leokitten said:
They do a submaximal CPET at 70% of your age adjusted maximum heart rate, so (220 - age) * 0.7.
Sorry
@Valentijn and
@Sidereal, he stated that even healthy people do worse on a 2-day
maximal CPET. I've edited my post to correct this. Trust me I disagree with him as well.
How I wish the researchers who have an opportunity to study exercise in ME/CFS would do it properly!
It is clear from the research to date (the Snell/Stevens/van Ness and Keller papers) that a 2-day maximal test is needed for the ME/CFS specific abnormalities to show up. Why muddy the waters with sub-maximal tests (like Baraniuk) or 1-day tests (like CDC)? When you have ME/CFS patients and a CPET test going, why on earth not make sure to repeat the Snell/Stevens/van Ness and Keller protocol (and either confirm or refute their findings)?
Especially researchers getting the much sought-after NIH funding need to read up on the current knowledge and design trials very carefully, I think. We don't get many chances. Look at Fluge&Mella in Norway, they are so thorough and (in spite of being oncologists, not ME experts) so up-to-speed on current research. From my layperson perspective, they seem to be doing what everyone should be doing: using CCC, doing meticulous trial design, trying out current leads (such as the metabolic issues shown in the 2-day CPET maximal test, Stevens Protocol) in sub-studies. Isn't that the kind of research we need to get going everywhere?
- Frustrated! -