Which Canned Fish Is Highest in Omega-3s?

Tuna vs. Salmon: Which Canned Fish Packs the Healthiest Punch?

Canned fish, particularly tuna and salmon, has long been celebrated as a convenient and budget-friendly pantry staple. Not only do they offer ease of preparation, but they also deliver a wealth of essential nutrients, most notably omega-3 fatty acids. These healthy fats play a critical role in brain function, reducing inflammation, and potentially lowering the risk of heart disease. But if you’re deciding between these two canned favorites, which one truly reigns supreme?

The Omega-3 Showdown

Canned tuna is a global favorite, lauded for its affordability and versatility. It contains two key forms of omega-3 fatty acids—DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) and EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid)—both linked to improved heart health and reduced inflammation. However, the omega-3 content in tuna varies significantly depending on the type:

• Light Tuna (Skipjack): Approximately 0.2–0.3 grams per 3-ounce serving.
• Albacore Tuna: Higher at around 0.8–1.0 grams per 3-ounce serving.
• Ahi Tuna (Yellowfin): Roughly 0.3–0.5 grams per 3-ounce serving.

While albacore tuna delivers more omega-3s, it also presents a higher mercury risk, prompting health-conscious consumers to tread cautiously.

In comparison, canned salmon—typically made from sockeye or pink salmon—consistently boasts higher omega-3 content:

• Sockeye Salmon: About 1.0–1.2 grams per 3-ounce serving.
• Pink Salmon: Ranging from 0.7–1.0 grams per 3-ounce serving.

Salmon not only trumps tuna in omega-3 content but also tends to have lower mercury levels, making it a safer choice for those wary of contaminants.

Beyond Omega-3s: A Nutritional Breakdown

Several other nutritional factors come into play when comparing these two canned options.

1. Mercury Levels: Tuna generally has higher mercury levels, which can pose health risks, particularly for pregnant women, infants, and children. Salmon is often a safer option.

2. Protein Content: Tuna typically boasts around 22–24 grams of protein per serving, slightly higher compared to salmon, which offers about 17–20 grams.

3. Sodium: For individuals monitoring sodium intake, both fish are available in low-sodium varieties.

4. Price: Light tuna can cost about $1–2 per can, making it a more budget-friendly option compared to canned salmon, which ranges from $3–5.

5. Antioxidants: Salmon also contains astaxanthin, a powerful antioxidant that not only supports skin health but may also help reduce inflammation.

6. Vitamin D: Salmon is rich in vitamin D, providing nearly double the amount found in tuna, essential for bone health and immune function.

Making the Choice

Choosing between canned tuna and salmon largely depends on your dietary goals. If your primary aim is to increase omega-3 intake while minimizing mercury exposure, salmon emerges as the clear victor. For those on a budget or seeking higher protein content, canned tuna remains an excellent alternative.

Dietitians recommend incorporating both into your diet to maximize health benefits while keeping meals exciting. “Mix it up,” suggests nutrition expert Samantha DeVito, “Toss canned tuna in a salad and use salmon in grain bowls for optimal variety.”

Conclusion

Both canned tuna and salmon offer accessible and nutritious sources of protein and healthy fats. While salmon edges out tuna in omega-3 content and mercury safety, tuna is an appealing option for its higher protein per serving and cost-effectiveness. Ultimately, varying your choices ensures a well-rounded diet and allows you to enjoy the myriad flavors and health benefits these versatile fish provide.