Skip to content

Is Tuna More Calories Than Chicken? A Detailed Nutritional Comparison

3 min read

According to USDA data, a 3-ounce (85g) serving of cooked, skinless chicken breast contains approximately 128 calories, while a similar serving of canned tuna packed in water has about 100 calories. This reveals a common misconception: the answer to the question, is tuna more calories than chicken? often leans toward tuna being lower in calories when prepared in its simplest form.

Quick Summary

When comparing equal serving sizes, canned tuna in water typically contains fewer calories than cooked, skinless chicken breast. The overall nutritional value differs in areas like fat, omega-3s, and specific minerals, making the best choice dependent on individual dietary goals.

Key Points

  • Calorie Advantage: Canned, water-packed tuna typically contains fewer calories per ounce than cooked, skinless chicken breast.

  • Omega-3 Content: Tuna provides beneficial omega-3 fatty acids, which are absent in chicken breast and support heart and brain health.

  • Fat and Preparation: The calorie difference can vanish or reverse if tuna is packed in oil or if chicken includes skin or is fried.

  • Nutrient Diversity: While both are rich in protein, tuna is higher in Vitamin D and selenium, whereas chicken provides more zinc and niacin.

  • Mercury Consideration: Light canned tuna has lower mercury levels than albacore, but consuming a variety of protein sources is recommended to mitigate risks.

  • Protein per Ounce: Chicken breast offers a slightly higher concentration of protein per ounce compared to canned tuna, beneficial for focused muscle repair.

In This Article

Tuna vs. Chicken: A Nutritional Showdown

The battle of protein powerhouses has long been a subject of debate in the health and fitness world. Both tuna and chicken are celebrated as excellent sources of lean protein, but which one wins in a head-to-head calorie comparison? The answer is not always straightforward, as preparation method, type of tuna, and cut of chicken can all influence the final nutritional value. For those managing weight or optimizing their diet, understanding these nuances is key.

Comparing Nutritional Profiles

To make an accurate comparison, it is best to look at standard, lean versions of both foods. We will compare a 3-ounce (85g) serving of cooked, skinless chicken breast with a 3-ounce serving of light tuna canned in water, drained.

Nutrient Cooked Chicken Breast (3 oz) Canned Tuna in Water (3 oz)
Calories ~128 kcal ~100 kcal
Protein 26 g 20–22 g
Fat 2.7 g <1 g
Saturated Fat <1 g <0.5 g
Omega-3s Absent Present
Vitamin D 0.1 mcg ~3.4 mcg
Sodium 44 mg ~521 mg (varies)
Selenium 27 mcg 124 mcg
Zinc 1.4 mg 1.2 mg

What Influences Calorie Content?

Several factors can significantly change the calorie counts for both tuna and chicken. For tuna, the packing liquid is the most important variable. Tuna packed in oil will have substantially more calories and fat than tuna packed in water. For chicken, including the skin or using darker cuts like thighs will increase both calorie and fat content. Cooking methods also play a major role. Frying chicken will add calories from oil, while grilling or baking will keep it lean.

The Health Benefits of Each

Both protein sources offer unique nutritional advantages:

Tuna's Benefits:

  • Rich in Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Tuna, particularly canned light tuna, contains beneficial omega-3s, which are crucial for heart, brain, and eye health.
  • High in Selenium: An excellent source of selenium, an antioxidant that protects the body from damage caused by free radicals.
  • Good Source of Vitamin D: Provides more Vitamin D than chicken breast, which is important for bone health and immune function.
  • Low-Calorie Density: Water-packed tuna is one of the lowest-calorie protein sources available, making it ideal for calorie-restricted diets.

Chicken's Benefits:

  • High-Quality Complete Protein: Chicken breast is a fantastic source of complete protein, containing all the essential amino acids needed for muscle repair and growth.
  • Higher Zinc Content: Contains more zinc than tuna, which is vital for immune function and cell growth.
  • Versatility: Its neutral flavor and texture make it incredibly versatile, fitting into a wide variety of meals and culinary styles.
  • No Mercury Concern: Unlike tuna, which can contain trace amounts of mercury, chicken does not pose this risk, making it safe for more frequent consumption.

Making the Right Choice for Your Diet

The choice between tuna and chicken ultimately depends on your specific health objectives. Here's a breakdown to help guide your decision:

  • For Weight Loss: Water-packed tuna is the clear winner for minimum calories. It provides a satisfying amount of protein for very few calories, promoting satiety.
  • For Muscle Building: Chicken breast offers a slightly higher protein content per ounce, making it a powerful component for those prioritizing muscle synthesis.
  • For Heart Health: Incorporating tuna into your diet provides a significant boost of omega-3 fatty acids, which are widely recognized for their cardiovascular benefits.
  • For Nutrient Variety: The best approach is to include both in your diet. This ensures you receive a broader spectrum of nutrients, from tuna's omega-3s and Vitamin D to chicken's zinc and potassium.

Conclusion

In conclusion, when comparing lean, simply prepared versions, tuna generally has fewer calories than chicken breast. However, this is just one piece of the nutritional puzzle. While water-packed tuna offers powerful omega-3s and low fat, chicken breast provides slightly more protein per ounce and is free from any mercury concerns. For optimal health, a varied diet that includes both lean proteins is the most effective strategy. Consider your personal goals—whether calorie restriction, nutrient intake, or muscle gain—to decide which protein best serves your needs on any given day. To learn more about incorporating lean protein into your diet, consult resources like those from Harvard Health.

Frequently Asked Questions

For weight loss, water-packed canned tuna is often preferable due to its lower calorie density. Its high protein content also helps increase feelings of fullness, which can aid in calorie control.

Chicken breast contains slightly more protein per ounce than canned tuna. For example, a 3-ounce serving of cooked chicken breast has around 26 grams, while the same serving of canned tuna has 20-22 grams.

Yes, tuna packed in oil has a significantly higher calorie and fat content than water-packed tuna, and often more than an equivalent serving of plain chicken breast.

Due to potential mercury content, it is generally not recommended to eat tuna every day. Consumption guidelines, especially for albacore tuna, suggest moderation, and light tuna is a safer option.

The key nutritional difference is tuna's higher concentration of omega-3 fatty acids and Vitamin D, while chicken breast offers more zinc and is free from any mercury concerns.

The cooking method dramatically affects chicken's calorie count. Adding skin, cooking with oil, or frying will increase calories and fat, whereas grilling or baking a skinless breast keeps it very lean.

Yes, incorporating both into your diet is highly recommended for a balanced nutritional profile. This ensures you benefit from the distinct vitamins, minerals, and fatty acids each provides.

References

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6

Medical Disclaimer

This content is for informational purposes only and should not replace professional medical advice.