Talk:Biceps

Untitled
changed "30 inch bicep" to "30 inch upper arm" as the original statement neglects the more significant extent the triceps contributes to this measurement (and to a lesser extent brachioradialis, brachialis and corachobrachialis)
 * This comes from the ambiguity in the term "biceps". When a biometrician refers to the measurement of the circumference of the upper arm, the term used is often "biceps measurement", even though the measure includes the entire upper arm.  The Guinness Book from which the information was taken calls the measure a "biceps" measurement. --EncycloPetey 13:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

image issues
The iamges Image:Biceps.jpg is under a non-commercial licence and is therefore not suitable for wikipedia. Could someone with a cameria please make a replacement? Thanks.--nixie 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already taken two photos (one with the arm pronated, one with it supinated) because I noticed the copyright problem. Unfortunately, I now have to figure out how to get the images onto the site -- It's a new camera and the computer I work through has been replaced with a new mdel/platform/etc.  However, I hope to have them in within the next week. --EncycloPetey 10:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's probably be best to upload them to the commons (if you plan to release them into the PD, GFDL or use one of the free creative commons licences), as .jpgs.--nixie 05:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Hideous paragraph"
User:JSpudeman wrote: ''I'm sorry.. but that paragraph was absolutely hideous.. supination is already explained within the header. Someone needs to find a tidyer place for those images, too.''exactly


 * But the paragraph was one that you wrote. I merely cleaned up the spelling and punctuation, explained what some of the obscure terms meant, and moved it to the beginning of the "Function" section. That section needs an introductory paragraph because (presumably) all three functions of the biceps brachii are eventually to be discussed. Otherwise, there is no point in having a two-tiered set of headers.


 * Seriously, if you have this much trouble writing, you should ask for help. There are a lot of generous people here on Wikipedia who enjoy being asked for their kind assistance. --EncycloPetey 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the pictures, what's wrong? They display just fine both on the Mac (OS X) and PC (Win NT) where I have displayed them, and they work at several font sizes and browser window widths. --EncycloPetey 19:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The text i mentioned wasn't something i had typed. Secondly - take a look at my other edits, and you'll find i have no problems with my grammar. WP:NPA The magical Spum-dandy 13:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're wrong on both counts. Go back and compare old edits -- the text I transferred was from what you had written. Given the problems you had with grammar and your obsessive use of the semi-colon, I don't think you're one to judge the quality of your own writing.  Please get an informed opinion. --EncycloPetey 07:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is hilarious. It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

oh just stop arguing and collaborate and decide what is to be done with the paragraph... 49ersfanforlife (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We did...four years ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing details
I noticed that there are some details missing, such as: Latin names of muscles "biceps brachii caput brevis" and "biceps brachii caput longum", the short and the long biceps muscles. Even if it most common to refer biceps as biceps brachii, this should be explained in introduction or terminalogy. GA Fantastic (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right that the terms should be mentioned, but they are not considered separate muscles. Rather, those are the names of the two "heads" of the single muscle. (caput is Latin for "head"). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Article name
Why on earth is this article not called "Biceps brachii"? It is currently a redirect, but surely the word muscle is not needed in the article title. I have not been so bold as to move the article myself; normally I am bold, but there are a lot of articles that link here, and perhaps there is some policy on anatomical articles that I am not aware of. Could someone enlighten me or perhaps simply move this to Biceps brachii? Leevclarke (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "muscle" appears in the titles of all muscle articles for consistency. There are several muscles that would otherwise require awkward disambiguation, so the decision was made to name all muscle articles with "muscle" as the final component of the name.  This is also grammatically correct because biceps brachii means "two-headed of the arm", which lacks a noun.  The full and correct scientific name for the muscle is musculus biceps brachii.  So the name of the article is correct. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, but can someone say some info about the actual functions of the muscules in average and what they do anfd how they work exactly. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.86.95 (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is a grouping of muscles!!!! so it needs to be called "biceps brachii muscles!" 49ersfanforlife (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Because of your belief? Perhaps your belief is incorrect.  Gray's Anatomy (p.387) says that the biceps is a muscle (singular).  --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest this article be renamed "Biceps brachii muscle", this is the correct anatomical name as used on the other articles about muscles (for example Triceps brachii muscle). benrusholme (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bicep
The correct term for the 'Biceps' is in fact Bicep. Bicep refers to the heads of the Bicep, being 2, not in actual fact of hus having 2 bicep. Name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.127.115 (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. The traditional medical term is biceps brachii musculus "two-headed muscle of the arm".  The form "bicep" is arecent invention created on the erroneous assumption that the terminal "-s" makes the plural.  In fact biceps is a singular form and is an adjective in the original Latin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Biceps. Favonian (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Biceps brachii muscle → Biceps – If it's the common name we're after, then it has to be 'biceps'. If it's the precise anatomical term, then 'Biceps brachii' is the term to use. The word 'muscle' in the title is utterly redundant. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Sure. At least in common usage, biceps means only that muscle in the upper arm. Now, note this from OED:
 * "B. n. A muscle with two heads or tendinous attachments; spec. that on the front of the upper arm, which bends the fore arm; also the corresponding muscle of the thigh ; the former of these is often humorously referred to as the type or standard of physical strength."
 * Also in SOED. See Biceps femoris muscle.
 * N oetica Tea? 11:16, 20 September 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Imaging
has been adding tons of text to this and other articles. All these contributions need some work before being included into their articles. So, I drop the biceps imaging material here on the talk just in case someone would find this useful. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Imaging of the long head tendon

