Many people aspire to be healthy, and good habits, including being physically active, can help. But there are certain obstacles that may prevent a person from maintaining a consistently active daily routine, and one of those complications may be place of residence.
Some cities don’t have many parks and other outdoor places to exercise but have gyms with expensive membership fees, while others seemingly have a gym and/or a park on every block.
To compile a list of the best and worst states for an active lifestyle, 24/7 Tempo reviewed a ranking by Myprotein, a sports nutrition online retailer, which analyzed price of a gym membership in every state and D.C. (as compared to cost of living), the availability of gyms and green space, tennis court rental, and healthy grocery stores.
New York is among the best states for living an active lifestyle even though it is the most expensive state for gym-goers, with the average cost of a monthly membership coming in at just over $105.
At the other end of the scale, Alabama offers the cheapest gym memberships, costing just $22 on average, but the state ranks in the middle in terms of overall active lifestyle-friendliness. That distinction goes to Rhode Island, which scored highest for affordability, second for green space, and seventh for gym access. These are the 50 most physically active cities in America.
Click here to see the best states for an active lifestyle
51. West Virginia
> Total score: 24
> Gyms: 4.6 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 26%
> Affordability rank: 40 out of 51
[in-text-ad]
50. North Carolina
> Total score: 27
> Gyms: 4.3 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 41%
> Affordability rank: 35 out of 51
24/7 Wall St.
49. Tennessee
> Total score: 33
> Gyms: 4.9 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 45%
> Affordability rank: 46 out of 51
48. Mississippi
> Total score: 38
> Gyms: 4.6 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 33%
> Affordability rank: 26 out of 51
[in-text-ad-2]
47. Kentucky
> Total score: 47
> Gyms: 4.9 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 38%
> Affordability rank: 27 out of 51
46. Oklahoma
> Total score: 50
> Gyms: 4.5 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 38%
> Affordability rank: 16 out of 51
[in-text-ad]
45. New York
> Total score: 52
> Gyms: 3.0 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 99%
> Affordability rank: 51 out of 51
44. Arizona
> Total score: 54
> Gyms: 4.6 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 49%
> Affordability rank: 19 out of 51
43. Hawaii
> Total score: 57
> Gyms: 4.8 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 70%
> Affordability rank: 48 out of 51
[in-text-ad-2]
42. South Carolina
> Total score: 57
> Gyms: 5.2 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 52%
> Affordability rank: 30 out of 51
41. Texas
> Total score: 57
> Gyms: 5.6 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 61%
> Affordability rank: 23 out of 51
[in-text-ad]
40. Florida
> Total score: 59
> Gyms: 4.7 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 35%
> Affordability rank: 9 out of 51
39. Arkansas
> Total score: 60
> Gyms: 4.4 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 43%
> Affordability rank: 6 out of 51
38. Montana
> Total score: 63
> Gyms: 4.4 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 72%
> Affordability rank: 42 out of 51
[in-text-ad-2]
37. Maryland
> Total score: 63
> Gyms: 5.4 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 87%
> Affordability rank: 28 out of 51
36. South Dakota
> Total score: 67
> Gyms: 4.5 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 64%
> Affordability rank: 44 out of 51
[in-text-ad]
35. Missouri
> Total score: 67
> Gyms: 5.3 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 70%
> Affordability rank: 34 out of 51
34. California
> Total score: 67
> Gyms: 6.8 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 64%
> Affordability rank: 8 out of 51
33. Indiana
> Total score: 68
> Gyms: 5.9 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 36%
> Affordability rank: 24 out of 51
[in-text-ad-2]
32. Nevada
> Total score: 69
> Gyms: 4.6 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 75%
> Affordability rank: 18 out of 51
31. Michigan
> Total score: 70
> Gyms: 5.1 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 80%
> Affordability rank: 32 out of 51
[in-text-ad]
30. Ohio
> Total score: 71
> Gyms: 5.1 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 68%
> Affordability rank: 20 out of 51
29. Vermont
> Total score: 72
> Gyms: 5.1 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 93%
> Affordability rank: 41 out of 51
28. Alaska
