/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.6764702]

STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.
WE NEED TO SETTLE THIS.
DO YOU EAT YOUR WINGS WITH THE BONE IN OR BONELESS?

[Anonymous No.6764706]

happily do either but there is no fucking point leaving the bone in if you're cooking it for others, stop being lazy.

[Anonymous No.6764707]

>>6764702
With bones, only way

[Anonymous No.6764708]

http://strawpoll.me/5175217

[Anonymous No.6764711]

both is the only way

[Anonymous No.6764717]

>>6764702

I order them both mixed together, then give them to unsuspecting people.

[Anonymous No.6764721]

>>6764706
>he doesn't taste the difference between meat cooked on/off the bone
child palate pls go

[Anonymous No.6764723]

how can it be a wing with no bone?

[Anonymous No.6764724]

>>6764706
bone gives it incredible flavour you pleb shit

[Anonymous No.6764725]

>>6764702
Chicken wings have bones, chicken nuggets are for children.

[None !OPIATE9fy. No.6764729]

>>6764723
it isn't

boneless wings are just tendies with sauce

[Anonymous No.6764733]

>>6764702
It's not a wing if it's boneless. It's a glorified nugger. Breading a shit and so is your white meat

[Anonymous No.6764734]

>>6764702
>boneless wings

Every place I've ever been to that offers boneless wings is basically just serving higher quality chicken nuggets made with breast instead of ground skin and shit.

It it even a thing to remove the bones before cooking actual wings?

[Anonymous No.6764740]

Wings aren't wings without the bone

[Anonymous No.6764747]

>>6764729

GODAMMIT RUMMY, stop giving away the culinary mysteries of the boneless wing, faggot.

[Anonymous No.6764749]

gf is mad now because she swore bone in was shit tier compared to boneless.

[Anonymous No.6764751]

>>6764721
>>6764724

it doesn't work that way fellas, you are experiencing confirmation bias.

[Anonymous No.6764759]

>>6764751
Either way boneless and bone in of the same flavor taste different.

[Anonymous No.6764762]

>>6764751
We aren't at all. If you really don't understand that the flavor of meat cooked on the bone varies from meat removed from the bone you should honestly kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.6764763]

>>6764751
Except it does you manchild

[Anonymous No.6764772]

>>6764759
>>6764762
>>6764763

bone changes how heat is distributed in the wing but it really doesn't add any flavour, that comes almost entirely from fat.

[Anonymous No.6764777]

>>6764772
>you

[Anonymous No.6764790]

>>6764772
just stop embarrassing yourself

[Anonymous No.6764795]

>>6764759
That's because "boneless wings" are made from the breast. They don't use wing meat to make "boneless wings"

[Anonymous No.6764798]

>>6764702

The big difference is that a properly cook wing should have crispy skin and tender juicy meat which is something that you could never get from a boneless "wing".

[Anonymous No.6764805]

>>6764777
>>6764790

just sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting 'no' isn't gonna make your old wives tales any more true fellas. people just associate cooking on the bone with better cooked meat because they don't know what they're doing in the first place. it doesn't make a useful difference in every context.

[Anonymous No.6764812]

>>6764805
We aren't sticking our fingers in our ears. Bone out some chicken wings and cook some with the bone in. If you honestly don't taste a difference there is no hope for you.

[Anonymous No.6764813]

>>6764729
/thread

[Anonymous No.6764816]

>>6764772
>Being this stupid

[Anonymous No.6764817]

>>6764812

>if you don't agree with me you are hopeless

i wouldn't be making these claims if i hadn't tried both. i've been cooking wings for years.

[Anonymous No.6764821]

>>6764702
Never with bone, then the sauce just burns your lips

[Anonymous No.6764825]

>>6764817
so you admit you are hopeless then, finally

[Anonymous No.6764858]

>>6764825

why do you want to believe this so badly? did the act of conquering bone-in wings after a picky childhood give you a thrilling, authoritative feeling of maturity? cause let me tell you, fiddling with your food is never desirable, and doing it unnecessarily is retarded.

[Anonymous No.6764870]

>>6764858
>why do you want to believe this so badly?
abusive father
>did the act of conquering bone-in wings after a picky childhood give you a thrilling, authoritative feeling of maturity?
yes
>cause let me tell you, fiddling with your food is never desirable, and doing it unnecessarily is retarded
I lost you there, who is fiddling with their food?

[Anonymous No.6764877]

>>6764805
This isn't even a matter of subjectivity, you are factually wrong in the face

You basically saying "NO I'M RIGHT" is not an argument, especially when its simply flat out wrong

[Anonymous No.6764909]

>>6764877

don't you think saying this is a little bit pot kettle black? seeing as i've provided at least some vague form of reasoning and literally everyone with an opposing view has just said i'm stupid or wrong with no reasoning or sources?

[Anonymous No.6764916]

>>6764909
>seeing as i've provided at least some vague form of reasoning
where? we all missed it

[Anonymous No.6764929]

>>6764916

the bone changes how heat is distributed throughout the meat but most of the flavour in any form of meat comes from the fat and water in and throughout the muscle tissue. if you can control the cooking of the wing you do not need the bone.

[Anonymous No.6764945]

>>6764929

The bone (and its associated connective tissue) are also sources of flavor. The same way that flavorful stock is made by cooking bones, when you cook bone-in meat some of that flavor from the bone gets into the meat.

Also, the bone-in and boneless cuts are fundamentally different. Bone-in wings are dark meat. Boneless "wings" are made from the white breast meat. That's a major difference in flavor as well.

[Anonymous No.6764951]

>>6764909
>don't you think saying this is a little bit pot kettle black

What part? Where I criticized you for saying "NO I'M RIGHT" and calling it ironic?

