Although I don't do it out of need, I still count calories and one of the reasons I love this Kingsmill loaf, apart from it's texture, is the fact that there are only 47 calories per slice. But why do others like this loaf, or do they? Do people prefer to have the crusts on their bread/toast? For a 400g loaf, the cost of this bread is, in most supermarkets, £1.25 for the 50/50, which is the one I eat, lovely with vegetable pate! A delicious meal for a vegetarian. It is, supposedly, more healthy to eat a loaf which is half and half, yet they are making us pay through the nose to do so, while one can purchase a store's own brand thick sliced white loaf for a third of the price. If a family is on a tight budget, chances are they will plump for the 'unhealthy', calorie - laden option.

It's only got less calories because the slices are smaller than a standard white loaf. There's very little difference in the weight-for-weight calorie count of bread between types and brands.

Kingsmill is no better or healthier than supermarket own brands and the amount of fibre in a couple of slices of their half and half loaf would make no noticeable difference to someone's daily diet.

I don't eat KIngsmill - much prefer either Rankin's Soda Bread or Tesco's own brand one.

I was thinking of giving it a go but the crust is the best bit.

I was wondering what they do with the crust? I hope they don't throw it out.

Exactly! It's rather amusing people still fall for this gumpf. In the same way 'healthy' crisps only have less calories because they contain about 5 crisps in each bag.

Some of the crusted loafs, 400g like Hovis wheatgerm or standard wholemeal are only 57 calories and are only 65-75p.

What you're doing isn't really counting calories as much as it's throwing calories in the bin.

Worrying about how many calories a single slice of thin bread has is a bit obsessive.

If you prefere the taste and lightness of it, that's the most important thing.