Talk:Triceps

message: --Light current 21:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright?

message: :"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)
thread_title: Closer Grip?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Poor illustrations

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Six scapulohumeral muscles

message: :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)
replies: text: Triceps →  – 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 October 2021 

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