Talk:Triceps

Heads

What's a "head" when it comes to a muscle? User:65.24.251.17 04:59, 16 March 2006

Its where the muscle "originates". In anatomy muscles are said to arise from the the core of the body and insert away from it. So in the case of triceps, the heads arise from the shoulder region and insert into the ulna, which is further away from the body core than the shoulder. User:131.111.243.37 12:28, 3 December 2006

Copyright?

[1] --Light current 21:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Closer Grip?

"Using a closer grip stabilizes the arm allowing more weight to be used, so the triceps can be worked harder without being limited by the strength of the pectorals or shoulders."

Could somebody expand or cite a reference to this quote from the article? My experience has led me to believe that while using a closer grip does in fact work the triceps harder, LESS weight must be used. The (male) body generally can lift more weight in compound movements when using the chest and shoulders primarily than when using primarily the arms (as is the case with the close grip). The quote implies that somehow the pectorals and shoulders are limiting the effectiveness of press type exercises. The male body should have stronger pectorals. I'm not sure if females are different in this regard. Perhaps it is referring to using a closer grip in relation to very wide grips (far out from shoulder width), which from my experience is not common. If I am correct this part of the article could be very misleading to someone intending to work this muscle using weights. User:24.147.42.183 02:50, 4 October 2007

• I have to agree, if you use a close grip on say, benchpress, you're gonna use alot more triceps and less chest muscles. In a normal benchpress your triceps is just a synergist, in a close grip the chestmuscle becomes a synergist and your triceps can't push up what your chest normally does. I'd also like to ask for somebody to edit in that the compound exercices described aren't to be used to train your triceps, just in a case of a person new to bodybuilding reading around on wikipedia. Also, straight arm pulldown does not affect the triceps in any way, it works your lats(though I don't see the point of a straight arm pulldown anyway, since you minimise the movement of your lats) and a bend over lateral raise or a pullover doesn't train your triceps, they just lock your arm in a straight position, it's called a stabilizer in that case.Fod_ 15:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Poor illustrations

The images do not show the heads of the triceps. There are also some forearm pictures that do not belong in this article. 90.128.80.148 (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Instead of the bones (Why are they in the article?), use this picture instead: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/illustrations/figure;_ylt=AqOcMIdeArr2PmM3lysBZqdtHokC?id=412 90.128.80.148 (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added the picture you mentioned. The pictures of the bones include labels for the origin and insertion of the Triceps brachii. The picture of the forearm (Gray418.png) also includes a portion of the Triceps brachii. (Clicking on the image will enlarge it enough to make the labels visible.) --Arcadian (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

name of article

The correct name of this article would be "Triceps Brachii Muscles!!" 49ersfanforlife (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia uses the singular title preferentially. Each person's arm has one of these, not several. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Six scapulohumeral muscles

These are listed as the 4 rotor cuff muscles (subscapularis, infraspinatus, teres minor and supraspinatus) along with the teres major and deltoideus. My question is: due to how the biceps and the long head of the triceps attach to the scapulae, even though they don't actually connect to the humerus themselves, do you think these muscles would function similarly in strongly affecting scapulohumeral rhythm? DB (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

this shit is stupid people can put whatever they want on here - User:184.9.246.251 21:56, 14 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. The supports provided convincing policy rationale. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 02:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Triceps brachii muscle → Triceps – Per WP:CommonName and WP:Criteria. It is more recognizable, more concise, and more consistent (with Biceps). Rreagan007 (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom. A common sense move, common and most familiar name. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Also in keeping with WP:PRECISION.--Father Goose (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Do Not Support Wikipedia has the correct title for this muscle. Why would the request be granted, or better yet why would this even be requested to begin with when the title Triceps Brachii Muscle is the correct medical term for your "triceps" Tricep is literally in the title, seems absurd to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdpennten (talk • contribs) 03:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Because Wikipedia's article naming conventions do not use official names, instead using the most common and/or simplest names already in general English use.--Father Goose (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Do Not SupportThe correct medical term for this group of muscles is Triceps Brachii therefore it would be incorrect to change it just for convienence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbybent (talk • contribs) 22:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 22 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Triceps → Triceps brachii muscle – Exact same reasoning for the move from Biceps to Biceps brachii muscle. See the discussion at the talk page there. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd even go on to say that the 28 May 2018 move request did not have proper consensus, yet it was moved anyway. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not sure why this user is suddently going around proposing moves away from WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME titles left, right and centre, to achieve a consistency which clearly didn't exist in the first place. But anyway, this muscle is far and away better-known as simply the "triceps", so there's no valid reason to move here.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose based on strong common name usage. If there are other muscles called biceps, the ambiguity can be resolved in a hatnote. BD2412 T 20:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is the common and most recognizable name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussion on the previous RM. And the biceps page was not moved either. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

me

https://roomstyler.com/moodboard 2600:1700:4FC1:4040:898F:DBC2:5B3E:56D4 (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)