> Total score: 74
> Gyms: 5.3 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 76%
> Affordability rank: 45 out of 51
[in-text-ad-2]
27. Alabama
> Total score: 74
> Gyms: 6.3 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 33%
> Affordability rank: 7 out of 51
26. Maine
> Total score: 77
> Gyms: 5.7 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 94%
> Affordability rank: 50 out of 51
[in-text-ad]
25. Pennsylvania
> Total score: 78
> Gyms: 5.2 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 95%
> Affordability rank: 39 out of 51
24. Louisiana
> Total score: 81
> Gyms: 5.5 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 80%
> Affordability rank: 49 out of 51
23. Georgia
> Total score: 81
> Gyms: 7.3 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 72%
> Affordability rank: 25 out of 51
[in-text-ad-2]
22. Kansas
> Total score: 82
> Gyms: 5.6 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 54%
> Affordability rank: 15 out of 51
21. Nebraska
> Total score: 84
> Gyms: 6.9 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 82%
> Affordability rank: 43 out of 51
[in-text-ad]
20. Iowa
> Total score: 84
> Gyms: 7.3 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 71%
> Affordability rank: 38 out of 51
19. Oregon
> Total score: 86
> Gyms: 5.3 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 90%
> Affordability rank: 29 out of 51
18. Idaho
> Total score: 90
> Gyms: 5.5 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 65%
> Affordability rank: 10 out of 51
[in-text-ad-2]
17. Illinois
> Total score: 92
> Gyms: 5.3 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 98%
> Affordability rank: 31 out of 51
16. New Jersey
> Total score: 94
> Gyms: 4.4 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 94%
> Affordability rank: 3 out of 51
[in-text-ad]
15. Washington
> Total score: 95
> Gyms: 6.1 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 97%
> Affordability rank: 37 out of 51
14. New Hampshire
> Total score: 97
> Gyms: 7.0 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 68%
> Affordability rank: 21 out of 51
13. New Mexico
> Total score: 98
> Gyms: 4.7 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 90%
> Affordability rank: 5 out of 51
[in-text-ad-2]
12. Utah
> Total score: 99
> Gyms: 5.0 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 83%
> Affordability rank: 4 out of 51
11. Colorado
> Total score: 100
> Gyms: 6.8 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 90%
> Affordability rank: 33 out of 51
[in-text-ad]
10. Massachusetts
> Total score: 101
> Gyms: 5.9 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 100%
> Affordability rank: 36 out of 51
9. Minnesota
> Total score: 103
> Gyms: 10.0 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 98%
> Affordability rank: 47 out of 51
8. D.C.
> Total score: 104
> Gyms: 4.9 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 98%
> Affordability rank: 11 out of 51
[in-text-ad-2]
7. Virginia
> Total score: 105
> Gyms: 6.6 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 63%
> Affordability rank: 2 out of 51
6. Wyoming
> Total score: 107
> Gyms: 6.2 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 86%
> Affordability rank: 17 out of 51
[in-text-ad]
5. Connecticut
> Total score: 114
> Gyms: 6.7 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 73%
> Affordability rank: 14 out of 51
4. North Dakota
> Total score: 114
> Gyms: 7.5 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 83%
> Affordability rank: 12 out of 51
3. Wisconsin
> Total score: 118
> Gyms: 7.3 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 92%
> Affordability rank: 22 out of 51
[in-text-ad-2]
2. Delaware
> Total score: 126
> Gyms: 6.1 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 99%
> Affordability rank: 13 out of 51
1. Rhode Island
> Total score: 146
> Gyms: 6.9 per 100,000 people
> Share of residents living within 10 mins of a park: 99%
> Affordability rank: 1 out of 51
Get Ready To Retire (Sponsored)
Start by taking a quick retirement quiz from SmartAsset that will match you with up to 3 financial advisors that serve your area and beyond in 5 minutes, or less.
Each advisor has been vetted by SmartAsset and is held to a fiduciary standard to act in your best interests.
Here’s how it works:
1. Answer SmartAsset advisor match quiz
2. Review your pre-screened matches at your leisure. Check out the advisors’ profiles.
3. Speak with advisors at no cost to you. Have an introductory call on the phone or introduction in person and choose whom to work with in the future
Get started right here.
Thank you for reading! Have some feedback for us?
Contact the 24/7 Wall St. editorial team.
Latest from 24/7
