1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Dr. Kerr, I presume?
Clark Ellis brings us a rare interview with British researcher Dr. Jonathan Kerr who is now living in Colombia.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Gulf War Illness (/CFS): two subgroups in response to exercise challenge?

Discussion in 'Phoenix Rising Articles' started by Mark, Jun 28, 2013.

  1. Heidi

    Heidi

    Messages:
    3
    Likes:
    2
    Also, it is hard to express my irritation with STOPP "Stress Test Occurring Phantom Perception".

    First of all, they operationalized it into "tender point exams." That's all it is. Those are controversial as to what they even represent.

    Maybe in the study it was meant to represent changes in pain threshold. Yeah maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. But then you call it "Stress Test Occurring Pain Threshold Decrease"--look, it almost spells STOP.

    What the heck is a "phantom perception"? Translation: the observer gets to decide if the subject has "real" pain or not. (Newsflash: the word "pain" means a subjective perception, unless you are a behaviorist/solipsist).

    The observer apparently then gets to decide if the subject has "real" injury (for example, if exercise causes injury to nerves) or not. Instead of, you know, studying the subject to look for injury.

    The term seems to evoke "phantom limb pain."

    Phantom limb pain is pain, not a phantom. The limb is the phantom, not the pain. The pain exists in the nervous system.

    People who, for example, actually have limbs, do not have phantom limb pain, nor phantom pain, they have limb pain.

    You could have "phantom pain" if a disembodied soul had pain. Then you could surmise that "pain" does not "exist in the nervous system" but was instead, for sure, "phantom pain."

    Disgusting.
  2. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes:
    4,230
    Monmouth, UK
    Welcome to the forum, Heidi

    I will be blogging on the new Snell paper shortly, which will hopefully help.

    However, the VO2max effect itself is probably of limited value. First, those willing to undertake a double VO2 max test are probably unrepresentative of CFS patients as a whole. And the effect is quite small, so it looks like there is a lot of overlap between healthy controls and CFS patients.

    Wheras the reduced power output, and efficiency at Ventilatory Threshold on Day 2 test might be altogether more important. Still picking my way through a fairly detailed paper so not sure yet.
    SOC, MeSci and Valentijn like this.
  3. SOC

    SOC Moderator and Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes:
    6,280
    USA
    I, for one, am eagerly awaiting your blog on this paper. :)
    Simon likes this.
  4. Heidi

    Heidi

    Messages:
    3
    Likes:
    2
    Thanks for the welcome, the clarification, and of course for reporting on these papers.

    I am astonished that the VO2 max thing was not what I thought. Wow. So nothing is ever simple after all... I hope that my surmise/assumption/guess will be true--that some second-day tests are so messed-up that PEM can be characterized from them. And I hope that something simple can be made from that.

    Really appreciate your analyses, Simon.
    Simon likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page