North Las Vegas Ranks Worst For An Active Lifestyle, Here's Why

Now that a lot of people are trying to stick to their resolutions to get healthy in the New Year, their first steps will probably be to start exercising more, whether that’s in the gym, in their homes or in the great outdoors. But where you live may play a role in whether you stick to it, with some cities in the U.S. more conducive to an active lifestyle.

WalletHub has just come out with their list of the Best and Worst Cities for an Active Lifestyle. They looked at the 100 biggest U.S. cities based on 34 key indicators of an active lifestyle. Those fall in areas of budget & participation and sports & outdoors and include things like average monthly fitness-club fee, share of physically inactive adults and more.

With all that in mind, San Francisco, California tops the list, with a score of 63.59. San Fran lands at number two for sports and outdoors, although things are a little pricey there since it lands at 21 for budget and participation. Topping the list for budget and participation is Las Vegas, Nevada, will Honolulu, Hawaii is number on for sports and outdoors. 

Top Ten Cities For An Active Lifestyle

  1. San Francisco, CA
  2. Chicago, IL
  3. New York, NY
  4. San Diego, CA
  5. Honolulu, HI
  6. Los Angeles, CA
  7. Portland, OR
  8. Philadelphia, PA
  9. Denver, CO
  10. Seattle, WA

On the flipside, North Las Vegas, Nevada is the worst city for an active lifestyle with a score of 26.83, landing at 95 for sports and outdoors, and dead last for budget and participation.

Ten Worst Cities For An Active Lifestyle

  1. North Las Vegas, NV
  2. Winston-Salem, NC
  3. Wichita, KS
  4. Fort Wayne, IN
  5. Irving, TX
  6. San Bernardino, CA
  7. Santa Ana, CA
  8. Newark, NJ
  9. Bakersfield, CA
  10. Jersey City, NJ

Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content