Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
PosterExtraordinaire I'm with you on your premise. Sexiest women will be found all over warm weather cities like San Diego, LA, Miami, Austin, Atlanta, Dallas, etc
among other things. It's not to be taken seriously
And are people who smoke generally "healthy"? It uses a helluva a lot more factors than that too.
Some of the other factors that it uses are:
-physical activity in last 30 days
-% at least moderatley active
-% that eat 5+ more servings of vegetables
-% obese -% that are in good to excellent health
-% with diabetes
death rate from cardiovascular disease
How are these factors not a good measure of health? Instead of coming up with excuses and trying to discredit a pretty good study, maybe actually find evidence that proves what you claimed.
Don't you think there was a reason they wanted, and might have, banned any new fast food joints in South LA?
PosterExtraordinaire I'm with you on your premise. Sexiest women will be found all over warm weather cities like San Diego, LA, Miami, Austin, Atlanta, Dallas, etc
Well if being rooted in reality and calling what clearly is BS out is being a villian then fine by me.
I also agree Miami, LA, and SD have some of the sexiest women but that doesn't mean those ares are the most fit and healthiest though. Fake boobs and lipo don't make you healthy.
And are people who smoke generally "healthy"? It uses a helluva a lot more factors than that too.
Smoking has very little to do with how in shape you're. I smoke, pushing 40, and still run 8.8 MPH on a threadmill for 30 minutes. We're talking about body shape, not who is more likely to get lung cancer.
Quote:
Some of the other factors that it uses are:
-physical activity in last 30 days
-% at least moderatley active
-% that eat 5+ more servings of vegetables
-% obese -% that are in good to excellent health
-% with diabetes
death rate from cardiovascular disease
A lot of these are redundant and what the hell does good to excellent health even mean? How do they measure that? I can see Minnesotans getting the "at least moderately active" because they claim they mow their grass, rake their leaves, and shovel the snow
Quote:
How are these factors not a good measure of health? Instead of coming up with excuses and trying to discredit a pretty good study, maybe actually find evidence that proves what you claimed.
Don't you think there was a reason they wanted, and might have, banned any new fast food joints in South LA?
It's not a pretty good study, it's a ****ty study. Among the other studies such as "best place to live in the USA" (and they mention some never-heard-of-suburbs around Omaha), "happiest places in the USA", "best cities for singles" and "most dangerous cities" and other stupid interchangeable lists.
Have you been to the midwest? Have you been to the cities there? I actually lived in Detroit. Been to Chicago more times than I count. I even stayed in various small towns in Indiana (where my daughter was born) and Milwaukee. I know something about their fitness, it's called having eyes.
Just hop into a LA fitness in Detroit then hop into one anywhere else. Everywhere else you get in shape peope busting their ass, in Detroit's LA fitness (St. Clair Shores actually-a suburb) you get 40/50 year old morbidly obese men chatting by the hot tub about what everyone else is doing. It's like night and day. I'm going to leave Minneapolis out of this cause I never been there but Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Indiana as a whole and "in shape" don't go together. Hell, add ohio to that list. What's left of the midwest again?
Smoking has very little to do with how in shape you're. I smoke, pushing 40, and still run 8.8 MPH on a threadmill for 30 minutes. We're talking about body shape, not who is more likely to get lung cancer.
Well being thin and a smoker doesn't mean you're "in-shape" just because you're not fat. Your words not mine btw:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PosterExtraordinaire
Just because you're not fat doesn't mean you're in shape. Look at the British for example.
Quote:
A lot of these are redundant and what the hell does good to excellent health even mean? How do they measure that? I can see Minnesotans getting the "at least moderately active" because they claim they mow their grass, rake their leaves, and shovel the snow
The Methodology is spelled out pretty clearly. Read the report, it seems to answer all these questions you keep asking.
Quote:
It's not a pretty good study, it's a ****ty study. Among the other studies such as "best place to live in the USA" (and they mention some never-heard-of-suburbs around Omaha), "happiest places in the USA", "best cities for singles" and "most dangerous cities" and other stupid interchangeable lists.
Then find one you think better and that proves what you claimed.
Quote:
Have you been to the midwest? Have you been to the cities there? I actually lived in Detroit. Been to Chicago more times than I count. I even stayed in various small towns in Indiana (where my daughter was born) and Milwaukee. I know something about their fitness, it's called having eyes.
Just hop into a LA fitness in Detroit then hop into one anywhere else. Everywhere else you get in shape peope busting their ass, in Detroit's LA fitness (St. Clair Shores actually-a suburb) you get 40/50 year old morbidly obese men chatting by the hot tub about what everyone else is doing. It's like night and day. I'm going to leave Minneapolis out of this cause I never been there but Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Indiana as a whole and "in shape" don't go together. Hell, add ohio to that list. What's left of the midwest again?
Did anyone claim those Midwest cities were the most "in-shape" or healthiest? NO, so I don't know why you are arguing about that or even brought those places up. Chicago ranked 28, Milwaukee 30 (right ahead of Miami), Indianapolis 43, and Detroit 49 (second to last).
No one is disagreeing those are not "in-shape/healthy" cities but plenty of subelt cities rank right down there with them too.
The primary argument was a warmer climate leads to more in-shape people, which is false, and that is what the study I posted showed. Climate seems to have little effect on how healthy/in shape an area is. Other more important factors do like income, education, culture, etc.
Well being thin and a smoker doesn't mean you're "in-shape" just because you're not fat. Your words not mine btw:
Yup, who said anything about being thin? I'm 260lbs, 6'6" and have some weight I'd like to lose getting older. When I was younger, I used to have a 6 pack without trying, not anymore. Now I have to drag my ass to the threadmill, crank it up and sweat it out.
Quote:
Did anyone claim those Midwest cities were the most "in-shape" or healthiest? NO, so I don't know why you are arguing about that or even brought those places up. Chicago ranked 28, Milwaukee 30 (right ahead of Miami), Indianapolis 43, and Detroit 49 (second to last).
I'm saying there is no way either Chicago or Milwaukee are more in shape than Los Angeles or Miami as their ranking suggests.
Quote:
The primary argument was a warmer climate leads to more in-shape people, which is false, and that is what the study I posted showed. Climate seems to have little effect on how healthy/in shape an area is. Other more important factors do like income, education, culture, etc.
Ask yourself where the most attractive people come from. It's night and day.
May 24, 2011 -- Minneapolis-St. Paul has plenty of parks and recreational facilities, an increasing number of farmers markets, and low smoking rates. Those attributes helped the Twin Cities garner the No. 1 spot in the American College of Sports Medicine’s 2011 list of America’s fittest cities.
Nothing to do with how in shape people actually are. Just the number of parks in the city and the average number of smokers, all easier quantifiable than actual fitness.
Nothing to do with how in shape people actually are. Just the number of parks in the city and the average number of smokers, all easier quantifiable than actual fitness.
And you think this is a good study
Well it's a lot better and more factual than one's person's "eyes". A lot of these factors indicate how healthy the population is.
Again, find a better study if you don't like it. Or better yet find one that shows LA, Miami, and SD being the most "in shape" cities.
Quote:
Ask yourself where the most attractive people come from. It's night and day.
Doesn't mean those areas OVERALL have the healthiest or most in-shape people. I'm sure a lot of people find Lindsey Lohan attractive, but how healthy do you think she is?
What you observe with your "eyes" means nothing to anyone except yourself. Find something that proves your point already or just accept the fact that LA, SD, and Miami are not ranked as the most "in-shape"/healthiest cities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
