Inside the habits, environments and culture driving fitness across Australia.

From sunrise run clubs to buzzing gyms, it’s clear Australians are more health-conscious than ever. Activewear has become everyday wear, step counts are tracked like trophies, and fitness challenges dominate social feeds. But while the nation is moving more, not every city is keeping pace. So, where in Australia are the fittest and the unfittest cities?

To find out, we built a comprehensive index ranking Australia’s 50 largest cities using a wide range of measures: health outcomes, fitness behaviours, access to gyms and recreation spaces, and the broader lifestyle and environmental factors that either support or sabotage healthy choices.

The result is a revealing snapshot of fitness across the country, spotlighting the cities where healthy living is woven into daily life — and exposing the places where environment, access, and culture make staying active a much harder task.

Australia’s fittest cities reveal some surprising leaders. Topping the list is Darwin, with almost four out of five (79%) residents exercising at least once a week. Darwin ranks highest nationally for health, with low risk factors across the board and fewer than 2% of residents rating their health as poor. The city’s mild winters and abundance of outdoor space make staying active almost effortless.

Hot on its heels, Melbourne clocks in with a fitness score of 68/100 and a 71.8% exercise participation rate. Melburnians are clearly health-savvy, with 30.4 diet and exercise searches per 1,000 people, proving they’re serious about learning more about health and fitness. The city’s wide variety of gyms and boutique fitness studios likely contributes to the high engagement in both physical activity and health-conscious behaviours.

Busselton takes third place, boasting a 73.2% exercise participation rate and a high interest in diet and exercise, with 32.4 searches per 1,000 people. The locals here are not just active, they’re health-conscious too. The coastal lifestyle, with surfing and swimming, encourages residents to integrate fitness into their daily routines.

Over in Canberra-Queanbeyan, the fitness culture is exceptional, scoring 72.9/100 for diet and exercise interest, with 78.1% of residents participating in sport at least once a week. The city’s planned layout, abundance of bike paths, and extensive parks make outdoor activity easy, while the high proportion of government and professional workers might foster a culture of structured gym and sports participation.

Australia’s least active cities tell a very different story. Sitting at the bottom of the leaderboard is Victor Harbor–Goolwa in South Australia, scoring just 31.2/100 on the fitness scale. Only 11.3% of locals hit the recommended physical activity targets, while nearly three-quarters are overweight. An older population, scattered communities, and a lack of recreational facilities make moving more than a few steps a daily challenge, especially with high smoking rates, elevated blood pressure, and obesity piling on the pressure.

Not far behind, Hervey Bay clocks in with a fitness score of just 33.8/100. Here, residents show flashes of good fitness habits, but the long-term health picture is grim: 3.6% have heart disease and 3.0% have a lung condition, the highest rates in the nation. Bundaberg paints a similar scene, where fast food is everywhere, and scarce gyms leave even motivated locals struggling to stay active.

Over in Victoria, Ballarat’s fitness woes come down to the lack of environment enablers. With only 2.5 gyms per 100,000 people and below-average health behaviours, limited access to parks, gyms, and recreational facilities makes staying active a constant uphill battle.

The takeaway? In regional Australia, long-term health challenges and a lack of supportive environments are the biggest hurdles. Without better facilities, stronger health habits, and a helping hand from their surroundings, even the most motivated residents can find it tough to get moving.

When it comes to long-term health, some cities are setting the standard for living well. From low rates of heart and lung disease to everyday habits that keep residents moving, these places show that a healthy lifestyle is a part of daily life. At the same time, other towns face tougher challenges, where access to healthcare, opportunities for activity, and supportive environments can make staying well harder.

Topping the list for areas with the lowest percentage of long-term health conditions is Sydney, where only 7.4% of adults report any long-term health condition, and heart disease and lung conditions barely register at 1.6% and 0.6%. These low rates are no accident: regular physical activity is strongly linked to better cardiovascular fitness, improved lung capacity and reduced inflammation, all of which help protect against chronic disease.

Kalgoorlie–Boulder in Western Australia boasts the country’s lowest rate of long-term conditions at just 6.7%. Heart disease sits at 2.0%, lung issues at 0.9%, proving that you don’t need to live in a big city to live a healthy life; access to fresh air, walkable communities and opportunities for everyday movement can make a measurable difference.

Western Australia dominates the leaderboard overall, with Busselton and Perth also making the top six thanks to impressively low chronic illness rates. Darwin and Melbourne aren’t far behind, showing that strong health profiles aren’t reserved for the West Coast alone. Cities that invest in green space, active transport and recreational infrastructure tend to make it easier for residents to stay active without it feeling like a chore.

Whether you’re jogging along a bustling city quay or taking in the scenery of a quiet regional town, these cities show that a mix of lifestyle, access to healthcare and regular movement can keep long-term health conditions at bay. When exercise is built into daily life, through walking, cycling, sport or outdoor activity, the benefits for heart and lung health compound over time.