Not really

>some vague form of reasoning
You even admit it's bullshit. Your "vague form of reasoning" is completely incorrect

You can literally look it up, and if you've been cooking wings for years you'd know that you are completely wrong

[Anonymous No.6764954]

The real question is,

RANCH OR BLEU CHEESE?

Bleu Cheese is the only answer.

[Anonymous No.6764964]

>>6764954
Why are you spelling blue like a frenchman? The rest of your post appears to be in english.

[Anonymous No.6764965]

>>6764954

>ranch on wings

Does this really happen or are you just trying to rumble my jumblies?

[Anonymous No.6764966]

>>6764945

>when you cook bone-in meat some of that flavor from the bone gets into the meat.

by what mechanism do you think this happens? it isn't easy to get meat to *absorb* flavours. what might happen is that the moisture released from the meat solubilises some of the gelatin and flavour compounds in the bone, but this will be very minimal. making stock works because the bones are covered in water and simmered for a long period of time.

>Also, the bone-in and boneless cuts are fundamentally different. Bone-in wings are dark meat. Boneless "wings" are made from the white breast meat.

this isn't true all the time, obviously i'm talking about actual deboned wings.

>>6764951

>you even admit it's bullshit

no i don't, i just said it was vague - because i haven't yet been called upon to go into more detail, as none of you have actually made any points! until the guy above anyway.

[Anonymous No.6764969]

>>6764751
bone on will also change the texture and leaving that shit intact will retain more moisture

[Anonymous No.6764972]

>>6764965
Source of image? Think I went to school here

[Anonymous No.6764974]

>>6764969

>bone on will also change the texture

it will conduct heat into the centre which will probably help the collagen and fat to render off a bit quicker, but again - this is something the cook can and should account for.

>leaving that shit intact will retain more moisture

because of the reduction in surface area? i don't think that's true.

[Anonymous No.6764977]

>>6764966
>by what mechanism do you think this happens?

Basic diffusion, aka Fick's Law.

>>making stock works because the bones are covered in water and simmered for a long period of time.

That also dilutes the flavor quite a bit due to the volume of water involved, yet the flavor is still obvious. Wings of course have a shorter cooking time than stock does, but on the other hand there is also no massive volume of water to dilute that flavor. The small amount of meat on a wing will dilute the flavor from the bone far less than a stockpot full of water would.

>>this isn't true all the time, obviously i'm talking about actual deboned wings.

Fair enough, but what you're talking about are honestly quite rare. The vast majority of the time "boneless wings" implies white meat.

[Anonymous No.6764985]

I eat both while binge drinking beer

[Anonymous No.6764992]

>>6764972

A wonderful Sudanese primate disciplining message board called 4chan

[Anonymous No.6765007]

>>6764721
>>6764724
>>6764751
>>6764763
>>6764762
>>6764777
>>6764790
>>6764812
>>6764825
>>6764825
>>6764870
>>6764877
>>6764916
>>6764945
okay, I was going to do this for the entire conversation, but it's way too fucking long.
>taking the b8

[Anonymous No.6765019]

>>6764977

>Basic diffusion, aka Fick's Law.

no you're going to have be much more specific about that. 'basic diffusion' would leach flavour into the water coming out of the contracting muscle but how it would actually get *into* the meat i do not know. more likely it would just leave the wing altogether. cute that you cited fick's law, but that is hilariously inadequate in this case.

>but on the other hand there is also no massive volume of water to dilute that flavor. The small amount of meat on a wing will dilute the flavor from the bone far less than a stockpot full of water would.

right but the flavour is still being lost from the wing into the cooking medium, not reserved within the flesh, i mean... the whole problem i have here is that the bone isn't just injecting flavour into the wing. it's just adding more inedible mass to the wing and it needs the juices to run from the muscle tissue to dissolve the flavour out of it, which is then expelled from the meat anyway... if you were stewing them and reserving the juices it would make sense, but otherwise it really isn't doing as much for the flavour as most people think it does.

[Anonymous No.6765022]

>>6765007
it's not bait when somebody is genuinely retarded and expresses an opinion

[Anonymous No.6765025]

which one has the bottomless special? because I want that.

[Anonymous No.6765050]

boneless is usually shitty tasteless breast

but if it's not, there's no difference except unless you like to chew the gristle

[Anonymous No.6765052]

>>6765050
>there is no difference between meat cooked on and off the bone

This is 100% false. Meat cooked on the bone always tastes better.

[Anonymous No.6765062]

>>6765022
And what leads you to believe it was genuine?
Chicken wing bone-in bone-out threads are known b8 threads.

[CHAD PIFFINGTON No.6765068]

>>6764702
with bones, so I know it's actually chicken. even if it's shitty chicken

[Anonymous No.6765071]

>>6765022


lurk moar feggit

[Anonymous No.6765084]

>>6765062
>>6765071
If you read all of that guys responses you can deduce he is genuine. Unless you have aspergers or something. Also I've been here for longer than I can remember, how much more am I supposed to lurk?

[Anonymous No.6765092]

BONELESS

[Anonymous No.6765097]

This is a pretty weird thread. Like, do people not realize that so called "boneless wings" are just white meat chicken nuggets?

[Anonymous No.6765105]

>>6765097
It's pretty weird that you commented on the thread without reading it. Like 500 people (roughly) have mentioned that.

[Anonymous No.6765108]

>>6765105
I ctrl+f'd. Only 2 results for dark and 4 for white prior to my comment. The vast majority of the thread seems to be in the dark.

[Anonymous No.6765117]

>>6765108

i'm the guy arguing for boneless wings and i'm the only guy doing that so saying 'the vast majority' would imply that i, the only relevant person, am in the dark, and i am not.

