I finally figured out why losing weight and staying fit is so difficult — I was born and raised in Fort Worth, and this city is apparently overrun with jumbo-sized enablers.
MapMyRun.com ranked U.S. cities by their physical fitness, with the fittest listed at the top. Let’s just say that if Minneapolis (No. 1) were Angelina Jolie, Fort Worth would be Rosie O’Donnell.
That’s right, of the 58 cities listed with populations above 300,000 — in a country known for its high rate of obesity — Fort Worth ranks near the bottom at No. 43.
It’s easy to see how trendy cities such as Denver (No. 2), Seattle (5), San Francisco (8), and Austin (9) rank higher than us. Fort Worth has always been “meat and potatoes” rather than “sushi and brussels sprout.”
But, c’mon, we’re less fit than those beer guzzlers in Milwaukee (31) or those big-boned Okies in Tulsa (36)?
Ever been to Chicago? It’s known as the windy city but, believe me, hardly any person in that town is in fear of getting blown over. And yet those waddlers were ranked No. 26. Even San Antonio (32) puts us to shame.
Fort Worth, we can either go on a diet (starting tomorrow) — or we could just look smugly at the 15 cities ranked worse than us and say, “Damn, give the fork a rest, Chubs.”
You described Denver, San Francisco, Seattle, and Austin as “trendy.” What does that word mean? Democratic?
My work is done.
This was a nonpartisan post.
“Trendy” — cities that put organic guacamole and soy patties on hamburgers.