They're Just Big Boned

Suck it, Angelinos! San Francisco beat your city yet again in the super-important Men's Fitness"Fattest and Fittest Cities" list.

While both SF and LA were on the "Fittest" list, our fine city was close to the best at #4, while the City of Angels was a mere, pitiful #21. San Jose whupped up on those sloths down south as well, coming in at #17. Oakland eked out bragging rights over LA too, coming at at #20. Sac-town, clearly benefiting (in this regard) by the presence of fitness icon the Governator, was #7.

Those cities ahead of San Francisco on the list? In order: Seattle, Honolulu, Colorado Springs.

Now, with the Hollywood/SoCal/Beachcomber preconception we have of LA's denizens being bronzed and buff, this may sound a bit odd, but physical condition is only a piece of the puzzle so far as the magazine is concerned. Access to health care, air quality, climate, and amount of TV watched also factored into the methodology, among other things. While our friends at LAist want to scoff at the physical condition of A Raider Fan, according to the survey, Los Angeles has the third LEAST number of fitness centers per capita, right after Detroit and New York (more on these couch potatoes in a minute). And imagine trying to get outdoor exercise in all that smog.

Seriously, LAist -- don't be picking on the shape of pro football fans in our area; we can reexamine the issue by seeing who shows up to the next LA-area pro football game. Should happen within the next century or so, yeah?

A bone we'd like to pick with the survey: apparently, the less TV watched, the better, so far as fitness is concerned--thus ignoring what is clearly a component of "mental health" for many of us. Even so, since many in the Bay Area don't own or watch television (even a matter of pride for many around the Bay), this helped to drive our high placement on the list.

Some of MH's findings aren't so clear -- both LA area and the Bay Area are described by the survey as having "the worst commute in the nation," which adds to the "less fit" column, as commuting=stress. We know the commutes are awful in both areas, but surely MH could clarify for the hapless reader. Also, the benchmark of "pizza joints per capita," which the magazine quotes frequently, really doesn't seem to have as much meaning as they'd like it to. Perhaps figures on per capita consumption of junk foods, sure . . . but, for instance, New York has the least pizza joints per capita of cities in the survey, and I think everyone knows (and can admit) that NY pizza is the best and it's an integral part of that city's dining scene.

Speaking of New York -- the City of Gotham cracked the Top 10 . . . in terms of the FATTEST cities. New York was rated number eight, a mere three spots worse than another "-ist" city, Chicago -- a.k.a "The City with the Least Fitness-Friendly Climate."

Honestly, though -- we can cut our softer, pudgier "-ist" cities a break, as they have to live through bitingly cold conditions for much of the year. LA? No excuses.