[Anonymous No.6765122]

>>6765084
>he's never seen a bone in bone out thread before
>being this new

[Anonymous No.6765126]

>>6765117
Well then I have a cool story bro for you. There is a place here in Allen, TX called Sauced Wings that basically makes the best boneless wings and tendies in the south.

[Anonymous No.6765127]

>>6765084
>Also I've been here for longer than I can remember, how much more am I supposed to lurk?

There's no better time to start than right now

[Anonymous No.6765138]

>boneless wing
>made from breast meat

[Anonymous No.6765139]

>>6765138
To be fair, how practical do you really think yanking the bones out of those little things would be?

[Anonymous No.6765142]

>>6765108
people debone actual wings too

[Anonymous No.6765149]

>>6765139
>implying practicality has ever been considered when it comes to good food

[Anonymous No.6765151]

>>6765139

There's nothing practical about "boneless wings"

[Anonymous No.6765154]

>>6765149
>implying chicken wings didn't start off as poverty food

[Anonymous No.6765156]

>>6765142
People do lots of things. It hardly seems practical for the majority of restaurants, or even the home cook.

>>6765151
Easier to make and not consisting of a sliver of peculiar-in-shape meat are what I'd call very practical.

[Anonymous No.6765162]

>>6764702
>this fucking thread
>I enjoy barely any meat by comparison
>and gross fucking dark and slimy spots on the bone
but it tastes better durr hurr
If your eating wings you should be more concerned about the sauce and breading, the chicken is partly just a vessel for everything else

[Anonymous No.6765180]

>>6765156

>desire wings
>given breast meat
>this is practical

[Anonymous No.6765189]

>>6765180
There's lots of weird games of pretend in food, Anon.

[Anonymous No.6765190]

>>6765162
>breading on wings

wut?

[Anonymous No.6765200]

>>6765189

indeed, but that doesn't make it practical

[Anonymous No.6765204]

>>6765200
>vast majority of restaurants do this
>let us imagine they don't do it for practical reasons

This makes you a contrarian on the internet.

[Anonymous No.6765208]

>>6765200
Do you know what practical means? It's not the same as logical.

[Anonymous No.6765236]

>>6765204
>>6765208

If you want wings, but are given breast meat, then this is not practical.

[Anonymous No.6765238]

>>6765236
Then order bone-in, dumb stuff.

[Anonymous No.6765240]

>>6764702
boneless

[Anonymous No.6765242]

>>6765238

>implying that is always an option

[Anonymous No.6765244]

>>6765242
Where the fuck do you go that they only have "boneless", and what did you expect at a chicken nugget shop?

[Anonymous No.6765249]

>>6765236
What's impractical is not being informed on the food you're eating. If you don't know boneless wings are breast meat, you're a fool and deserve to have your money taken from dishonestly.

[Anonymous No.6765258]

>>6765244

Nowhere

Boneless wings aren't a thing in Buffalo, i'm really just dicking around for my own amusement. This is a wing thread on /ck/ after all

[Anonymous No.6765259]

bonless wings are mosin nugants.

[Anonymous No.6765260]

>>6765249

they aren't always breast meat. they're only breast meat in really shit places.

[Anonymous No.6765262]

>>6765249

>What's impractical is not being informed on the food you're eating

That is exactly my point, thank you

[Anonymous No.6765265]

>>6765262
I didn't mean to say that it's impractical for the restaurant to not inform you - you're a dumbass for not already knowing.

[Anonymous No.6765273]

>>6765265

>a restaurant should not inform you about the food they are selling.

Now who sounds like a dummy?

[Anonymous No.6765280]

>>6765273
they're boneless wings. everyone knows what that means.

do you also want them to tell you that their hamburgers are not really made from ham?

[Anonymous No.6765284]

>>6764702

bone in, i am not a tendies virgin

[Anonymous No.6765287]

>>6765280

>hamburgers are not really made from ham?

what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

[Snapper Carr No.6765288]

Tendies

[Anonymous No.6765292]

>>6765287
They're called hamburgers, but everyone knows they're made from beef.

They're called boneless wings, but everyone knows they're made with breast meat.

[Anonymous No.6765304]

>>6765292

>They're called hamburgers, but everyone knows they're made from beef.

So all hamburgers are Beef? Interesting...

>They're called boneless wings, but everyone knows they're made with breast meat.

They're actually made from thigh meat. nice try, idiot

[Anonymous No.6765316]

>>6765304
It depends on the restaurant. Most restaurants are breast, some are thigh.

Breast is preferred because both wings and breast are white meat.

[Anonymous No.6765322]

>>6765316

>both wings and breast are white meat.

GODDAMNIT

WHO'S FUCKING WITH WHO HERE?

[Anonymous No.6765325]

>>6765304

> So all hamburgers are Beef?

yes

[Anonymous No.6765328]

>>6764965
>blew cheese on wings

[Anonymous No.6765332]

Bone-in all day.

Since we're on the subject of wings, how's my recipe and how can I improve it? Please, don't same some faggotry like make your own sauce.

>Let wing segments soak in buttermilk for a few hours
>Coat in a flour mixture that also contains paprika, garlic powder, and oregano
>Deep fry at 450 until shit's cooked
>Frank's Red Hot in a sauce pan, add a stick of butter to thicken it, some basil, and pepper.
>Coat finished wings in sauce.

I like them, but I feel like I could get a crispier skin or better texture out of it. They taste baller as fuck, but I don't want to experiment too much and waste a batch. I've thought about adding some egg to the flour to make it almost like a batter, any thoughts, /ck/?

[Anonymous No.6765334]

>>6765325

Even the ones made out of Ham?