On the other hand, some regional towns are lagging when it comes to long-term health. Hervey Bay leads with 11.6% of residents living with a chronic condition, including 3.6% with heart disease and 3.0% with lung issues. Victor Harbor–Goolwa isn’t far behind, with 12.0% living with a long-term health condition and heart disease affecting 3.6%. These higher rates may reflect limited access to healthcare, fewer affordable fitness options, and lifestyle challenges that can make staying active and healthy harder outside the major cities.

When it comes to fitness factors, Greater Darwin takes the crown with a standout score of 83.3/100, due to low smoking and vaping rates and just 1.8% of residents rating their health as poor. More than three-quarters of locals (76.9%), hit the recommended physical activity guidelines, making active living feel like second nature.

Not far behind, Greater Sydney and Greater Melbourne are keeping pace with scores of 82.5 and 81.3. Here, fewer people smoke or vape, around 78% stick to physical activity goals, and slightly better waist and BMI measures reflect a culture where exercise, diet, and lifestyle habits come together seamlessly.

The Australian Capital Territory also proves that city life doesn’t have to mean sedentary living. With 80.4% of residents meeting activity targets and only 2.4% rating their health as poor, wellness clearly has a place in urban planning.

But not every city is keeping its residents moving. Greater Perth lags behind with a score of just 59.0/100, largely because 80.2% of residents fall short of activity guidelines. Meanwhile, other parts of New South Wales and Victoria face similar challenges: high blood pressure affects about one in five adults, and inactivity rates hover around 77–79%, pushing fitness scores down to 53.9 and 44.8, respectively.

When it comes to fitness and health, Busselton residents are driven by the “why” and the “how,” with 32.4 diet and exercise searches per 1,000 people likely helping to fuel a strong 73.2% participation rate in sport or exercise.

Darwin tells a different story. With 79.0% of residents exercising regularly, the highest among the top 10, fitness appears woven into everyday life, from morning jogs along the esplanade to weekend footy matches and active daily routines.

Busselton, Warrnambool and Bunbury show that size doesn’t limit ambition: smaller communities can be vibrant hubs of both curiosity and action. Meanwhile, Darwin and Canberra demonstrate how some cities cultivate fitness cultures almost effortlessly.

Not everywhere is as engaged. Mount Gambier, Bundaberg and Kalgoorlie-Boulder suggest that even where participation is solid, residents aren’t always turning to online resources to support their health journeys. Shepparton–Mooroopna bucks the trend slightly, with a respectable 70.3% of people exercising regularly, yet only 1.3 diet and exercise searches per 1,000 people, revealing surprisingly low curiosity.

Some cities chase the latest fitness trends while others live them day in, day out. Kalgoorlie–Boulder takes the crown, scoring 91.4 with the strongest three-year growth in interest at 17.2% and a near-perfect summer/winter ratio of 1.2. In this outback city, fitness isn’t seasonal; it’s steady, reliable, and woven into daily routines. Rain or shine, residents show up, proving that consistency beats hype.

Shepparton–Mooroopna is the winter warrior of the top 10. Its 13.2% growth over three years, coupled with a summer/winter ratio of just 0.9, shows that this town actually moves more in winter than summer. Fitness here isn’t about perfect weather or fleeting motivation; it’s about habit, discipline, and a community that keeps moving no matter the season.

Bunbury shows the power of community-driven fitness. Steady growth (8.9%), low seasonality (0.8), and moderate volatility (42.5) combine for a score of 79.1, highlighting how grassroots clubs, parkruns, and informal fitness groups turn movement into a shared lifestyle.

In contrast, Australia’s biggest cities struggle to turn interest into action. Melbourne, Brisbane, and Sydney show below 2% three-year growth with wildly inconsistent engagement. Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, and the Sunshine Coast face similarly low growth of 0.2–1.2%. Victor Harbor–Goolwa spikes in summer with a 2.8 ratio, despite 12.1% growth, and Canberra–Queanbeyan shows just 1% growth. 

The big takeaway? Regional centres dominate sustained fitness engagement, with four WA towns in the top 10, proving that smaller communities often outperform the capitals in building long-term, reliable fitness cultures. 

The areas most supported by the environment in which they live are environments that make health-conscious choices easy. Leading the pack are Mount Gambier and Warrnambool, both scoring 79.9 for this factor. These towns combine high gym availability with low fast-food saturation, nudging residents toward healthier routines without anyone needing a strict plan.

Mount Gambier boasts 19.6 gyms per 100,000 people, while Warrnambool has 19.2 per 100,000. Fast-food outlets are spaced out in both regions, with one for roughly every 3,775 to 3,871 residents.

