California and Texas, first and second. Or not.
Not that I’m getting into the whole competition thing or anything, but since a couple of weeks ago when I started actually using my Nike+ shoe doohickeys, I’ve been digging around the Nike Running website.
Today I ran across the pictured statistic. The miles quoted are how many miles that people in those states have run so far in 2010. It’s a lot of miles until you start looking at populations.
Some guy in Texas was bragging about being second. Interesting. Second, only behind California. I went to look at the aggregated stats, and I see Oregon is number 3! Go Oregon!
Of course, some simple math will show the *real* bragging rights:
According to Wikipedia, the state of Oregon has 3,825,657 people in it. Divide that into the miles run in 2010 (23,192) and you get 6.06 miles per thousand people in Oregon.
I wonder what Texas and California get. Oh, let’s go find out…
Texas has 24,782,302 people running 65,533 miles comes out to 2.64 miles per thousand people in Texas. The people in Oregon are running on average 2.29 times as much as the fatties in Texas.
California is even worse with 36,961,664 people running only 49,225 miles. That comes out to 1.33 miles per thousand people. Oregon is 4.55 times better than California. Ouch.
So I guess it kind of explains why Oregon feels so more “in shape” than either California or Texas, assuming of course that running miles equates being in shape. Until now I had always assumed it was just because we like our great outdoors, mountain climbing, snowboarding, skiing, camping, and hiking more than all the other states.
Maybe I am getting into the whole Nike competitive thing a little bit…