• 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 (FM), 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.

Timed loaded standing in female chronic fatigue syndrome compared with other populations

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
Free full text: http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/2015/521/pdf/jrrd-2014-03-0086.pdf

Source: Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development Vol 52, #1, pp 21-30
Date: June 2015
URL: http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/2015/521/absjrrd-2014-03-0086.html
http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/2015/521/pdf/jrrd-2014-03-0086.pdf

Timed loaded standing in female chronic fatigue syndrome compared with other populations

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan B Eyskens(1,*) Jo Nijs(2) Kristiaan D'Aout(3) Alain Sand(4), Kristien Wouters(5,6), Greta Moorkens(6)

1 Department of Internal Medicine, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium;

2 Pain in Motion Research Group; Departments of Human Physiology and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; and Department of Physical Medicine and Physiotherapy, University Hospital Brussels, Brussels, Belgium;

3 Department of Musculoskeletal Biology, Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium;

4 Nuclear Medicine, AZ Jan Palfijn, Ghent, Belgium;

5 Department of Scientific Coordination and Biostatistics, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium;

6 Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

* Address all correspondence to Jan B Eyskens, MSc PT, DO, Pr Ph;

Rijsenbergstraat 31, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; +32 486 50 70 01.

Email: jan@beweging.org



Abstract


Patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), like patients with osteoporosis, have similar difficulties in standing and sitting.

The aim of the study was to compare combined trunk and arm endurance among women with CFS (n=72), women with osteoporosis (n=30), nondisabled women (n=55), and women from non-industrialized countries (n=58) using the timed loaded standing (TLS) test.

TLS measures how long a person can hold a 1 kg dumbbell in each hand in front of him or her with straight arms.

TLS was higher in the industrialized nondisabled population than in the non-industrialized study population (p<0.001) and in patients with osteoporosis (p=0.002).

TLS was lower in patients with CFS than in nondisabled controls (p<0.001).

After adjusting for age, body height, and weight, combined trunk and arm endurance was even lower in CFS than in osteoporotic patients more than 25 yr old (p<0.001).

In CFS, TLS was lower than in the non-industrialized group (p=0.02).

Since only women were studied, external validity of the results is limited to adult female patients with CFS.

TLS revealed a specific biomechanical weakness in CFS patients that can be taken into account from the onset of a rehabilitation program. We propose that influencing the quality, rather than the quantity, of movement could be used in the rehabilitation.

Key words: chronic fatigue syndrome, deformation, endurance, graded exercise/exposure therapy, movement, non-industrialized population, osteoporosis, physical performance, timed loaded standing, trunk.


--------

(c) 2015 US Department of Veterans Afairs
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
Here's the test. One holds 1 kg in each hand.
Eyskens 2015 Figure 1.png
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
The end of this sentence from the abstract is not clear:

"After adjusting for age, body height, and weight, combined trunk and arm endurance was even lower in CFS than in osteoporotic patients more than 25 yr old (p<0.001)."

What it is referring to is the fact that the CFS group had an average age of 43 and the osteoporotic group had and average age of 69 (the difference also held up when adjusting for the factors)

Here's a sentence from the full text:
"TLS in CFS was much shorter than in patients with osteoporosis who were more than 25 yr older."
 

Effi

Senior Member
Messages
1,496
Location
Europe
I'd say beware of this crew. They're BPS undercover. They invented a glorified version of GET but it's basically still GET. They try to force their point of view upon public opinion by referencing pretty much only their own studies, in order to gain power over the CFS field in this country. Any treatment that isn't their treatment is considered bad and 'unethical'. Who knows what they're trying to achieve with this study?

PS: Nijs used to work with KDM (so used to be convinced of the biomedical viewpoint), but somewhere somehow he crossed over to the other side...
 

Snow Leopard

Hibernating
Messages
5,902
Location
South Australia
The overall aim of this study is reasonable - developing a cheap/easy method of measuring impairment which they hope can be improved with interventions. That validity still remains to be proven (compared to overall levels of disability, impairment including other objective measures - repeated exercise testing, actigraphy, step tests, 6 min walking distance tests etc.) as well as longitudinal stability.

