PDA

View Full Version : The Most and Least Active Cities in America



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

genevieve
06-28-2011, 10:09 PM
I'm surprised Portland OR isn't higher than 15

Allskate
06-28-2011, 10:13 PM
...and those cities in the bottom of the list are ungodly hot.

I'm sure weather becomes a factor, but San Francisco and Seattle are both very rainy cities. They are, however, also both highly walkable cities with great parks and hiking.


I was just in Seattle and San Francisco last week, and my parents and I both noticed that the percentage of overweight people there was very, very low.

I think the food cultures in both cities are very different from the cities at the bottom of the list. Fried food isn't very big in Seattle or San Francisco. I don't think I've ever lived in a city that has as few chain fast food places as San Francisco does. There's lots of healthier take-out and restaurant options, small produce shops and farmers markets all over the city, and people just tend to eat healthier food.

DarrellH
06-28-2011, 10:18 PM
I'm sure weather becomes a factor, but San Francisco and Seattle are both very rainy cities. They are, however, also both highly walkable cities with great parks and hiking.



I think the food cultures in both cities are very different from the cities at the bottom of the list. Fried food isn't very big in Seattle or San Francisco. I don't think I've ever lived in a city that has as few chain fast food places as San Francisco does. There's lots of healthier take-out and restaurant options, small produce shops and farmers markets all over the city, and people just tend to eat healthier food.


More things in the South are fried, just for the sake of being fried. It's ingrained in the public mindset.

GarrAarghHrumph
06-28-2011, 10:23 PM
I've noticed in a lot of new development, and I've especially noticed this in the newer developed areas of the south, there's no way to walk - there are no sidewalks. In the part of Florida where my dad lives, you'd take your life into your hands to walk any distance from his house, due to traffic and lack of sidewalks.

ChelleC
06-28-2011, 11:56 PM
Only in the summer. They're quite nice in the winter.




Lexington is quite nice in the winter???? That's news to me. :lol:

Sparks
06-29-2011, 12:10 AM
Lexington is quite nice in the winter???? That's news to me. :lol:

Same for Oklahoma City. :confused:

Anita18
06-29-2011, 12:46 AM
It's all the hills :lol:
Indeed. My sister lives in SF and in order to get to her apartment, she has to walk up a ton of stairs as well. No elevator. :lol:

The lack of space may also be a factor. When everything is more narrow, it's simply more inconvenient to be fat. Where I live, the "garage" is so small that you CANNOT be fat and be able to get out of your car once you've parked. Even I have trouble sometimes and I don't weigh enough to give blood. :rofl: Of course, depends on the size of the car - I have a Civic and if one wanted to park a SmartCar there, you'd definitely have more leeway in your girth. :P

Beefcake
06-29-2011, 01:05 AM
I'm surprised Portland OR isn't higher than 15
Pfffft, don't pretend ya didn't know that it's a damn national LAW that Portland must be atop any "Best of" list! :2faced:

No matter how insignificant ... it's probably winning "best city for prettiest garden gnomes" as I type.

But, seriously, this type of study (or poll or whatever it is) give a loose idea about reality, but we all know that they also tend to be random in their criteria ... and tend to ebb and flow according to city and regional perception and reputation.

((( Indianapolis )))

genevieve
06-29-2011, 01:14 AM
Pfffft, don't pretend ya didn't know that it's a damn national LAW that Portland must be atop any "Best of" list! :2faced:

No matter how insignificant ... it's probably winning "best city for prettiest garden gnomes" as I type.


Well, except that they're not here :lol:

Seattle is!!! :cheer2:

MacMadame
06-29-2011, 01:27 AM
I'm sure weather becomes a factor, but San Francisco and Seattle are both very rainy cities.

I think it depends on what you mean by SF. If you only include the city, you get more rain, but significantly less than Seattle (average 20 in. for SF, 30-ish for Seattle). But if you are talking about the entire metropolitan area, then it's not really that rainy. And most of the rain happens during the rainy season. So, for example, the triathlon season runs April through Sept but there are races as early as Feb and as late as Oct. Rain is rarely a factor on race day.

What I find odd is that SF and Oakland -- two metropolitan areas that bump into each other are 2&3 but San Jose, the 3rd metropolitan area that also bumps up against SF and Oakland, isn't even in the top 10, but is down in 17. I can assure you that the entire area has pretty much the same level of physical activity. In fact, I see more biking in San Jose than SF because it's so hilly in SF and also biking is more dangerous.

Gazpacho
06-29-2011, 01:43 AM
In the part of Florida where my dad lives, you'd take your life into your hands to walk any distance from his house, due to traffic and lack of sidewalks.This is a huge problem. There are many places where you can't walk because of safety, either traffic safety or neighborhood safety.

The level of physical activity has a lot to do with urban planning and infrastructure. When successful, you increase physical activity without conscious effort. New Yorkers don't tend to walk for exercise. They walk to get places. When you're scurrying to work in the morning, the fact that you're exercising doesn't even cross your mind.


I'm sure weather becomes a factor, but San Francisco and Seattle are both very rainy cities. Seattle yes, but San Francisco is only rainy during one season. Otherwise, San Francisco has some of the best weather anywhere in the world.


What I find odd is that SF and Oakland -- two metropolitan areas that bump into each other are 2&3 but San Jose, the 3rd metropolitan area that also bumps up against SF and Oakland, isn't even in the top 10, but is down in 17. I can assure you that the entire area has pretty much the same level of physical activity. In fact, I see more biking in San Jose than SF because it's so hilly in SF and also biking is more dangerous.But people in San Jose watch more TV and buy more video games, and that's apparently a measure of physical activity :P


Lexington is quite nice in the winter???? That's news to me. :lol:Compared to several places on the most active list, it's very nice.


More things in the South are fried, just for the sake of being fried.I disagree. More things in the South are fried because fried tastes good! :D

Prancer
06-29-2011, 01:47 AM
Seattle's reputation for rain in a little overstated. Buffalo is the rainiest city in the US in terms of days of average rainfall. Even Cleveland averages more rainy days in a year than Seattle--156 to 154.

Then there's the fact that it when it rains in Seattle, it's more of a drizzle than a downpour, which is why Seattle doesn't even come close to being one of the cities with the most rainfall.

MacMadame
06-29-2011, 01:49 AM
But people in San Jose watch more TV and buy more video games, and that's apparently a measure of physical activity :P
That's probably the difference. Being that SJ includes Silicon Valley. I couldn't figure out how each city got it's score though from reading the article.

Anyway, it's dumb. The whole area is pretty much equally active.

FiveRinger
06-29-2011, 01:49 AM
People argue here about which fat tastes better: bacon or butter. And exercise is walking from the car to the train. Maybe I should move!!

chipso1
06-29-2011, 01:57 AM
Minneapolis has awful weather practically all year, yet they're among the most active. (I still don't buy the criteria, but going along with it). I wonder if active includes shoveling snow? :)

Except it was completely sunny and 82 degrees here today. :D We had a tough winter, but this week (and hopefully the rest of the summer) is shaping up to be gorgeous!

ETA: I think Minneapolis/St. Paul is also helped by the high number of people who bike around here: "Minneapolis named #1 bike-friendly city" (http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/altreport/2010/04/minneapolis-named-1-bike-friendly-city-beats-austin-portland.html)