Re-reviewed: The Actifry vs. The Phillips Air Fryer

Quite some time ago, I reviewed the Actifry.

More recently, I reviewed the Phillips AirFryer.

They're both designed to do the same thing, but using slightly different means to get to the end. The idea - for both - is that you can "fry" foods with very little oil.

The truth is that if you fry foods correctly, they don't soak up a lot of oil. So that's not my objection to fried food. But I really don't like the idea of buying a vast quantity of oil that later needs to be disposed of. So a device that can mimic frying without using as much oil is appealing.

Both the Actifry and the Phillips AirFryer use hot air to cook the food. The biggest difference between the two is that the Actifry slowly stirs the food while it cooks, while the AirFryer contains the food in an open basket where presumably it's being hit by air from multiple directions.

While stirring sounds like a good idea, it means that you're going to have issues cooking anything that's freshly coated or breaded or battered, and the stirring also tends to break up softer foods - there were always a few french fries or potato wedges in every batch that looked like they'd been roughly handled.

Stirring could be a bonus for other recipes, though. The recipe book that came with the unit came with a few recipes where stirring made sense, like a risotto-like rice dish, but I didn't have much success with that. I live at high altitude, and rice can be tricky, so I don't know for sure if the issue was altitude or the appliance. If you live at sea level and have had success with that recipe or others that require stirring, I'd love to hear about it.

On the other hand, frozen breaded items worked fairly well in the Actifry - I lost some coating, but it wasn't terrible. Frozen breaded items worked perfectly in the AirFryer.

In the AirFryer, it would be possible to cook freshly battered or breaded items that might stick together - like freshly beer-battered fish, for example - if you kept the food separated and in a single layer which would be sort of ... inconvenient ... for large quantities. But I think it could work for, let's say, a couple breaded pork chops, leaning against the sides of the basket.

Seriously, though, you're more likely to cook chops some other way. Just because you can make something work, it doesn't mean you should. One chop, for a single person - well, that might actually make more sense.

If you're really concerned about fat on your food, the oil drips off the food and out the bottom of the basket of the AirFryer, whereas it collects in the bottom of the Actifry, and the food is constantly being stirred around in the oil.

Both the Actifry and the AirFryer are pretty large appliances for the amount of food they can cook, so neither one is going to be great for a huge, hungry family, unless you're eating in shifts or you're trying to cut down on portion sizes. For a single person or a couple, they make more sense.

Neither of these makes food that's identical to the deep-fried version, but that's to be expected. Frying is frying, and air-frying is ... well ... like a super-convection cooking method. While it's not the same as frying, it's pretty darned good. And the upside is that I don't have a gallon of oil to get rid of when I'm done.

One huge benefit of the AirFryer is that there is a temperature control, so you can cook potatoes at a lower temperature until they're done cooking, and then raise the temperature to crisp them. It also gives you a wider range of items that can be cooked properly. And since there's no stirring, you can cook things like grilled cheese sandwiches in the fryer basket.

Given my choice of one of the two, I have to say I prefer the AirFryer. It's certainly not essential kitchen tool, but it's convenient for making a basket of fries or a few pounds of wings.

Since I received my AirFryer, a few new models have been introduced, including one with a digital controls and a double-layer and one with digital controls and larger capacity. Whether the higher prices on the new models would be worth the money depends on your particular needs, but the larger capacity unit would make more sense for families.

My original review of the Actifry is here: http://www.cookistry.com/2012/08/does-actifry-really-work.html

My original review of the AirFryer is here: http://www.cookistry.com/2014/04/gadgets-philps-airfryer.html

I received both of these from the respective manufacturers for the purpose of a review, which were done some time ago. I had no obligation to write about them again, but I thought a comparison would be fun.

Re-review: Magimix Food Processor

Quite some time ago, I reviewed the Magimix 14-cup food processor in brushed chrome. Now that I've had a chance to live with it for a while - I've had it for well over a year - I figured it was time to update my thoughts.

And... I have a link for a giveaway of a Magimix Food Processor. Check the bottom of the post! Giveaway is over.

I've been using it a lot for the "usual" processor tasks, like making pastry dough and chopping/pureeing various foods. It performs those tasks really well, and it has three different-sized bowls, which is a great option.