[Anonymous No.6765337]

>>6765007

[Anonymous No.6765338]

>>6765332

>breaded wings

[Anonymous No.6765340]

>>6765334

> do toppings negate the classification of a hamburger?

is this a serious question?

[Anonymous No.6765344]

>>6765340

>toppings

Fucker, that is a all ham patty. Step up your game, fool

[Anonymous No.6765346]

>>6765334
That hamburger is served with ham, not made out of it.

[Anonymous No.6765348]

>>6765344

> pork patty

pork sandwiches come in many different cuts

[Anonymous No.6765349]

>>6765346

guess again, dummy

[Anonymous No.6765350]

>>6765007
You literally have autism regardless of who you are or what your opinion is

[Anonymous No.6765353]

>mfw /ck/ can't into ham burgers

[Anonymous No.6765405]

Unbreaded, marinated, smoked, sauced, grilled, sauced again whole wings are the only way I've been making hot wings for years now, and I (along with many other people ) love them.

[Anonymous No.6765408]

>>6765405

> whole wings

spotted the hipster faggot

[Anonymous No.6765414]

"boneless wings" are for degenerates

[Anonymous No.6765426]

>>6765414
>living in the endtimes
>not being a filthy, hedonistic degenerate

[Anonymous No.6765427]

>>6765426
this to be honest

[Anonymous No.6765432]

>>6765426
>yfw the last day is humanity conquering time and not the universe destroying itself
>gonna have a big sign sticking out of your butt telling everyone what you did

[Anonymous No.6765456]

>>6765334
>>6765344
So a hog burger basically? Those are delicious, let me tell you.

[Anonymous No.6765471]

>>6764702

>Bone in
>All flappers
>Jamaican Jerk and Spicy Ranch flavors
>Waffle fries tossed in Garlic Parmesan
>Ranch, no bleu cheese

[Anonymous No.6765475]

>>6765471
Hidden Valley shill detected

[Anonymous No.6765490]

>>6765475
Hidden Valley is fucking sick though. If the ranch isn't house made, I don't want it. If it is though, it's really damn good with wings and anyone who doesn't think so is on my bad side.

[Anonymous No.6765547]

>>6765258
>Buffalo
Degenerate detected.
You should look into moving to based Rochester

[Anonymous No.6765646]

>>6765547
>Rochester
>based
Pick zero.

[Anonymous No.6765664]

>>6765547
>>6765646
I don't know if there's a large amount of people from upstate New York on /ck/, or if you there's just a handful of you that post a lot. Same with Denver.

[Anonymous No.6765671]

>>6765664
I'm not from upstate NY. I used to live in Massachushits (Southbridge), and have family in Chittenango.

[Anonymous No.6765703]

There is no such thing as a boneless wing. Those are just chicken chunks. The bone is necessary. It is vital to a positive eating experience.

Also, let's get a little more specific on the proper hotwing.

>Boneless or bone-in?
>Mild, medium, or hot?
>Blue cheese or ranch?
>Celery or no?
>Breaded or no?

I go bone-in, extra hot, I like both blue cheese and ranch, no celery, never breaded.

Also optimally served with a pitcher of beer.

[Anonymous No.6765713]

>>6765664
I don't live upstate anymore, but I'm from there. I've also noticed this. I like it, it feels homey.

[Anonymous No.6765715]

>>6765703

Oh, and I don't need dressing. Hot wings are delicious on their own. I'll get dressing and eat some wings with it and some without.

[Anonymous No.6765718]

>>6765664

Not them, but we're mad jealous of NYC and take it out by shilling upstate NY whenever possible.

That anon is right about boneless wings, though. There's a pizzaria on every block, but boneless wings are rare.

[Anonymous No.6765727]

>ITT: troll circus
We all know that bone-in is GOAT, stop pretending to be retarded

[Anonymous No.6765772]

>>6765727

based on what people have said ITT i don't think most of you have even tried actual deboned chicken wings, you just think they're some pussy substitute.

[Anonymous No.6765779]

>>6765772
Boneless wings, as the vast majority of people understand them, are not deboned chicken wings. Whether you like it or not, words only mean what people interpret them to mean. Prescriptivists are linguistic fascists.

[Anonymous No.6765784]

>>6765779
and you're a linguistic faggot

[Anonymous No.6765786]

>>6765408
How the fuck is eating whole wings IN ANY WAY hipster? What are you, 12 and still refusing to eat anything that doesn't come frozen from a box?

[Anonymous No.6765790]

>>6765779

i'm not being a prescriptivist for fuck's sake, overzealous wannabe linguists are the worst. i'm just saying that my understanding of boneless chicken wings seems to differ from those of other people.

and if i were to claim that calling them 'boneless wings' was misleading, i wouldn't be a fucking fascist.

[Anonymous No.6765791]

>>6764702
I just saw this thread on /b/ and it made me shit out a lung in rage that people actually posted they liked boneless. I am not going to repeat my multi-post ranting here, but fuck this thread for existing.

I came here to get some inspiration for what to cook for dinner tonight and what do I see? This freaking thread, my hatred for anyone who prefers boneless wings and has the gal to call them "wings" is so pure and violent that it cannot be expressed on a blue board without resulting in my banning.

I will just say, I despise each and everyone of you who eat boneless wings on a near personal level. They are shitty chicken nuggets that are almost always overcooked and you are shitty people who must have been assembled from the scrapes of abortions left in your mothers wombs.

[Anonymous No.6765793]

>>6765779

when you try to speak like that I can only imagine gigantic dicks flying into your mouth.

also boneless master race with a side of blue cheese.

[Anonymous No.6765801]

>>6765790
You may not know what "boneless wings" means on a menu, but everyone else does. I said this before, but it's the equivalent of getting mad that hamburgers don't actually contain ham.

