How to let go of mothering grown kids?

KxMx

No way would I do a online shop for him.

He is able to get healthier food for himself but chooses not to. As an adult that is his right.

Mothering/smothering grown up kids can have two outcomes, neither desirable for the parent. Either they (reasonably) expect you to sort out all their messes and run round after them now and forever more, or they escape from your attentions as soon as possible and the parent ends up missing out!

pigpen

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

There must be some massive, serious exaggeration here.

10 stone lost in one term - call it 3 months, 90 days, for ease of calculation.

To lose a lb of fat, you need to take in 3,500 fewer calories than you need.

To lose 10 stone of fat, you need to take in 10 x 14 x 3,500 fewer calories than you need, or 490,000 calories in total.

490,000 calories divided by 90 days means that he would have had to consume 5,444 calories per day less than he was taking in. Even if he'd eaten nothing, not one single calorie in that university term, that would still mean he'd have been burning energy like someone trekking to the North Pole, not a student.

Clearly wrong.

Why would I need to exaggerate?? You really need to get something important to do.

and a semester is actually more like 5 months.. but you'd know that because you are so perfect right?

You'll tell me next my mother didn't lose 3 stone in 6 weeks no doubt.

motherofstudents

You can never stop 'mothering' him because you are his mother, however, I think you need to let him choose his own way of life. I'd probably give him a box of groceries when he goes back and leave it at that. It's a hard transition, I know it took me a while to get through it but now I realise they are adults and they are their own people. Doesn't mean you don't worry, you just keep it to yourself.

neverdespairgirl

pigpen wrote: »

Why would I need to exaggerate?? You really need to get something important to do.

and a semester is actually more like 5 months.. but you'd know that because you are so perfect right?

You'll tell me next my mother didn't lose 3 stone in 6 weeks no doubt.

It still doesn't add up. Over 5 months, he'd still have needed to burn 3266 calories a day more than he had taken in, which is just very, very unlikely.

Lots of women might lose 3 stone in 6 weeks - they give birth!

pigpen

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It still doesn't add up. Over 5 months, he'd still have needed to burn 3266 calories a day more than he had taken in, which is just very, very unlikely.

Lots of women might lose 3 stone in 6 weeks - they give birth!

At 60 and 25 years after a hysterectomy giving birth is unlikely I'd say.

ciderwithrosie_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It still doesn't add up. Over 5 months, he'd still have needed to burn 3266 calories a day more than he had taken in, which is just very, very unlikely.

Lots of women might lose 3 stone in 6 weeks - they give birth!

Seriously, I've lost a stone in a week before now, when I've done VLCD.

neverdespairgirl

ciderwithrosie wrote: »

Seriously, I've lost a stone in a week before now, when I've done VLCD.

Yes, but that would be the first week of the VLCD, and most of it would have been glycogen.

If you stuck to the VLCD, you'd expect to lose about 1 stone a month, therefore, say, 2 stone in month one, a stone month from then on, that wouldn't make you lose 10 stone in 5 months.

And you can't get much less than a VLCD - it's not called a "very low calorie diet" for the fun of it!

valk_scot

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Yes, but that would be the first week of the VLCD, and most of it would have been glycogen.

If you stuck to the VLCD, you'd expect to lose about 1 stone a month, therefore, say, 2 stone in month one, a stone month from then on, that wouldn't make you lose 10 stone in 5 months.

And you can't get much less than a VLCD - it's not called a "very low calorie diet" for the fun of it!

It also depends on how much exercise you do. I've gone on big cycling holidays where I've absolutely stuffed my face and still lost half a stone in a week. It depends on how many calories you're burning baseline too, a 20 stone man will need about 2200 calories a day just to stay the same weight while sitting down, and he'll use up more calories than say an 8 stone man doing a set amount of any activity. And men lose weight faster than women due to the muscle-fat proportions, which is bloomin' unfair imho!

So over five months, if said bloke suddenly gets very active and cuts his calories to a low level, he'll actually lose weight extremely fast. Two stone a month does sound a lot and it's probably not healthy to be lossing so fast but I think it's perfectly possible given the right set of circumstances. He's probably going to have very baggy skin for a while though if he's young enough it will mostly tighten up again.

pigpen

valk_scot wrote: »

It also depends on how much exercise you do. I've gone on big cycling holidays where I've absolutely stuffed my face and still lost half a stone in a week. It depends on how many calories you're burning baseline too, a 20 stone man will need about 2200 calories a day just to stay the same weight while sitting down, and he'll use up more calories than say an 8 stone man doing a set amount of any activity. And men lose weight faster than women due to the muscle-fat proportions, which is bloomin' unfair imho!

So over five months, if said bloke suddenly gets very active and cuts his calories to a low level, he'll actually lose weight extremely fast. Two stone a month does sound a lot and it's probably not healthy to be lossing so fast but I think it's perfectly possible given the right set of circumstances. He's probably going to have very baggy skin for a while though if he's young enough it will mostly tighten up again.

Exactly!

He also went from being driven everywhere to jogging to uni because he was always running late, walking back then walking/jogging other places such as library and shops and working a job which required being on his feet a lot (restaurant/bar work as students do) Then we factor in the copious amounts of strong coffee.

There wasn't much muscle to him at all but many 20 year old men aren't hugely muscular.

It is heck of a lot of weight to lose which is why I mentioned it as an example for the OP. It wasn't healthy I am certain but he survived and came out the other end and at 35 is a normal sized healthy man.