Found this in the Washington Post:
Using data gathered from such sources as the U.S. Census and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the ACSM developed a fitness index that covered 27 aspects of local environment and health, from death rates from diabetes and cardiovascular disease to the number of baseball diamonds and playgrounds.
San Francisco ranked No. 1, with an index score of 403, partly on the basis of lifestyle and health factors such as the relatively high number of people who report exercising at a moderate intensity (55.6 percent, compared with an average of 48.4 percent for all 16 cities) and eating at least five servings of fruits and vegetables per day (31.1 percent vs. 25.4 percent), and the low number of smokers (13.8 percent compared with 17.1 percent).
Washington, with an index score of 369, was above average on almost all of the variables and was rated as the best in the nation on 13 components that looked at recreational facilities and the "built environment." (Emphasis mine.)
I was shocked, SHOCKED to discover San Francisco ranked #1.
As there is no location in San Francisco where you can walk a block without going up at least a 60 degree grade, the only way you could be obese would be to hole up in your apartment like an agoraphobe and order take out for the next 20 years. I'm surprised that the study didn't conclude that half of San Franciscans were descendants of interbreeding with mountain goats.
The study itself is here.
Last year I lived on a top of a hill and worked at a bottom of a hole for a month. I got fit again...
They need more Baskin Robinses: http://www.clusterflock.org/2008/06/the-unhealthiest-drink-in-america.h…