[Anonymous No.6765807]

>>6765791
OP here, I posted it there first then wondered to myself if there was even a cooking/food board. I had no idea this place existed in all my years of browsing this site.
Anyways, back on the subject, I agree that bone in is god tier, I just wanted to prove my gf wrong.

[Anonymous No.6765817]

>>6765807
Your girlfriend needs to be stuck into a woodchipper feet first until she repents of her sins, at that point it will be impossible to save her life but atleast she will have realized the error of her ways and may have a chance at enlightenment and heaven before she passes.

Or just diddle her with some chicken bones, that should freak her the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.6765822]

>>6765791
Wings are shit though, so being a snob about it is literally the same as being a snob about shit
There is a reason it's classically a bar food, it's because they are completely inedible to anyone with a sense of taste, unless impaired judgment

[Anonymous No.6765829]

>>6765817
Nah, I'll just tell her she's wrong and then have sex with her.

[Anonymous No.6765830]

>>6765801

no, i think i'm in the privileged position of having eaten actual deboned chicken wings. i may lack the knowledge that the makeshift pretend wings even existed but i benefit from the knowledge that real deboned wings exist and they are good.

[Anonymous No.6765844]

>>6765822
These images always strike me as nonsense and I'm not particularly against fat people. They do know that underneath the fat the muscles which aren't necessary for standing upright and moving are atrophied pieces of shit, right?

[Anonymous No.6765845]

>>6764702
I've never ordered or made wings.

[Anonymous No.6765854]

I prefer bone in, but about a year ago I grew a beard, and ever since I have been eating boneless because I don't want to have to clean hot sauce out of it.

[Anonymous No.6765855]

>>6765786

> i need the end of the wing with less than one tenth of an ounce of edible meat

hipster faggotry

[Anonymous No.6765892]

>>6765854
Wow, just wow.

Use extra napkins and then when you're done, go to the restroom and wipe your shit down. The only thing you should be worried about is stringy, melted cheese. That's the only real pain in the ass.

[Anonymous No.6765899]

>>6765830
Are they deboned before or after cooking? If they're deboned before, there's no possible way they could taste better than regular wings.

[Anonymous No.6765902]

>>6765899

why not?

[Anonymous No.6765905]

>>6765892

I know I can clean it, I just dislike having to, so I take shortcuts where I can

Ribs for example, totally worth it, but bone in wings aren't all that much better than boneless, not worth the trouble

[Anonymous No.6765908]

>>6765902
Because bone-in versions always taste better. The bone adds flavor to the meat and helps it retain moisture.

[Anonymous No.6765915]

>>6765908

>The bone adds flavor to the meat

but it doesn't.

>helps it retain moisture.

'helps'

[Anonymous No.6765923]

>>6765915
>Bones don't add flavor
What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.6765926]

>>6764702
Boneless. I'm a fucking faggot and I don't care.

[Anonymous No.6765932]

>>6765915
We had this discussion already, no need to re-meme

[Anonymous No.6765937]

>>6765923

bones can add flavour to stuff in specific contexts but in like roasts and little deep fried wings the effect is only going to be negligible. meat doesn't just suck up flavour from stuff. when you deep fry it it loses water to the oil and pretty much all the flavour from the bone is going to be in that water.

[Anonymous No.6765944]

i haven't read the thread and i don't feel like reading the thread but wouldn't bone in and boneless have different flavor because one is dark meat and the other is white?

[Anonymous No.6765945]

>>6765490
Cheddar's makes their ranch in house and it is very good. Goes great with their buffalo tendies.

Who /cheddars/ here?

[Anonymous No.6765978]

> using ranch for wings
> not white trash

pick only one

[Anonymous No.6765980]

>>6765944
wings are white meat

[Anonymous No.6765987]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.6767104]

bump

[Anonymous No.6767106]

>>6765945
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNIUNpgUKw4

[Anonymous No.6767107]

Wing meat is the worst part of the chicken. The legs is where it's at.

[Anonymous No.6767108]

>>6764702
Bone in, otherwise it's a chicken nugget.

[Anonymous No.6767204]

>>6767106
God damnit

[Anonymous No.6767209]

>>6764702
bone IN because I'm not a limp wristed emasculated yuppie or a fucking sorority girl

[Anonymous No.6767213]

>>6767107
Hey I was just about to post that. I don't understand why the Chicken Wing became the most beloved part, the lack of meat is inexcusable. Just give me a roasted chicken.

[Anonymous No.6767226]

>>6767213
it's because when they make breast meat, the wings have to go somewhere, and when breast meat is in such high demand for tenders/nuggers/chicken sandwiches or whatever you can think of, there are lots of excess cheap-o wings that come out well when fried.

[Anonymous No.6767262]

>>6764725
>>6764733
>>6764740
>>6764798
>>6765259
>>6765703
>>6767108
>>6767209
All of this.

[Anonymous No.6767271]

>>6764702
It varies

[Anonymous No.6767363]

A true buffalo wing is left unbreaded, fried, and tossed in sauce that fills the gaps in a crispy skin.

Boneless wings are just soggy chicken tenders. I actually get sick when I eat them because the soggy breaking is just so unnecessarily dense.

[Anonymous No.6767959]

>>6765855
You trim the tips, you fucking mong. Goddamn you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.6767966]

>Eating meat still attached to a bone
>With your hands
>2015

Am I a fucking savage?

[Anonymous No.6767971]

>>6767959
No you do not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvTuue_TIOQ

[Anonymous No.6767981]

I like eating off the wing.
Boneless Wings are glorified chicken nuggets/tiny tenders. They're also just a lot less fun to eat and really defeat the idea of going out to get wings.

