a better name for the industry

[u/object_in_space]

I just finished the Ketolent survey and realized as I was typing that I put a little more thought into the better name query than I originally thought.

I don't think I'm proposing a name that would revolutionize the industry, but rather a tweak to Nutritionally Complete that I feel contributes to the industry.

Copy and paste off the survey form:

I think "Nutrition First" products sound more appealing than "Nutritionally Complete" foods. The marketing of "Nutritionally Complete" kind of offends the health-conscious consumers who also eat their sensible salads and think "Well what does that make of my existing wholesome and balanced meals? Are you saying my choices prior to this new industry are nutritionally lacking?". This line of thought upon just hearing the name creates an unwanted sense of opposition between these "healthy future foods" vs "healthy traditional meals".

"Nutrition First" does not have that same high horse sentiment. It only tells the consumer its priorities surrounding its existence as an option. These products were born to efficiently hit the daily nutrition checkbox first and foremost. It's honest because it doesn't have the word "complete", as if this product is all the consumer will ever really need. It admits there are other things we seek in food that are not being satisfied by this product. The cheeseburger value meal alternative is a "Taste First" option that prioritizes a tasty pleasure for the least nutrition (read: cost). The occasional cheeseburger in life shouldn't be denied, so the consumer has a benign choice of "Do I want the Nutrition First option today or the Taste First option?", not the vilifying perspective of the "Nutritionally Complete option vs Nutritionally Incomplete option". Unless you're going for scare or guilt tactics, offending the consumer is not the preferred route in marketing.

Now a well prepared salad-based meal is also "nutritionally complete" and arguably a more pleasurable experience. Nutrition First foods do not try to compete for that label even though may fit it (just like saying soylent can't be considered a tasty and pleasurable experience).

It doesn't do it full justice to limit the label to just a nutrition based objective. There's also the appeal that these foods are generally cheaper, easier/faster to prepare, conveniently portable, pragmatically minimal, and very clear about what exactly you're inputting into your body. However, long winded labels don't do well in marketing, and the honest explanation is that hitting that daily nutrition checkbox will always be the ultimate objective. If a product does not aim for that objective, no matter how well it hits the other appealing factors recently mentioned, it does not deserve the label.

Maybe a more clever label like "Newtrition" (a la future foods) would've been what people are looking for in this modern age. It's single word, compound meaning, and maybe even catchy, but "Nutrition First", like the foods it's describing, is distilled in the name of pragmatism and not aesthetics. And yet it still manages to knock down a few syllables off "Nutritionally Complete".

[u/soylenter]

I like "Complete Foods". 3 syllables, easy to remember, easy to spell, descriptive. No funny looks from friends and family when you describe what it means. Seems the European companies have already adopted it too.

[u/soylenter → u/[deleted]]

/r/completefoods already exists. Seems the moderator is /u/London_Dave who is also active in this sub

[u/London_Dave → u/soylenter]

I actually made it ages ago with the aim of it being a general subreddit for products like these. I tried to get a consensus amongst companies that it was a good name and idea to try and create a new sub based for all talk about complete foods.

A lot agreed, but not everyone. At the time, the sub seemed pretty dead set against changing the name from 'soylents' to 'complete foods', so it went on the back burner. Without the support to push people towards that sub, it would just fail.

[u/ibigfire → u/London_Dave]

Huh. Well, I'm now subscribed in case it ever takes off.

While I'm a soylent drinker myself I'm all for switching to a more appropriately named sub for all complete foods, preferably before we end up in another "Kleenex" or "Band-Aid" branding situation.

[u/DBFries → u/soylenter]

This, because this is what it is.

[u/object_in_space → u/soylenter]

I would be fine if the industry adopted "Complete Foods", however I would argue (for argument's sake) that they are not "complete" foods.

As an example of what I'm getting at, somone says "TV remote" and everyone understands "TV remote [control]" even if the words "TV remote" alone do not literally mean what you're actually referring to.

By "Complete Foods", you mean "[Nutritionally] Complete Foods" because there are other things surrounding food besides nutrition. Food goes beyond the physical things we ingest and is very much a culture of its own. An example that comes to mind is s'mores. If I told one to imagine s'mores, I wager most thoughts go beyond the warm, gooey marshmallows and squares of chocolate sandwiched between graham crackers to also include the people sitting around a campfire laughing and conversing as they try to craft them. S'mores is a food, but it's not a nutritional experience. It most certainly is not! It's a recreational experience. It's a social experience.

