• 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 register, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Physiological measures in participants with chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis and healthy

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Physiological measures in participants with chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis and healthy controls following repeated exercise: a pilot study.

PURPOSE:
To compare physiological responses of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME), multiple sclerosis (MS) and healthy controls (HC) following a 24-h repeated exercise test.

METHODS:
Ten CFS, seven MS and 17 age- and gender-matched healthy controls (10, CFS HC; and seven, MS HC) were recruited. Each participant completed a maximal incremental cycle exercise test on day 1 and again 24 h later. Heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), oxygen consumption (V˙O2), carbon dioxide production and workload (WL) were recorded. Data analysis investigated these responses at anaerobic threshold (AT) and peak work rate (PWR).

RESULTS:
On day 2, both CFS and MS had significantly reduced max workload compared to HC. On day 2, significant differences were apparent in WL between CFS and CFS HC (93 ± 37 W, 132 ± 42 W, P<0·042). CFS workload decreased on day 2, alongside a decrease in HR but with an increase in V˙O2 (ml kg min-1 ). This was in comparison with an increase in WL, HR and V˙O2 for CFS HC. MS demonstrated a decreased WL compared to MS HC on both days of the study (D1 81 ± 30 W, 116 ±30 W; D2 84 ± 29 W, 118 ± 36 W); however, patients with MS were able to achieve a higher WL on day 2 alongside MS HC.

CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that exercise exhibits a different physiological response in MS and CFS/ME, demonstrating repeated cardiovascular exercise testing as a valid measure for differentiating between fatigue conditions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28782878
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Surprisingly to me CFS patients did a little better on VO2 and VO2max on the second day, but worse on other measures. It seems that measuring the drop in function on the second day isn't that straightforward. Maybe it depends on the exercise protocol used, activity level on previous days, and things like that. MS patients were also an average of 19 years older than the CFS patients making direct comparison difficult (both had age matched control though).
 

Attachments

  • ext.jpeg
    ext.jpeg
    137.8 KB · Views: 17
Messages
15,786
Full text at http://sci-hub.io/10.1111/cpf.12460 - It's a nice read, even if not understanding the technical bits. They really seem to understand what ME is, that PEM is a defining symptom, and the implications of exercise recommendations.

As @A.B. said above, VO2max didn't drop, just max workload and heart rate at maximal exertion. It seems like objectively determined maximal exertion was reached, with an actual Respiratory Exchange Rate (RER) showing exhaustion of aerobic energy production. So the lower max workload wasn't due to slacking off:
vo2max.jpg

ETA: Note that the MS patients are 20 years older than the CFS patients. So they're not necessarily in worse shape, and values can't be directly compared between those two groups.

similar been done before, they could try measuring relevant by-products / metabolites after 30 minutes of exercise or try using a high grade thermal camera to look at heat generation / distribution / circulation etc
Replication is really essential for the two-day CPET. Yes, it's been done before but it's always in small numbers due to the expense. And it's really great to have different teams replicating independently of each other - it makes it so much harder for the psychosocial quacks to dismiss the evidence when it's coming from 4 or 5 different countries.

I'd also point out that this is explicitly a pilot study. Hopefully we'll be seeing something bigger and more elaborate in the future from them :D
 

John Mac

Senior Member
Messages
321
Location
Liverpool UK
There was a press release about this study a couple of months ago.
Discussed here:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/distinguishing-cfs-new-zealand-research.51357/

"To find out more, Dr Hodges is completing another trial examining the physiological differences in repeated maximal exercise at 48 hours and 72 hours. “We will be taking blood samples to examine markers of inflammation, blood pressure and heart rate, asking questions about fatigue, and participants will be asked to do simple computer tasks to examine cognition, as well as ultrasound to measure arterial stiffness, and the cycle test to examine anaerobic threshold. All tests will then be repeated at either 48 hours or 72 hours later.”
 

Londinium

Senior Member
Messages
178
No, no, please tell me more about how it's all deconditioning...

This study is contradictory to research to date, which has suggested that a single maximal exercise test is enough to observe differences between CFS/ME and CFS HC. This study has shown that by performing a single maximal exercise test, there are no significant differences between healthy controls and CFS/ME. In the current exercise study, patients with CFS/ME were of moderate fitness
 

*GG*

senior member
Messages
6,389
Location
Concord, NH
Here are my results from 2010.

