America’s Fittest Cities

With a focus on the positive, the American Fitness Index has ranked the fittest cities in the United States. So often surveys and studies take note of the worst in us all, which is necessary in order to make improvements, but it is refreshing to note the best in society. In this case, the best comes in the form of cities with the most supports for healthy living and the fewest challenges that hinder the ability for its residents to make healthy choices.

The report that ranked the fittest cities in America was funded by the WellPoint Foundation and compiled by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), and it is the first phase of a larger study. The phase from which these results were derived took a list of 16 large metropolitan areas from around the country, though the AFI project looks to expand the study to include 50 metro areas to give a wider range of data. The long-term plan also includes an annual update so cities can monitor their progress or lack thereof.

Topping the list of fittest cities in America was San Francisco, including the areas of Oakland and Fremont, with a score of 403, though the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metro area came in a close second at 401.

Both top ranking cities exhibited numerous strengths, including high percentages of residents who were high school graduates, employed, in possession of health insurance, and less prone to smoking or obesity than average. Many were moderate exercisers, healthy eaters, users of public transportation, walkers or cyclists, and generally in “excellent or very good” health. Despite an older median of residents, some of whom are disabled, those challenges did not impede the majority of the cities of San Francisco and Seattle from helping their cities rate high overall.

The third city on the list was Boston with a score of 370, and Washington, D.C. only trailed by one point to find its way to fourth position. The remainder of the top twelve were in the 200-range, and rounding out the list of 16 cities—those that didn’t make the HealthNews Dozen—were Houston, Texas in 13th; Los Angeles, California in the 14th spot; Riverside, California in 15th; and Detroit bringing up the rear in 16th place with a score of 149.

In the final analysis, Detroit had very few strengths but numerous weaknesses. Though many residents had health insurance, the rates for smoking and obesity were higher, as well as those for asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Few people claimed exercise or moderate physical activity as regular occurrences and physical education was not required at schools, and it didn’t help the overall rating that the median household income was low and a high percent of the population lived below the poverty line.

One of the goals of the research is to show that large cities need to understand the scope of the problem, that less physical activity leads to more negative societal behaviors, and the more options a city provides its residents, such as walking/biking trails, fitness centers, public health information, etc., the healthier its residents will become across the board.

What the authors of the study stressed was that the epidemic of physical inactivity and obesity, which both lead to chronic diseases, should inspire communities to amass the resources to create an environment that provokes the opposite. And when a city provides more opportunities and encouragement to its residents, not only do some of them step up to the plate and begin leading healthier lifestyles, but the entire community fitness aspect is elevated.