Houston apparently has dropped to number six on the annual Men's Fitness list of the nation's fattest cities.
1. Las Vegas
2. San Antonio
4. Mesa, AZ
5. Los Angeles
8. El Paso
10. San Jose
As usual, the mag uses an unusual set metrics to gauge just which city is the most lardoriffic, including "how much residents are exercising, how healthfully they eat, how much they use gym memberships, how much junk food they consume and how much time they spend sitting in traffic."
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
The most common complaint against the survey is the complete lack of data measuring exactly how tubby a city's residents are — and it's a damn good point — but that's not why we're calling bullshit.
Let's play along with Men's Fitness for a second and assume those other indicators — exercise, junk food, gym memberships, time in traffic — are the best way to determine which city is the chunkiest.
As you well know, Houston used to top this list. And now we're number six? Did all of your friends suddenly start going to the gym and eating zucchini? Ours sure didn't. So how have all those metrics changed? Is the traffic suddenly less insane? Has the switch from Diamond Shamrocks to Valeros instantly changed our junk food habits?
We'll let you draw your own conclusions, but just think about this: What would happen to the survey if Men's Fitness put out the same list every year? Yep, that's right. No one would care about it anymore. Las Vegas (or whatever city is anointed most fatastic) wouldn't have to attack the survey and promise to change its double-wide ways. And Men's Fitness would lose its once-a-year moment in the sun and be relegated back to its rightful status as the mag purchased by dudes who never tire of reading about sit-ups. And that would be very unhealthy, at least in terms of magazine sales. — Keith Plocek