• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Physical activity intensity but not sedentary activity is reduced in CFS (Newton, 11)

WillowJ

WillowJ

คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl
Messages
4,940
Location
WA, USA
Dolphin said:
Of course, we seem to be in a no-win situation: some say we are action-prone while then we supposedly under do it. Wessely (?) said something like 2 star ability, 5 star ambition - yet he was one of the people most pushing the CBT model largely based on us underdoing it.
Click to expand...

yes, their models are not internally consistent.

but I'm not asking to be an astronaut or a paratrooper, or a judge, or any such. :Retro smile: I would like to be able to, you know, go to work and/or school like a normal person, cook dinner (standing up the entire time and doing dishes after), go hiking, stuff like that.
 
WillowJ

WillowJ

คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl
Messages
4,940
Location
WA, USA
although, I think some here have 5-star ability, not counting the illness, but the point is: disillusionment cannot cause physical disability; there is no mechanism available for that and they have failed even to produce a passably good model for how this might work (I say this for the world wide web), and most of us would be thrilled with 2- or 3- star function as compared to what we have now...

ETA: obviously I'm not agreeing anyone is/was disillusioned :) just that the model is pointless, besides being inconsistent
 
Snow Leopard

Snow Leopard

Hibernating
Messages
5,902
Location
South Australia
WillowJ said:
although, I think some here have 5-star ability, not counting the illness, but the point is: disillusionment cannot cause physical disability; there is no mechanism available for that and they have failed even to produce a passably good model for how this might work (I say this for the world wide web), and most of us would be thrilled with 2- or 3- star function as compared to what we have now...
Click to expand...

I had 5-star ability and 4-star expectations. :p

To me it shows there is a clear self-selection bias with regards to the type of people who show up for treatment - higher achieving people are more likely to show up. In the case of adolescents, it is the parental ambitions that are the biasing factor.

Reminds me of the following studies:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/47/68/Godfrey2009IQinchildrenwithCFS.pdf
Unfortunately the IQ scales of both the patients and controls seems to be skewed (both well above average) and there was no prospective IQ test (before CFS) so we can't conclude that it is the parental expectations themselves are skewed, merely that adolescents in these clinics are more likely to have parents with higher expectations than the norm.

The following study found 17% of adolescents (with CFS) had IQs over 120 and 47% between 100-120. http://www.cfids-cab.org/rc/Sankey.pdf
 
Simon

Simon

Senior Member
Messages
3,789
Location
Monmouth, UK
biophile said:
Recently however, another group of researchers (Meeus et al 2011) not only found their CFS patients to be more sedentary than healthy sedentary controls but found that patients who were less active and more sedentary with better "activity dispersion" reported fewer symptoms and variations on the same and next day. Here is the results in the abstract, some but not all of the findings seem to be opposite of Newton et al 2011:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22032215
Click to expand...
Worth noting one other study, Gallagher 2005 (n=41) that also used actometers to compare CFS patients wtih sedentary(ish) controls and found - contrary to their hypothesis - CFS patients spent no more time inactive than sedentary controls.
 
Simon

Simon

Senior Member
Messages
3,789
Location
Monmouth, UK
Firestormm said:
What's a sedentary control please? I mean what's the benchmark of sedentary, to whom we are being compared to. Thanks :)
Click to expand...
A sedentary control is whatever the researchers say it is :eek:. This varies a lot between studies, but in the case of the Gallagher study above:
The controls were healthy but sedentary
hospital staff responding to advertisements about the study.
The criteria for sedentary controls were that they thought
they ought to take more exercise, they performed moderate
exercise of 20 min less often than once per week, and they
never/rarely engaged in exercise long enough to work up a
sweat, get the heart pumping or get out of breath
Click to expand...
 
Firestormm

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
Lol. 'sedentary hospital staff'. Well there's a (something or other) of terminology don't you think? Jees :rolleyes: How can anyone who is able to work be considered 'sedentary' when comparing them to patients with ME? Bloody hell.

Of course you rarely see a hospital worker running for the needs of a patient do you? Working up a sweat? What a joke.

I despair... but thanks for that Simon. First laugh of the day :)
 
Firestormm

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
More seriously, I was wondering what might be considered a more realistic control and comparison for studies such as these but couldn't come up with anything. I guess it's not only the way in which you recruit and measure for a comparison but also the methods by which you compare that affect the results.
 
PhoenixDown

PhoenixDown

Senior Member
Messages
456
Location
UK
ixchelkali said:
Another possibility is that few, if any, of their subjects had CFS, but instead their cohort was a mixed bag of idiopathic fatigue and depression patients.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between depression & idiopathic fatigue? There's no test for depression so...
 
alex3619

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Tito said:
The most revealing part of the study to me is:
"although 21 (75%) regarded themselves as fully recovered, they described symptom persistence of fatigue and headache, depression and sleep disturbance."
:(
Click to expand...

Hi Tito, does this mean that "recovery" is defined as no longer complaining of being ill? You can get that with brainwashing too ... oh, wait, isn't CBT brainwashing? Teens and children are also very vulnerable to pressure from authoritative figures. Bye, Alex
 
T

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Location
Sth Australia
Tito said:
The most revealing part of the study to me is:
"although 21 (75%) regarded themselves as fully recovered, they described symptom persistence of fatigue and headache, depression and sleep disturbance."
:(
Click to expand...

Maybe my sister who's in early 30s was in that study (only kidding). but she likes to tell me how much better she's doing or that she's all good again (thou she's daily taking so many things and still trialing stuff) and she cant even do gym class.

Its about time studies went by EVIDENCE of if someone is better or not based on how much they are ACTUALLY ABLE TO DO .. not on what fantasies people have. It would be so easy for studies just to have a simple checklist of all things a normal person could do eg would you be able to do aerobics classes at a gym? Do you or could you work full time?
and have people check the boxes to find out if they truely are fully recovered or not.. and yeah also ask them simple quesitons on symptoms.

There needs to be CFS research standards put scientifically in place for studies to be forced to follow in what classifies as an actual recovered ME/CFS patient. This is something our big orgs should push for... some standards in ME/CFS research. Maybe ME/CFS patients should be pushing our orgs to be trying to do something about this...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.