Chips,Chips And More Chips

[gennisis]

I read today that one of Chiang Mai's eateries was offering a choice of 'British' or 'Australian' chips.

Now, I am aware of 'French Fried' and 'String' chips but have never heard of 'Australian' chips....in fact the only Australian chip I know of is the one most Aussies have on their shoulders

So could someone more globe and culinary aware than myself please enlighten me. I am supposing that the Australian chip is potato ? but maybe something else from 'down under"

One kind soul had suggested that I visit the premises in question and actualy eat some,but exotic foods are not to my likes,so I had to turn down that invitation.

Google does not appear to help either.

Edited February 10, 2012 by gennisis

[nontabury]

I'm going to guess that the british chip and the australian chip is the same thing, I've never come across an aussie with a chip on thier

shoulder,scott's sure 85% of them.

[necronx99]

We generally do everything better just out of habit, but we rarely bother putting our stamp on things.

Probably beer battered.

[tutsiwarrior]

when I was working in Derby in the east midlands of England at the canteen they always had 'chipped potatoes'; with curry, with brown sauce, etc. so one could presume that 'chips' could actually be made from anything...we all know about good old boring blighty but down under is a different story: chipped wombat?, chipped dingo? aboriginal chipped delight?...etc...

[xen]

The way i would explain it is English chips are the large and (to my taste) fatty chips, Aussie chips are inbetween in size of the English and shoestring French Fries and , altho cooked in oil, they should not be oily or fatty.

Edited February 11, 2012 by xen

[Pseudolus]

The way i would explain it is English chips are the large and (to my taste) fatty chips, Aussie chips are inbetween in size of the English and shoestring French Fries and , altho cooked in oil, they should not be oily or fatty.

Dear Xen. As a gastronome, let me correct you here with a fact. The smaller and thinner a chip is, the more fat you are eating. Why? The larger the quantity of individual chips your get from a potato, the greater surface area of said potato (potatoe for fans of George Dubya) that is exposed to the fat. Greater surface area means greater saturation also. Thus, the worst chips you can possibly eat are american style french fries, and the best would be the noble roast potato. If you would like to test this, get 4 potatoes weighing the same (a maris piper is the best for this experiment), cut each into increasingly larger size chips, fry in the same oil at the same heat for the same time (or until cooked for the larger ones) of course in separate pans, liquidize each batch of chips separately whilst still warm adding 100 ml of warm water, pour the mixture into 4 identical pyrex beakers, and look at the different amounts of oil in each one. The results will back up the afore mentioned claim. Brits eat just as many chip as the yanks, ours just happen by accident to be healthier hence why the brits are not quite as fat as the yanks.

As for the OP original question, I actually think they mean by Australian chip, potato wedges, which indeed contain less fat that all the other standard types of chips. Been served wedges many a time under the guise of aussie chips. I always send them back of course.

[ShanePashen]

From my years spent in Blighty, I remember the local chippie as somewhere that served chips that were not crunchy but soft, with a small wooden fork in some places.

Awesome with curry sce, after a night on the piss.

or the great pissed brit tradition, the chicken vindaloo, or when really pissed, ask for Phal, and demand to the waiter it better be hot.

Had many a portion of battered cod and chips there, with malt vinegar.

I see Aussie chips as definitely more crunchy, and slightly smaller.

both are good in different ways.

[xen]

The way i would explain it is English chips are the large and (to my taste) fatty chips, Aussie chips are inbetween in size of the English and shoestring French Fries and , altho cooked in oil, they should not be oily or fatty.

Dear Xen. As a gastronome, let me correct you here with a fact. The smaller and thinner a chip is, the more fat you are eating. Why? The larger the quantity of individual chips your get from a potato, the greater surface area of said potato (potatoe for fans of George Dubya) that is exposed to the fat. Greater surface area means greater saturation also. Thus, the worst chips you can possibly eat are american style french fries, and the best would be the noble roast potato. If you would like to test this, get 4 potatoes weighing the same (a maris piper is the best for this experiment), cut each into increasingly larger size chips, fry in the same oil at the same heat for the same time (or until cooked for the larger ones) of course in separate pans, liquidize each batch of chips separately whilst still warm adding 100 ml of warm water, pour the mixture into 4 identical pyrex beakers, and look at the different amounts of oil in each one. The results will back up the afore mentioned claim. Brits eat just as many chip as the yanks, ours just happen by accident to be healthier hence why the brits are not quite as fat as the yanks.