The conventional radiography can illustrate the bony channel for the long head tendon. This bicipital sulcus is delineated by the major and minor humeral tuberosities. Fractures with subsequent deformation of the sulcus may lead to painful internal or external rotation. A conventional radiography can clearly depict these deformations.

De Maeseneer described in the publicly accessible paper the specific tendon imaging in the following way: “The tendon of the long head of the biceps muscle attaches to the antero-superior aspect of the glenoid rim. The attachment of the biceps tendon may demonstrate four components, including fibers that attach to the antero-superior labrum, the postero-superior labrum, the supraglenoid tubercle, and the base of the coracoid process. From its site of attachment, the biceps tendon courses laterally and exits the gleno-humeral joint through the intertubercular groove, where it is secured by the transverse ligament. The labral-bicipital complex is well visualized on transverse CT or MR arthrograms as well as on coronal MR arthrograms and reconstructed images from coronal CT arthrograms.”

At the ingress through the sulcus intertubercularis the so called pulley system stabilizes the tendon. The pulley system is formed by the coracohumeral and superior glenohumeral ligaments. The intraarticular part of the long head of the biceps brachii muscle accounts to the superior stabilization of the humerus head. In the last few years, injuries of the biceps tendon anchor have been considered as a reason for chronic shoulder pain. Especially in overhead athletes.


 * Imaging of the distal insertion

Only about 5% of biceps ruptures are distal. They only occur in men and usually around the age of 40 to 60 years, typically after a sudden extension force at a 90° flexed arm in supination. In 8 out of 10 cases the dominant arm is affected. A predisposition for tendon ruptures in general is a degeneration due to overuse or steroid taking. Predispositive are also systemic diseases like hyperparathyroidism, diabetes mellitus, gout or non-systemic inflammatory thickening of the biceps tendon or bone hypertrophy at the radial tuberosity due to the impingement. Most tendon injuries are located at the tuberositas radialis, which could be explained with a found hypovascularisation of the tendon 1cm more proximally.

Radiological signs for a complete rupture: With sufficient experience of the examiner, which is an essential factor for a successful ultrasonographic assessment in general, the ultrasound is the method of choice for distal biceps tendon ruptures. This makes an expensive MR imaging mostly unnecessary.
 * The distal biceps tendon is missing.
 * Tendon retraction, if combined with a rupture of the aponeurosis bicipitalis.
 * A diffusely circumscribed mass in the distal biceps tendon, which is the correlate of a hematoma or an extensive soft tissue swelling in the fossa antecubitalis.
 * Ultrasonography

Ultrasonographic findings on longitudinal and transversal plane, ventral humero-radial in supination: Hypoechoic hematoma at the insertion area of the tuberositas radii, instead of a parallel echogenic insertion. Changes of the contour, retraction of the M. biceps brachii and hemarthrosis. Axial MRI sequences are necessary to determine the exact degree of tendon injury. They can show a proximally thickened and signal increased distal biceps tendon including a surrounding irritative tissue reaction. More distal the tendon profile is not depictable, because it is completely detached from the osseous attachment.
 * MRI

Sagittal sequences are useful for assessing the degree of tendon retraction. A bone marrow edema in the tuberositas radialis and fluid in the bursa bicipito-radialis indicate a partial rupture and facilitate the discrimination to a tendinosis. An isolated bursitis is often clinically not clearly distinguishable from a biceps tendinosis. A biceps tendinosis does affect the tendon’s biomechanical tensile strength negatively. Hematoma or large effusion in the bursa could cause nerve compression of the N. medianus, N. radialis or Nn. interosseus posteriores.

