Prick holes in the skin, rub salt, lemon juice, garlic/pepper/chilli etc. into the skins and cook under a grill (US = 'broiler', I think) for a tasty, crispy-skinned treat. If you cut the 'flap' of meat off the thigh and cook separately the bit with the bone makes a v. good drumstick substitute. In fact I prefer them.
Incidentally, if the thighs you get are really fatty, perhaps you could switch to a different butcher/supermarket/brand? Organic, free-range chicken is leaner (because the birds get to move around more) and sweeter because they haven't been fed rubbish.
Your karma and tastebuds will thank you for it ;-)
Bon Appetit!
It's down to what the chicken ate while it was alive. Saturated fat sets, olive oil sets if you chill it, but not otherwise, and a number of seed oils do not set (rapeseed for instance). When you make a stock which has solidified fat on top, that's saturated fat, so I'd hazard a guess that the stock where the fat doesn't set means a healthier eating chicken, because it contained less saturated fat to start with.
UPDATE: Thank you to the person who bothered to do the research and said my answer 'might have some merit'. Chickens are no different from human beings - the fats you put in are the fats floating round your bloodstream and depositing in various places; think about corn fed chickens, where the fat composition is slightly different, not to mention the colour of the flesh itself. That will be a partial explanation; when taken together with the fact that not all chickens, even in the same flock or brood, get to eat the same diet, because the pecking order dictates that some free range birds don't always get the pick of the food, explains differences in chickens from the same supplier. Of course, if you can come up with another explanation, I'd be delighted to hear it...
UPDATE 2: Perhaps I should have been clearer. I am not for a moment suggesting that the fats eaten are deposited in their original form, but if you know anything about biology (chickens or otherwise) then you'll know that certain synergies occur, depending what's put in, which change the composition of any fats deposited within the body system. Hence the connection between eating lots of saturated fat and having high cholesterol in humans, for example.
UPDATE 3: Rumtscho: Can't find any scientific evidence so far to prove this theory regarding chickens, but, for interest's sake, and to prove how much of a difference it can make, farmed salmon in Britain no longer has a balanced omega 3/6/9 ratio, as it should do, and still does in the wild. It's because the feed had to be changed, and the consequence of that has been a much higher level of omega 6 in particular. I'm still looking for something on chicken.
UPDATE 4: Now I've had time to look properly, it's not at all difficult to find scientific evidence, there's plenty of it. There's a study carried out by The American Society for Nutritional Science in 2000 comparing the fat deposition (and other metabolic processes) between chickens fed the same diet, but one lot with saturated fat included in the form of tallow, and the other lot with polyunsaturated fats. The fat deposition in the birds fed tallow was greater, and the composition of the fat contained more saturates compared to the polyunsaturated group. These results reflect previous studies (Sanz et al 1999 and 2000).
Effectively, it's like everything else - you get back what you put in.
Best Answer