I've always wondered... I mean, people suggest you take the skin off a roasted chicken if you want to eat a less caloric meal, and sometimes the same for a fried chicken. Maybe if you take off the batter and wipe some oil off? So curious...
why would you order deep fried battered food if you didn't want to eat the deep fried battered part?
taking the skin of roasted chicken is an entirely differently thing from taking the batter off something that's been deep fried. roasted is roasted; fried is fried. if you don't eat the batter, you'll reduce your calories, but--let's be honest--the foods that end up battered and deep fried are usually crap to begin with (with some exceptions). if you're going to be bad, go all out.
Yes, very definitely if you take off the batter that has been made crispy by the fat that has permeated it and made it crisp; and if you also then wiped off any oil that was left on the deep fat fried food, whether it be fish, shrimp, onion rings, mushrooms, zucchini, etc, you would get rid of a bunch of calories.
If you removed the frosting from cake, you would get rid of calories, too.
If you removed the cheese off of pizza, you would get rid of calories, too.
If you set fire to the batter you remove, will it burn? When it burns, will it generate heat?
1 kcal = 1Cal = 1 Calorie (capital C) (aka: "dietary Calorie" aka "large Calorie") is the energy required to raise 1 kilogram of water 1 deg C.
(Not to be confused with a calorie, lower-case, which is the energy required to raise 1 gram of water 1 deg C)
[*at standard atmospheric pressure]
You're not going to return it to its unadulterated state - but you're not going to be ingesting some joules (4.2kj/kcal).
Upshot? Yes, you've removed calories and Calories. But it's not going to be what it once was.
Urm, I was actually immediately thinking of fish and chips - and I usually don't eat all the batter. a) It's usually too much, b) the bottom side tends to get soggy and isn't nice anyway c) I once heard that originally you weren't even supposed to eat the batter, it was just a way to prepare really moist and juicy fish. And it'S true. If you eat the fish on it's own it's amazing. (If it was decent fish to begin with)
But removing the batter from processed chicken?? Just get something grilled in the first place.
Damn, now I want fish and chips - and I'm even right at the source as of next Wednesday.
And, adrenalynn, I really want to see you setting batter on fire, now! :-D
I think it cuts a few calories and grams of fat, but for some reason I can't be convinced that something that was cooked by boiling it in oil is made healthy by removing the outer parts...the inside was still boiled in oil, too.
"Made healthy" doesn't convert to any SI unit directly that I'm aware of. So private prejudice can't be overcome by publicly verifiable evidence. Makes it tough to debate.
I wonder how anything can be "made healthy" though. Logically, I'd argue that few things can be "made healthy". It starts at some level of value, and then the value decreases as it's mucked with. Maybe if we took a zucchini, for example, jammed a syringe in it, and injected additional concentrated nutrients; one could then claim it was made "healthier"
Maybe polluted water that is filtered is "made healthy"...
Oil is not your enemy. Olive oil, for example, is an extremely healthy choice as long as portion control is exercised (and it's not over heated).
Regardless, removing the fried batter and patting the food dry is going to "make it healthier"
If you want fish and chips, manage the portions carefully, and maybe sear a nice salmon or halibut instead of deep frying some garbage fish-like-product. [shrug]
>> And, adrenalynn, I really want to see you setting batter on fire, now!
You can do it yourself! Have kids? Great science-fair project!
I'd probably use something like a DSC or bomb calorimeter - a lot less exciting. ;)