Ten minutes to write. Less time to read.

When I was fourteen I went to Europe with my grandmother for seven weeks and returned home fifteen pounds heavier than when I’d left. That was cause for my first introduction to dieting. Back then, calories were the way one approached losing weight. You had to eat fewer calories than you expended each day; and when you’d eaten approximately 3500 less than your body needed, one pound disappeared.

The same basic math holds true today, but dieting itself has become more complicated. First, like so many things in our modern culture, there’s the concept of personal choice. You are supposed to pick the diet that works for you, just as you pick a baked potato, rice pilaf, or curly fries.

I’m confused.

In my teen years, Sugar was the main culprit for weight gain, but by the end of the twentieth century Fat had become the villain. Now we are barely into the twenty-first century and Carbs have emerged as the villains of all villains. Even the big fast food chains are offering breadless burgers.

I always thought too much fat wasn’t good for you, particularly if high cholesterol or a family history of colon cancer clung to your genes. I also thought carbs were good, particularly if you were preparing for a marathon or some other equally strenuous exercise. Now, Atkins devotees say they are bad and fat is good.

However, the real issue isn’t about substituting fat for carbs or sugar for fat. Rather, it’s about how much one can eat and still lose weight. We seem to forget those every-present, although-currently-in-hiding, calories; and it seems to me that replacing carbs with fat doesn’t address this issue.

My current diet regime – whenever I decide to go on one — is pretty simple. I cut my carbs in half, keep fat to a healthy level, and have fresh fruit when a sugar craving occurs. Most often, my fruit is a juicy lime . . . floating face up . . . in my before-dinner cocktail.