“Fattest cities” and “Best cycling cities” sometimes coincide

Health officials and bicyclists in Chicago rejoiced a couple of weeks ago when the March issue of Bicycling magazine named it the second best city for cycling in its population division — over 1 million.

Yet at the same time, Men's Fitness magazine in March named the Windy City the #1 Fattest City in the US.

Doesn't seem possible, does it?

But different magazines look at different things. Bicycling looked at bike facilities, popularity of bike clubs and events and the overall bicycling culture. Men's Fitness looked at exercise patterns, TV watching, sports playing, active gym memberships, crowded park paths.

In comparing the two lists, they agree a lot more than they differ. That makes sense; more bicycling should equal more fitness. First the contrasts:

Chicago ranked #1 for fattest, #2 for best bicycling;
San Diego ranked #21 for fattest, #1 in its population category for best cycling;
Philadelphia ranked #23 for fattest, honorable mention for bicycling;
New York City ranked #25 for fattest, honorable mention for cycling.

Here's where the lists matched between Fittest Cities and Best Cycling Cities:

Portland
Phoenix
Denver
Seattle
Austin
San Francisco
Tucson
Albuquerque
Minneapolis

Among the three worst bicycling cities, only Houston ranked among the fattest — #5. Atlanta ranked 16th among the fittest and Boston ranked 11th among the fittest.

Go figure.