Leeds ranked healthiest UK city while Manchester comes last
Where you live could be having a bigger impact on your health than you think.
New analysis from longevity experts at Nuchido, comparing health habits across 20 UK cities, reveals a clear divide in how easy it is to live well across the UK.
Leeds has been named the UK’s healthiest city, scoring 78.5 out of 100 thanks to consistently high engagement with fitness and nutrition, while Manchester ranks last with a score of just 19.7.
Dr Nichola Conlon, longevity expert and founder of Nuchido, says this reflects how much our surroundings influence everyday habits, “Health is not just a personal choice. It is shaped by your environment. Cities where healthy behaviours are more accessible make it easier for people to build them into everyday life.”
The index looked at nine factors including gym demand, nutrition interest, air quality and sunlight hours, showing how environment, affordability and access all play a role.
The UK’s healthiest and least healthy cities
The data shows a clear split between cities where healthy living feels accessible and those where it is harder to maintain.
The UK’s top five healthiest cities are:
Leeds (78.5)
Edinburgh (73.3)
Cardiff (60.5)
Bristol (56.9)
Coventry (52.5)
These cities tend to perform well across multiple areas, from strong demand for fitness and nutrition services to better environmental conditions, making it easier for residents to build consistent healthy habits.
Coventry stands out in fifth place, with the highest demand for gyms per capita of any city analysed, based on search activity.
At the other end of the index, the bottom five cities are:
Glasgow (31.6)
Birmingham (31.2)
Middlesbrough (26.8)
Nottingham (23.3)
Manchester (19.7)
Across these cities, lower engagement with health-related services is often combined with challenges such as poorer air quality and fewer sunlight hours, creating a more difficult environment for long-term wellbeing.
This gap highlights how uneven access to healthy living is across the UK.
London’s fitness gap is driven by cost
London might look like the UK’s fitness capital on the surface, but the data tells a different story.
While the capital generates the highest overall demand for gyms and personal trainers, this drops sharply when adjusted for population. On a per-person basis, London records the lowest gym search levels of any city analysed.
At the same time, it is by far the most expensive place to work out.
Gym memberships in London average £59.36 per month, compared to just £21.50 in Leicester.
Dr Conlon says barriers like cost can have a lasting impact, “When healthy behaviours are harder to access, whether that is due to cost, time or environment, it becomes much more difficult to maintain them consistently.
“Over time, those small barriers can have a significant impact on overall health.”
Why some cities struggle to keep up
Manchester’s last-place ranking is not down to one issue, but a combination of factors.
The city ranks in the bottom five across most metrics once adjusted for population, including gym, personal trainer and pilates demand.
Environmental factors add further pressure, with poorer air quality and some of the lowest annual sunlight hours recorded in the index.
This pattern is reflected across other lower-ranked cities, including Birmingham, Middlesbrough and Nottingham, where a mix of lower engagement and environmental challenges makes healthy living harder.
The hidden role of air quality and sunlight
Some of the biggest differences between cities come down to factors people cannot easily control.
Air quality varies significantly across the UK. Brighton and Edinburgh rank among the cleanest in the index, while Nottingham and Birmingham record some of the highest pollution levels.
Sunlight shows a similar divide.
Brighton receives around 1,840 hours of sunshine each year, compared to just 1,242 in Leeds, highlighting how geography can influence everything from mood to activity levels.
Dr Conlon adds, “Factors like air quality and sunlight might not be things people think about every day, but they play a meaningful role in long-term health.
“Over time, these environmental differences can influence how people feel, move and live.”
What can people do to support their health?
While the environment plays a big role, there are still small, consistent steps people can take to support their long-term health.
Building regular movement into your routine, prioritising sleep, and maintaining a balanced diet can all help support overall wellbeing, even in more challenging environments.
Dr Nichola Conlon explains, “As demands on the body increase, whether through stress, environment or lifestyle, supporting cellular energy and repair processes becomes increasingly important for maintaining long-term health.
“That is why we are also seeing more interest in things like supplements, particularly those that support cellular energy. They are not a substitute for healthy habits but can play a role alongside them as part of a broader approach to wellbeing.”
One area gaining more attention is NAD+, a coenzyme that plays a key role in how cells produce energy and carry out repair.
Interest in NAD+ supplements has grown in recent years as a result. While they are not a replacement for healthy habits, they are increasingly being explored as part of a wider approach to maintaining energy levels and supporting the body over time.
Methodology
The UK Healthiest Cities Index was produced by Nuchido in 2025 and analysed 20 of the UK’s most populous cities using the latest ONS mid-year population estimates.
Nine metrics were included across three categories: fitness, nutrition and lifestyle. These covered gym, personal trainer and pilates class search demand, nutritionist and healthy eating searches, supplement interest, air quality, average gym membership cost and annual sunlight hours.
Search data was sourced from Google Keyword Planner using city-level keyword combinations, representing average monthly search volumes over a 12-month period. This data was used as a proxy for health engagement and interest, rather than a direct measure of real-world behaviour or access.
All search data was normalised per 100,000 residents to allow fair comparison between cities of different sizes.
Air quality data was sourced from IQAir, gym membership costs from Numbeo, and sunlight hours from Weather and Climate.
Each metric was equally weighted. Scores were calculated using min-max normalisation, where the highest-performing city for each metric scored 100 and the lowest scored 0. For metrics where lower values indicate better outcomes, such as air quality and gym costs, scoring was inverted.
Final index scores were calculated as an average across all nine metrics, producing an overall score out of 100 for each city.