Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
10.23.2009 12:14 pm

SELF Mag ranks St. Louis area 95th healthiest city for women.

  • Email this
  • Print this

SELF Magazine has ranked St. Louis 95th out of 100 cities on it’s annual healthiest big cities for women in America survey.
The magazine says it used used 50 categories from 7,700 pieces of data including death and disease rates, environmental indicators, community resources and lifestyle habits.
A polling company in Portland, Ore., did the survey. “All data is women-specific and weighted for age and population size.”
Here’s how St. Louis finished:

St. Louis:

Population: 2,809,283
2009 ranking: 95 out of 100
2008 ranking: 98 out of 100

Good points:

  • Women report 35 percent fewer rapes than average (although other violent crimes are more common).
  • There are more doctors per capita compared to the average, and women are slightly more likely to have health insurance.
  • Asthma is less common than average.

Bad points:

  • Smoking rates are high, and women are more likely than average to die of lung cancer.
  • Rates of high cholesterol, hypertension and heart disease deaths are above average.
  • Below-average exercise rates, there are fewer health clubs than average and relatively few women walk or bike to work.

Following are the top 10 cities and bottom 100.
The top 10
1. Burlington–South Burlington, Vermont.
2. Bethesda-Gaithersburg-Frederick, Md.
3. Portland–South Portland–Biddeford, Maine.
4. Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, Mass.
5. San Francisco-Oakland.
6. Honolulu, Hawaii.
7. Stamford-Norwalk-Bridgeport, Conn.
8. Madison, Wisc.
9. Santa Barbara–Santa Maria, Calif.
10. Fargo, N.D.

Bottom 10

90. Dayton, Ohio.
91. Daytona Beach–Deltona–Ormond Beach, Fla.
92. Las Vegas–Paradise, Nev.
93. El Paso, Texas.
94. Birmingham-Hoover, Ala.
95. St. Louis.
96. Toledo, Ohio.
97. Indianapolis-Carmel, Ind.
98. Oklahoma City, Okla.
99. Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, Mich.
100. Tulsa, Okla.

Loading ... Loading ...
8 comments

As usual, we have to ask… are they using statistics from the Metro St. Louis area, or just the city?

— C.L.
1:06 pm October 23rd, 2009

I’ll bet StL. is still in the top 3 for most dangerous place to visit/live.

— chriswalls68
1:06 pm October 23rd, 2009

If they are using a 2.8 million population figure, it looks like St. Louis Metro was used.

— KM
1:41 pm October 23rd, 2009

As usual we completely disregard men as irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what it does to men’s health too. Only the corrosive feminist is important now. Men just go ahead F off and die, corrosive feminists no longer see a need for you, your health is irrelevant.

— As usual
4:03 pm October 23rd, 2009

As usual - Self is a women’s magazine. I would guess that a similar survery for the magzine Men’s Health would not include women.

— KM
5:35 pm October 23rd, 2009

Just wondering if anybody else thinks it’s weird that so many bottom-listers are in the Midwest? Why is that?

— Wondering
6:46 pm October 23rd, 2009

Summaries of research are very bias. Who did the research? Where is the complete study published? How can anyone really comment without all the true facts.

— KGSP
9:27 am October 24th, 2009

How can asthma be less common than average when the National Asthma and Allergy Foundation lists the St. Louis region as the #1 worst place to live for Asthma?
http://www.webmd.com/asthma/news/20090129/st-louis-challenge-for-asthma-sufferers

— Cheryl
9:41 am October 25th, 2009