New Yorkers say willpower is the biggest reason they can't lose weight—see what other cities think is their biggest barrier
The average American gives up on their New Year's resolutions—including weight loss goals—by January 19, meaning many of us have said sayonara to our healthy new habits already. According to research, 63% of Americans who have successfully lost weight in their lives report gaining it back within the year, and one in five (20%) report gaining it back in two months time.
So what's holding us all back from achieving our goals? Is it psychological? Environmental? Inflation? Some combination of factors? Hers reports in a 2025 study how weight loss barriers differ across the U.S.
Willpower is the number one reason Americans say they throw in the towel on weight loss goals, but according to the Hers study, it's less than half the story. Only 30% of Americans who have tried to lose weight at some point in their life say it's willpower that held them back, meaning that 70% name factors other than willpower that are working against them.
Doctors agree: "This is not about willpower. Our bodies have a centuries-old biological drive to avoid weight loss. Maintaining reserves of body fat is an adaptation to help us survive through periods of food scarcity. But in the modern day, the tables are turned—we have to use modern medical advances to overcome these biological presets," says Craig Primack MD, FACP, FAAP, MFOMA, a physician specializing in obesity medicine and senior vice president of weight loss at Hers.
Genetics, for example, is one of the biggest barriers to weight loss according to medical experts, yet Americans are half as likely to name their biological makeup as an obstacle to weight loss as they are to name their own resolve.
Consider this: Only 14% of respondents say genetics is a barrier to their weight loss, yet it's estimated that 43% of the general population has a genetic predisposition to obesity. Having a genetic predisposition to obesity doesn't guarantee that a person will be overweight, but it can make it more difficult for them to lose weight.
Science, however, is stepping in to break some biological barriers. Notably, weight loss medications have proven to be an effective path to weight loss for many. According to a 2024 study from Hims & Hers, The Shape of America, 61% of those who have tried GLP-1s have lost weight, and among those, 55% report having kept the weight off.Results among those who are trying to lose weight now, or have tried to lose weight in the past
30% Willpower
24% My general lifestyle
21% Lack of commitment
14% Affordability
14% Genetics
13% The people around me
13% Lack of support
12% My environment/where I live
10% None of the above—I tend to be successful in losing weight when I want to
8.5% Lack of access to health tools or medications
8% Cultural factors
2% Other
10% None of the above—I don't struggle to lose weight
Whether it's willpower or biology that Americans feel is holding them back, what's clear is that weight loss is personal and different people—and populations—report facing different barriers to getting to their ideal weight.
For example, New Yorkers are two times more likely than New Orleanians to name willpower as a reason why they can't lose weight (39.5% vs. 19%) and nearly three times more likely than their neighbors in Philadelphia to say that where they live is to blame (18.5% vs. 7%, respectively).
Kansas City residents are seven times more likely than Omaha, NE, residents to say "lack of support" undermines their weight loss goals (23% vs. 3%). And residents of Albuquerque, NM, San Antonio, TX, and Austin, TX, reported that cultural factors were the culprit.
Finally, smaller cities, like Greenville, SC, and Providence, RI, were more likely to say access to health resources was the issue.
Albuquerque, NM, topped the list of cities reporting the most barriers to weight loss (a full 100% say they face one or more barriers) and Philadelphia, PA reported facing the least (80%).
The challenges to losing weight varied greatly by region. Here are the cities that reported facing each weight loss barrier most.