[Anonymous No.6767989]

>>6767262
Thank-you.

[Anonymous No.6767992]

>>6767981
I want to agree with, but I can't as long as you decide to use a shitty FOTM /a/ image

[Anonymous No.6768041]

>>6764954
fuck that shit, double portion of homemade wing sauce with celery to dip in the wing sauce.

[Anonymous No.6768051]

What does /ck/ think of Buffalo Wild Wings, is it worth a try? One is opening up near me soon and there are almost no places to get wings around here that aren't pizza places.

[Anonymous No.6768067]

>>6768051
Overpriced Tyson wings with mediocre sauce. Their Jamaican jerk and hot bbq are good, but that's about it. You're better off making your own wings and sauce. Also, everything on their menu that isn't chicken wings or a burger is microwaved.

Source: I've known at least a dozen people who have worked at multiple BWW locations, have eaten there on numerous occasions with large groups. usually dined and dashed.

[Anonymous No.6768068]

>>6764805
So what you're saying is bones have literally no flavor in them and impart no flavor to the meat they're attached to.

So if I take a bunch of bones, and simmer them in water, it doesn't make stock, it makes hot water with bones in it.

I've never met anyone this willfully ignorant in my entire life, and I was raised in the south.

[Anonymous No.6768069]

>>6768067
Well that's disappointing, thanks for the warning.

[Anonymous No.6768076]

>>6768069
The drinks are expensive, too. If you're looking for a place to get drunk, eat chicken wings, and watch sports, you're better off going to a local sports bar.

[Anonymous No.6768079]

>>6768068

no that's not what i'm saying and if you weren't a fucktard (who can't read threads) you'd know that.

[Anonymous No.6768093]

>>6768079
>bone changes how heat is distributed in the wing but it really doesn't add any flavour
>bone...doesn't add any flavour

[Anonymous No.6768095]

>>6768093

it adds flavour to stocks but it doesn't just magically pump flavour into meat.

[Anonymous No.6768098]

>>6768079
Well, I see the level of intelligence on display here. Not gonna debate with someone like you.

[Anonymous No.6768104]

>>6767971
Yes, you fucking do. Just because some redneck wannabe bbq-ers don't, doesnt mean everyone is that stupid.

[Anonymous No.6768105]

>>6768095

Why would it flavor one and not the other?

>>magical
We've been over this before. There's no magic involved, just diffusion. Same process that makes stock, tea, coffee, etc.

[Anonymous No.6768109]

>>6768098

the 'debate' has already happened and no one made a cogent counterargument, feel free to read the thread, i don't know why you'd think me upset that you don't want to 'debate' with me.

[Anonymous No.6768123]

>>6764945
Wings are white meat, you stupid cunt.

[Anonymous No.6768129]

>>6768105

because the stock is a large body of water that pulls water *out* of the meat, in large part by mixing with the water that leaves the meat as a result of the cooking process. when you're frying a chicken wing moisture comes out of the meat and into the oil, where it is evaporated. it's not like the water leaves the meat, dissolves flavour out of the bone and then tucks itself snugly back into the meat, that shit is on its way out. when you eat stock you're eating all the shit that left the chicken. when you eat the chicken, it has almost no flavour. that's how diffusion works, not 'directing the flavour compounds that you want into the places that you want by magic'.

[Anonymous No.6768181]

This local wings place has amazing boneless wings for the value. It's like half a tenderloin and they're damn tasty.

That said, bone in is way bettter. The meat always seems juicier and the crust nice and crispy. But it's not just crispy it is also crunchy bursting fat into your mouth.

The fried skin on bone in wings is why you go with them.

And if you go to BWW for the wings then you are seriously fucking up. BWW's boneless are awful, and I can't believe I used to love them.

[Anonymous No.6768183]

>>6768129
>because the stock is a large body of water

That's actually worse for your case, not better. Put a single teabag in a gallon of water vs. a cup of water. Which has a stronger flavor? The cup. Same thing here.

>>pulls water *out*
No. There is no direction such as"out" or "in" involved. There is only diffusion to the point of equilibrium. Ficks's law, bro. You ought to have studied it in chem class.

>> when you're frying a chicken wing moisture comes out of the meat and into the oil....

That's completely besides the point and is also irrelevant.

While the wing is cooking the juices inside (moisture as well as fat) have various flavors (etc.) dissolved in them. Diffusion happens. That means the meat picks up flavors from the bones, as well as vice-versa--the bones (if you could eat them) will have picked up some flavor form the meat as well.

>> that's how diffusion works, not 'directing the flavour compounds that you want

Wait. Now you're saying that diffusion is directionless, but earlier in the post you said:

>>body of water that pulls water *out* of the meat

Stop contradicting yourself.

Diffusion has no direction. Everything goes towards equilibrium. If you cook a stew the veggies pick up flavor from the meat and likewise the meat soaks up flavor from the veggies. Same thing here: flavor from the bones enters the meat, and likewise flavors from the meat would enter the bone. That latter part we don't care about since we don't eat the bones.

[Anonymous No.6768209]

>thinks that having the bone in imparts flavour
>any flavour that could be gained this way is then lost on the liters of sauce used
Breast is the best meat, anyway

[Anonymous No.6768215]

>>6768051
>>6768067
This is true, the wings themselves are mediocre. Sauces aren't bad but everything is very overpriced. You're mostly paying for the dudebro SPORTS LMAO atmosphere to be honest.

