CrossFit East Bay WOD 9-19-08

Despite its seeming potential for elitism (as a point of reference, Brad Pitt got his Fight Club body from doing Crossfit workouts), it's not just some gimmick selling the image of the perfect body. The classes bring a very supportive and almost communal atmosphere, at least at those I've taken via my climbing gyms. In fact, "elite" only registers as pertaining to each person achieving their body's most elite level of fitness.

Let the record reflect that I am a lazy hypochondriac that can't force solo or strength-based workouts on myself with any level of intensity. This is why I usually run and bike, going for sheer distance in lieu of efficacy, or do things like climbing where the objective and punishments for failure are obvious. The fact that I'm committing myself to Crossfit (at least more than Lindsay Lohan is committed to staying sober) is encouraging to me. Obviously, I enjoy the program, or at least what kind of results it has to offer. However, the hazed geek in me also enjoys it for other reasons.

The main slogan reads "THIS IS FITNESS, NOT VANITY." And here, the multiplicity unfolds.First, I'm walking proof that one can be vain while having dangerously low self-esteem. The correlation between self image and VANITY is manufactured. VANITY is simply an air of falsehood coupled with a surficially favorable appearance of oneself. In other words, faking it for the appearance of benefit. If I was taller, I might have been a formidable basketball player, because damn if I couldn't swing injury-induced penalty calls my way by flashing a pained face or two. I have no problem faking intensity; in fact, I think it's my default M.O. So for me, the emphasis on FITNESS, not VANITY simply implies an abandon of prissiness in order to focus on the workout.

However, what exactly constitutes VANITY in the cumulative and/or multiplicitous sense(s)? Isn't the concept of FITNESS, depending on context, inherently vain to begin with? What separates FITNESS, outside the scope of basic health, from other things we vainly do to modify our bodies' appearances?The simple argument is that FITNESS is a fundamental part of health (Nietzsche's great economy), and that having a goal is simply a term of that bodily agreement. Meaning, you have to work for something in order for your body to endure meaningful work. This explanation accommodates elite athletes who still push themselves for that extra rep.

However, that doesn't address the concept of VANITY at all, and I am loathe to envision a "sliding scale" or "crossing the line" model separating FITNESS and VANITY because 1) they're not mutually exclusive, and 2) until I commit to law school, I say fuck the sliding scale approach altogether.

The whole reason I'm on this thought track right now is because of a set of blog entries I've read by an elite athlete considering the prospect of cosmetic surgery. The volume of blog comments opposing that course of action is slightly astounding. An athlete goes in for a procedure - suddenly they've made a moral statement? Perhaps the accompanying negativity by the people who've read the synopsis has nothing to do with VANITY at all, but because cosmetic surgery is not considered among an athlete's tools of the trade. The reaction to a famous actor or actress' "work" would be different, and different again to the outpatient procedures of a politician. This has nothing to do with actual falseness; we simply perceive VANITY in fundamentally different ways depending on context.
Why has an athlete simply "given up" by having a nip or tuck? Does s/he hit the vain threshold by modifying the body with tattoos or piercings? It's noteworthy that none of these "modifications" has anything to do with aiding or impairing actual FITNESS. And in this case, maybe "VANITY" is a slight misnomer.The fact is, everything about the way we interact is surficial. Not superficial; surficial. There is a fundamental difference.

Recognizing the complicated interactions that take place on the surface instead of loftily toting a concept of depths that doesn't exist doesn't make one shallow, just perceptive. What's "on the inside" is not mutually exclusive from outward appearances, no matter what some groups (who shall obviously remain nameless) would like you to believe.