Make or Break - The Chocolate Wars

 

Do you ever have those things you just can't quite let go of?

I am currently trapped in an argument with someone who is very dear to me. I love reading his blog and he frequently cheers me up when things aren't going well, and for this I owe him the world. Happiness is everything. But that doesn't mean I won't tell him he's wrong to his face and go out of my way to prove this.

What is this argument? Political? Financial? Religious?

It's about chocolate.

I maintain that Twirls and Flakes are different things. He says a Twirl is just a Flake in a dress.

 

For balance, if you want his argument - here it is.

 

I am happy to admit that they look pretty similar. I can't deny this from his evidence and it would be foolish to pretend that this evidence does not exist. However, I am not basing my argument purely on looks. I am deliving deeper into this than, frankly, a sane person should.

For balance (again) I have recreated his experiment.

Top Left: Flake, Twirl, Ripple. Top Right: Cross Sections (knife)

Bottom Left: Cross Sections (bitten). Bottom Right: Cross Sections (lengthways, Flake then Twirl)

 

The first thing I discovered was that my Ripple had started to melt somewhat. Or maybe that was just the Galaxy-ness of it. You can clearly see that in the TR and BL pictures the Ripple is much thicker in texture than it's Cadbury's counterparts. It also, was not as tasty.

As mentioned before the Flake (on the left of the above pictures) and the Twirl (in the middle in TR and BL and on the right in BR) do look very similar. Especially in the knifed cross sections. I do think though that in the bitten cross sections that the inside of the Twirl looks looser somehow, more free flowing. I also think that the lengthways cross section is very telling. The Flake looks much drier and there are clearly more defined folds in the Twirl.

My next argument though is based on taste and texture. I firmly believe that a Twirl tastes creamier than a Flake. A Flake is designed to crumble and it does this job well. But in order to do so, it has to be quite dry. Add you can taste this when you eat it. It doesn't melt on your tongue the same way and it doesn't have the same mouth feel. (That might be a bit chefy, I don't know). It almost leaves you feeling thirsty. This is presumably why they put Flakes in ice creams. So you can quench the inevitable dry mouth feeling!

 

I feel that this leads nicely into my next point. Nutritional Values!

From a scientific(ish) perspective, they can't be the same because the nutritional values, per 100g are not the same. The Twirl has slightly more calories, fat and sugar. This I think is what leads to the more creamy flavour. If you look at the ingredients overall, they are the same. But clearly in different quantities. And as anyone that has ever cooked before knows, quantise can drastically change the outcome of a recipe, resulting in a different end product.

The Flake was launched in 1920. The Twirl in 1987. And in 2003, this turned up on the scene:

Now why, pray tell, would Cadbury bring this out if they already had such a product under the name of Twirl. They just wouldn't. Therefore, a Twirl can't be a chocolate covered Flake, because that up there, is a chocolate covered Flake.

 

So... What can we conclude from this little foray into chocolate comparisons?

1. The nutritional value of the Twirl and Flake are different.
2. The Twirl and Flake (in my not so humble opinion) taste different.
3. That I can't eat a Flake, a Twirl and a (fun size) Ripple without feeling sick.
4. That I should find something better to do with my time.

I have asked 6 people so far, and all say that they are different. But that isn't good enough for a certain someone. I should let it go... But I just can't.

 

Toodle pip, Charlotte xx