+Chirayu (since we've discussed this at length many times before)
<snip some stuff about Salba being mostly just marketing>
The USDA Nutrient Database does have an entry for chia seeds:
The "18:3" entry is the omega-3, alpha-linolenic acid. You can compare it directly to flaxseed to see that chia does contain more 18:3, at least according to the USDA:
Compared to bran, it depends on what kind of bran. Crude wheat bran actually has more fiber per 100g than chia seeds:
but who eats that. And processed wheat bran, such as Post Shredded Wheat 'n Bran has less fiber than chia seeds:
On the protein front comparing chia seeds to soy, it again depends on what's being compared. The USDA says raw soy is actually much more protein rich per 100g, but who eats that. And processed soy products are much lower in protein, often lower than raw chia seeds, but I didn't check them all.
So to the extent that dietary fiber is heart healthy, chia seeds are an excellent choice, and the organic raw, unprocessed kind are definitely the best. The whole, raw seeds have basically no flavor, and that to me is the biggest selling point for chia seeds. Flax seeds add a weird nutty flavor to everything, and you have to grind them to make the nutrition bioavailable. Whether chia seed is cost effective is a different question. Last year, I was pretty sure that chia seeds were more expensive than taking supplements, but they were more convenient and a raw, whole food (no processing or cooking). But at today's prices, I think chia seeds are cheaper than the equivalent supplements - Chirayu knows lots more about this. Flaxseed is cheaper per pound than chia seed, but the flavor takes some getting used to, and you have a grinder to clean before the oils go rancid. Chia seeds don't need to be refrigerated when stored - a benefit compared to most soy products - and its shelf life is a lot longer than flaxseed.
And history says the Aztec's loved chia seeds. But I haven't found one yet to ask what they really think.
