Talk:Hip flexors

Hip flexors and situps, merge

I'm not sure sit-ups ONLY work the hip flexors, as the article implies.

Yes, there IS an article called "hip flexors", because that's where I clicked the "discuss" link.

I just wanted to say: If this page is merged with the page about the iliopsoas muscle group, people like me might never be able to find it. I wanted to know what to call the muscles that hurt so bad today, so I took an educated guess and found "hip flexors." The muscles are in my hip, and are involved in flexing rather than extending the joint. I guess "hip flexors" and found some useful information.

But what is an Iliopsoas? I would never find that, so at least leave a redirect or something explaining "yeah, hip flexors. You really mean 'Iliopsoas' and here's the link..."

Thanks.

Okay, the hip flexors are not just the iliopsoas, but the iliopsoas are mainly hip flexors. This article is about hip flexors, and so we can't really define 'hip flexors' as solely the iliopsoas, so I'm removing the insinuation from the intro paragraph. Also, the whole thing about sit ups is a little misleading, since there are many types of sit-ups, and not all of them recruit the hip flexors. (In fact, if you are trying to decrease your hips' dependency on the hip flexors (tight lower back), you would want to strengthen your abdominals and loosen (read: not exercise) your hip flexors, so sit ups would not exactly alleviate that postural dysfunction.) Rhetth 16:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture?

Why does the hip flexors article have a picture of the large intestine? Anchoress 22:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the caption on the image, "Ilio-psoas labeled at center right", and iliopsoas is given in the article as an alternate term for hip flexors. However, we have better images, and I've added one to the top of the article. --Arcadian 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, that's much, much better. Anchoress 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the picture changed again? I thought the one added in early January was more illustrative (at least to people who don't have any pre-knowledge) than the current one. Anchoress 23:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed by an anon in this edit. I've changed it back. --Arcadian 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]