The Different aspects of eating out versus cooking at home

As per the bureau of labor statistics, the cost of eating out is rising much faster than the price of groceries. Per the latest consumer price index, the cost of meals eaten outside of the home has gone up by 3.1%, in 2019 while at the same time, the price of shopping at a grocery store has gone up by less than 1%.

In spite of the cost, why do we see such a distinguishable rise in outside food consumption?

- Less than 60 percent of suppers served at home were cooked at home last year. Only 30 years ago, the share was closer to 75 percent. The fallout stalled a touch during the recession when cash-strapped families had to backtrack a little and spend a while over the stove to save lots of money. But it has since resumed its downward trend, and there's little reason to believe its trajectory will change.

- That slow but steady disappearance of cooking in the United States is happening on other levels, too. Both men and women, are spending less time at the stove. If we take an average, the 2 genders together spend around 110 minutes for cooking every day, compared to about 140 minutes per day that were spent in the 1970s and it was even more in the 1960s, i.e., 150 minutes per day.

- In 2013, Nutrition Journal published a study that reported that in 1965, between 88 and 95 percent of meals were prepared at home, whereas in 2007 between 65 and 72 percent were. That's a 16 percent drop at the best, a 30 percent drop at the worst. Many factors are contributing to the decline of home cooking, a serious one among which is that the continuing shift in gender roles: there was more home cooking happening in the 1950s and 1960s because women were much less likely to work outside of the home, and were expected to assume the role of homemaker and prepare meals for the family. To mourn the death of home cooking is, in some ways, to lament the very fact that more women entered the workforce.

The shift is big enough for grocery stores to worry about and hence adapt. Almost all the major grocery chains are doubling there stocks of prepared foods, and a few are even setting up full-service eating places at the middle of their stores (grocerants, they’re called). It would be premature to comment that grocery stores are dying alongside home cooking, but certainly, they’re evolving.

Is it always the case that eating out is expensive?

While the above research says that eating out is expensive, experts say that this isn’t always true. Sometimes eating out could be cost-effective as compared to cooking. For example, if you buy a McDonald’s burger, it might cost you $5 while cooking at home would costs investment in money as well as time. Cooking meals yourself requires some time, which people simply don’t have these days. With hundreds of options for buying cheap food, the resulting cost of eating out is low these days. Eating out when compared to cooking at home, may seem like a confusing choice for some people.

The Tradeoff when it comes to selecting healthy food Options

While in the above example, if you eat at McDonald’s, you are pretty much-eating junk food. Eating healthy can burn a hole in your pocket – That is what University of Washington researchers stumbled upon, on comparison of the prices of 370 foods sold at supermarkets in the Seattle area.

Apart from the ample nutrients present in fruits and vegetables the calories present in them are very few. Foods with high energy density, meaning they pack the maximum calories per gram, included candy, pastries, baked foods, and snacks. The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the higher bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on an average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods. The survey also showed that low-calorie foods were more likely to gain in price, surging 19.5 percent over the two-year study period. High-calorie foods though dropped in price by 1.8 percent, giving off a relatively better bargain.

Eating out at a restaurant, not a fast-food chain is definitely an expensive option

Last year, researchers ordered a 10 oz. rib-eye steak from Outback Steakhouse alongside soup, salad, and asparagus; the bill was $17.99. Cooking the same meal at home, the price tag climbed to $20.52. The controversial study concluded that it is cheaper to dine out, but a Boston Globe author wasn’t convinced. “Not possible,” Jane Dornbusch wrote. There was no way, Dornbusch thought, that cooking at home might be costlier than dining out. One writer at GoBankingRates tried to persuade her that the study indeed made sense: “She cited the high cost of groceries and the surge in value menu items (such as $1 fast-food burgers) to support the notion that dining-out and cooking-in prices are converging,” Dornbusch added. Still unconvinced, Dornbusch took matters into her own hands and replicated the study herself. “I’d compare costs and factor in time and convenience, and see which meal is more expensive,” she said. Dornbusch went to an Outback Steakhouse in Framingham, MA and ordered the same rib-eye steak but this time it came with either soup, or salad, and the price was also $18.29. Unfortunately, this little detail did not match with the original study which mentioned that the meal was served with both soup and salad. Thus, for the sake of a more accurate comparison, Dornbusch ordered the salad with the steak and separately asked for a cup of tortilla soup, which, not surprisingly added $2.99 to the total. Throwing in asparagus as well, Outback charged Dornbusch an extra dollar. Not including tip, the entire meal (for two) cost Dornbusch $47.68. Making an equivalent dinner at home for 2, the following is what she found:

Splitting the bills in half to match with the first study, the Outback meal cost Dornbusch $23.99 (compared to $17.99) and its cook-at-home counterpart was $22.93 (compared to $20.52). Dornbusch says that these numbers, however, are misleading. “Yes, I had to shop for an entire head of romaine and an entire head of iceberg for the salad, but that gave me enough lettuce for a week’s worth of salad, not only one meal.” This can also be applied for several other ingredients she purchased for dinner.

On doing the maths, Dornbusch discovered — with leftover ingredients for more meals — eating at home only cost her $11.84 per person and $23.84 at Outback. Cooking at home is the winner. Let’s not forget that dining-in is healthier–who knows what’s happening in that hidden kitchen.

While Dornbusch agrees that groceries are getting more expensive, we cannot yet say that dining out is cheaper. Your thoughts? Both have their pros and cons and it depends upon your lifestyle, eating habits, family income, family size and so much more to find out what works for you.