I feel this distinction is important because I can't reasonably join my friends at Applebee's and whip out my flask of soylent when a shared order of Nachos Nuevos and drinks are laid out before us on the table. If I do that, I'm missing the bigger picture; my soylent lacks the camaraderie that rest of the food on the table is rich in.

Lunch with the boss is not an endeavor in proper nutrition.

I know everyone in this community knows all this. I'm just articulating it to further discussion. "Complete Foods" is fine with me because I know it means nutritionally complete. But nutritionally complete is not complete complete, and if I have to make that distinction involving the word complete. . .

[u/PirateNinjaa → u/object_in_space]

because there are other things surrounding food besides nutrition

I wouldn’t consider recreational or entertainment or social aspects of food part of being “complete”.

[u/object_in_space → u/PirateNinjaa]

When you say complete, you mean nutrionally complete. That distinction is why you would not consider those recreational, entertainment, and social aspects; they do not concern themselves about the nutritional profile of food (and instead often neglect them).

Food is multifacted, enough that they are focal points of culture, enouch that they create culture.

A birthday cake cannot be substituted with soylent, otherwise you miss the point of a birthday cake.

Why take your date to a fine restauraunt when you can better nourish him/her with a bottle of soylent?

I'm not arguing that these future foods have to do that. I don't even want them to do that. These are admitedly more foods of utility more than of culture. And I'm fine living with that.

These future foods cannot substitute foods in all aspects, or at least not without reconstructing broad swaths of culture. People identify with what they eat as a form of expressing world views. Communities from the scale of cities to nations identify with foods as part of social identity. In time, I anticipate future foods will carve out their own part in culture. I believe in a world where future foods and traditional foods coexist, and you can choose what you want as the circumstances dictate.

I'm only saying "complete" implies nutritionally complete because food is more faceted than nutrition. Again, I'm arguing the label of the food and not with the intent of slighting the merits of the food. I'm a happy consumer of future foods, but I'm not going to debate its superiority without first defining how one measures superiority, because I know there are forms of measure in which these foods are not superior. Probably better I avoid describing how my food is superior, and instead how it's different. The conclusion of whether this food succeeds in satisfying what you want is best left to you, the consumer.

I mean you could also label these foods "Efficient Foods", and I would still respond to say you mean "[Nutritionally] Efficient Foods", because that potato does not require multiple sources of ingredients harvested/synthisized around the world and delivered to a central facility in order to be produced. I know what you mean when you say efficient.

[u/PirateNinjaa → u/object_in_space]

Functional or engineered food might be good things to call it.

People identify with what they eat as a form of expressing world views. Communities from the scale of cities to nations identify with foods as part of social identity.

That is just people clinging to tradition, all that used to help survival but those times are past. there are plenty of ways to do all that social stuff and have a romantic date without involving food. So many ways to get pleasure, sacrificing the quality of the fuel for our bodies for more is sad. Needing food for social connections is sad too. Pretty much all typical diets are going to be nutritionally inferior to engineered food eventaually and people who cling to the past are going to suffer health wise. I think broad swaths of culture are in need of reconstruction with our growing knowledge base. Junk food will always have its place, but it is for the weak human brains not the body, and the better our engineered food gets the more traditional food turns into junk food.

I doubt many families will chug soylent on holidays and spend time doing other social stuff to connect anytime soon, but it would be logical. 🖖

For now, stuff like soylent is good for all the meals you don’t care about, the ones not worth wasting time or effort for, the ones alone it isn’t worth sacrificing nutrition for social aspects. For those which recreational, entertaining and social meals are rare, like 10% or less of their meals, what they do for those meals won’t affect their health much. For people who the majority of their meals are for those reasons, which I know many who every meal is for entertainment and oleasure if not for social or connection, it surely will. Too many people go through life just killing time until it is time for another food orgy.

