I don't understand food.

It's a complex thing, food. I used to think if it was edible, it was okay to eat. Clearly, though, there is so much more to the concept of nutrition. Being that I was a chubby kid, I guess it makes sense that I had a "if it's in front of my face and it tastes good, I can eat it" mentality when it came to my diet. I have this memory of a family movie night when I was about 9 or 10 years old, and my parents opened a bag of miniature Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, my dad's most cherished treat. We passed that bag of candy around the room while watching a movie, and whenever it got to me I'd just think, "There is probably a reason why I should stop myself from eating more of this stuff but it's sooo good." Piece after piece after piece of chocolatey peanut butter candy found its way into my mouth.

Now that I'm older, I understand that willpower is vital when it comes to food. Of course there are foods that should be limited or even avoided altogether, and other foods that should be consumed often, even daily.  The problem is I don't know which are which.

If you are breathing, then you probably know that there are a lot, a LOT, of "diets" out there, all with varying rules to supposedly lead the dieter to health. My issue is that opposite diets claim to be healthy, to be the end all be all of how you should be eating. And to me, some of these diets, even ones that tell you to do nearly opposite things, kind of make sense in their own ways. For instance, vegetarianism seems right in that you would limit foods with animal products and fat, opting for leaner options with lots of vegetables and whole grains. But consider the paleolithic diet, a lifestyle that promotes the consumption of mostly animal products and unprocessed foods. Eating THAT way makes sense, too, and if you look into both of these diets you will read about all kinds of health benefits of each, all with reasonable arguments and even studies to back them up. What the hell? These two diets are very different, but both are "right"?

Should I be worrying about saturated fat and cholesterol, or too many carbs/gluten/processed foods? Which is actually going to kill me? And, does a "all things in moderation" approach work" Because, see, in the case of these two diets, each seems to claim that it's an all-or-nothing things. You touch  meat, you're going to have a heart attack. If you eat a bite of that pasta, you might as well start writing your will now. So who's right?

That's where I am, at this confusing crossroads of nutrition. And of course, those are only two examples of ways to eat. What about the other ones, too?  Is there one ultimately "right" one? These are the things I've been wondering lately. I have no conclusion, sadly, but I'm in the process of trying to work out a plan that I feel is good. Not necessarily "right," but good enough. Because I don't know if I'll ever find the answer.