Connect with us

Fitness

This Tennessee city is among the worst for fitness in the country. See why

Published

1 month ago

on

This Tennessee city is among the worst for fitness in the country. See why

play

A study from the American College of Sports Medicine ranked the best and worst major cities for fitness in the U.S.

Two Tennessee cities made the list, but they did not rank well. Nashville ranked No. 67, and Memphis ranked No. 98 out of 100 major cities.

The rankings were based on a composite of health behaviors, health outcomes, community infrastructure, and local policies that support a physically active lifestyle. Key areas of observation for the study were community design for physical activity and active transportation, healthy food access initiatives, and community mental health services.

The goal of the rankings is to encourage cities to analyze what they can do better to help citizens lead happy and healthy lives.

Cities with the worst fitness score

Oklahoma City, Okla., was the worst major city for fitness in the country. It ranked No. 97 in personal health and No. 98 in community environment.

  • Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
  • Port St. Lucie, Florida
  • Memphis, Tennessee
  • Wichita, Kansas
  • N. Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Lubbock, Texas
  • Bakersfield, California
  • Louisville, Kentucky

Memphis, ranked third worst, was No. 98 in personal health and No. 73 in community environment. Nashville was on the list at No. 67. It ranked No. 52 for personal health and No. 89 for community environment.

Cities with the best fitness scores

Arlington, Virginia was the major city ranked as the most fit. It ranked first in community environment and fourth in personal health.

  • Arlington, Virginia
  • Washington D.C.
  • Seattle, Washington
  • San Francisco, California
  • Madison, Wisconsin
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Atlanta, Georgia
  • Irvine, California
  • St. Paul, Minnesota

Metrics for the fitness scores

Four major categories are used to rank the cities on fitness. Things like access to parks or the number of policies for street upkeep are used to assess cities on whether citizens are leading healthy lives.

Here are the metrics along with Memphis’ scores versus the national average for each one.

Health behaviors:

  • Percent of people exercising in the previous month: 76% v. 77.9%
  • Percent meeting aerobic activity guidelines: 47.3% v. 50.9%
  • Percent meeting aerobic and strength activity guidelines: 22.2% v. 23.8%
  • Percent bicycling or walking to work: 2.7% v. 3.8%
  • Percent using public transportation to work: 0.6% v. 4.3%
  • Percent consuming two or more fruits per day: 25.6% v. 29.4%
  • Percent consuming three or more vegetables per day: 15.3% v. 14.3%
  • Percent sleeping seven or more hours per day: 60.8% v. 64.6%
  • Percent smoking: 15.8% v. 12.1%

Health outcomes:

  • Percent in excellent or very good health: 40% v. 50.1%
  • Percent with poor physical health in the previous month: 41.5% v. 37.7%
  • Percent with poor mental health in the previous month: 50.2% v. 44.7%
  • Percent with obesity: 43% v. 31.5%
  • Percent with asthma: 11.4% v. 9.7%
  • Percent with high blood pressure: 36% v. 30.3%
  • Percent with angina or coronary heart disease: 5.2% v. 3.6%
  • Percent with stroke: 4.7% v. 3.4%
  • Percent with diabetes: 16% v. 11.1%
  • Pedestrian facilities per 100,000 residents: 8.8 v. 3.2

Built environment:

  • Air quality index: 73.2 v. 63.9
  • Bike score: 41.2 v. 52.3
  • Percent with food insecurity: 11.1% v. 10.4%
  • Parks per 10,000: 3.2 v. 41
  • Percent within a 10-minute walk to a park: 45% v. 71.4%
  • Walk score: 35 v. 47.9

Recreational facilities:

  • Ball diamonds per 10,000 residents: 0.9 v. 1.7
  • Basketball hoops per 10,000 residents: 2.6 v. 3.6
  • Playgrounds per 10,000 residents: 1.7 v. 2.5
  • Recreational centers per 20,000 residents: 1.1 v. 0.9
  • Swimming pools per 100,000 residents: 2.9 v. 2.3
  • Tennis courts per 10,000 residents: 1.3 v. 1.8

Policy and funding:

  • Local complete streets policy: 1 v. 2
  • Park expenditure cost per resident: $223 v. $128.9
Related Topics:
Continue Reading