Talk:Rectus abdominis muscle

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Human body#Anatomical variation|variant form]] Anchor Human body#Anatomical variation links to a specific web page: Anatomical variation. The anchor (#Anatomical variation) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Archives: 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

One muscle, paired muscle, or two muscles?

The intro paragraph says: "The rectus abdominis muscle (commonly known as "abs") is a paired muscle running vertically on each side of the anterior wall of the human abdomen (and in some other animals). There are two parallel muscles, separated by a midline band of connective tissue called the linea alba (white line). It extends from the pubic symphysis/pubic crest inferiorly to the xiphisternum/xiphoid process and lower costal cartilages (5-7) superiorly."

So it is first referred to as "the rectus abdominis muscle" (singular), then "a paired muscle", and then "two parallel muscles". So is it one muscle or two or paired or what? Fatrb38 (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a paired muscle. You have a right rectus abdominis and a left rectus abdominis. The two are rarely spoken about by themselves since they are right next to each other in the midline, so they tend to get lumped into the singular rectus abdominis. Jura (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They "they tend to get lumped into the singular rectus abdominis" because there is only one muscle. The term "paired muscle" is meaningless. 14.2.196.234 (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 pack.... 12 pack?

The paired muscles seem pretty clear to be a set of three, with a large single muscle at the bottom. This leads me to the beliefs that a "12" pack would be anatonomically impossible-- is this true? Skiendog (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the number of "cans in the pack" are strictly a function of the appearance of divisions caused by tendons stretched over the surface of the left and right halves of the rectus abdominus. These are not actually distinct muscles. Picture how your thighs would look from underneath a badly worn woven lawn chair you were sitting in. The number of bulges through the chair do not change the number of thighs you have.

Arnold, perhaps the most famous bodybuilder of all time, had a 4 pack; no "lower abs". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Six-packs in cultural and historical terms?

Why are there no sections discussing six-packs in history and six-packs in culture today? I would regard these topics as very important and, in today's (Western) society, developed rectus abdominis muscles are highly sought-after. I came to this article wanting to find out when six-packs became fashionable and whether there have been other points in history and culture when they were as desirable. Sort it out, Wikipedia! Crazy Eddy (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --Daniel G. (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it should be noted how hot they are --Alexandre Newman (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Can i look up an article of a muscle group without seeing pictures of dead bodies please? If i wanted to see people getting chopped up id go to a gore site. This isnt the 17th century we dont need to cut it open to see whats inside any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.215.96 (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 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 (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 16:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rectus abdominis muscle → Abs (muscle) – While rectus abdominis is the technical term for this muscle, you will hardly ever hear someone call it by that outside of a clinical setting. The common name is by far simply Abs. An Ngram search shows this, as well as a PubMed search where "abs" returns 14,974 results and "rectus abdominis" returns 6,745. A google search returns 3.66 billion results for "abs muscle," while "rectus abdominis muscle" gives only 3.32 million. While it's true that WP:MEDMOS gives us "Most articles on human anatomy use the international standard Terminologia Anatomica (TA) as a basis for the English title of an article. Editor judgment is needed for terms used where there is a very clearly used common name, in non-human anatomy, and in other problematic areas", I say this is an instance where the technical term should not be used, and instead, the common name per WP:COMMONNAME. There is precedence for a move like this, as the article on the Biceps brachii muscle is simply Biceps. You can see that discussion here. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Though "abs" is undoubtedly the common name, I think "rectus abdominis muscle" is a sufficiently clear term - and "abs" a sufficiently casual one - to turn me off from the idea of the move. For my tastes, there's not a strong enough case to diverge from the Terminologia Anatomica standard. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wavering. In this case, the more formal name seems more appropriate. GBFEE (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Use the proper anatomical name and never mind bodybuilders' slang. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per article content. There isn't a single sentence of the article that discusses "abs" in a sporting or exercise context (which is where the term is most used). The article is purely anatomical and clinical. As such, the anatomical name should remain. If the article contained some sporting or exercise content (such as under a "Society and culture" heading), I would be less certain. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Abs" is slang, and I think there's a grammatical error in referring to "the abs muscle". Also of note: Abdominal muscle doesn't redirect here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.