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 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?