They might thing that some of the weakness is due to deconditioning, cognitive factors, etc but surely if such measures do not improve (at long term followups), they will start to revise their reasoning?
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
The overall aim of this study is reasonable - developing a cheap/easy method of measuring impairment which they hope can be improved with interventions. That validity still remains to be proven (compared to overall levels of disability, impairment including other objective measures - repeated exercise testing, actigraphy, step tests, 6 min walking distance tests etc.) as well as longitudinal stability.
Not sure whether you saw but they did mention this, though not done on an ME/CFS group:
Shipp et al. used timed loaded standing (TLS), a measure of combined trunk and arm endurance in a population of women with osteoporosis complaining of similar physical inabilities [19]. Women withosteoporosis also show pronounced balance problems compared with women without osteoporosis [20]. They found moderately strong and statistically significant correlations between TLS and 16 of 18 measures of physical impairment and function in women with osteoporosis with known fractures. Functional reach distance, gait velocity, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Physical Function Subscale, shoulder flexion strength, and 6 min walk distance were most strongly associated with TLS time [19].

19. Shipp KM, Purse JL, Gold DT, Pieper CF, Sloane R, Schenkman M, Lyles KW. Timed loaded standing: A measure of combined trunk and arm endurance suitable for people with vertebral osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2000; 11(11):914–22. [PMID:11193243] http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001980070029
 

Effi

Senior Member
Messages
1,496
Location
Europe
which they hope can be improved with interventions
It's these interventions that I'm worried about. I suspect they make up their studies specifically to market their own strategies, i.e. glorified GET.
but surely if such measures do not improve (at long term followups), they will start to revise their reasoning?
The thing they do is: if you say you're feeling better, you're a 'good patient' and are encouraged. If you say you feel worse, you're not doing it right and you're a 'bad patient' and are probably put in a database titled 'to be ignored'. (I was a patient of a doctor who used to be in this crew and I saw her spinning my results right in front of me, just so that I'd fit in with her theory. I was getting worse and worse and she kept telling me I was getting better, although the numbers said I was getting worse.) It doesn't look like they'll change their strategy any time soon. Problem is, it looks SO good on paper. But in reality it's just the same patronizing abuse we all know too well.

Now that I think of it, I can imagine what this study is for... This crew is trying to re-open the 'CFS reference centres' here in Belgium. They were closed after an objective study stated that over 70% of patients got worse because of their GET/CBT practices. So I guess they regrouped, polished their theory, coated it with some shiny varnish. A couple of months ago they sent out a 'heartfelt' letter to the government to say that CFS patients need more and better treatment. I wouldn't be surprised if this study is just part of them making their case. This study states that CFS patients are very sick indeed, so we desperately need treatment. And they will give it to us gladly. Cha-ching. :moneybag:
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
This study needs independent validation, including using strict patient cohorts. If its useful then that's a good thing, regardless of the therapy they want to push. I would like to see something like this looked at in strict CCC or Ramsay ME patients outside of Europe.
 

Effi

Senior Member
Messages
1,496
Location
Europe
This study needs independent validation, including using strict patient cohorts.
I totally agree, but isn't that gonna be a problem until we have a biomarker? As long as they work with 'questionaires' or 'diagnostic criteria' they can mold their cohorts as they please. It would be interesting to see this study repeated by researchers without a specific agenda.
 

Asa

Senior Member
Messages
179
This crew is trying to re-open the 'CFS reference centres' here in Belgium. They were closed after an objective study stated that over 70% of patients got worse because of their GET/CBT practices.

Does anyone have a source for the above, please? I've seen this info elsewhere but can't recall where just now. (Thank you!)
 

jimells

Senior Member
Messages
2,009
Location
northern Maine
This is garbage sprinkled with perfume. It neither informs diagnosis nor treatment of our illness. I had a friend who died from pancreatic cancer. He most certainly would've done very poorly on this test.

Perhaps his cancer doctors should've prescribed "rehabilitation" after he became too weak to stand. :mad:
 

jimells

Senior Member
Messages
2,009
Location
northern Maine
This study states that CFS patients are very sick indeed, so we desperately need treatment. And they will give it to us gladly. Cha-ching. :moneybag:

Thanks for giving us the background to this research. One can pretty well guess this story just from the abstract.