A conservative treatment leads to a loss of 30-40% strength in flexion and supination. It is therefore recommended to surgically re-fix the tendon to the tuberositas radialis within the first 2 weeks after the trauma, especially in physically active patients with high expectations. Within the first 2 weeks the muscle gets neither scarred nor retracted.


 * Say, isn't there a way of moving the footnotes for this text up? As it is now, they're at the bottom of the discussion page, looking disconnected. How do we get them up here to the text where they belong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

source for claim that mouse gives name to all muscles?
''The biceps brachii muscle is the one that gave all muscles their name: it comes from the Latin musculus, "little mouse", because the appearance of the flexed biceps resembles the back of a mouse. The same phenomenon occurred in Greek, in which μῦς, mȳs, means both "mouse" and "muscle".''

Does anyone have a source for this? Or is it just one of thousands of BS medical anecdotes? HMallison (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a medical anecdote. The etymology appears in most major Latin dictionaries that include etymologies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks - and that's secondary sources, and often one copies from the other... anything solid?HMallison (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Um..., Wikipedia requires that we use secondary sources, so researching further back would not be usable. Also, dismissing out of hand all dictionaries as not "solid" without even knowing which authors or publishers were involved seems mighty blithe to me. What, exactly, would you think of as "solid"? Would an anecdote from an ancient scholar be better than research from a modern one? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional images - Biceps and triceps
Why is this image not in english? Should it not be removed due to not being the correct language for the article?

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biceps#/media/File:Flexi%C3%B3n_del_brazo.png) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Distinguish with biceps femoris?
Should there be a at the top of the page here? Or would it be considered redundant since biceps femoris is in the disambiguation? Invinciblewalnut (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 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. The consensus here is that the common name is "biceps". There doesn't seem to be consensus here that consistency/etc should override that, which is often the case where an article has a common name that really stands out among its peer topics. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Biceps → Biceps brachii muscle – This was the name of the article page before it was changed a decade ago, and I believe it should return. Biceps is workout slang and isn't accurate as it can also refer to the Biceps femoris. While the common name is just Biceps, it isn't used in the medical community. For more reasons why the medical term should be used, see this discussion from when I proposed that Rectus abdominis should be just Abs. "Muscle" should be added back in too, per the consensus and WP:CONSISTENT, as all other muscle articles end with muscle. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose biceps is decidedly the wp:commonname. As for accuracy, there is no way that anyone would be confused as to which muscle is being referred to by just 'biceps'—blindlynx (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be the common name, but it's inaccurate and not at all medical. Every other muscle article is titled by its actual medical name in English, and to have one glaring exception is downright silly. If we're going by common name, why was there so strong an opposition to renaming Rectus abdominis to Abs? Pick a consistent titling for anatomical articles and stick with it. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support; while this is the WP:COMMONNAME, and thus aligns with #2 of WP:CRITERIA, it does not align with #3 or #5; it is neither consist with other titles, all of which are at their proper name, nor is it precise, gives that the Biceps femoris also exists. I will also note that the proposed title is also more encyclopedic, which I feel is worth giving some consideration.
 * If those who oppose this move feel stronger about it, a broader discussion might be worth having for all muscles with a common colloquial name, but until then consistency is on the side of the proper name. BilledMammal (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Basically I think both moving and not moving this article have reasons to support them (e.g. COMMONNAME, needlessly disambiguating 'muscle'). However I think that Invinciblewalnut is right in that it's easier and more consistent just to follow a similar naming format for all our articles, and I do admit the inconsistency is something I've noticed over time. The proposed title is more encyclopedic and helps disambiguate from biceps femoris straight away. I think these reasons to move outweigh the reasons to keep, but acknowledge there are things to be said on both sides here. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Support, Though both names seem to be correct but I will go with the medical term as the article is more related to medical field. signed, Iflaq  (talk) 06:09, 21 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.
 * Strong oppose. This is an everyday term used by people across the world, not just in the medical field, and the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME is simply "biceps". That is obviously more WP:CONCISE as well, and more WP:RECOGNIZEable, so there is absolutely no good reason to move it. There isn't really a consistency in titling for these sorts of pages anyway. Some use "muscle", others don't, depending on whether it's ambiguous or not. Simple really. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, already at the common and most recognizable name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Biceps
How many times to grow biceps size?? 182.189.234.115 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)