Extending from the fast food burger emulation... someone online had disputed cooking being cheaper than eating out, and specifically mentioned Taco Bell value menu, Little Caesars, and unspecified hole-in-the-wall places. Well, I can evaluate the first two. Instead of my prior approach of trying to build an exact match for a burger, I'll try something more holistic.
(And yeah, this whole thing feels like belaboring the obvious to me. But apparently it's not actually obvious to many people.)
( Read more... )
Getting 2000 calories via Taco Bell burritos in Philly would take $11.45; doing it via burrito ingredients would take less than $6.97 (the price of living on canned black beans.) If you had been spending $11.45/day, you could switch to making your own, and use the savings to buy some actual vegetables as well.
Which leads to another argument I've repeatedly seen people make[1], that "eating healthy" is more expensive than fast food, because vegetables are so expensive, as if you're supposed to jump from burgers and pizza to living on spinach and eggplant. But humans can't live on non-starchy vegetables! Fast food is some mix of protein, carbs, and fat, and so is the bulk of homemade food; healthiness comes from using better ingredients and knowing what's going into the mix, not from jumping ship entirely to vegetables that are mostly water, fiber, and micronutrients. A burger diet is competing with whole grains and legumes plus some vegetables, or something like that, rather than competing with a salad diet.
[1] I guess proving by self-example that some adults don't know the first thing about nutrition or cooking.