Fat City

"MODERN TIMES"

FAT CITY

Lloyd Garver

For the second year in a row Houston, Texas has been declared the fattest -- most unfit -- city in the United States by "Men's Fitness" magazine. The residents of Houston have a choice. Either they can be defensive and insulted by what they see as a slur, or they can see it as constructive criticism and do something about it.

Philadelphia, which was the fattest city in 1999, accepted the challenge. The Mayor appointed Gwen Foster as the Health and Fitness Czar, and there's been a citywide dedication to improve fitness. Last year, Philadelphia dropped to third worst, and this year they are down to fourth. That's still a lot of cheesesteaks to run off, but they're making progress.

It's inspiring to hear about an entire city mobilizing like this for a good cause. It reminds me of all the work that Oprah Winfrey has done to increase reading in Chicago. Unfortunately, reading rarely makes you work up a sweat. So, while people in the Windy City may be reading more, they're probably doing it while they put away some deep-dish pizza. Chicago's right behind Houston's rear end as the second fattest city. Now, let's not blame Oprah. She meant well.

One of the theories at "Men's Fitness" is that cities that have long commutes create fat citizens. They feel that a long drive is unhealthy, because it doesn't burn up enough calories. I don't know about that. If you're stuck in traffic in a long commute, you burn up plenty of calories -- yelling at the other drivers, clenching your fists, honking your horn, and jamming on your brakes when you catch yourself daydreaming.

I know it's a highly respected scientific journal, but I have to question the credibility of "Men's Fitness." The magazine claims if we walk just one block a day, we'll lose 10 pounds a year. Does this mean that if I walk two blocks a day, I'll lose 20 pounds? If I walk 20 blocks or about two miles every day, will I lose 200 pounds in a year? I don't even weigh 200 pounds. Where am I going to get that extra weight to lose? From the city of Houston?

I went over their list of "fat cities" and "fit cities" (while I was eating some cookies) and it was hard to find common threads. Phoenix is on the fat list, but Tucson is fit. Miami is considered fat, but before you decide that's because people just lie on the beach, how do you explain that Honolulu is fit? New York is on the fat list, but Los Angeles -- with its notoriously long commutes -- is on the fit list.

"Men's Fitness" is one of those magazines that generally has a shirtless young man on the cover with abdominal muscles that look only slightly harder than diamonds. I could look like that if I really wanted to, but I just don't happen to be a show off. My point is that this particular magazine might just be a bit obsessed with physical appearances (another giveaway is that they often feature articles like, "I Love My Mirror").

Obviously, there are fit and unfit people in every city. The idea of characterizing an entire city as out of shape seems silly. So, maybe Philadelphia overreacted, and Houston shouldn't take this too seriously. This kind of survey should be taken with a grain of salt. Or in this case, maybe a pint of ice cream.