As for the OP original question, I actually think they mean by Australian chip, potato wedges, which indeed contain less fat that all the other standard types of chips. Been served wedges many a time under the guise of aussie chips. I always send them back of course.

Point taken about the size and fat absorbed. However ,aren't most English chips traditionally cooked in fat rather than oil. I know in Oz a lot of chips were years ago but now the better places use a good quality oil which they change very regularly as even the age and type of oil /fat /dripping affects the oil intake of the potatoe. I would also assume potatoe variety would have some affect. Correct me if i am wrong.

Also in Oz, Wedges are the thicker /larger chips and are often sprinked with a mixed herbs and salt comination and you pay considerably more for them . Chips ,are like I said an inbetween size and they also have a crisper surface after cooking and should not have a fatty /oilly taste to them .

[meatboy]

chips were almost my down fall,cooked in beef dripping bad for your health,chips in the casino's bad for your wealth,best chips twice cooked in corn oil after a night in the fridge.

[NanaFoods]

The way i would explain it is English chips are the large and (to my taste) fatty chips, Aussie chips are inbetween in size of the English and shoestring French Fries and , altho cooked in oil, they should not be oily or fatty.

Dear Xen. As a gastronome, let me correct you here with a fact. The smaller and thinner a chip is, the more fat you are eating. Why? The larger the quantity of individual chips your get from a potato, the greater surface area of said potato (potatoe for fans of George Dubya) that is exposed to the fat. Greater surface area means greater saturation also. Thus, the worst chips you can possibly eat are american style french fries, and the best would be the noble roast potato. If you would like to test this, get 4 potatoes weighing the same (a maris piper is the best for this experiment), cut each into increasingly larger size chips, fry in the same oil at the same heat for the same time (or until cooked for the larger ones) of course in separate pans, liquidize each batch of chips separately whilst still warm adding 100 ml of warm water, pour the mixture into 4 identical pyrex beakers, and look at the different amounts of oil in each one. The results will back up the afore mentioned claim. Brits eat just as many chip as the yanks, ours just happen by accident to be healthier hence why the brits are not quite as fat as the yanks.

As for the OP original question, I actually think they mean by Australian chip, potato wedges, which indeed contain less fat that all the other standard types of chips. Been served wedges many a time under the guise of aussie chips. I always send them back of course.

Surface area is certainly a factor, but you did not consider the type of oil used in each cuisine, and more importantly, the respective traditional cooking temperatures. Potatoes, much like donuts, will absorb more oil if cooked at lower temps. Not only might this vary by cuisine, but from establishment to establishment. So to make a blanket statement seems a bit of a stretch.

Brits eat just as many chip as the yanks, ours just happen by accident to be healthier hence why the brits are not quite as fat as the yanks.

Seriously?

I say that claim is quite debatable nowadays - a close call, if anything. A report as of 2010 says the UK has caught up with the US obesity rate. But if there still remains some small statistical difference in favor of Brits, I highly doubt it has much to do with chips/fries. I'd be more inclined to look at rates of consumption of HFCS, MSG, Aspartame, and the overall amount of processed foods eaten per capita, as well as lifestyle, etc...

I have not been to Oz, but from what I've seen of travelers here, they seem to have both Brits and Yanks beat, as far as being in shape.

[Ulysses G.]

I would guess that has a lot to do with the weather and being more active because of it, rather than the food that they eat.

[meatboy]

i think the obesity factor is the yanks eat more fast food than the brits,once in florida we were in a resturant when a family of three came in what they ordered was enough for 6-8 adults.another time i was looking after a top american singer when he went back to his hotel he gave me an order for food at one of the take-aways i thought he must have guests with him,no only him and in the morning nothing left,and me being 5stone overweight [gutted]

[ShanePashen]

I agree from my experience. chips cooked in beef dripping,(pure transfat), taste superior to chips cooked in any vegetable oil.

Unhealthy.. for sure.. taste good don't care lol!

I never went there, but I was told of a legendary seafood restaurant in England called the Magpie cafe, or something close to that, and the owner says.

beef dripping for battered fish & chips.... accept no substitute.

[Pseudolus]

The way i would explain it is English chips are the large and (to my taste) fatty chips, Aussie chips are inbetween in size of the English and shoestring French Fries and , altho cooked in oil, they should not be oily or fatty.

