being realistic

Most of weight loss is sorting your diet out - exercise is good for keeping your muscles in good condition so you don't lose it while you're eating at a deficit, if that makes sense.

So if you're not losing weight and you're counting all the calories reallllly carefully, I'd say reduce your calories by 100 per day for a month and see what happens.

I don't know how old your kiddo is but could you put him/her in a stroller and take a 30 minute walk each day?

I would start by saying, calorie counting is good as a guide, but only a guide.

If you have any health conditions this can affect how quick you burn things up, and how quick you digest them

Also sleep patterns, work, stress, all these things can have both major beneficial as well as disastrous consequences to weight loss/gain.

But the one thing I learnt as a diabetic is it is a lifestyle change for life, if you start something you can't see yourself doing in 10 years time, then don't start it, as moment you stop so do results then it kick in nuts and back to square one again.

So it better to start small, build up your fitness levels, doesnt matter if you loose weight at first, as long as you feel healthy.

Then once you find a daily/weekly/monthly routine that is comfy for you to handle, then gradually lower calories a little, and have your treats now and then, but make them part of your routine not as a cheat day, and over time the weight will drop, and it will stay off.

No such thing as a good diet, its a good lifestyle that works in end.

Diets only good if you need to loose a vast amount super quick say for a major health problem or surgery, where basically ya got no option.

I don't know how old your kiddo is but could you put him/her in a stroller and take a 30 minute walk each day?

Or if your kid is a bit older, take him/her out on their scooter for a bit? I'm sure I burn a lot of calories chasing my 3 and 5 year olds on their scooters.

I know people say that you can lose weight by diet alone, but personally I don't lose weight as effectively unless I exercise a lot. 20 mins of cardio isn't enough.

Obviously focusing on diet is important too, but for me I need to do both.

You cannot out exercise a poor diet. Nutrition should come first. Then exercise is second priority. I used to do 6 hours of elliptical a week. I did not eat enough and my muscle was taken for energy. Pic left of my profile I weight less but I am bigger than pic right by 15 pounds.

First, when you say weight, are you looking at a scale or measuring yourself? Measuring inches is the best way to gage loss of fat. Secondly, you have a child which is wonderful, just playing with them (picking them up and running around, etc) is burning calories with cardio. When your child goes to bed, do a little cardio before YOU go to bed.

Weight loss starts in the kitchen. Caloric deficit = weight loss.

So I'm guessing even though I'm guesstimating my portion sizes and all maybe I have to do more then thay and actually start measuring. I keep it pretty simple protein drink in the morning. PB & J do lunch with Greek yogurt and whatever my wife makes for dinner. .. Usually something with skinless chicken breast. Maybe even though I think I'm staying under my calorie intake its not that simple to just "guess" what the portion size is

Even measuring without weighing can lead to being off by as much as 10-50%, so just guessing may be 10-50+% off of what you are actually eating. without weighing solids or measuring liquids you will never know just how much you are actually eating.

I'm personally someone who needs to work out and eat better to see any result. In my opinion 20 mins of cardio is way to little. I'd at least be doing 30 mins if not 45. But you need to fit it in to your life style and don't try to force it or it becomes no fun. Hope that helps in the slightest. Good luck to you!

Regarding the workouts themselves, it depends on the goal. It is generally accepted that an interval of 15 minutes is the minimum for your body to use up its sugar reserves and start burning fat for weight loss. If heart health is your goal, you should do at least 30 minutes at 60-80% of your maximum heart rate most days of the week.

Is this true? Four, ten-minute intervals won't burn fat for weight loss?
I did basic web 'research' when I first started adding exercise to my life and doctors, scientists and trainers seemed to overwhelmingly state that 30 minutes is 30 minutes, whether broken up or done consecutively. I don't ask this to be snarky or pretend I have any answers, so I sincerely hope it doesn't come off that way. I'm genuinely curious if what I read was wrong.

