Where Does Your City Rank On This List Of The Fittest Places To Live In The U.S.?

ADVERTISEMENT

If you love competition but hate exercise, boy the American College Of Sports Medicine has the perfect gift for you and your glorious dadbod. In partnership with the Anthem Foundation, they released their 9th annual American Fitness Index, ranking the most fit metropolitan areas in the U.S. If your city’s performance is disappointing, you might want to think about going into politics because Washington, D.C. won. While you might be tempted to blame Michelle Obama’s buff arms for your city’s loss, it’s more complicated than that.

According the the methodology, the real reason the capital won out has more to do low smoking rates and a good public transportation (and possibly a government conspiracy). Rankings were based on that, as well as a variety of other public health factors like access to parks and recreational facilities. This partially explains other top ranked areas, such as Minneapolis-St. Paul, Denver, Portland and San Francisco. Midwestern and southern cities (where driving is synonymous with eating) made up the bottom 5, including Nashville, Memphis, Louisville, Oklahoma City and Indianapolis. Then again, did you want to live where people are fit, or did you want to live somewhere with epic barbecue?

Read More

 

Before you up and move the family, take a second to cross-reference the list with our Top Cities For Kids To Play Outside. There’s a fair bit of crossover — D.C, Minneapolis, Denver, and Boston make the top 10 on both lists — but there are some discrepancies as well. For example, San Francisco is number 5 on the Fitness Index but only 11 on the Top Cities For Kids, and the average home price is $1.36 million. But Lincoln, NE, which is 4th on the Top Cities For Kids, doesn’t even make the Fitness Index, and the median home price there is just $148,900.

Don’t worry, the kids are going to be huge Salt Dogs fans.

[H/T] USA Today

Get Fatherly In Your Inbox