Staffed Luxury Villa Encantada in Puerto Vallarta, Vacation of Your Lifetime! (Advertisement)

Best Places to Live to Battle Your Bulge


By zzyzzx   Follow   Mon, 14 Jan 2013, 7:21am   406 views   6 comments
In Baltimore MD 21230   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)

Viewing Comments 1-6 of 6     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    621 threads
    8,831 comments

    1   7:41am Mon 14 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (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.

  2. zzyzzx


    Follow
    Befriend (10)
    679 threads
    5,961 comments
    Baltimore, MD

    2   7:46am Mon 14 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    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.

  3. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    946 threads
    11,135 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    3   8:53am Mon 14 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    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.

  4. zzyzzx


    Follow
    Befriend (10)
    679 threads
    5,961 comments
    Baltimore, MD

    4   12:35pm Mon 14 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    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?

  5. MsBennet


    Follow
    Befriend
    5 threads
    298 comments

    5   2:35pm Mon 14 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    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.

  6. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    946 threads
    11,135 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    6   2:35pm Mon 14 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    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.

zzyzzx is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 119 milliseconds to create.