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.

You didn't address anything I said at all. So, why is your post a reply to me?