It all depends on what “healthy” means for you. Both chicken and tuna are lean, low-calorie protein sources, which fits most people’s idea of a healthy diet. Calories and protein aren’t the end-all, be-all of nutrition, though. If you have special dietary needs, it pays to know what’s in your sandwich. We took a close look at the nutrition in four-ounce (113 gram) servings of canned tuna and chicken breast, then compared them to see which came out on top.
For fat, calories, and protein, it’s all good
Based on the Big Four nutrients—calories, fat, protein, and carbs—it’s obvious that tuna and chicken breast are very similar. Both are basically pure protein, with zero carbs and very little fat per four-ounce (113 gram) serving:
- Boneless skinless chicken breast, cooked:180 calories, 4 grams fat, 36 grams protein
- Chicken of the Sea chunk white albacore in water:100 calories, 1 gram fat, 20 grams protein
- Chicken of the Sea solid white albacore in water:130 calories, 1 gram fat, 29 grams protein
- Chicken of the Sea chunk light tuna in water:100 calories, 0.5 grams fat, 23 grams protein
As you can see, chicken is higher in calories, protein and fat (which includes saturated fat) than a can of tuna calories, but they’re still pretty comparable. The real differences lie in the rest of their nutrients.
Tuna is significantly lower in cholesterol
These days, scientists and doctors agree that eating high-cholesterol foods isn’t always risky. According tothe T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard University, dietary cholesterol doesn’t affect blood cholesterol levels much for most people. There are exceptions, though—people with diabetes and “cholesterol hyper-responders” (people whose blood cholesteroldoeschange according to what they eat) should limit their intake to stay healthy.
Surprisingly, lean chicken breast is somewhat high in cholesterol. It has more than twice as much per serving as any water-packed variety of Chicken of the Sea tuna:
- Boneless skinless chicken breast, cooked: 131 mg cholesterol
- Chicken of the Sea chunk white albacore in water:40 mg cholesterol
- Chicken of the Sea solid white albacore in water:50 mg cholesterol
- Chicken of the Sea chunk light tuna in water:50 mg cholesterol
Even when you add mayo, tuna is still better for low-cholesterol diets. Canned tuna is healthy: an entire five-ounce can of tuna in water (which has about 40 mg cholesterol), mixed with 2 tablespoons of mayonnaise (which has about 12 mg), still has less than half as much cholesterol as a single serving of plain chicken breast.
Chicken has less sodium
Many people follow a low-sodium diet to manage high blood pressure and reduce their risk of heart disease. If you’re one of them, you may want to choose chicken more often. Even salt-free canned tuna contains more sodium than chicken breast:
- Boneless skinless chicken breast, cooked:53 mg
- Chicken of the Sea solid white albacore in water, no salt added:70 mg
- Chicken of the Sea chunk light tuna in water, low sodium:270 mg
Both feature vitamins and minerals
Like all animal proteins, both tuna and chicken are high in vitamins and minerals—mostly vitamin D, B-vitamins, and certain trace elements. The Vitamin D comparison is easy: Tuna has some (about 50 International Units or IU per four-ounce serving), and chicken doesn’t.
B-vitamins are more complicated. Here’s a table comparing the amounts per serving for cooked chicken breast or canned light tuna. Higher values are highlighted in green:
| Chicken breast, cooked | Canned light tuna (in water) | |
| Thiamin (B-1) | 0.11 mg | 0.03 mg |
| Riboflavin (B-2) | 0.21 mg | 0.09 mg |
| Niacin (B-3) | 10.7 mg | 11.2 mg |
| B-5 | 1.79 mg | 0.17 mg |
| B-6 | 1.04 mg | 0.36 mg |
| B-12 | 0.23 µg | 2.90 µg |
If you need to eat more B-12, tuna has you covered. Otherwise, chicken is just as good.Here’s a similar table for minerals like calcium and magnesium:
| Chicken breast, cooked | Canned light tuna (in water) | |
| Calcium (Ca) | 7 mg | 20 mg |
| Iron (Fe) | 0.55 mg | 1.89 mg |
| Magnesium (Mg) | 36 mg | 25.6 mg |
| Phosphorus (P) | 272 mg | 155 mg |
| Potassium (K) | 388 mg | 199 mg |
| Zinc (Zn) | 1.08 mg | 0.75 mg |
| Copper (Cu) | 0.05 mg | 0.05 mg |
| Manganese (Mn) | 0.014 mg | 0.021 mg |
| Selenium (Se) | 36.0 µg | 76.6 µg |
Low iron is fairly common among the population, especially for those on a pescatarian diet, and if you struggle to get enough iron in your diet, tuna can help. If your iron levels are solid but you could use some more zinc, potassium, or phosphorus, then chicken is a better choice.
In the end, the choice between tuna and chicken boils down to whatyouneed. Whichever you choose, you’re guaranteed lots of lean, low-calorie protein, with vitamins and minerals galore. Now that you know the finer details of chicken and tuna nutrition, you’ll always know which is best.