Dubbo isn’t far behind, scoring 78.1 and topping the charts for gym density with 21.4 per 100,000 people. Fast-food exposure is moderate, with one outlet per 3,171 residents. Here, exercise is literally around every corner, showing that smart city design can make staying active feel natural rather than forced.

Some cities make healthy living a tougher challenge. Toowoomba tops the least supportive list with just 3.3 gyms per 100,000 people and a fast-food outlet for every 2,047 residents, earning the lowest environmental enablers score of 6.5/100. Even larger cities like Darwin and Newcastle–Maitland face similar hurdles, with moderate gym availability but dense fast-food options, keeping their scores below 20. 

Net World Sports has analysed the 50 most populated cities in Australia to determine which locations offer the healthiest lifestyles and fittest populations. The research evaluates 5 key categories comprising 18 unique metrics that influence the overall fitness profile of a city, including: Long Term Health Conditions, Fitness Factors, Diet & Exercise Interest, Search Trends, and Environmental Enablers.

The data outlined below was aggregated from the latest available sources, including the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the National Health Survey (NHS), Open Street Maps (OSM), AusPlay, and proprietary search volume trends.

To create the final index, data was normalised, weighted, and aggregated to allow for a direct comparison between cities. Scores were normalised on a scale from 0-100, where a higher score indicates a fitter, healthier, and more active city.

Geographic Definition: The term "city" in this study is defined as Significant Urban Areas (SUAs) as outlined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) regional boundaries. The study focuses on the top 50 cities by population size.

• Note: For SUAs containing multiple distinct cities in their name (e.g., Gold Coast - Tweed Heads), search volumes were aggregated to cover the total designated area.

Demographics Unless otherwise stated, health and participation data was filtered to focus on the core adult population aged 18–64 years old.

Long Term Health Conditions

Data was sourced from the 2021 Census (ABS Tablebuilder).

• Figures represent the percentage of the population aged 18-64 reporting specific long-term health conditions.

• This category is negatively scored (higher prevalence results in a lower index score).

Fitness Factors

Data was sourced from the National Health Survey (NHS) 2022.

• Data Processing: As NHS data is grouped by Greater Capital City Statistical Areas (GCCSA), a spatial join was performed to map these values to the corresponding Significant Urban Areas (SUA).

• Waist Circumference: Risk was calculated based on adults measuring above specific thresholds (Female: ≥80cm; Male: ≥94cm).

• BMI: Calculated as the percentage of the population classified as Underweight, Overweight, or Obese (Class 1, 2, or 3).

• Lifestyle: Metrics such as smoking, vaping, and failing to meet dietary/activity guidelines were treated as negative contributors to the final score.

Diet and Exercise Interest

This category combines active search behaviour with reported physical participation.

• Search Volume: Total keyword search volume was divided by the local population and multiplied by 1,000 to generate a "Searches per 1,000 people" metric.

• Keyword Strategy: We utilised a comprehensive seed list of keywords categorised into:

• Core & High Volume: (e.g., "Gym Near Me", "Personal Trainer")

• Classes & Styles: (e.g., "Pilates", "CrossFit", "HIIT")

• Specific Intent: (e.g., "Weight Loss Program", "Strength Training")

• Activities: (e.g., "Run Club", "Parkrun")

• Sports Participation: Data sourced from AusPlay. This measures the percentage of adults (18-64) participating in sport or physical activity at least once a week. State Remoteness levels were spatially joined to include SUAs for accurate local representation.

Run Clubs and Informal Fitness Trends

This category looks specifically at the stability and growth of grassroots fitness trends.

• 3-Year Change: Tracks the growth in search interest over time.

• Seasonality (Summer/Winter Ratio): A negative metric; a high ratio indicates fitness interest is weather-dependent, whereas a lower ratio indicates consistent year-round discipline.

• Standard Deviation: Used to measure volatility; cities with consistent search volumes scored higher than those with erratic spikes in interest.

Environmental Enablers

• Gym Density: Locations of gyms, fitness centres, and health clubs were identified using Open Street Maps (OSM) and validated against keyword filters. The count was normalised per 100,000 residents.

• Fast Food Availability: Data sourced via AreaSearch QSR at the SA4 level and spatially joined to SUAs. This metric calculates the population per fast food store.

Scoring & Normalisation

To ensure all metrics could be compared fairly regardless of their unit of measurement (e.g., percentages vs. search counts), a Min-Max normalisation technique was applied.

1. Normalisation: Every raw data point was rescaled to a value between 0 and 1 relative to the other cities in the list.

2. Directionality:

• Positive Metrics (e.g., Gyms per capita): Higher raw numbers resulted in a higher score.

• Negative Metrics (e.g., Smoking rates): Higher raw numbers resulted in a lower score (inverse normalisation).