5 Best and Worst Places to Live for Weight Loss
FEBRUARY 14, 2013
Although losing weight is one of the most popular New Year’s resolutions, an individual’s location can help or hinder achieving weight-loss goals, according to a recent article published online by Physician’s Money Digest. The report analyzed the 5 best and 5 worst metro areas for losing weight as ranked by Trulia.
Areas were rated as healthy or unhealthy based on 5 categories. The ratio of “slow food” establishments, such as supermarkets and restaurants, to “fast food” establishments, such as convenience stores and fast food restaurants, was the first criterion for each location. Also measured were the percentage of residents who walk or bike to work; the number of gyms, health clubs, and fitness centers; the number of outdoor sports opportunities and sporting-goods stores; and the number of weightloss and diet centers that offer education and support.
San Francisco, California, was ranked as the healthiest place to live, as it has more “slow food” than “fast food” options and offers outdoor exercise on its many hills and hiking trails. Other areas that scored in the top 5 healthiest are Fairfield County, Connecticut; Long Island, New York; Boston, Massachusetts; and Lake and Kenosha Counties, Wisconsin.
Las Vegas, Nevada, was ranked as the least healthy area to live, in part because active recreation and healthy food options were more limited. Other areas that scored in the top 5 least healthy are Fort Worth, Texas; Bakersfield, California; San Antonio, Texas; and Riverside-San Bernardino, California.