Six Super Bowl rings. Five times hoisting the Stanley Cup. Five World Series wins.
And now, the 29th fittest city in America.
The American College of Sports Medicine recently released its 16th annual American Fitness Index, and though Pittsburgh didn’t take the lead spot — or even make the top 10 — the Steel City still has plenty to brag about.
“I would say 29th,” up from 38th last year, “isn’t too shabby,” said Stella Volpe, report co-author, chair of its advisory board and graduate of the University of Pittsburgh. “What stood out to me most was the health behaviors being kind of in line with other cities that fared better, and also the community/environment scores are something that Pittsburghers should be very proud of.”
The ACSM initiated these rankings in 2008 to fill a perceived void: No summary reports considered both personal health behaviors and the environments affecting those populations. This year, the group assessed 34 indicators — everything from proximity to parks to prevalence of chronic diseases, to the number of baseball diamonds — which generated three scores for each top-100 city, a “personal health rank” and a “community/environment rank,” which factor into the “overall rank.”
Because the ACSM includes the most relevant indicators for each year, they change. That’s why year-to-year scores can’t be compared exactly, though trends among those three scores are relevant.
The report’s overall fittest city for six years running, Arlington, Virginia, has two perfectly correlated contributing scores: No. 1 one for both personal health and community/environment. Pittsburgh’s scores, on the other hand, tell two entirely different stories.
As Volpe points out, Pittsburgh’s community/environment score — a stellar ninth in the nation — should earn plenty of applause.
Compared to Arlington, Pittsburgh has more basketball hoops (7.4 versus 4.0 per 10,000 residents), baseball diamonds (2.2 versus 1.8 per 10,000 residents), recreational centers (1.8 versus 1.3 per 20,000 residents) and swimming pools (6.2 versus 2.1 per 100,000 residents). And though Arlington fared better when it came to percentage of residents within a 10-minute walk to a park, or the “walk score,” the City of Bridges posted admirable scores in both categories as compared to Arlington (91% versus 99% and 62.4 versus 71.2, respectively).
If it’s now confusing how Pittsburgh sunk to 29th, look no further than its personal health scores.
When it comes to “poor mental health in the past month” and “poor physical health in the past month” — two highly subjective and self-reported parameters — Pittsburgh’s and Arlington’s scores were comparable, 43% versus 45.1% and 29.9% versus 32.4%, respectively.
But Arlington sleeps better, smokes less, eats more fruits and vegetables, meets more fitness guidelines and exercises far more than yinzers, all of which parallels its population’s better health outcomes, including a lower incidence of obesity, heart disease, stroke and diabetes.
Among those, a few scores torpedoed Pittsburgh’s ranking more than the others: 14.1% of Pittsburghers smoke (versus Arlington’s 3.6%), 30.7% of the population is obese (versus 17.6%), and 9.7% contend with diabetes (versus 5.8%).
But maybe all those numbers need is a little perspective, says University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health assistant professor and physical activity epidemiologist Bonny Rockette-Wagner.
“Looking at obesity and some of the personal health outcomes, we’re really pretty average,” she said. “You have to remember, we have an aging population in the Pittsburgh area.”
Stepping outside of the ACSM’s fitness index philosophy of searching for the highest achievers — and following Rockette-Wagner’s advice instead — Pittsburgh’s smoking population is just 1.5% above the top 100’s average. Pittsburghers’ rate of obesity is .1% lower than the same average, and their incidence of diabetes is 1.0% lower.
The conclusion is there’s a disconnect between our number of parks, trails and baseball diamonds and the optimal level of health they could confer.
“Even though we have these resources around us, maybe we’re not using them enough, or we have other poor lifestyle habits,” Rockette-Wagner said. “I think our aging population is part of it, but as people get older, they can continue to utilize all of these things.”
Further emphasizing the divide, Volpe notes, “Just because you build it,” meaning public structures like trails, parks and recreational spaces, “doesn’t mean people will come. The parks are close by, but what kind of programming could possibly be done where people would want to go do something, like tai chi, to have some physical activity together. Group programming doesn’t sound like much, but sometimes it takes people being together to get moving.”
In her research, Rockette-Wagner and her collaborators look at social-cognitive theory-based approaches to why people are or aren’t more active. Through programs they developed, participants are asked which resources they don’t use and why, but are then asked what would change their minds, knowing that positive health outcomes could follow.
It’s a very similar approach to how Friends of the Riverfront leaders focus on closing the gap between available resources and use — one that may help Pittsburgh’s approach in general.
“I’m a big believer that design choices really matter,” said Friends of the Riverfront executive director Kelsey Ripper. “Even when we build it, maybe we haven’t looked at all the door-to-trail connections. Even if a trail is just a few blocks away, if there’s a dangerous intersection that you don’t feel comfortable with, then that trail isn’t accessible to you. You have to look at the whole system.”
Pittsburghers’ personal health may also be improved through public health campaigns, says Rockette-Wagner, while laughing about her personal bias toward such initiatives.
“Connecting people with what’s available is important,” she said. “[Y]ou need to make people aware that these resources are here and what they need to use them. Asking people is always good, to see if they’re using the parks, what they’re using them for, and if they aren’t using them, why not?”
The Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy did just that through a “listening tour” that began in late 2018. At community meetings and events, the organization collected feedback from 10,000 residents from across the city. That information will be used to “outline an equitable parks investment strategy that will benefit all city residents to help offset years of underfunding of the parks system,” says the group’s website.
As is the case with many situations, money is the great dis-equalizer.
Per the ACSM’s fit rankings, Pittsburgh spends $115 in park expenditures per resident compared to Arlington’s $286. Said another way: More money creates more resources, which results in better health.
It isn’t an earth-shattering conclusion, but it’s one worth repeating, even for cities whose residents are “fit” enough to land among the top third in the nation.
“As an epidemiologist, if we don’t see the numbers — the statistics and facts — then certainly nothing will get done. Without those, there won’t be any movement,” Rockette-Wagner said. “I think the ACSM is hoping that at least some cities on the list will look at the data and say, ‘We should do something about this.’ And it gives groups who are advocating for more resources something to point to.
“That’s why it’s important to reach these conclusions, even if they’re predictable.”
Abby Mackey: abbyrose.mackey@gmail.com and IG @abbymackeywrites
First Published: August 6, 2023, 9:30 a.m.
Updated: August 6, 2023, 5:09 p.m.
