If you can't lose weight in Fairfield, there may be no hope for you.
With its abundance of recreational opportunities, healthy food establishments, fitness clubs and weight loss programs, Fairfield has been ranked the second best city in the U.S. to lose weight.
According to a report in The Fiscal Times, compiled jointly with real estate resource Trulia and the staff at Business Insider, the town is the "number one area for gyms and came in 20th overall for weight loss centers."
What's more, with its waterfront access, Fairfield is recognized as a "hotspot for beach-goers and boaters, and nearby Lake Mohegan is a popular place for hikers."
The report, however, notes the town's lack of bike and pedestrian lanes — a problem which will soon be rectified, now that the town has approved a designated bike route on a section of Mill Plain Road, the first step to create a bike and pedestrian master plan.
Fairfield was second to San Francisco, which is number one in the ranking. Long Island NY and Boston came in third and fourth on the list, respectively.
Perhaps not surprisingly, six of the top ten best cities to lose weight also happen to be among the wealthiest in the country, giving more credibility to the phrase, "you can never be too rich or too thin." Not measured in the report is the overall amount of time people in these communities spend exercising — the report only focuses on the amenities and resources available to residents to lose weight.
"There are two reasons why the best weight-loss metros are more expensive than the worst ones: (1) expensive metros have higher-income households, on average, and these richer households have more spending power to support gyms, weight-loss centers, and expensive outdoor activities; (2) people will pay more to live in areas with better weather and those nearer to oceans or mountains, which offer more opportunities for outdoor activities and walking or biking to work," the report states.
Interestingly, the overall failure of Boston's citywide challenge to collectively lose one million pounds in a year was on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal.
For more, check out the report in The Fiscal Times.