http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1359105317695801 Various criticisms, to sum up: APT: The patients were instructed to do 70% of their percieved energy limit, and this could have lead to the patients regressing because they were doing too little, as well as the extra time resting eating into vital tasks. Contrasts with energy envelope theory, 'staying within the envelope of percieved energy', and reasons this may be better, citing trials of functioning and severity. it's likely that SMC contained elements of pacing. 'Discouraging patients from pacing could cause harm'. Case definitions matter - CBT might work on some in a loose case definition. 'Any major chronic health condition, such as ME, can cause depressive disorder. Some investigators do not understand or appreciate this important diagnostic issue' 'CFSness' of sample - 'only 77% had poor memory/concentration and only 84% had PEM' In short - there are some criticisms that I don't think have been directly published before. A welcome addition to the literature, from someone that's been doing interesting work for a while. The author is an author of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10205371 back in 1999 - "Managing chronic fatigue syndrome: overview and case study."