Most importantly, it means spending modestly while saving aggressively for retirement and emergencies."

Perhaps instead of hitting the shopping mall, some might want to hit some financial wellness strategies  to keep their personal finances in shape.

And it might be easier to do that in some cities than in others, with residents adhering more (or less) closely to strategies that will better position them for financial success.

So WalletHub compared more than 180 U.S. cities based on 29 key indicators of wallet fitness. Cities were evaluated across five key dimensions: credit standing, responsible spending, savings, risk exposure and earning power.

Those 29 indicators were compiled into a weighted average that gave each city its position on the list.

Below are the 5 best and 5 worst cities for wallet fitness. Ignore them at your own peril.

5 best cities for financial fitness

5. San Jose, California

Just fifth from the top in the "best" category, San Jose received a total score of 62.91 out of 100, with a credit standing rank of 4; a responsible spending rank of 112—not so responsible; a savings rank of 22; a risk exposure rank of 6; and an earning power rank of 105.

Incidentally, San Jose has the fourth lowest nonmortgage debt level of all the cities evaluated, calculated as a percentage of median income.

4. Columbia, Maryland

With an overall score of 64.72, Columbia can clearly teach other cities a thing or two about financial health or what WalletHub calls "wallet fitness, although maybe not in the credit standing category, where it received a rank of 147. But for responsible spending it was ranked 2, for savings 31, for risk exposure 57 and for earning power 1, so in the end it did pretty well.

It also did well in that non-mortgage debt level category, with the fifth lowest level among all cities. Plus it had the highest median income level, adjusted for cost of living, of all cities evaluated.

3. Madison, Wisconsin

An overall rating of 65.03, coupled with a credit standing rank of 3, a responsible spending rank of 4, a savings rank of 34, a risk exposure rank of 21 and an earning power rank of 46, make Madison a good place to be if you're devoting yourself to your own financial wellness.

2. San Francisco, California

It's interesting that California cities do so well in this evaluation, given the high cost of living and high taxes people deal with—but then perhaps that's what makes them manage their money so well.

San Francisco is blessed with a total score of 66.26, thanks to a credit standing rank of 2, a responsible spending rank of 71 (well, sometimes you have to smell the roses), a savings rank of 23, a risk exposure rank of 2 and an earning power rank of 62. The city also has the third highest median credit score in the group, as well as the third-lowest nonmortgage debt level.

1. Fremont, California

Yet another California city with fit wallets, Fremont has a total score of 67.54, with a credit standing rank of 1, a responsible spending rank of 20, a savings rank of 70, a risk exposure rank of 1 and an earning power rank of 35.

The city also has the highest median credit score as well as the lowest nonmortgage debt level.

5 worst cities for financial fitness

5. Brownsville, Texas

Finances don't appear to be the friends of residents of Brownsville, with an overall score of 40.74. A credit standing rank of 116, a responsible spending rank of 61, a savings rank of 176—not much financial wellness there—a risk exposure rank of a dismal 182 and an earning power rank of 152 all combine to make Brownsville residents face financial challenges.

To add insult to injury, Brownsville is tied for 174^th place (with Houston, Dallas, Miami, Florida, Santa Ana, California and Hialeah, Florida) for having the highest percentage of its population uninsured.

4. San Bernardino, California

Its overall score of 40.73 means that residents of San Bernardino have to work really, really hard to keep their wallets fit.

The city's credit standing rank stands at 169, while its responsible spending rank is even lower, at 173; savings rank isn't much better, at 132, nor is its risk exposure rank, at 96, while its earning power rank is a disheartening 176.

3. North Las Vegas, Nevada

Yes, it's a real city. Overall, North Las Vegas received a score of 40.03. All its numbers are discouraging, with a credit standing rank of 181, a responsible spending rank of 156, a savings rank of 148, a risk exposure rank of 157 and an earning power rank of 129.

In addition, the city is tied for 177^th place with Baltimore, Maryland and Fayetteville, North Carolina for the highest foreclosure rate.

2. Newark, New Jersey

Its overall score is 40.00, but poor Newark doesn't do well in any of the five categories. Credit standing is ranked at 135, responsible spending at 153, savings at a surprisingly high 77 (considering the city's place on the list), risk exposure at 178 and earning power at 182.

In addition, Newark placed 181^st—the second from the bottom—for the lowest median credit score and 178^th—the fifth from the bottom—for the lowest median household income, adjusted for cost of living.

1. Hialeah, Florida

At the very bottom of the list, finishing in 182^nd place, Hialeah has an overall score of 37.98. Its credit standing is ranked at 101, responsible spending at 155, savings at 179, risk exposure at 166 and earning power at 180.

Hialeah also was one of those cities tied at 174^th place for the highest percentage of the population to be uninsured, has the lowest median household income in the whole list and is tied for 114^th place with Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Pembroke Pines—all other Florida cities—for the lowest percentage of households with emergency savings.