90% of Americans struggle overall
Albuquerque, NM: 100%
San Francisco, CA: 99%
Baltimore, MD: 96%
Seattle, WA: 95%
Orlando, FL: 95%
30% of Americans struggle overall
Baltimore, MD: 40%
New York, NY: 39.5%
Sacramento, CA: 38%
Pittsburgh, PA: 37.5%
Phoenix, AZ: 37%
24% of Americans struggle overall
Denver, CO: 39.5%
Seattle, WA: 34%
New Orleans, LA: 34%
Austin, TX: 33%
Los Angeles, CA: 32%
21% of Americans struggle overall
Pittsburgh, PA: 31%
Norfolk, VA: 30%
New Orleans, LA: 29%
Houston, TX: 27%
Kansas City, KS: 27%
14% of Americans struggle overall
Birmingham, AL: 26%
Charlotte, NC: 23%
Sacramento, CA: 22%
Detroit, MI: 21%
Albuquerque, NM: 21%
14% of Americans struggle overall
Washington, D.C.: 24%
Chicago, IL: 23%
San Francisco, CA: 22%
Norfolk, VA: 20%
Milwaukee, WI: 20%
13% of Americans struggle overall
Orlando, FL: 27%
San Diego, CA: 23%
St. Louis, MO: 21.5%
Denver, CO: 20%
Dallas, TX: 18%
13% of Americans struggle overall
Albuquerque, NM: 26%
Kansas City, KS: 23%
Oklahoma, OK: 21%
Norfolk, VA: 20%
Salt Lake City, UT: 20%
12% of Americans struggle overall
St. Louis, MO: 21.5%
Albuquerque, NM: 21%
Portland, OR: 19%
New York, NY: 18.5%
Minneapolis, MN: 17%
9% of Americans struggle overall
Greenville, SC: 19%
Providence, RI: 18%
Honolulu, HI: 17%
Salt Lake City, UT: 16%
Omaha, NE: 15.5%
8% of Americans struggle overall
San Antonio, TX: 16.5%
Albuquerque, NM: 16%
Austin, TX: 14%
Washington, D.C.: 12%
Cleveland, OH: 12%
90% of Americans struggle overall
Philadelphia, PA: 80%
Atlanta, GA: 81%
Omaha, NE: 81%
Des Moines, IA: 82%
Portland, OR: 82%
Get the data.
No matter where you live, losing weight can be challenging. A good place to start is to set goals that are realistic and achievable to help you stay motivated. Remember that weight loss is not linear and requires a daily commitment to making healthier choices. And when lifestyle changes aren't enough, speak to a healthcare provider about whether options like weight loss medications may be a good fit for you.
This study is based on a 7,100-person online survey, which included (1) 5,000 18-to-65-year-old respondents in the top 50 metropolitan areas (100 respondents per city); (2) 5,000 18-65-year-old respondents in each of the 50 states (100 respondents per state); and (3) a nationally representative sample of 500 18-to-65-year-old respondents to contextualize results. These three categories are not mutually exclusive; some respondents fall within more than one category. The study was fielded in January 2025.
Findings were analyzed by 190 demographic and psychographic cuts, including city, region, gender (when we refer to "women" and "men," we include all people who self-identify as such), age, race and ethnicity, relationship status, parenting status, sexual orientation (heterosexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, pansexual, asexual, queer, etc.), fandoms (music, sports, etc.), and fitness and diet preferences, among other areas of interest.
Metropolitan populations were determined by 2022 U.S. Census data. In order to represent as many states as possible within the study, five cities that did not fall in the top 50 metropolitan locations were selected in place of cities in states already represented. Cities added to the study included New Orleans, LA (51); Providence, RI (53); Little Rock, AR (59); Honolulu, HI (68); and Omaha, NE (71). Cities replaced in the study included West Palm Beach, FL (39); Jacksonville, FL (41); Grand Rapids, MI (42); Harrisburg, PA (44); and Greensboro, NC (45).
Results reflected above are among people who reported trying to lose weight now, or who have tried to lose weight in the past. Results reflect the percentage of people in each city who name each weight loss barrier as one they face.
All data in this study are from this source, unless otherwise noted. Independent research firm, Culture Co-op, conducted and analyzed research and findings.
