The word is that chickens are not considered optimal because their Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio is way out of whack. So as far as is one better than the other? I agree that it depends on your personal brand of Paleo. Strict Paleo would say white meat. Tastebuds and Primal would say dark meat.

That being said, whatever. They're tasty. Chicken thighs (bone-in and skin-on) are a staple of my kitchen. I agree with a previous poster that if you do a whole chicken, I eat the dark meat directly and save the sawdusty white meat for adding to other dishes.

Of course there is. Dark chicken meat has an actual taste.

I used to eat a lot of dark chicken, like thighs with skin etc. However, I'm not too confident in the quality of the birds I get so lately I've been eating chicken breasts with no skin. I know I know, everyone loves fat, and so do I. I am eating the skinless breasts simply to keep the omega sixes low. Dark meat with skin has a boatload of omega six. I'd rather use a bunch more coconut oil or tallow to cook the breasts and get my fat from there.

I think the whole bird is good. I roast an entire chicken and eat as much of it as I can stand in one meal (skin first), and then parcel the bits out through the week, including the heart, liver, and gizzard.

And although I'm hardly the poster child for "paleo correctness," philosophically, the idea of eating most or all of the bird seems more in line with Paleo reasoning than focusing on one part over another. I think.

I've always preffered the dark and my wife only eats the white meat. I have one daughter that prefers white and the other dark. Reminds me of an old nursery rhyme:

Jack Sprat could eat no fat.
His wife could eat no lean.
And so between them both, you see,
They licked the platter clean.

The dark meat is fattier. Low carbers sometimes recommend dark meat in order to increase fat content of the diet. The n6:n3 ratio of chicken fat is no where near as optimal as beef (even pastured chicken vs grain-fed beef) - so I wouldn't recommend basing your diet primarily on chicken (or turkey or pork). I would say eat both or what you like and don't go crazy.

I prefer dark meat, and mostly tend to reach for thighs when given an option. They're much cheaper than breasts, and actually have a flavor, versus their bland breast counterparts. I also find that chicken breasts are strangely gummy (even organic) and have a weird tendency to stick to my teeth. The thighs are less mealy and much more enjoyable to me, at least. :)

I actually prefer white meat, but for broth and stock making, dark meat produces better results. I use a stewing hen when I can find them. Tasty stuff so long as it's bone in and skin on :) Don't know so much on the omegas.

I raise my own chickens with plenty of graze foraging. Cornish can be really gluttonous so every week or so we cut them off feed for a day or so and make them hit the land for berries, grass and bugs. It cuts down a bit on the amount of fat on them but they put on muscle even faster. I say this because it makes the breasts taste as rich as dark meat

Due to my stepdad hoarding all the white meat growing up I delve towards the breast when possible. No one else seems to really care for them in my family. They like having bones to use as handles. My older two kids grab the drumsticks and my wife raids the thighs and #3 child likes "baby legs" (the upper wings).

Leftovers get stuck in the crock pot for broth.

Last week we stuck a whole chicken in the crock pot since the wife and I both had to work and when we returned I made a quick barbecue sauce from tomato powder, vinegar, honey, liquid smoke and spices, pulled the very tender chicken out of the crock and mixed in the sauce ingredients into the stock that had formed. THe meat was so tender that it fell off the bones and it took just a couple minutes to pick off most all the meat from the bones and mix it into the sauce. It was probably our most efficient use of a chicken for us yet.

I like chicken alot