But there are a few other things that make this unit really stand out from the crowd.

The first is a plastic ring that comes with the food processor that makes is perform more like a blender. While blenders and food processors have similar spinning blades, they don't work exactly the same.

The plastic insert causes the liquid to get thrown around a bit, just like what happens inside a blender. I blitzed some ice and made some smoothies and shakes, and the result was just like I'd get from my blender.

While I haven't thrown out my blender yet, it is nice to have other options, and if you don't want both appliances, you won't need a blender if you have this processor.

Carrot-orange juice made with the juicer attachment.

So, that's pretty cool, but the thing I fell in love with was an optional accessory - a juicer attachment. It fits into the bowl of the food processor and works like a centrifugal juicer, shredding the fruits and vegetables, and separating juice from pulp.

I don't juice things every day, but there are times when I do a lot of juicing, like when it's tomato season and I want to make sauce.

A juicer does a great job of separating seeds and skin from pulp, which speeds up the sauce-making process a lot. I've used a standalone juicer for that sort of thing, but since I don't do a lot of juicing, it's nice to have an add-on rather that a big countertop appliance.

The major difference between this and a standalone juicer is that the juice and pulp don't eject from the food processor - the juice remains in the bowl of the processor, and the pulp stays inside the juicer attachment.

So, if you're going to make vast quantities of juice, you'll need to stop occasionally and empty the food processor bowl. But it holds a lot of juice, so it's not like you're stopping every few seconds.

And, depending on how fibrous or pulpy your fruits and vegetables are, you might also need to remove the pulp that accumulates. But again, it's not a big chore.

Juicer attachment.

If you already have a food processor, it wouldn’t make sense to buy this just for the juicing feature.

But if you’re shopping for a food processor, I'd highly recommend this one just because it's a really nice food processor, and then I'd suggest that you think about the juicing attachment as well. It's a heck of a lot cheaper to get the attachment, and it it's smaller and more lightweight than a juicer, so it's easier to store.

Bonus is that while some juicers are seriously noisy, this is only as loud as a typical food processor while it’s juicing.

Who's it for: Anyone who's shopping for a food processor

Pros: Juicer attachment is awesome. Really good food processor. Three bowls for different-sized batches.

Cons: Food processors are expensive. All of them are.

Wishes: I wish the parts fit into my dishwasher better. But that's my diswasher's fault

Source: I received this from the manufacturer for the purpose of a review.

Re-Review: Stretchy Bowl Covers

No-name covers look better than they really are.

I recently reviewed the Cover Blubber, a stretchy bowl cover. And that made me think of the reviews I did of three other brands of bowl covers.

Maybe it's time for a re-review of these, since some time has passed.

It all started with some stretchy bowl covers that I saw on a Made-for-TV commercial, but when I went looking for them online, I couldn't find them anywhere. And I wasn't about to call and order by phone.

So I went searching for similar covers - to me, it made sense to have reusable covers for bowls - particularly my stand mixer bowl. I get tired of using plastic wrap to cover it every time I make bread and leave the dough rising in that bowl.

I found some unbranded lids on Amazon, but got frustrated pretty quickly. The description said the lids would stretch to fit different-sized bowls, but trying to get the largest size onto my stand mixer bowl was like trying to put a queen-sized bedsheet on a king-size bed, and the cover wasn't all that much smaller than the bowl. It should have fit.

When I finally wrangled the cover in place, it wanted to slip off.

While I was finally able to get the cover on and it held on fairly well, it was the opposite of easy. I wanted easy.

The covers were okay for other bowls that were smaller, but the range of good fit wasn't quite as wide as I hoped. If the bowl is slightly too large, it's too hard to get the cover on. If the bowl is slightly too small, the covers don't grab at all.

I do have a few bowls they fit well, so I still use them once in a while. I wouldn't buy them again, though.

Norpro Bowl Covers

I also tried Norpro's bowl covers, which are stretchy silicone squares rather than fitted round covers. I liked these a lot better than the no-name covers. I was able to cover my mixer bowl, and it held tight as long as the square and bowl were relatively clean and dry. A little flour or oil on the outside or rim of the bowl made things less stick-able, but not terrible.

The downside was that when I tried to cover a square pan with pointy corners, the sharp corner damaged the silicone square and the next time I tried to stretch it over a bowl, it tore.

