“Shave me”

By E.M. Burton

In Rest Day/Theory

June 14, 2013

PDF Article

“Go ahead, shave me.”

It takes a certain amount of temerity to say it. But you probably should.

Granted, shaving is pretty common. For many, it's an essential part of daily grooming. They say three-quarters of all men shave their faces every day without giving the act much thought.

But when it comes to having someone else do the work? It can be a little daunting.

A rather discerning friend recently mentioned he’d just had the best shave in his life. Not a fan of shaving his face, he was quite impressed with one he’d had at a boutique shop offering the service.

A quick glance at The Art of Shaving’s website and you’ll quickly see that they cater to a masculine market. If you’re into having great-looking legs, you will likely have to look elsewhere.

Based on the anecdotal evidence, I already accept that a professional shave is going to be good.

But is it going to be great?

Free Download


17 Comments on ““Shave me””


wrote …

What does this have to do with CrossFit??


replied to comment from Joshua Wynn

Joshua, we're all CrossFitters. We do lots of the same things all the time, and we talk about them frequently. Do you do anything besides work out? If not, it's likely you have entirely missed the point.

To ask the question, "What does this have to do with CrossFit?" implies an unwillingness to think and understand, exposes one-dimensionality, and exposes a fundamental disconnect with the principles we believe in.

CrossFit is a (very large) part of our lives. It affects and shapes us in countless ways beyond just exercise and therefore is related to pretty much everything we do.

What does this NOT have to do with CrossFit?


wrote …

What does this NOT have to do with CrossFit? Oh, I don't know. Maybe the whole constantly varied, functional movements performed at high intensity thing. Or maybe increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains. Just a couple thoughts. I'm fairly certain everyone does stuff outside of working out and CrossFit. I certainly hope they do at least. However, I for one, do not come to the CrossFit journal for that stuff. I come to the journal to learn methods to make myself a better coach or athlete. I don't come to the journal for movie reviews, art lessons, political analysis, etc. Likewise, I wouldn't go to a journal about those things to learn how to execute a snatch properly, correct my running form, or how to equip a garage gym.


wrote …

And this is why the CrossFit journal is losing it's appeal.

This seems to literally be written as a advertisement for the business involved. While the info was interesting, it seems that resources would be better spent on educating coaches and athletes about movement, health, and fitness to create the strongest community in the world.


wrote …



Dale Saran wrote …

Joshua/Cody/Bryan: There are a LOT of articles in hee that aren't necessarily about training only. There have been articles on guns and shooting, with some tie to fitness, but I'm curious why you think there HAS to be a direct correlation to fitness or it shouldn't appear. There are also hundreds (maybe thousands) on training. What is it about an article on shaving that offends you so much? I found it to be pretty interesting. It's a leisure activity and piece - so is fitness (at least to a lot of the rest of the world). Yet we (CrossFitters) think fitness is essential. Many think shaving is essential.

Why do you believe that CrossFit should censor this stuff? For years, the main page has had articles on rest days that were about subjects from economics, to global warming, to science, to math, to poetry, music, and on and on and on. It's always been a part of CrossFit. Always.


replied to comment from Dale Saran

Dale, I believe HQ has the right to do anything they want with their business, Journal, website, etc., so what I say or believe really doesn't change anything. However, I also believe there is a reason people are taking time out of their day to comment on the fact that they are confused as to why these articles are in the Journal, and that is due to the fact that they are expecting something different from what they are receiving.

In addition, I believe there is a very significant difference between rest day links and Journal articles. The former seems to be a short-term effort to encourage discussion, personal growth, and open-mindedness on various topics. Journal articles, on the other hand, were meant to have a specific purpose. To be exact, the mission of the Journal, as copied from directly below:

"The CrossFit Journal is a chronicle of the empirically driven, clinically tested, and community developed CrossFit program. Our mission is to provide a venue for contributing coaches, trainers, athletes, and researchers to ponder, study, debate, and define fitness and collectively advance the art and science of optimizing human performance."

Is this still the purpose of the Journal? If the purpose and mission have changed, that is fine. However, in my opinion, the value that many place on the CrossFit Journal and its articles is built upon the standard of "optimizing human performance", and therefore, every article in the Journal should further this mission. Anything that doesn't forward that mission doesn't seem to belong.

Therefore, in my opinion (for what it's worth), this article doesn't seem to mesh with the mission stated above and therefore shouldn't be Journal article material. It isn't offensive in any manner and doesn't need to be "censored", but I also believe it doesn't belong.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.


Michael Schaal wrote …

Nice t-shirt!


wrote …

My sentiments exactly, Cody.


wrote …

This is not the sort of content I subscribe to the journal for. Reads more like an advertisement. The 'neat food ideas for your kids' articles should go as well - I realize those are valuable but keep 'em on the Crossfit Kids site.

