I'd go for option 1 without question, although that may just reflect my own... difficult relationship with sleep and sleep schedules. Owen might be right and I might spend a lot of time at a loose end, but it would make everything so much easier.
edit: In fact, for me this would largely resolve the need for two, because my biggest gripe for food isn't the cost, it's the difficulty of establishing a regular meal pattern, managing to eat the right amount of the right sort of thing at the right time. (I just struggle to establish life-rhythms generally; partly my fault, partly not.) If you had eight extra hours a day, you'd have a lot more flexibility in that regard- and what's more, I could apply some of that free time to preparing more food from scratch, so I'd still save money. It just gets better and better!
edit2: Plus, come to think of it, I don't know if the free time would be a problem. I'm somebody who quite values the ability to just do nothing- I never feel right unless I've spent at least a couple of hours a day slumped in a heap doing nothing of any value- so being able to have a full day and get my fair share of slumpery would be great. In fact, you'd probably need the nothing-time, even people who like to keep themselves busy, because that sort of time helps you recharge and reflect. Moving all the time eats at your nerves, and that would be doubly true if you were moving all the time. Option 1 is the problem that solves itself!
