PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Gazpacho
06-29-2011, 02:04 AM
When you look at the whole list, it's striking that the bottom half of the list is almost entirely in red states. Only four of the bottom half are in what I consider solidly blue states. The top half of the list is mixed, maybe slightly more blue, but not a big difference. But the bottom half is strikingly red.

I don't have a good explanation for this pattern, just pointing it out.

ChelleC
06-29-2011, 03:42 AM
Compared to several places on the most active list, it's very nice.


I'll be sure to remember that during the next ice storm. ;)

Aaron W
06-29-2011, 04:31 AM
I'm kind of surprised to see D.C. on the list of most actives. You definitely see a good amount of heavy people around town.

Most of the heavy people are tourists from the southern US and Midwest (or politicians from those regions). ;)

Seriously though, I'm not surprised to see DC high up on the list. The city has installed bicycle tracks on many streets and has a tremendously popular bike sharing program called CaBi. The dense urbanity of the city allows many residents the opportunity to either walk to work or walk to the Metro, as well as walk to many bars, restaurants, shopping, and entertainment venues. And the high number of 20 & 30-somethings seem to be very gym-focused, at least moreso than any other city in which I've lived (Columbus, Houston, and Chicago).

vesperholly
06-29-2011, 06:08 AM
Buffalo is the rainiest city in the US in terms of days of average rainfall.

Is that overall precip — snow and rain? Because according to this site (http://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/US/wettest-cities.php), we're top in precip but not in the top 15 for rainfall. Most overcast/least sunny days, Buffalo'd be fighting for the win.

However, we are NOT the snowiest! :cold: That honor belongs to ... Rochester. :shuffle: :lol:

manhn
06-29-2011, 06:17 AM
Never been so I have no basis for this, but I never got the impression that Atlanta and Reno were particularly "healthy". Is Reno that much different from Vegas (which I have been to)?

Allskate
06-29-2011, 06:26 AM
Never been so I have no basis for this, but I never got the impression that Atlanta and Reno were particularly "healthy". Is Reno that much different from Vegas (which I have been to)?

Reno is very different from Vegas. Reno is in the Sierra foothills. You can get to ski slopes in less than half an hour. Squaw Valley is less than an hour away. Lots of snowshoeing, hiking, golfing, boating, etc., in the area. A lot of people move there because they want that kind of active lifestyle.

Kasey
06-29-2011, 06:27 AM
Living in Reno, I can say, what the heck? Number 6 of "most active cities"? Um, yeah, that's news to me. (We are close to Tahoe, and we certainly have our share of skiing in the winter, hiking in the summer, as well as water sports, but really??)

Japanfan
06-29-2011, 06:29 AM
Never been so I have no basis for this, but I never got the impression that Atlanta and Reno were particularly "healthy". Is Reno that much different from Vegas (which I have been to)?

I haven't been to Vegas but my experience of Reno isn't that it is a healthy city at all. There's hardly anyone walking around out side and no bike routes that I noticed - true, it does get extremely hot in the summer - but I was struck by the absence of people on the streets in springtime and summer evenings. In my neighbourhood there are always people out for walks, people with dogs, elderly people taking strolls, and such. Even in the rain. Many of them are Chinese, so perhaps Chinese people are generally more exercise conscious? And there are bikers everywhere you go.

Plus, Reno is full of Mexican food and casinos. When my sister-in-law and her husband go out for an evening, they go to the casino and collect complimentary points which they then use in casino restaurants, which is usually the typical Mexican fare of way too much rice and refried beans, with options like fried Mars bars for dessert.

Cyn
06-29-2011, 06:34 AM
Never been so I have no basis for this, but I never got the impression that Atlanta and Reno were particularly "healthy". Is Reno that much different from Vegas (which I have been to)?

I can't speak for Reno, but I can easily see how Atlanta is in the Top 10. In the city itself and in the immediate suburbs, the frequency of people running and/or walking is quite high, not to mention the number of people who work out either on their own or at the gym or fitness centers.

In the most outward suburbs and into the rural areas, however, it's another story. I've lived in both areas in Georgia, and after moving away from Atlanta, I was more than a little surprised at the difference in the number of people I see out and about or hear about exercising or working out.

Allskate
06-29-2011, 06:40 AM
Living in Reno, I can say, what the heck? Number 6 of "most active cities"? Um, yeah, that's news to me. (We are close to Tahoe, and we certainly have our share of skiing in the winter, hiking in the summer, as well as water sports, but really??)

Yeah. Number 6 doesn't make sense. But, Reno definitely is different from Vegas. And, when I lived there, neither I nor my friends were spending our time at the casinos. Most of the casinos are in one part of the city. I've never had a fried Mars bar in my life. Most restaurants in the city are not Mexican and it's not like Mexican food is necessarily the most unhealthy option in the world. Reno is actually known more for steakhouses than Mexican food. Not that I'm saying that's the healthiest thing.

There are probably two reasons for Reno's higher rating. First, with the growth of UNR, the university population is a disproportionaly high percentage of the city's population and those people tend to be more active. Second, I have the impression that Reno is one of the most popular retirement areas for active people, especially early retirees.

agalisgv
06-29-2011, 02:42 PM
Same for Oklahoma City. :confused:

Word

olympic
06-29-2011, 02:43 PM
I opened up the Men's Health link to see the whole list - shocked to see Miami, FL is #12.

We're unsurprisingly hot down here w/ a lack of good public transportation, and then add in heavy carb-rich Latin food, but I guess it's more than balanced out by the locals worrying about being in shorts or a bathing suit most of the year which may translate to a lot more self-consciousness.

danceronice
06-29-2011, 02:49 PM
I'm kind of surprised to see D.C. on the list of most actives. You definitely see a good amount of heavy people around town. Just look at members of Congress, :lol: (except for the shirtless Congressman that was on the cover of Men Health a few months ago)

You can walk everywhere (and I never really noticed that many unfit people--it's certianly not like Detroit proper, where...well, let's just say I suppose fat and diabetes are really the least of your problems if you live in Detroit.) I got so much exercise just walking in DC because I never HAD to drive if I was actually in the city.

Though in Boston, everyone acted STUNNED if I said I walked from, say, North Station to the Common. It isn't THAT far, people, certainly not worth dealing with the long waits and crowds for the stupid Green Line, and it sure as heck wasn't worth paying for parking if I didn't have to. But if you say you walked anywhere instead of either driving or wasting hours of your life waiting on the public transit system they stared like you had two heads.

Vagabond
06-29-2011, 03:48 PM
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.

It would be interesting to study why San Jose is lower. Two things that make it different from San Francisco and Oakland are that the residential part of the city is much less hilly and that there are a lot more ranch-style houses, which don't have stairs. I'm also under the impression that people in San Jose use their cars more.

I also find it interesting that San Francisco and Oakland are so close in the rankings even though their demographic composition is very different. Perhaps ethnic diets and attitudes about exercise make less of a difference than is commonly supposed.

Cachoo
06-29-2011, 08:19 PM
It is a 100 plus degree day today. I just returned from one hour of lap swimming and the water felt so good. The pool is Olympic-sized: the fee to swim is nominal. There were four of us today. Four. I live in number 87. We know we are among the biggest people in the nation (me included) and yet we just seem to get bigger (me not included.) I am flummoxed.