Cyclists, at least male cyclists, often get a bad rap because they shave their arms and legs. Most people assume it’s to give them some sort of silly aerodynamic edge.
The real reason it’s done, is they all realize that eventually, odds are they will crash. Road rash without hair mixed in is less likely to get infected and a lot easier to clean up.
Oh and I guess the discussion was spurred by this article.
I’ve heard personally that there’s an evolutionary basis for preferring women to be less hairy: less hair was an indicator of youth and the younger a woman, the more likely she’d be a virgin (and thus you’d be less likely to raise another’s child - as long as she demonstrated other characteristics demonstrating she was healthy and oestrogen producing like full lips, wide hips and developed breasts). I think that analysis is a bit lamentably reductionistic (the corollary is that women seek older, stronger, [but compassionate] men with access to resources that can fend off predators and are likely to help raise children) but may have some merit. Anyone have any advances on that theory?
Think of this. We have hair around our private parts and in areas where we have places that our immune system has lymph ducts and other glandular ducts. Why is hair there and should we be removing it? I am trying to find the reason for the hair and my thoughts are it is some sort of energy absorber/disipater and not just insulation. It may have something to do with immunity also. This subject is hard to find evidence about because science isn’t interested in testing these sort of things. If they did test them and published evidence stating shaving is bad, most people would ignore it anyway.
Far more drag as water is much denser than air. To the extent there is measurable drag on a hairy person.
Swimming races are far shorter than cycling and the winner is sometimes decided by 1/1000ths of a second.