Comparison

THE FAD vs. Raw Food Diet

A partly accurate premise, a genuinely overlapping food list, and a real planning risk.

Raw foodism centres on eating foods uncooked or minimally heated, often justified by the claim that cooking destroys valuable enzymes and nutrients. This is only partly accurate — cooking does reduce some nutrients (like vitamin C) but actually increases the availability of others (like lycopene in tomatoes and beta-carotene in carrots).

DimensionRaw Food DietTHE FAD
Core ruleFoods uncooked (or only lightly heated below roughly 40-48°C), largely plant-basedNo cooking restriction — scores foods however they're prepared
Claimed rationaleCooking is said to destroy beneficial enzymes and nutrients — a claim that's only partly supportedDoesn't rely on this specific claim; cooking actually increases the bioavailability of some nutrients (like lycopene in tomatoes)
Practical riskCan be difficult to get adequate protein, vitamin B12, iron and calcium without careful planningNo inherent nutrient risk, since no food category is excluded

Where it genuinely overlaps with THE FAD

A raw diet built around vegetables, fruit, nuts and seeds naturally emphasises whole, unprocessed foods — categories that score well on THE FAD's Food signal, independent of the raw-vs-cooked question.

The practical nutrition gap

Strict raw veganism in particular carries real risk of protein, B12, iron and calcium shortfalls without careful planning — a legitimate concern separate from the inflammation question, and one worth discussing with a dietitian if you're considering it long-term.

See your own comparison

The best way to understand the difference is to see what a real day scores.

Try the calculator