How Much Money Do You Save by Cooking at Home?
priceonomics.comThis looks like an advertisement for Wellio.
The linked article, links to a Wellio page with the same content verbatim. http://www.getwellio.com/ranking-least-nutritious-meal-dolla...
The information may be useful still, but it should presented as long form advertising
> but it should presented as long form advertising
Yes. I think these are usually tagged or labelled as "Sponsored Posts".
Priceonomics runs a service that produces interesting content for their clients based on their data. That's what this is.
Most content on HN would probably fall under your definition of "long form advertising".
>However you can easily make these meals at home.
As someone who cooks a lot at home I call this an overstatement. Cooking a restaurant quality food is anything but easy for a non-professional cook. It took me months if not years to learn how to not overcook meat, and yet I still can't achieve the same level of juiciness and softness I see in meat cooked in restaurants.
You will also need to invest in good quality kitchenware if you're going to cook at home.
The article also completely ignores the other costs of cooking at home such as utilities, food waste, and your time which used not just for cooking, but also for shopping groceries.
Sous vide machine + better meat will help you get juicy, reproducible steaks.
"Beef Wellington" price per meal is $4.53, their first example. This is not even close to anything realistic, even just for the beef and not including the spices/sauces/etc that one would need.
I stopped reading after seeing the pricing tables. I really question their data source and calculation quality with items like this:
Chicken Tacos Restaurant Price: 18.94 Cook at Home Cost: 1.14
yeah. Maybe if you cooked up Roadkill Wellington it'd cost that much.
They’re failing to factor in time it takes to shop, cook, clean, food waste, and they barely mention nutritional diversity. As a frequent meal kit subscriber I get great food that I can cook quickly, I get diversity, faster cleanup, little to no food waste, and I don’t have to take on the additional cognitive load of “what are we going to cook tonight” which is actually a main reason you might go and eat out.
I think this analysis is a little flawed. I can understand their argument against factoring in opportunity cost as this will vary widely from person-to-person (and is pretty easy to consider on your own), but they also don't factor in waste or cost of the tools necessary to prepare food.
For example, the article mentions that they used the cost for only 1/2 of an onion if the recipe called for only 1/2 an onion, but what happens to the other 1/2? Depending on how often you cook at home, how often you go out of your way to use existing ingredients, and how much time you spend meal-planning, you'll either manage to use the rest of the onion (which is pretty easy for something as common as onions), or it will go to waste. Personally, since I'm typically just cooking for 1, most of these end up going to waste unless I want to be eating the same thing for several days in a row.
This analysis would be more useful and interesting if it came with multiple "waste factors" for the remaining ingredients, from "completely used" (which is what this article assumes) to "completely wasted". It'd also be more useful if it factored in the amortized cost of maintaining a kitchen that's stocked well-enough with tools and spices to regularly prepare a variety of recipes.
For me personally, the difference in cost is much closer than this article. I will typically use all of the "main" ingredient, but additional (yet expensive) ingredients, such as spices, cheeses, etc. often go bad before I have a chance to use them again. I've also spent a significant amount of money acquiring the kitchenware required to cook at home. I typically don't eat extravagantly when I eat out; most meals are ~$15-$17 (incl. tax and tip). For some meals, I buy pre-made food at the grocery store (e.g. salads, wraps) that also come MUCH closer, if not cheaper, than preparing it at home would cost me if waste is included. Some of these can be very close to restaurant quality.
"For example, the article mentions that they used the cost for only 1/2 of an onion if the recipe called for only 1/2 an onion, but what happens to the other 1/2? Depending on how often you cook at home, how often you go out of your way to use existing ingredients, and how much time you spend meal-planning, you'll either manage to use the rest of the onion (which is pretty easy for something as common as onions), or it will go to waste. Personally, since I'm typically just cooking for 1, most of these end up going to waste unless I want to be eating the same thing for several days in a row."
You can freeze a lot of fresh food for later use. That's what I use with a lot of the fruits and vegetables I buy, and then use them in smoothies. Cookies can be frozen. Bread can be frozen.
Often I'll save time and effort by buying frozen fruits and veggies. They're often fresher than "fresh" produce, as they're usually frozen immediately after they're picked rather than sitting around unfrozen in transport and then on the store shelf who knows how long before you buy them.
For example, you can buy frozen, chopped onions, and save yourself the time, hassle, and tears of chopping them yourself. I buy frozen fruits and berries, and "triple washed" kale and throw it immediately in to the freezer for use in smoothies. Lots of time saved and it's very economical. Nothing goes to waste.
> "To be clear, this is an analysis of your costs and isn’t about looking at opportunity costs of time associated with cooking."
Pointless then. This is part / mostly what you pay for when ordering / eating out. That is, you sit and relax while someone else's time is invested in your meal.
Great article. Hope the authors extend this comparison with more information about how much time you spend to get those savings.
Restaurants are interesting because you're not really saving much time, but you're converting shopping/cooking time into socializing time.
Delivery via uber-eats type services is nice to get good food without spending time, but it isn't cheap.
Fast food is quick and cheap if you're already driving somewhere, but it isn't healthy or high-quality.
So what is the optimal choice for saving time and money while still eating well?
So what is the optimal choice for saving time and money while still eating well?
Personally, I'd say just developing everyday food shopping and kitchen skills is a good start.
Learn to recognise good ingredients when you're shopping. Finding fruit and vegetables at the right level of ripeness or choosing a good cut of meat will improve your meal quality, reduce your waste, and save you time and money. Buying very cheap cuts of meat or clearance produce is often a false economy, as the quality is often so low that you'll waste much more and what you keep will be less healthy and less tasty.
Knowing where to go shopping for the best ingredients is helpful too. Independent local stores, farm shops or markets might have fresher and less modified products than a big chain store or home delivery service, and you might have more flexibility to get exactly the amount you want instead of a pre-determined pack size. Sure, it takes some time to buy fresh ingredients in person every few days, but probably only a few minutes.
Speaking of time, the amount I have saved over the years by knowing how to prepare different fruits and vegetables efficiently must far outweigh the relatively small amount I spent learning. (Seriously, if you don't know the easy way to slice a bell pepper or dice an avocado, go to YouTube right now and spend a few minutes finding out how professional chefs do this kind of thing. You'll thank me later.)
It's also important to have the right tools, and this is about quality, not quantity. Non-stick pans, good sharp knives and the right utensil for the job can all be big time savers, as well as often being safer than inferior alternatives. And get into the habit of always cleaning as you work, instead of stacking up some huge pile of dirty cookware, utensils, knives and boards to wash later.
Ultimately, it's hard to beat a decent home-made meal with good ingredients for cost, and unless you're talking about a nice restaurant it's going to be hard to beat it significantly on quality either, but you can certainly do a lot to reduce the amount of time you have to spend making one.
This assumes home cooking for 6 people each meal. The economics are very different when cooking for less.
They haven't heard of the $5 footlong?