I subscribe to the journal for greater insight on workouts, the sport and advice on how to maintain myself while I try to hit my goals. I also enjoy hearing the stories of other Crossfitters, whether they just walked into their first gym or are competing in the games.

Tighten up, journal staff.


wrote …

This was taken directly from the "Start Here" section.

The CrossFit Journal is a fitness, health and lifestyle publication dedicated to the improvement of athletic performance and quality of life. The searchable Journal archives run from April 2002 to the present and contain over 3,100 high-quality PDF articles, videos and audio files covering diverse topics including exercise technique, nutrition, injuries and rehab, equipment, coaching, and much more.

I think the article may fall into the "quality of life", "health and lifestyle" and "much more" category. Just like any "exercise" periodical you get on the newstand. Back when I used to subscribe to Muscle & Fitness, there would be the occasional article on grooming. I think most men's and women's health & lifestyle and fitness mags publish articles like this every year or so.

So it may not fit the CrossFit model with regards to training, physiology, kinetics...etc. but does everything have to?


replied to comment from james darden

Fair point, James. I guess it just starts to become a difference of opinion on the purpose.

In my mind, the journal was meant to be CrossFit's online version of a peer-reviewed science journal. This was originally supported by the early articles and mission statement. However, it seems to have shifted from its original purpose to, like you stated, a "Men's Health" type, lifestyle publication. I believe this is supported by the fact that they removed the "Community" section to put everything under one heading and began to have more articles on shaving, sex, sensational stories, etc.

Consequentially, I will also reiterate that I believe this shift in purpose results in a shift in the educational value of the journal. It seems to no longer be the venue for science and fitness knowledge, but instead a lifestyle magazine. There is nothing "wrong" with either, but it seems that HQ will begin to lose the audience interested in fitness knowledge if they stray from the original purpose.

Anyway, just my two cents and like I said, just a difference in opinion, neither right nor wrong.


wrote …

Come to think of it, people are saying what does this have to do with crossfit worktouts or anything related. Well, for some, shaving can be a workout in itself!


wrote …

Really? People are taking the time out of their day to comment on how they wish they wouldn't have taken the time out of their day to read the article. That's not confusing at all. YOU clicked on the article. YOU read it. If you don't want to spend time reading it, I have a remarkably simple solution; DON'T READ IT. If any of the preceding is confusing to you, please step outside, face east and yell "I'm an idiot!". Things should clear up soon. At least for people in the vicinity.


Cody -

My point is this. It's ONE article in a tome of thousands - and certainly not the only one - that isn't specifically and directly correlated to "fitness." What you're suggesting is a censorship of everything and anything not directly about training. That is inconsonant with what the Journal is.

Moreover, if you believe that this was supposed to be "CrossFit's online version of a peer-reviewed science journal" you obviously haven't been here for long enough to understand CrossFit's view of "peer reviewed" and what that means for true science. Newton, Einstein, Planck, et al. weren't right because a bunch of other physicists eventually agreed. They were right because their models were correct (enough) in their predictive power. That's it. Peer review proves nothing. I can probably find a hundred or a thousand idiots, even in academia, to agree with all kinds of nonsense. The government's food pyramid, anyone? Nutrition dogma regarding carbs, anyone? How many people have 'peer-reviewed' the concept of carbo-loading for marathoners? How many generations believe (i.e. have "peer-reviewed") the concept that marathon running is the epitome of fitness?

Science is about predictions, or more specifically, models with predictive power that are better than random chance. Peer review isn't a requirement of calling something "science" or "not science." All publication does is provide an opportunity for others to "check your work." In that sense, the publication of a model does provide us with greater confidence if many others can duplicate the model, or experiment, or even provide an opportunity for feedback on the model, and perhaps even avenues for improving the predictive power or narrowing the domain to which the model might apply. But it is not the sine qua non of science.

As an example, much of the US space program and rocket program was done in secret. There were no "peer reviewed publications" because military technology operates in secret. The ultimate test of the model is when the weapon system gets fired - but it would be stupid to say there was no "science" because there was no "Journal" to which the models were first "peer reviewed."

But back to the point, this isn't the "peer review" Journal for CrossFit and your belief that it should be is what is coloring your (mis)perception about the articles that show up here. And I say that with respect, Cody. I really do.



wrote …

This article is designed very well. Elegant and simple.
Easy and carefree reading.

But I think CFHQ should be focus on some points missed.
Re-start, please, as soon as possible to post new view about training method and real nutritional suggestions, real performance nutritional principles and not the same guidelines that nobody follows!


wrote …

I'm with Cody.

This isn't what I pay for and it comes off as pure advertising. Provide articles which can inform my development as a coach and athlete.

If I want superfluous fluff, there's a plethora of free websites out there trying to sell me crap.

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)