Talk:Tendinous intersection

Function

What is the physiological function of the tendinous intersections of the rectus abdominis ? 76.10.181.143 (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious edit?

I was reviewing the history to find out when some information was added here and noticed this was removed. It added some interesting references and ideas to the article. Seeing as how Kdub7185's addition was reverted by Mitch Ames I'll post it here to promote discussion:

The tendinous intersections also serve as protective structures to the rectus abdominis. They are believed to be protective devices that keep us from rupturing the entire length of the rectus abdominis². The ability of the tendinous intersections to provide varying degrees of forward flexion is the most likely explanation for the preventative rupturing of the rectus abdominis. As the rectus abdominis suddenly flexes forward or backward (like being hit in a contact sport), the strain is spread throughout each rectus abdominis section via the tendinous intersections. This enables the rectus abdominis to stabilize the body without rupturing.

1. Lefavi, Bob. “The Scientific Approach to Ab Training.” Proform. 23 Nov 2010. <http://www.proform.co.za./training/abtrain.htm>.
2. Saladin, Kenneth S. Anatomy and Physiology: the Unity of Form and Function. 5th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2010. 298-300.

I'd also like to call into question this addition by c11kevin.wright. I have fact-tagged these claims on the page but not removed them from the article. These ideas are thought-provoking, but unsourced. Due to the controversy about ideas such as upper/middle/lower abdominals, supplying references to support the ideas seem essential. Otherwise, we should notify readers of the lack of proof of it and teach the controversy, submitting the alternate idea that the ab simply connects at once as a single unit, which many hold. DB (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, most of it should just be moved to rectus abdominus, if it can be verified. Having the entire page of "tendinous intersection/inscription" be about that one muscle is a bit like having bird be exclusively about sparrows. I'm planning a complete re-write, which will eliminate just about everything here, which focuses on the anatomical structure itself in various species and its function, but I need to do some digging in the literature - very little has scientific research has actually been done on this topic, AFAIK. Could be a while, though - my to-do list is very long, and I'm very busy in real life. Mokele (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The idea that tendinous intersections separate the rectus abdominis into three sets of paired muscles to increase range of flexion sounds suspect, not only because of the concept that one segment of the muscle acts without increasing tension along the entire length, but because the number of intersections on each side varies throughout the population <http://dro.dur.ac.uk/9507/1/9507.pdf>, with some bodies having only one on each side, some having more on one side than the other (bilateral asymmetry), some having intersecions that do not span the width of the muscle, and at least one observed case of an altogether lack of intersections <http://www.anatomy.org.tr/issue/200901/pdf/13.pdf>. If the intersections functioned as described in the article, then there should be noticeable differences in physical range of motion in the population. What's more, the tendinous intersection is only on the anterior face of the muscle while the posterior side is continuous and typically not fixed to the intersected tissues on the anterior side.--211.120.232.228 (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)