This story was produced by Hers and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
21 minutes ago
- New York Post
The ‘Nordic diet' can help you lose weight and prevent heart attacks — stock up on these foods
Forget the Mediterranean — the land of snow and salmon is serving up a fresh way to eat that gives your heart a healthy boost. A growing body of research suggests the Nordic diet can help trim your waist, tame your cholesterol levels and keep your blood pressure in check. That could be a game-changer in the fight against cardiovascular disease, which kills an American every 34 seconds. 4 The Nordic diet is packed with fiber, fatty fish and cold-weather produce. Getty Images This northern European way of eating leans heavily on whole foods that retain their natural nutrients, in sharp contrast to the US food supply, where up to 70% is ultraprocessed. It revolves around seasonal, locally sourced ingredients found across Nordic nations like Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. '[The Vikings] were limited to the foods available to them at the time,' Lauren Harris-Pincus, a registered dietitian, told Fox News. 'Their diet focused on clean, sustainable foods, which is why we are discussing its health benefits today.' Like the Mediterranean diet — long hailed for its heart-healthy power — the Nordic style is plant-forward, high in fiber and packed with seafood. 4 Fatty fish are excellent sources of omega-3 fatty acids, which are linked to reduced risk of heart disease. artemidovna – But while the Greeks rely on olive oil, the northern approach leans on rapeseed (or canola) oil, another heart-friendly monounsaturated fat, according to Harvard Health. Rapeseed oil is also a source of alpha-linolenic acid, a plant-based omega-3 fatty acid similar to the kind found in fatty fish like salmon, mackerel, sardines and herring — all staples of the Nordic kitchen. Followers typically eat two to three servings of these fish each week. The omega-3s delivered by both the oil and fish have been shown to reduce the risk of heart rhythm issues, slow plaque buildup in arteries and lower fat levels in the blood, key factors in protecting cardiovascular health. The Nordic diet also emphasizes low-fat dairy, such as yogurt, and incorporates eggs and poultry in moderation. Red and processed meats, on the other hand, rarely make it onto the plate. 4 Root vegetables are loaded with vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and fiber. Viktor Iden – Whole grains such as oats, barley and rye are another cornerstone in this eating pattern. These fiber-rich 'complex' carbs digest slowly, helping to curb cravings and keep blood sugar steady — unlike refined grains in processed staples like white bread. Cold-weather veggies like turnips, carrots, parsnips, cabbage and cauliflower are also featured prominently. They're packed with fiber and nutrients that have been shown to help lower cholesterol and blood pressure. Berries like blueberries, strawberries, cranberries and lingonberries play a starring role, too. Rich in antioxidants called anthocyanins, these fruits help keep arteries flexible and may also lower blood pressure. Unlike many American eating habits, the Nordic diet also goes easy on alcohol and avoids foods high in added sugar and sodium. By avoiding processed junk, saturated fats and high-cholesterol meats while loading up on fiber-rich whole foods, studies suggest the Nordic diet can lead to significant weight loss — a major win for heart health. 4 Every year, about 805,000 people in the US have a heart attack. Pixel-Shot – In one study, people who followed the Nordic diet for just six weeks lost 4% of their body weight — significantly more than those eating a standard western diet. In another trial, people with obesity who stuck to it for six months dropped about 10 pounds — roughly triple the weight loss seen in a typical diet group. And it's not just about the scale. In a 2022 analysis, researchers found that the Nordic diet helped lower cholesterol and blood sugar levels independent of weight loss. 'The group that had been on the Nordic diet for six months became significantly healthier, with lower cholesterol levels, lower overall levels of both saturated and unsaturated fat in the blood, and better regulation of glucose, compared to the control group,' study author Lars Ove Dragsted said in a statement. Other studies have found that the Nordic diet can have a positive impact on blood pressure and inflammation. Taken together, and experts say this cold-climate cuisine could be just what the doctor ordered for your heart. A 2023 review even found that the Nordic diet might reduce the risk of death from cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death in the US. However, more research is needed to nail down exactly how much. Still, experts say Americans could learn a thing or two from their northern neighbors — especially when it comes to cutting processed meats and sugar-laden snacks. 'People who really like berries, rye bread, and canola oil should go ahead and enjoy a Nordic-style diet rather than waiting 10 years to get more evidence,' advised Dr. Frank Hu, professor of nutrition at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health.