Dear Xen. As a gastronome, let me correct you here with a fact. The smaller and thinner a chip is, the more fat you are eating. Why? The larger the quantity of individual chips your get from a potato, the greater surface area of said potato (potatoe for fans of George Dubya) that is exposed to the fat. Greater surface area means greater saturation also. Thus, the worst chips you can possibly eat are american style french fries, and the best would be the noble roast potato. If you would like to test this, get 4 potatoes weighing the same (a maris piper is the best for this experiment), cut each into increasingly larger size chips, fry in the same oil at the same heat for the same time (or until cooked for the larger ones) of course in separate pans, liquidize each batch of chips separately whilst still warm adding 100 ml of warm water, pour the mixture into 4 identical pyrex beakers, and look at the different amounts of oil in each one. The results will back up the afore mentioned claim. Brits eat just as many chip as the yanks, ours just happen by accident to be healthier hence why the brits are not quite as fat as the yanks.

As for the OP original question, I actually think they mean by Australian chip, potato wedges, which indeed contain less fat that all the other standard types of chips. Been served wedges many a time under the guise of aussie chips. I always send them back of course.

Surface area is certainly a factor, but you did not consider the type of oil used in each cuisine, and more importantly, the respective traditional cooking temperatures. Potatoes, much like donuts, will absorb more oil if cooked at lower temps. Not only might this vary by cuisine, but from establishment to establishment. So to make a blanket statement seems a bit of a stretch.

Not at all. You notice that I say all cooked in the same oil, same heat etc. Surface area has everything to do with it and closer investigation will show you that on the larger cut chips the centre is all but free from the oil where as in the small chips the oil is present all the way through. Added to the fact that american french fries are usually precooked in hydrogenated palm oil before you actually buy them, where as british chips in nut oil (gone are the days of lard and goose fat on a commercial basis alas) this again is another reason the string fries are worse for you. I do makes these comments based on facts having done many of these types of food related experiments in lab conditions and I invite you to do the same. The results will always back it up. An easier less scientific way would be to weigh out the same weight of cooked french fries and british chips, place them in a few layers of tissue and press under a frying pan. The fat from the french fries (no matter how cooked) will always be more. This is not even taking into account that the vast majority of french fries are not actually just a cut potato, but is made up of potato flour, mixed with lots of chemical agents not least salt (burger king "king fries" are the worst). It you debate on taste and preference then of course it is subjective; I prefer french fries with a sandwich / burger etc and British chips with most other things (if I were having chips, that is).

Even if cooked at lower temps, it makes no difference. The french fries still lose out.

Brits eat just as many chip as the yanks, ours just happen by accident to be healthier hence why the brits are not quite as fat as the yanks.

Seriously?

I say that claim is quite debatable nowadays - a close call, if anything. A report as of 2010 says the UK has caught up with the US obesity rate. But if there still remains some small statistical difference in favor of Brits, I highly doubt it has much to do with chips/fries. I'd be more inclined to look at rates of consumption of HFCS, MSG, Aspartame, and the overall amount of processed foods eaten per capita, as well as lifestyle, etc...

I have not been to Oz, but from what I've seen of travelers here, they seem to have both Brits and Yanks beat, as far as being in shape.

This was a light hearted comment, nothing more. Not been to either country in a few years so frankly do not know.

Edited February 18, 2012 by AdamBanks

[Ulysses G.]

Thus, the worst chips you can possibly eat are american style french fries

Shoe-string french fries are not really "American style chips". Most french fries in the USA are medium sized. What you are talking about is more like a McDonalds style french fry.

[sceadugenga]

I would guess that has a lot to do with the weather and being more active because of it, rather than the food that they eat.

We better looking too, can't blame that on the weather.

Back on topic, the "shoestring fries are worse for you than real chips because of the fat content" argument doesn't hold up, SSFs come in itsy bitsy expensive little bags, real chips come in huge wrapped bundles. Five bucks worth of chips will put a lot more weight on you than five bucks worth of Maccas fries.

[Pseudolus]

I would guess that has a lot to do with the weather and being more active because of it, rather than the food that they eat.

We better looking too, can't blame that on the weather.

Back on topic, the "shoestring fries are worse for you than real chips because of the fat content" argument doesn't hold up, SSFs come in itsy bitsy expensive little bags, real chips come in huge wrapped bundles. Five bucks worth of chips will put a lot more weight on you than five bucks worth of Maccas fries.

True - but the only fair comparison is of the same weight of the product being compared. After all, if you sumped a litre of Olive oil it is a lot worse for you that a teaspoon of lard.