OP- I'm not an expert, doctor, or trainer. Aside from all the very good advice here about working on diet first, I can tell you anecdotally that short intervals have been working for me. I credit diet first of course, but I've noticed marked improvements in my fitness abilities with even 10, 15 or 20 minutes at a time. When I first started, I couldn't run at a clip of more than 20 seconds at a time and even then my heart rate was extremely high. Now, I can run 15 minute sessions, with a much lower heart rate. In 5 months, I think I've only had two occasions where I've had 30 consecutive minutes of cardio. So keep it up. It may not be the golden ticket to wait loss, but that doesn't make it any less golden

Is it true? Not sure but I know if works for me. Not sure the poster's source but I first got this information from some Mackie Shilstone material I had. My lay-man interpretation is that the body feels a little threatened in the first few minutes of working out and does not burn as much fat from cardio (in case of emergency). However, when it gets accustomed to the idea that there is no threat, it starts to burn the fat stores. However, it takes a little while for the body to catch on. Talking here about the aerobic range and not the anaerobic range. If your heart rate is extremely high, then you're probably anaerobic.

I'm no nutritionalist or professional trainer so maybe someone with more knowledge can explain it better. I just know that it has worked for me time and time again. Maybe someone else's body has different results.

I have read that 60 min of cardio is often required for weight loss. 30 min 3 times a week for health, but up to 60 min a day for weight loss.

It never really made sense to me, unless it's based on some sort of satiety index or statistics. How much you need to burn to lose should be proportional to how much you consume.

Regarding the workouts themselves, it depends on the goal. It is generally accepted that an interval of 15 minutes is the minimum for your body to use up its sugar reserves and start burning fat for weight loss. If heart health is your goal, you should do at least 30 minutes at 60-80% of your maximum heart rate most days of the week.

Is this true? Four, ten-minute intervals won't burn fat for weight loss?
I did basic web 'research' when I first started adding exercise to my life and doctors, scientists and trainers seemed to overwhelmingly state that 30 minutes is 30 minutes, whether broken up or done consecutively. I don't ask this to be snarky or pretend I have any answers, so I sincerely hope it doesn't come off that way. I'm genuinely curious if what I read was wrong.

OP- I'm not an expert, doctor, or trainer. Aside from all the very good advice here about working on diet first, I can tell you anecdotally that short intervals have been working for me. I credit diet first of course, but I've noticed marked improvements in my fitness abilities with even 10, 15 or 20 minutes at a time. When I first started, I couldn't run at a clip of more than 20 seconds at a time and even then my heart rate was extremely high. Now, I can run 15 minute sessions, with a much lower heart rate. In 5 months, I think I've only had two occasions where I've had 30 consecutive minutes of cardio. So keep it up. It may not be the golden ticket to wait loss, but that doesn't make it any less golden

1) You don't really need to exercise to lose weight. Where it's really relevant is for optimal cardiovascular health.

2) The "burning fats" vs. "burning sugars" is irrelevant through the course of a day. Your body needs x calories per day to maintain its weight, and if it receives less than that, it will go through its reserves. Adding 60 minutes of exercise will add to that x whether you do it in 5-minute intervals spread through the day or all at once, thus causing you to go through the reserves faster. It does tend to go through the sugars first, but it will go through those before it starts burning fat whether you're exercising or sitting watching TV.

I have read that 60 min of cardio is often required for weight loss. 30 min 3 times a week for health, but up to 60 min a day for weight loss.

It never really made sense to me, unless it's based on some sort of satiety index or statistics. How much you need to burn to lose should be proportional to how much you consume.

That is where the 15 minutes to start to burn calories comes in. Apparently that is how long it takes to use up the sugar stored in your system, then you start burning fat and how much fat you burn after that 15 minutes depends on your starting weight, the intensity, the length of exercise, etc. and you continue to burn for a time after unless you add fuel to the body. Someone with more education in this can probably confirm/give specifics/ etc.

Really, folks, losing weight is all in how much you eat vs how much you expend. No need to give information you don't know to be true.

Yes it is, and we are discussing the expend side of the equation.