Since the tear was at the edge of the square, it's still perfectly usable, but now I know that it's a little fragile, and I should only use it on pans with rounded corners.

Since these don't need to fit a bowl of a specific size, they're really versatile, and they stretch a lot, and they cling pretty well. And, since they're not fitted, you can cover square or odd-shaped bowls just as easily as you can cover round bowls.

I'd love it if I could find them in an even larger size to fit things like muffin pans or other big baking pans. I'd love them even more if they weren't as delicate.

Lekue Bowl Covers

I decided to try one more product with a different design, and that was the odd-looking stretch cover from Lekue.

I hesitated on this one because of the price, but decided to give it a go, anyway. And, good thing I did, since the 10.2-inch lid is perfect for my stand mixer bowl. And that was my primary concern.

Look how well it holds on, despite the expanding gas.

The odd shape means that it holds onto the bowl because of the design as well as the tackiness of the silicone. So a little bit of flour or water on the bowl edge isn't as much of a concern with these covers as with others.

When dough is rising, this thing hangs on tight and it expands to accommodate the gas building in the bowl. And it really, really, really stretches.

The downside is that it's not going to fit absolutely every bowl you own, but it does fit a range of sizes - the one that fits my stand mixer bowl also works well with several smaller mixing bowls I have, like the one at the right.

But there's a point where the cover is too floppy to cling. It covers the bowl, but it's not snug enough to seal. Which is fine, if I'm just covering the bowl to keep out flying things. You know, like flour.

The Lekue covers come in a variety of sizes, from the 10.2 that fits my stand mixer bowl, all the way down to a 3.3 inch size, so you can cover a pretty wide range of bowl sizes with a few sizes of covers. And they come in a couple different colors, if that matters.

Since I first wrote about these covers, I purchased one more large one and a slightly smaller one, for smaller bowls. I use them regularly, particularly the large one that fits my mixer bowl.

Allegedly, you can use these to cover a melon or a cut orange or whatever, but I was mostly interested in having flexible bowl covers.

Conclusion

Out of the three of these, I wouldn't recommend the no-name covers at all, unless you happened to have bowls that are exactly the right size for the covers to fit. Otherwise, forget it.

The Lekue covers are my clear favorites, despite the higher price compared to the others, since I"m getting so much more use out of them. I've been using these covers for quite some time and they're holding up really well. I expect to get a lot more use from them.

The Norpro covers are good, and less expensive than the Lekue. If they fit your needs - or your square bowls - they're a good buy. Since the silicon sticks to itself, you could also use these squares to wrap things - I'm not sure what, but it's an option, if you need it.

Source: I purchased all of these covers.

Re-reviewed: The Olivator

The very first review on Cookistry was a product called the Olivator that I reviewed in January, 2010.

Wow, that was a long danged time ago.

The Olivator, made by RSVP, is designed for stuffing semi-hard food items into other tasty food items. I used it to stuff Milky Way candy bar pieces into strawberries, and a spicy goat cheese mixture into cherries.

Funny story about those cherries. Back then I was getting very little traffic on my blog, so tracking visitors was a bit of an obsession. For some reason, I got a visit from the White House - the one in Washington - on that post.

While I wish that the White House Chef was checking out my site for recipes, it was probably an automated visit from a security-based computer because of the name of the recipe. I called them Cherry Bombs. Oopsie. 

Meanwhile, back to the opinions:

So, after four years, I still use the Olivator on occasion, mostly for holidays when I want to make a fancy appetizer. I've also used it to cut out melon pieces and stuff those cores into melons of different colors.

When I first reviewed this, some fold said that you could do the same thing with a pastry bag. Not really. You can pipe soft products with a pastry bag. This doesn't work well at all with soft products. But it excels at stuffing semi-hard substances that you could never pipe.

While it's not an essential piece of hardware, is performs a unique function that I use once in a while.

Who's it for: People who do a lot of fancy presentation, Martha Stewart clones, food bloggers, and other crafty folks.

Pros: Does what it's supposed to do very well. Well-built and solid. Comes apart for cleaning.

Cons: Most people probably don't need something like this, and for occasional use, it might be a tad pricey.

Source: I received this at no cost from a kitchen store in order to do a demo at their site.