Heart Health: The 10 Worst U.S. Cities For Heart Problems.
Oh good, a chart. A list. With city pictures, one of my favorite things to look at on the internets. Did I ever tell you geography was one of my favorite subjects in grade school? It was. I think that’s partly because of all the photos that went with the text in the books. Skylines, farms, coal mines. Train stations, airports. People with wrinkled faces and no teeth (or lots of teeth) smiling back at the anthropologist’s camera.
But, alas, this list is about where it’s better to live for your heart health and where it’s worse. The city I live in, Los Angeles, comes in about halfway, Number 41 (I guess that’s 41 best) with a grade of C+. These days, that isn’t so bad. [Read the criteria in the links, but it includes the factors you expect, like air quality, deaths from heart diseases, people with diabetes, people who take statins to lower cholesterol (I raise my hand there).]
On the other hand, the city I grew up in, Milwaukee, comes in at #95 with a solid F. I guess beer, brats and butter have consequences! Also, Cleveland, where I have beloved relatives, is close by at #92, only slightly worse than Milwaukee. It’s the pierogis there, I have no doubt. Interesting, though, only 70 miles or so west of Milwaukee is Madison, where they’re oh-so-much heart healthy, clocking in at #13, with an “A.”
The winner of this contest, is, of course, San Francisco, to the relief of songwriters everywhere. It must be the brisk walking to get out of the “afternoon seabreeze.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.