I'd say it's worth a try in all honesty

[Anonymous No.6768222]

>>6768183

hahaha you really read all that and still think *i'm* the one who's idealising how diffusion works? no. the flavour from the bone is much, much more likely to be lost from the wing entirely. this is not strictly because of diffusion, but also because of the nature of cooking. the chicken will hold less moisture as it cooks. with a wing that is taken probably to around 70C, this is going to be almost 50% of its water. this water is what is carrying the flavour from the bones and it is not being driven back into the wings. it is gone. this is something pressure frying is meant to alleviate.

you're ignoring the relationship between the effects of diffusion and temperature, which is silly because if you do this you would probably have to come to the conclusion that the bone and the wing are already equilibrated, having spent far longer held together inside the chicken than cooking inside the oil. the whole implication of your argument is that the juices released by the chicken stay in the chicken and circulate freely - but this isn't what happens. you're fighting against contracting muscle proteins, reducing viscosity and evaporation.

if you were to braise the wings and reduce them you would be getting the benefit of the flavour of the bones to a significant extent, but you sure as shit aren't in a deep fry.

[Anonymous No.6768227]

Unless it was before I can remember I don't think I've ever eaten chicken wings that weren't off a full chicken.
Never seen them in the meat section..

[Anonymous No.6768240]

Both.

But if the menu offers boneless wings and they are not horribly overpriced i will get the boneless.

[Anonymous No.6768245]

w bone

[Anonymous No.6768258]

I honestly didn't know you could have them boneless. It's not that hard to just *not* eat the bone is it?

[Anonymous No.6768278]

>>6768181

>bursting fat into your mouth.
>A good thing

I don't understand Americans tbh

[Anonymous No.6768280]

>>6768222
>you're fighting against contracting muscle proteins, reducing viscosity and evaporation.

You're not fighting against any of those. None of those hinder or stop diffusion.

>>. this is something pressure frying is meant to alleviate.
Nope. Pressure frying simply raises the temperature. The pressure increase has nothing to do with moisture loss. There's an excellent discussion of this in Modernist Cuisine.

It is true that some moisture will be lost by evaporation when something is fried but that doesn't stop some of the flavor coming out from the bones. For example, suppose I brew some tea. Then I spill some on the ground--mimicking the loss via evaporation. That doesn't somehow remove the flavor from the tea in my mug. The tea I haven't spilled is just as flavorful as it was pre-spillage.

>>would probably have to come to the conclusion that the bone and the wing are already equilibrated,
Why would they be? When the chicken is alive its organs tissues keep things seperate. When the chicken is killed it is quickly cooled down to near-freezing, if not full on frozen. Wing restaurants are almost certainly buying bulk frozen wings that simply haven't had the time to equilibrate...especially given that many of the compounds involved aren't even fluid until heat is involved.

>>if you were to braise the wings and reduce them you would be getting the benefit of the flavour of the bones to a significant extent

No doubt the braise would be more effective but that doesn't mean the same process doesn't happen to a lesser extent in the stock.

[Anonymous No.6768324]

>>6764702
I love gnawing the bones clean. No skin, no meat, no cartilage, all gone.

[Anonymous No.6768327]

>>6764702
with bones u fagg

[Anonymous No.6768344]

>>6768278
it's not like overwhelming coating of fat on your tongue

it's just that extra little kick of fatty flavor

if I'm eating a fatty food, I want to savor it. I wouldn't expect a yuropoor to understand. I assume you are a yuropoor because you assume me to be american.

[Anonymous No.6768354]

>>6767981
Stop avatarfagging.

[Anonymous No.6768355]

>>6764702
Boneless wings are not wings. They're chunks of breast meat, typically known as chicken nuggets.

They're also way better than wings.

[Anonymous No.6768376]

>>6768280

you're just very clearly talking about an idealised scenario in which the flavour solvent flows freely about the chicken wing. this solvent is what needs to equilibrate with the tissues in the meat to transport their flavour from one tissue to another. but we know that the chicken meat does not retain this solvent as it cooks. the process of cooking it forces it out, via the bones, via the skin, and into the oil. a stock only begins to equilibrate in terms of flavour over the course of, say, an hour, which is far longer than the time it takes for the chicken in a deep frier to lose a substantial quantity of moisture. the time relationships simply don't match up.

>You're not fighting against any of those. None of those hinder or stop diffusion.

well, yes, obviously they do.

[Anonymous No.6768417]

>>6768376

cooking results in the loss of SOME of that moisture, but far from all of it. Properly cooked wings are very juicy.

>>Time
I didn't mean that wings reached a 100% perfect equilibrium. The point was that diffusions works in the direction towards equilibirium as opposed to the "out" terminiology you were using before. Equilibrium is certainly not reached in the cooking time used for wings, but that doesn't mean that nothing has been accomplished in the meantime. It's not 100% complete but something is better than nothing.

>>well, yes, obviously they do.
Why do you believe this? We'll address them one-by one:

>contracting protein
The flavors can simply move around the protein molecules. Protein is not an indelible wall.

>>reducing viscosity
That helps spread flavors. The less viscous the fluids are the more rapidly things diffuse in them. This ought to be really obvious: ask yourself, is it easier to mix two thin liquids or two thick liquids? The latter obviously requires more time and effort.

>>Evaporation
We've already been over this. Evaporation results in a loss of moisture, but it doesn't affect the relative concentration of flavors in that moisture. See my example above regarding the tea. Spilling some of the tea doesn't change the flavor of what's left behind.

[Anonymous No.6768442]

>>6768417

>as opposed to the "out" terminiology you were using before.

because i was talking about a situation, such as stock, where you put something flavourful into something flavourless. the flavour compounds are only moving 'out'. you just wanted to be a smartarse about it.

>Equilibrium is certainly not reached in the cooking time used for wings, but that doesn't mean that nothing has been accomplished in the meantime.

it happens even slower in situations where liquid is not flowing freely about the broken down bones. it is hard to pull flavour out of the exterior of bones in general. it takes a long time and when that time is also moving the extracted flavour away from the chicken in general, you can see why the effect is going to negligible.

