/diet products) or just no-prep food: pouch of tuna, quart of milk, yogurt, that thing of trail mix that's clearly just muesli with extra peanuts, sack of pre hard-boiled eggs. Whatever.
