10 Best & Worst Cities For An Active Lifestyle
“Lose weight and exercise more” is the number one most commonly broken New Year’s resolution.
60 percent of gym memberships bought in January is never used, which means a lot of wasted money and opportunity. WalletHub took an in-depth look at 2018’s best and worst cities for an active lifestyle to continue into Spring.
To determine where Americans have the best chance of balancing a healthy diet with ample physical activity, the personal finance site compared the 100 biggest U.S. cities across 34 key metrics.
Based on these metrics, here are the 10 best and worst rated cities for an active lifestyle:
Best Cities for an Active Lifestyle
1. Chicago, IL
2. Portland, OR
3. San Francisco, CA
4. San Diego, CA
5. Seattle, WA
6. Madison, WI
7. New York, NY
8. Denver, CO
9. Boise, ID
10. Minneapolis, MN
Worst Cities for an Active Lifestyle
1. Jersey City, NJ
2. Memphis, TN
3. Garland, TX
4. Laredo, TX
5. Arlington, TX
6. Newark, NJ
7. Bakersfield, CA
8. Irving, TX
9. North Las Vegas, NV
10. Hialeah, FL
Best Vs. Worst
The dataset ranges from the number of public golf courses per capita to the share of physically inactive adults. Below are a few key comparisons between cities Wallethub ranked best and worst:
Public Golf Courses
Most: Scottsdale, AZ (0.0599)
Least: Cleveland, OH (0.0016)
Scottsdale has 37.4 times more public golf courses (per capita) than Cleveland.
Sporting Goods Stores
Most: New York, NY (0.4500)
Least: North Las Vegas, NV (0.0271)
New York has 16.6 times more sporting goods stores (per capita) than Las Vegas.
Fitness Trainers and Aerobics Instructors
Most: Lincoln, NE (185)
Least: Bakersfield, CA (31)
Lincoln has six times more fitness trainers and instructors (per 100,000 residents) than Bakersfield.
Most: San Francisco, CA (0.0510)
Least: Fresno, CA (0.0014)
San Francisco has 36.4 times more dance schools (per capita) than Fresno.
Most: New York, NY (0.5737)
Least Hialeah, FL (0.0330)
New York has 17.4 times more playgrounds (per capita) than Hiealeah