>The flavors can simply move around the protein molecules. Protein is not an indelible wall.

what it is is a wringing sponge, where the flow of liquid is going *out* of the mass. diffusion will happen much more slowly against this gradient.

>That helps spread flavors.

yes but it helps spread flavours in a direction which i believe is very unfavourable to your argument.

>Evaporation results in a loss of moisture, but it doesn't affect the relative concentration of flavors in that moisture

it affects the concentration of flavour compounds within the chicken. less flavour compounds per unit of chicken.

[Anonymous No.6768450]

bone in

[Anonymous No.6768454]

>>6768442
>why the effect is going to negligible.

Incomplete? Sure. Agreed 100%
Negligible? No.

>>diffusion will happen much more slowly against this gradient.
There is no appreciable gradient or flow when cooking wings.

>>it affects the concentration of flavour compounds within the chicken. less flavour compounds per unit of chicken.
No. Backwards, in fact.
If we are being strict here and talking about just moisture (e.g. water) leaving the chicken, then it actually concentrates the flavor because the flavor stays put while some of the water leaves. Simple experiment: make some coffee or tea. Then heat it up so some evaporates. You'll find it tastes stronger than before.

In this case though when we say "moisture" we mean more than just water--basically everything with a low enough boiling point will be evaporating simultaneously. but that process isn't selective. It's like my example of spilling a cup of tea. It doesn't somehow remove the flavor only while keeping the moisture behind.

[Anonymous No.6768481]

>>6768454

>Negligible? No.

yes, but at this point we'd need to start getting more specific and i don't think this is very easily testable - i just know that deboned meat, cooked similarly, has very little difference in flavour to bone-in meat, from my own experience.

>There is no appreciable gradient or flow when cooking wings.

of course there is. meat being cooked is losing a huge amount of moisture. the flow is *out* of the chicken. contracting muscle proteins pressurise the liquid compartmentalised within their structure and this forces it *out*.

the flavour doesn't 'stay put', it doesn't evaporate as much as it concentrates but the result is still a net loss. in any case evaporation is a very small part of the point because that evaporating flavour is still not actually in the chicken, it's 'equilibrating' with the oil.

[Anonymous No.6768503]

>>6764702
With the bone, because removing it takes too long and only sissy man children do that.

[Anonymous No.6768512]

>this entire thread

Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.6768513]

>>6768481
>meat being cooked is losing a huge amount of moisture.
Very little moisture is lost assuming that a suitably hot temperature is maintained. This is obvious because properly cooked fried chicken is very juicy, but if you want to read about the science behind it then hit Modernist Cuisine volume 2 page 114.

>>compartmentalised within their structure and this forces it *out*
Out of the cell and into the space between the cells. Irrelevant.

...also keep in mind that a gradient requires a second variable: distance. that's the variable "x" in fick's law. Chicken wings are physically small. This dimension is therefore relatively meaningless.

>>but the result is still a net loss
That is impossible. You're describing a paradox. In order for there to be a net loss of flavor something would have to be removing the flavor at a higher rate than the moisture, etc, was removed. That isn't happening. In fact you seem to agree that the oposite is actually happening
>> it doesn't evaporate as much as it concentrates

Right then you just stated that the flavor gets stronger. (Net gain). Then in your very next phrase you contradict yourself and say there is loss instead? I'm confused.

>>till not actually in the chicken, it's 'equilibrating' with the oil.

It should never get into the oil for two reasons:
1) the coating of flour/starch applied to the wings before they are fried
2) the physics of the deep-frying process by which the moisture at the outside layer of the food boiling off prevents the moisture further inside from leaving. In fact, the ability to keep juices inside the food is one of the major strong points of deep frying. (this is discussed in the same MC page I mentioned above)

[Anonymous No.6768530]

>>6764702
boneless is for children

[Anonymous No.6768566]

>>6764702
Bones have more flavor
Boneless "wings" generally aren't even wing meat, they're just big chicken nuggets, usually made with breast meat.

[Anonymous No.6768578]

>>6764702
Bone-in wings are a pain in the ass to eat, and you still have to throw the fuckers away.

Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.6768599]

>>6768513

>Very little moisture is lost

no more or less moisture is lost in a chicken wing than in a steak, for instance. moisture loss in meat is simply a function of temperature and time. chicken wings are cooked to high temperatures and they lose a substantial proportion of their moisture. part of the reason they still taste juicy is because of the large quantities of fat and gelatin in them.

>Out of the cell and into the space between the cells. Irrelevant.

uh, no. both the intracellular water and intercellular water is forced throughout the fascicles to the exterior of the meat.

>distance. that's the variable "x" in fick's law. Chicken wings are physically small. This dimension is therefore relatively meaningless.

hahaha what.

>In order for there to be a net loss of flavor something would have to be removing the flavor at a higher rate than the moisture, etc, was removed.

no it just has to be removed from the mass that you are eating. it may be more concentrated within the available liquid in a more cooked chicken but it is also lower in quantity.

>It should never get into the oil

it absolutely, one hundred percent does get into the oil. i think you're paraphrasing the relevant passage in modernist cuisine pretty haphazardly.

[Anonymous No.6768608]

>>6768513
>>6768599
You're both autistic.

[Anonymous No.6768630]

Bone in forever and ever.

boneless are just nuggers in disguise and are for children.

[Anonymous No.6769027]

>>6768630
what if you debone a chicken wing then just use the meat/skin exactly the same as a buffalo wing cept its really without bones

that I could go for

but fuck glorify nuggets

[Anonymous No.6769028]

>>6768630
>>6769027
what if either of you read the thread before posting