Talk:Pectoralis major

Untitled
Almost all information is located in the template on the right. Maybe it would be a good idea to transfer some information to the left and reduce the size of the template. RexNL 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture listed as steriods
Are we sure that person is on steriods? The pectorals do not look abnormally big for someone who would work out alot. It would be nice to either remove it or have a reason to put it. Thanks.

Vandalism
I've reverted most of the vandalism, but this article is still displaying some placeholder tags...

I've also added the final warning template to the user's talk page.

EvocativeIntrigue 15:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol
Think there's some vandalism in the first line about mating process/buff pecs etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.70.88 (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC). There is also a word ending in SSHOLE on the page which may be unnecessarily present.

Moving the pectorals independent of the arms
In a lot of those kung fu movies some individuals can flex their pecs without moving their arms. Is that something you're born with or a result of body building? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.31.72 (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

it's fairly simple, and anyone (with intact pectoral muscles and nerves) can do it. in order for it to be visible, it generally requires some development of pectoral size and neural recruitment. obviously you also need low enough body fat for small muscle movements to be visible, but from experience, isometric pectoral contractions (which are what you're describing) are visible at 20+% body fat. Kajerm 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bodybuilding Stuff
I noticed someone added a line about how the pectorals are weaker than "shoulder blade muscles" (I'm presuming they meant either the trapezius or latissimus dorsi.) While the latissimus dorsi may be a larger muscle group, both it and pectoralis major are prime movers, along with quadriceps and the hamstrings. Latissimus dorsi is a powerful arm adductor and scapular flexor, and is necessary for generating pushing force with the upper body-- just try throwing a punch without using it. The comparison to traps and lats is an apples-and-oranges comparison to some extent, and I've removed it.

Just becuase the pecs are a traditional "beach muscle" does not mean that they aren't major force generators. Any boxing match or bench press competition should be evidence enough of that. Kajerm 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With this section "Flat and declining movements generally work the sternal fibers (often called the "lower" or "inner pecs") while inclining movements generally work the clavicular fibers ("upper pecs.") The opposite is true for pushups, where declining (chest below legs) pushups use more clavicular fibers; they are also more difficult than flat or incline pushups due to the increased responsibility of the (smaller) deltoids and the weaker line of pull for pectoralis." - I've heard that when the muscle moves, it moves as a unit, so doing upper/middle/lower exercises doesn't actually do much more than just flat bench. That being said, I can't remember where I heard it or where I would source it.  However, the point about push-ups seems like BS - legs above chest is more difficult because the legs are above the chest, hence adding more weight to be moved.  Anyone have a real source for this?  WLU 11:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Multi-joint press exercises are better for building muscle mass, while fly and crossovers are more suited for shaping and increasing striations. Muscles can be developed by working four regions of the muscle, upper, lower, outer and inner.[6]"

Those are two bald assertions, quoted directly from the book "Serious Strength Training". No scientific evidence given is (there or here) to back up the fictitious gym-lore claims. The content is not verifiable and should therefore be removed.

The gym lore quote is not supported by this wikipedia entry "Action" section, which states: "The clavicular part is close to the deltoid muscle and contributes to flexation, horizontal adduction, and inward rotation of the humerus." --Xkit (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture
reqphoto

Anyone else think the images are fine? I don't think the page needs a pic request. WLU 18:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

???
What does "anteffurior" mean?

Sexual Appeal bit
Anyone else feel that the wording in that section is a bit strange? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 7 Tishrei 5772 03:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 28 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: consensus to move per WP:CONSISE Kostas20142 (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Pectoralis major muscle → Pectoralis major – Per WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. No such user (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:31, 4 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.