I'm afraid I don't buy that. This was in their own newsletter: They redefined what normal was to mean >=60 on the SF-36 PF (a ridiculous figure given that you could enter the trial with a better score than that). If they wanted to avoid hype about recovery, they could have simply stuck to earlier figures. They have produced studies that got coverage before. I remember all the hype when the Fulcher/White exercise study came out in 1997. They could have talked about improvement and left it like that. It was the authors who were the cause of talk of recovery/normal functioning.