Epoch Times
3 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Parents Prepare: Trump's Megabill Brings 3 Crucial Tax Changes
You may have heard of the Trump tax bill that was recently signed. This key piece of legislation, so-called 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill' (OBBB), impacts millions of Americans through its provisions on health, border security, and taxes.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
America's nuclear energy moment is here — let's seize it
In 1960, Dr. Glenn Seaborg, then-chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, confidently predicted that nuclear energy would power half of American homes by the year 2000. For a while, it looked like he might be right. Between 1967 and 1974, U.S. utilities ordered nearly 200 nuclear reactors. But momentum stalled as cost overruns, regulatory hurdles, slowing demand and accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and later Fukushima eroded public confidence. Projects were canceled, and the nation's once-robust nuclear manufacturing base faded. Today, it seems like Seaborg's prediction wasn't wrong — just too early. A new generation of nuclear reactors — with advanced designs that safely cool and shut down reactors without the need for power or operator intervention — has made such accidents virtually impossible. Meanwhile, soaring electricity demand, driven by artificial intelligence, and rising geopolitical risks have underscored the need for energy that is clean, safe, reliable and abundant — four boxes that only nuclear energy checks. I have witnessed nuclear's resurgence firsthand in my role at the engineering and construction firm Bechtel. We successfully helped bring Georgia Power's two new reactors online in 2023 and 2024, and are currently working to deliver nuclear projects in Tennessee and Wyoming. Overseas, we're helping Poland build its first nuclear plant — a reminder that U.S. nuclear leadership also expands our geopolitical influence, rather than ceding it to Russia and China. Fortunately, the Trump administration understands the stakes and has issued executive orders aimed at quadrupling domestic nuclear capacity by 2050. With its sights set on a true nuclear renaissance, the government — together with the nuclear industry — should focus on clearing the four biggest hurdles in nuclear's path. First, we must confront the elephant in the room: cost. Critics who say nuclear energy is too expensive underestimate both its long-term value and American ingenuity. A nuclear plant's low operating costs and long lifespan make the cost per unit of energy highly competitive. Meanwhile, each new project helps technology developers and utilities standardize reactors, enabling builders like Bechtel to standardize engineering designs, scale supply chains and deploy new construction methods such as digital execution and modularization. The result is shorter schedules, lower costs and greater certainty of outcome. Controlling cost is also about reducing 'project execution' risk for investors. If we want to expand nuclear energy and unlock efficiency gains, we will need more help from the government to assume some of the financial risk of first-mover projects. As the industry rebuilds its capability to deliver, new nuclear projects can be susceptible to delays and cost overruns that deter investors. To stimulate the market, the government must absorb some of the early project cost overrun risks — just as other countries are already doing to grow their nuclear power output. Second, the U.S. should deliver on its obligation under law to establish a sustainable national program for permanently disposing of spent nuclear fuel. While today's storage methods are designed to work safely for 80 years or more, a long-term solution would resolve this challenge and strengthen public confidence in nuclear power. Third, regulators must continue modernizing. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in particular, plays an indispensable role in maintaining high industry standards and has made progress in updating its approach to approving projects. But the framework, built in the 1970s, lags behind the modular, standardized and inherently safer designs of today's nuclear reactors. Significant opportunities remain to streamline approvals without compromising safety. The Trump administration's new executive order encouraging the commission to reform is a welcome step in the right direction. Fourth, and perhaps most urgently, we need people. America is grappling with a skilled labor shortage, from welders to electricians and heavy equipment operators. Here, too, the administration can and is beginning to lead by incentivizing partnerships between industry and education and by expanding access to vocational training. We need to make sure that joining the construction trades is a rewarding, fulfilling and safe career. We need to reshape perceptions that you can only get ahead with a four-year degree, which is simply not true and even misleading to the younger generation. A national campaign should champion these careers as mission-driven, innovative and essential to America's future. There are no silver bullets in energy policy. Solar, gas and emerging technologies will all be part of the equation. But failing to realize the full potential of nuclear energy's promise would be a costly mistake — economically, environmentally and geopolitically. A strong U.S. nuclear program will produce more than megawatts. It will catalyze life-changing technologies, a robust national industrial base and a brighter future for generations. If we get it right, maybe someone in 2075 will look back at today as the moment when America glimpsed its energy moonshot and seized the opportunity to lead. Craig Albert is president and chief operating officer of the engineering and construction company Bechtel. He previously led its nuclear, security and environmental unit.
