
So I started ordering these things waaay to much from the cafe that is located devilishly close to my house. Much deliciousness, and a lot of wasted money over time. Which is why I was pumped to find these Nescafe HomeCafe packets last week.
So, the other day I was standing in the kitchen waiting for my milk to heat up in the microwave to have a matcha latte, and as one does, I was absentmindedly reading the back of the box. There was the usual stuff about "enjoying the rich taste in the comfort of your own home blah blah blah". But what caught my eye was the beige box on the right.
If your Japanese isn't quite up to speed, allow me to translate."According to daily requirements, desserts and sweet drinks should be kept to about 200 calories to maintain a good dietary balance. So use the calorie chart well and control your sweets."
What stuck out to me was that in all my years of writing about this stuff, reading labels, and checking calories, I have never heard such a clear and unambiguous statement about how many calories of sweets a person should eat.
200 calories of sweets a day. What could be simpler? Combine this with the Nutrition Information on the back of packaging and the increasingly mandatory posting of calorie content at restaurants, and you've got a pretty foolproof way to keep your desserts and treats under control.
I'm no fan of counting calories (as you can read in this post) but the 200 calories number is certainly much better than the vague and unhelpful advice I grew up with. Remember this old chart?

This is what I learned as a kid. What a mess. As many have noted, it puts sugars and sweets at the top of the pyramid, denoting their more desirable status, and includes dairy as a mandatory food group for a healthy life, Ignoring the billions of Asian people that get along just fine without it every day, often with longer lifespans than milk drinkers, but I digress. Back to the sweets.
What does use sparingly mean? I could eat 12 Milano cookies, but I'll eat sparingly and only have 6. At 60 Calories a cookie that's 360 Calories, nearly two days worth of sweets in one go.
Other food pyramids try to break the sweets down into servings. They'll say something like "Sugars and Fats, 0-3 servings a day." What the hell does that mean? There's a pretty big difference between 0 and 3 servings of Ben and Jerry's Chocolate Ice Cream (a 750 calorie difference to be exact)
So, a few years back the USDA redesigned the food pyramid. This is what they came up with:
Sigh... I get what they were aiming for. All the pieces of your diet work together, along with exercise, to create a "healthier you". (It looks like the dairy lobby got an even bigger slice of the pie this time.) So what have they done with the sweets? Can't find them? That's because they aren't there. That's right. The USDA, faced with the vexing problem of how to advise people about what to do with the candies, colas, and desserts, just decided to skip over them completely. Too bad no one else is skipping them...If you tunnel down deep on the MyPyramid.gov webpage you can extract the following advice.
"For example, assume your calorie budget is 2,000 calories per day. Of these calories, you need to spend at least 1,735 calories for essential nutrients, if you choose foods without added fat and sugar. Then you have 265 discretionary calories left. You may use these on “luxury” versions of the foods in each group, such as higher fat meat or sweetened cereal. Or, you can spend them on sweets, sauces, or beverages. Many people overspend their discretionary calorie allowance, choosing more added fats, sugars, and alcohol than their budget allows."
So, there you have it, we're back where we started. For someone with a healthy, balanced diet, about 200 calories of sweets a day isn't a big deal. It seems that they are so scared of saying "it's ok to have sweets" that they choose instead to obfuscate this information and gloss over the whole issue of how many sugar calories a person can safely consume. If more people had the number 200 calories in their head they'd be a lot better off than all these vague and cloaked descriptions buried on web pages.
So, why isn't the 200 calories of sweets a day number more out there? Because it's a very inconvenient number. Getting back to cafes, if you were to seriously stick to the 200 calorie number, and went into a Starbucks, more than 2/3rds of the drinks would be off the table from the word go. (Check for yourself if you're so inclined) And you can forget the baked goods case.
The same goes for most candy bars, desserts, colas, and anything else that would fall in the "sweets" category. Once you really see the numbers, you'll realize that 200 is not very many calories. It means you can have ONE small indulgence a day, and that's it. If you have a sugared breakfast cereal, you're done for the day, even more than 12 hours later that night when you're craving something sweet after dinner. ONE bowl of cereal. ONE muffin. ONE candy bar. ONE mocha. One a day, and unless you're active, even that's pushing it. If you're going for really excellent condition like people who join the PCP, then you need to dial that back to one a month. I know, the truth hurts!
Here's the bottom line. These industries do not want you to know about the 200 Calorie a day mark. Because you might just buy less of their product. This is also why they don't want to post their calories. So people do their best to eat what they think is a proper amount, not knowing that even on a good day they've blown their diet in some serious ways, and find after a few years the fat is really getting piled on.
It doesn't have to be this way. In fact, you'll note that the matcha latte box with its very accurate and helpful nutrition information was made by evil international mega corporation Nestle. But only in Japan. Why?
I can think of three reasons.
1. The average Japanese consumer isn't buying a ton of extra sugar calories every day. They tend to, excuse the phrase, eat them sparingly. Perhaps this makes the package designers a little more likely to include helpful information without the worry of impacting number of units sold.
2. Being overweight is considered a serious condition in Japan. Everyone employed at a company over 30 years of age is required to have a check up at least once every 5 years. Over 40 is once a year. If your weight creeps up past a certain point, you're diagnosed with "Metabolic Syndrome," which is just a scary way of saying, "Hey, you're fat." People "diagnosed" with Metabolic Syndrome are required to see a counselor who gives them information and strategies to get the fat down. One of which is paying attention to calories. Hence, packaging that provides extra information is considered more valuable. (By the way, the Japanese diagnosed with Metabolic Syndrome look like about the same weight as the average American, to me at least.)
3. Going out on a limb here, I'd say that Japanese society in general is more community oriented than the US, and that someone at Nestle Japan just thought it would be useful to society for them to put a little reminder on the back of the box not to over-indulge. Hard to prove this one either way but I'll put it out there as a subtle background influence.
This is not aggrandize Japan or trash other countries, it's to say that there is another way. We can be knowledgeable about what we put into our bodies without being health nuts, and we can design systems that help us stay trim and fit without having to scour the internet for nutrition content.
Try the 200 calories of sweets a day thing for a week or two, and see how much easier it is to moderate your treats when you have a reasonable idea about what moderation looks like.
And USDA, if you design another food pyramid in the future, give me a call first! I whipped one up in 5 minutes which is more accurate and easier to understand than yours.








