is airfryer healthier than normal fry?

RichardD1970

Just ignore Mr Helpful, he is a well known troll, and best not replied to.

Mr_helpful

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Just ignore Mr Helpful, he is a well known troll, and best not replied to.

Yes always a good counter argument to something you cant find fault with. Label the person a troll. Are you saying potatos dont contain starch? Are you saying it doesnt metabolise to glucose. Are you saying excess glucose doesnt end up as fat in the body?
Cooked potato is little more than nutritionaly deficient calories. True or false?

pogofish

terra_ferma wrote: »

Didn't know about it, do you have any links? I'd like to read more about it, because I was thinking about getting one, but I might rethink if that's the case.

There is a substantial amount of research papers out there if you want to search.

Broadly, its all about the production of Acrylamide - as a byproduct of the Mallard Effect in cooking. It seems that in conventional frying, most of the Acrylamide gets drawn out of the food and into the fat, so reducing any risk but in air frying, the Acrylamide remains in the food.

Some info here:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/acrylamide-in-food

But like most things, its really swings and roundabouts - if the rest of your diet is fine, a bit of fried food won't do any great harm, so enjoy it as you want.

Raksha

If you already have a halogen table top oven you can buy a fine mesh 'air fryer' from Amazon or Coopers of Stortford which will do a very similar job to the Tefal type machine, the only difference being you have to turn the food yourself...

VfM4meplse

Raksha wrote: »

If you already have a halogen table top oven you can buy a fine mesh 'air fryer' from Amazon or Coopers of Stortford which will do a very similar job to the Tefal type machine, the only difference being you have to turn the food yourself...

So what do you do, just coat the raw chips in a small amount of oil and stick them on the plate?

ETA: do you mean this thing?

Mr_helpful wrote: »

Yes always a good counter argument to something you cant find fault with. Label the person a troll. Are you saying potatos dont contain starch? Are you saying it doesnt metabolise to glucose. Are you saying excess glucose doesnt end up as fat in the body?
Cooked potato is little more than nutritionaly deficient calories. True or false?

Bounder, you're on an anti-carb trip and I by and large agree with you on this one. But a portion of chips vs a plate of pasta? No contest which is worse for you.

Something inside me really wants chips this evening.....my solution is not to go to the chip shop (I never fry at home) but to look for Actifry deals. Talk about sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Raksha

Yes, commercial oven chip can be cooked without added oil, home made chips (or roast potatoes) can be just coated with a small amount of oil and seasoning to make fries or roasties with far less fat being absorbed

terra_ferma

pogofish wrote: »

There is a substantial amount of research papers out there if you want to search.

Broadly, its all about the production of Acrylamide - as a byproduct of the Mallard Effect in cooking. It seems that in conventional frying, most of the Acrylamide gets drawn out of the food and into the fat, so reducing any risk but in air frying, the Acrylamide remains in the food.

Some info here:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/acrylamide-in-food

But like most things, its really swings and roundabouts - if the rest of your diet is fine, a bit of fried food won't do any great harm, so enjoy it as you want.

Will check it out.
An I totally agree with the last sentence, in my lifetime I've seen quite a few diet/health fads coming and going. What they all have in common is that they take some bits of rather plausible but limited/partial research, isolate a group of 'evil' foods that although people have always eaten, supposedly cause great harm. Then they design diets that follow these principles, write books and start selling (often more expensive) supposedly healthier products that are absolutely essential to keep you alive (and avoid cancer/candida/heart problems etc etc).
Then after a few years a new piece of research totally rubbish those claims (e.g. recent thinking on low fat foods and saturated fats), and a the cycle starts all over again.
Personally I was broadly avoiding saturated fats and eating some low fat foods, but then realised it was just a gimmick, and now I'm just going to eat what makes me feel good.
I'm not saying that individuals should not follow a specific diet if it works for them, it's about not preaching that if it works for you it should work for everyone else, and not rubbishing other people's choices because we are not in their shoes. Personally I think if low carb works for it's great, but it doesn't work for me, and that's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned.