« previous   housing   next »

Best Places to Live to Battle Your Bulge


By zzyzzx   Follow   Sun, 13 Jan 2013, 11:21pm PST   541 views   6 comments   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/best-places-live-battle-bulge-173529522.html

If you are looking to shed a few extra pounds in the New Year you may want to consider where you live. Some cities are better suited to help you lose weight than others, according to the online real estate Web site Trulia.com.

In its latest analysis of housing markets across the country, Trulia found San Francisco to be the best metro to call home if you want to lose weight, followed by Fairfield County, CT, and Long Island, NY.

Las Vegas was noted as the worst place to live if you're looking to size down.

I think anyone who watches the TV show Pawn Stars already knew this

Trulia used five criteria to determine its rankings including:

1. Healthier food options. More "slow food" establishments and specialty food markets versus "fast food" restaurants and convenience stores. San Francisco, New York and Fort-Myers, FL ranked highest in this category.
2. Walking or biking to work. New York, Boston and San Francisco scored the best for workers who commute on "two feet or two wheels."
3. Easy gym access. Trulia ranked cities with the most health clubs and fitness centers per 1,000 people. Cities like Fairfield, CT next to New York and Middlesex Count, MA near Boston had the highest density of gyms.
4. Opportunities for outdoor activity. To calculate this measure, Trulia counted the number of sporting good stores per 1,000 people. Salt Lake City and Colorado Springs outperformed here.
5 Weight-loss and counseling support programs. Philadelphia and Orange County, CA had the most per 1,000 people.

But if you're looking for a healthier lifestyle and want to move to do so, it will cost you. Here are the best (and worst) places to live and what it will cost you to live there:

Top 5 Best Metros for Losing Weight

San Francisco, CA ($459 median price per sq ft)
Fairfield County, CT ($221 median price per sq ft)
Long Island, NY ($216 median price per sq ft)
Boston, MA ($219 median price per sq ft)
Lake County, IL & Kenosha County, WI ($106 median price per sq ft)

Top 5 Worst Metros for Losing Weight

Las Vegas, NV ($70 median price per sq ft)
Fort Worth, TX ($77 median price per sq ft)
Bakersfield, CA ($85 median price per sq ft)
San Antonio, TX ($87 median price per sq ft)
Riverside and San Bernardino, CA ($108 median price per sq ft)

Comments 1-6 of 6     Last »

Mr Happygoluckofus   befriend   ignore   Sun, 13 Jan 2013, 11:41pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 1

Location has absolutely no baring. Unless the climate is so harsh you stay indoors all the time.

And poor cities are probably more conducive for losing weight. When you factor in the involuntary weight loss diet. That's where you can't afford to eat all that you want.

zzyzzx   befriend   ignore   Sun, 13 Jan 2013, 11:46pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 2

CaptainShuddup says

Location has absolutely no baring. Unless the climate is so harsh you stay indoors all the time.

I know, but the Idiots at Yahoo don't understand things like this.

Their reasoning for #4 seems questionable as well:
4. Opportunities for outdoor activity. To calculate this measure, Trulia counted the number of sporting good stores per 1,000 people. Salt Lake City and Colorado Springs outperformed here.

Would seem to me that places warmer than Salt Lake City and Colorado Springs would have more outdoor activity opportunities.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Mon, 14 Jan 2013, 12:53am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 3

CaptainShuddup says

And poor cities are probably more conducive for losing weight. When you factor in the involuntary weight loss diet. That's where you can't afford to eat all that you want.

Actually, poverty increases obesity in America, unlike in third world nations. The reason for this is that the cheapest food in the supermarket is almost always the least healthy and most caloric. For example, Oreos are cheaper then fruit.

zzyzzx   befriend   ignore   Mon, 14 Jan 2013, 4:35am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 4

Dan8267 says

The reason for this is that the cheapest food in the supermarket is almost always the least healthy and most caloric. For example, Oreos are cheaper then fruit.

OK, so poor people need to learn portion control. Also, aren't poor people more likely to walk/ride the bike to work?

MsBennet   befriend   ignore   Mon, 14 Jan 2013, 6:35am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 5

Dan8267 says

CaptainShuddup says

And poor cities are probably more conducive for losing weight. When you factor in the involuntary weight loss diet. That's where you can't afford to eat all that you want.

Actually, poverty increases obesity in America, unlike in third world nations. The reason for this is that the cheapest food in the supermarket is almost always the least healthy and most caloric. For example, Oreos are cheaper then fruit.

And the cheaper food is more filling, like a McDonalds burger.

On the other hand,
I think some of it is a laziness factor. You could make a pot of lentils for half the price of a box of Oreos, but that requires you are not lazy. And I think a lot of poor people tend to be lazy. If they had lots of energy, they would be self-motivated to earn some money.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Mon, 14 Jan 2013, 6:35am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 6

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

The reason for this is that the cheapest food in the supermarket is almost always the least healthy and most caloric. For example, Oreos are cheaper then fruit.

OK, so poor people need to learn portion control. Also, aren't poor people more likely to walk/ride the bike to work?

So only eat four Oreos for dinner? Although high in calories, junk food is rarely as filling as high-fiber foods like fruit.

Poor people are more likely to take the bus to work, but I doubt walking or riding a bike is much of an option unless you happen to work close to where you live, which most often isn't the case. And if it's raining or snowing, a bike isn't really an option.

Email (Required, will not be visible)

Username (Just pick a name if you're new)

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best of   about   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net