With treatment of obesity-related health issues costing Americans up to $210 billion a year and “lose weight and get fit” being the No. 1 most commonly broken New Year’s resolution, the leading personal finance social network WalletHub conducted an in-depth analysis of 2014’s Best and Worst Cities for an Active Lifestyle.
WalletHub ranked the 100 most populated U.S. cities to find the ones that offer the most cost-effective and accessible fitness and sports facilities through 25 key metrics such as the average monthly fitness club fee, number of swimming pools per capita and the number of parkland acres per capita. Best Cities for an Active Lifestyle Worst Cities for an Active Lifestyle 1 Omaha, Neb. 91 Houston 2 Portland, Ore. 92 Irving, Texas 3 Pittsburgh 93 Fort Worth, Texas 4 Reno, Nev. 94 New York 5 Orlando 95 North Las Vegas 6 Tampa 96 Hialeah 7 Irvine, Calif. 97 Arlington, Texas 8 Tucson 98 Newark, N.J. 9 Colorado Springs 99 Jersey City, N.J. 10 Atlanta 100 Laredo, Texas
Key StatsThe average monthly fitness club fee is six times higher in New York than in Lexington, Ky. The average bowling cost is four times higher in New York than in Buffalo, N.Y. The number of sporting goods stores per capita is 13 times higher in Orlando than in Detroit. The number of public golf courses per capita is 147 times higher in Scottsdale, Ariz., than in New York. The number of baseball fields per capita is 130 times higher in St. Paul, Minn., than in Laredo, Texas. The walk score is four times higher in New York than in Chesapeake, Va. The number of fitness centers per capita is 20 times higher in San Francisco than in Newark, N.J. The number of fitness trainers and aerobics instructors per capita is 20 times higher in Charlotte, N.C., than in Detroit. The number of park playgrounds per capita is 88 times higher in Madison, Wis., than in Laredo, Texas.
For the full report: wallethub.com/edu/best-and-worst-cities-for-an-active-lifestyle/8817/