Karen Wallman also looks rather problematic. She approaches CFS from the perspective of an exercise physiologist, but is quite happy to use psychological and psychosomatic explanations. She's run some GET trials directly, and a lot of exercise testing.
Trial of GET in CFS: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2004...rial-graded-exercise-chronic-fatigue-syndrome
How to use GET without exacerbation of symptoms: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mjl/sreh/2008/00000040/00000004/art00001
All studies show GET is effective in improving physical function: https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/183_03_010805/wal10079_fm.pdf
Lower output in submaximal exercise testing is due to misperception of effort and exercise avoidance: http://128.121.104.17/cfs-inform/Exercise/wallman.etal.04.pdf
Pacing can be used to manage CFS and avoid PEM (with Ellen Goudsmit, Jo Nijs, and Leonard Jason) http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09638288.2011.635746
Her stance is a little odd in that she acknowledges immune dysfunction in one paper, and the necessity to take that into account in the GET regime. Some of her recommendations for GET more closely resemble pacing, and she was the last author listed in a pro-pacing article. But she's also willing to bury negative results (no increase in physical activity compared to controls) while making a big deal out of less relevant physical measurements.
Either she has a very complicated viewpoint, or it's been evolving. But she's very pro-GET in any event.
Trial of GET in CFS: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2004...rial-graded-exercise-chronic-fatigue-syndrome
How to use GET without exacerbation of symptoms: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mjl/sreh/2008/00000040/00000004/art00001
All studies show GET is effective in improving physical function: https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/183_03_010805/wal10079_fm.pdf
Lower output in submaximal exercise testing is due to misperception of effort and exercise avoidance: http://128.121.104.17/cfs-inform/Exercise/wallman.etal.04.pdf
Pacing can be used to manage CFS and avoid PEM (with Ellen Goudsmit, Jo Nijs, and Leonard Jason) http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09638288.2011.635746
Her stance is a little odd in that she acknowledges immune dysfunction in one paper, and the necessity to take that into account in the GET regime. Some of her recommendations for GET more closely resemble pacing, and she was the last author listed in a pro-pacing article. But she's also willing to bury negative results (no increase in physical activity compared to controls) while making a big deal out of less relevant physical measurements.
Either she has a very complicated viewpoint, or it's been evolving. But she's very pro-GET in any event.