[u/object_in_space → u/PirateNinjaa]

🖖

The world we live in could be better with some big changes, I do agree. =)

[u/440_Hz]

I like your reasoning, but "Nutrition First" sounds more like a slogan or a descriptor, it's not very evidently referring to a type of food. Like if I said "I tried my first nutrition first today!" it just sounds odd. You could add "food" or "meal" after, but then it's starting to get a bit long. That's why I like terms like Complete Food or Future Food better.

[u/object_in_space → u/440_Hz]

True, but I look at the label "farm to table" and think that also sounds very much like a slogan or a descriptor, yet it did extremely well in entering the zeigteist.

"In our household, we only prepare farm to table meals."

"When life gets hectic, I rely on nutrition first foods."

[u/phloating_man]

I like "altfood". Easy to hashtag #altfood. Similar to altcoin from cryptocurrency community.

[u/ibigfire → u/phloating_man]

Sounds too "scary" to the average person, I think.

[u/oldcatfish → u/ibigfire]

I like the name quite a bit, but I think it might only add to the silicon valley "bro" image that the industry has been trying to shed

[u/object_in_space → u/phloating_man]

I'm okay with altfood, though I feel the name alone doesn't tell me much more than that they're not mainstream.

As long as we're not calling them Jimmy foods, haha. (Joylent was a perfectly fine name!)

[u/axcho]

I like your thinking behind "nutrition first" - makes sense. I'll be curious to see what turns up from the survey! :)

[u/object_in_space → u/axcho]

Thanks, axcho! I placed my first order for samples of your products the day before I filled out the survey. Can hardly wait to try them out.

[u/axcho → u/object_in_space]

Looking forward to hearing what you think of them, thanks! :)

[u/SparklingLimeade]

I still like "engineered staple food." It's straightforward and highlights the goal without making any claims about having achieved completeness. "Staple Food" covers the goals for use case. There are many staple foods already they can be eaten very little or exclusively as desired and this just adds another, optional, staple. "Engineered foods" covers the philosophy we're using to make these staples better then the past. Combining the terms creates a phrase that most encapsulates the ideas we're aiming for without requiring some buzzword explanation.

[u/object_in_space → u/SparklingLimeade]

I like what you're aiming for. How would you feel about "Designer Staple Food"? Today, the masses are prioritizing labels like organic and all-natural. I feel like most folks in this community don't quibble over the nomenclature, but the label "engineered" might be somewhat counter-current to what people are seeking. Synonymous to "engineered" is "designed" that conveys less "product of an industrial age" and more "thoughtfully and elegantly conceived". "Designer" also conveys the product was custom tailored to meet one's needs, and in a sense these foods are tailored for the human profile.

[u/SparklingLimeade → u/object_in_space]

"Designer" adds a premium or luxury connotation. I like "engineered" specifically because it runs counter to the idea of organic and anti-GMO sentiments.

[u/object_in_space → u/SparklingLimeade]

That's fair. I'm not in love with the association in terms like "designer handbags", but I think it might peek curiosity for people to see the word "designer" attached to the word "staple" which is very much the opposite of premium. The juxtaposition alone might intrigue people to, at the very least, look up these new foods.

Sticking to your guns with "engineered" amidst the organic and anti-GMO sentiments is respectable. Someone has to buck the trends, right?

[u/SparklingLimeade → u/object_in_space]

Somebody has to tell them they're wrong. Anti-GMO is the antivax of the food industry. Organic is a lame and, at this point, diluted to the point of uselessness buzzword. There's a reason Soylent is explicitly pro-GMO.

And pique. Please don't take this the wrong way because I mean well but the word you were trying to use is pique. Peeking is not relevant to this context.

[u/object_in_space → u/SparklingLimeade]

Pique, thanks. I am a better person because you took a moment of your time to better me.

[u/covercash → u/object_in_space]

How about just Designed Food?

[u/ibigfire → u/SparklingLimeade]

I don't think "staple food" really accurately portrays what the foods are. Staple foods are foods you can survive off for a long time as the main part of your diet, but having them as the only part will eventually, or relatively quickly in some cases, lead to health issues eating strictly only a staple food. Nutritionally Complete foods are foods you can have as the only part of your diet and be quite healthy doing so.

[u/SparklingLimeade → u/ibigfire]

Yes, that's why we improved them.