In this new blog post we look at the evidence behind the boom and bust theory and how it originated. mecfsskeptic.com/boom-and-bust-…
2) ME/CFS patients are often said to have an erratic activity pattern, where sudden bursts of activity are followed by prolonged bed rest. This ‘boom and bust’ pattern is thought to be the reason why ME/CFS patients experience frequent crashes and setbacks.
3) Despite the popularity of this view in the past 25 years, there is no evidence to support it.
4) The MAGETNA trial, for example, analyzed the activity pattern of 138 children and adolescents with ME/CFS and concluded that “a fluctuating active’ or ‘boom-bust’ physical activity pattern” […] did not emerge from the present analyses.” bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/3/1/e0…
5) A Dutch study had accelerometer data of 277 ME/CFS patients over a 12 day period. The authors wrote: “no indication was found that the CFS patients as a group were characterised by a high number of large day-to-day fluctuations in activity.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11164063/
6) A Belgian study had actimeter data of 67 ME/CFS patients and concluded: “The present study was not able to confirm the hypothesis of a more fluctuating activity pattern in patients with CFS, nor during the day, nor during the registration period.” linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S…
7) So where does the boom and bust theory come from if it does not appear in the data? Psychiatrists seem to have picked up on the language of post-exertional malaise, but rather than thinking that the illness causes it, they assumed that the patient’s behavior was responsible.
8) One could argue that this is not a big issue because learning patients how to avoid crashes and stabilizing their activity levels is useful, even if based on a false premise.
The theory, however, incorrectly blames patients for the symptoms they experience.
9) Lastly, we discuss why a closer look at ME/CFS activity patterns might be useful.
With large sample sizes, machine learning and labelling of patients when they are in a crash, it might be possible to find a PEM signature in the data, an objective signal of ME/CFS pathology.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) Just published a new blog post on what severe deconditioning looks like and how it is different from ME/CFS. mecfsskeptic.com/what-does-deco…
2) Interestingly the best evidence on deconditioning comes from NASA bed rest studies. Head-down bed rest was used as a proxy for the low gravity that astronauts endured in space.
3) These NASA studies show that deconditioning leads to profound physiological changes including a reduction in blood volume, decreased VO2max, insulin resistance, muscle loss, bone density reduction, etc.
There is, however, almost no mention of disabling symptoms
2) ARGUMENT 1: heart rate increases upon standing > 30 bpm are far from abnormal.
In this study of the general population, for example, more than half of healthy young adults had an increase higher than the POTS threshold. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31476713/
3) Other studies found similar results. In the one below the median heart rate increase was 28 bpm in 120 participants aged 14 to 76 years. journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.11…
2) In 2016 19,145 of these participants responded to the question about a Chronic Fatigue Syndrome diagnosis. Of those participants 1.1% responded ‘yes’ to ever having been diagnosed with CFS.
3) Nacul et al. did a follow-up study of the participants who reported a CFS diagnosis to let them fill in some additional questionnaires and check the accuracy of their ME/CFS diagnosis.
1) Apparently, there is a belief that patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) have a deviant way of presenting symptoms.
The following study, however, compared language use of patients with MUS to medically explained symptoms (MES) and found no systematic differences.
2) The authors report:
“Our findings suggest that, despite prejudices about MUS symptom presentations being subjective, vague or exaggerated, linguistic markers of patients with MUS are not different from patients with MES”
3) In their conclusion they write:
“Current ideas about deviant patient communication may be based on stigmatized perceptions of how patients with MUS communicate, rather than actual differences in their talk”
1) There’s a new interesting study out by a collaboration of ME/CFS patients and scientists.
They’ve sent Freedom of Information requests to 38 NHS specialist centers for ME/CFS and asked them about their information on harms by rehabilitative therapies such as GET or CBT.
2) The results are striking. Among the ME/CFS clinics surveyed, there was an almost universal absence of criteria for detecting harm, and no clinic reported any harm to have occurred in their patients, despite acknowledging that many dropped out of treatment.
3) No clinic reported telling patients explicitly that they could be worse after therapy than before. They only said that setbacks were possible (but temporary) or that the reported harms of GET are due to the treatment being wrongly executed.