GG
 

Attachments

  • Results for CPET 2 days August 2010  Ithaca College 1  of  5.jpg
    Results for CPET 2 days August 2010 Ithaca College 1 of 5.jpg
    477.2 KB · Views: 7
  • Results for CPET 2 days August 2010  Ithaca College 2  of  5.jpg
    Results for CPET 2 days August 2010 Ithaca College 2 of 5.jpg
    474 KB · Views: 6
  • Results for CPET 2 days August 2010  Ithaca College 3  of  5.jpg
    Results for CPET 2 days August 2010 Ithaca College 3 of 5.jpg
    449.7 KB · Views: 7
  • Results for CPET 2 days August 2010  Ithaca College 4  of  5.jpg
    Results for CPET 2 days August 2010 Ithaca College 4 of 5.jpg
    149 KB · Views: 6
  • Results for CPET 2 days August 2010  Ithaca College 5  of  5.jpg
    Results for CPET 2 days August 2010 Ithaca College 5 of 5.jpg
    184.4 KB · Views: 5

JaimeS

Senior Member
Messages
3,408
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
All CFS/ME participants completed the De Paul Symptom and SF-36 screening questionnaire. CFS/ME participants were included if they met all three case definitions: Fukuda case definition (Fukuda et al., 1994), the Canadian Consensus Criteria (2003) and the International Consensus Criteria (2011).

Well done, pilot study. Now, aim for more people!
 

daisybell

Senior Member
Messages
1,613
Location
New Zealand
There was a press release about this study a couple of months ago.
Discussed here:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/distinguishing-cfs-new-zealand-research.51357/

"To find out more, Dr Hodges is completing another trial examining the physiological differences in repeated maximal exercise at 48 hours and 72 hours. “We will be taking blood samples to examine markers of inflammation, blood pressure and heart rate, asking questions about fatigue, and participants will be asked to do simple computer tasks to examine cognition, as well as ultrasound to measure arterial stiffness, and the cycle test to examine anaerobic threshold. All tests will then be repeated at either 48 hours or 72 hours later.”
I don't know how many people actually had blood taken - I was a participant in this trial and didn't get blood drawn...
 

Denise

Senior Member
Messages
1,095
I'd be interested to know what form of MS the participants had and whether that made a difference in their test results.
 

Snow Leopard

Hibernating
Messages
5,902
Location
South Australia
I believe that the reason why patients were able to reproduce their VO2Peak because they didn't exercise to VO2Max. This is also the reason why the healthy controls were able to increase their VO2Peak, because they didn't reach VO2Max either. VO2Max will occur much higher than 150-160bpm in people with an average age of 37, it occurs well past the ventilatory/anaerobic threshold. The lower performance of the MS group is also likely to be due to the much higher average age (55).

This is why we are seeing some variance between studies...

Here are the (cited) age norms for fitness from Heyward & Gibson:
fitness norms Heyward & Gibson.jpg


My own experience of the 2 Day test is that it is VERY HARD and leads to more severe symptoms for weeks. My performance was "good" on the first day and borderline "fair-poor" on the second day according to the table.

Also, why are no RER values provided?
 
Last edited:

Snow Leopard

Hibernating
Messages
5,902
Location
South Australia
Hodges & Nielsen & Baken said:
Beyond the timing of the protocol, within the literature, many have questioned the use of a maximal exercise test for CFS/ME individuals with reference to ethics, due to the negative health effects associated with maximal exertion (Snell et al., 2013). The results of the current study suggest that a maximal fitness test may not be required to test those with CFS/ME and instead a test up until anaerobic threshold may be sufficient. Anaerobic threshold may be enough to elicit the most notable abnormal responses. Anaerobic data demonstrated reductions in heart rate, work and a low efficiency of oxygen utilization which may limit exercise tolerance. It is important to find out what physiological mechanisms are responsible for the exercise intolerance. Muscular work is a complex interaction of diverse physiological mechanisms designed to ensure that oxygen delivery meets oxygen demands. The heart, lung and oxygen carrying capacity of the blood participate in these adjustments.

This explains the difference in protocol (eg exercising only to the ventilatory threshold) experienced by people in the participating in the follow up study:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/distinguishing-cfs-new-zealand-research.51357/

But as I mentioned above, I suspect that patients didn't achieve true VO2Max in this study either.
 
Messages
2,125
I'm a little suspicious of that too. But it wouldn't be a VO2max without sufficient RER, and they are calling it a VO2max.
according to wikipedia:
"many protocols for estimating VO2 max have been developed for those for whom a traditional VO2 max test would be too risky. These generally are similar to a VO2 max test, but do not reach the maximum of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems and are called sub-maximal tests."
could this be what they're using?
 

JaimeS

Senior Member
Messages
3,408
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
My own experience of the 2 Day test is that it is VERY HARD and leads to more severe symptoms for weeks. My performance was "good" on the first day and borderline "fair-poor" on the second day according to the table.

Very well-spotted re: why we don't always see the same results!