1. Click here to sign the "Publish the NICE ME/CFS Guideline Now" petition.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 6th September 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Doesn't This Show That Deconditioning Is Not Part of ME/CFS?

Discussion in 'BioMedical ME/CFS Research' started by Rossy191276, Jan 7, 2018.

  1. Rossy191276

    Rossy191276 Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Hi Everyone

    My recent muscle biopsy of my thigh has led to what seems like very relevant research findings that should be followed up urgently by researchers looking at muscle biopsies.

    I am bed bound and had been for 5 months before the biopsy.

    One of my results was: Severe Type II Muscle Atrophy

    First I looked for other research and found this 1991 study: Mitochondrial abnormalities in the postviral fatigue syndrome* W. M. H. Behan1, I. A. R. More1, and P. O. Behan

    In it they found that 39 of 50 patients that they classified as CFS has Type II muscle atrophy

    But here's the thing...

    In the most recent 2 papers that I could find that differentiated between the type of circumstances that result in specifically Type 1 or Type 2 muscle fibre atrophy...
    Muscle type and fiber type specificity in muscle wasting
    Author links open overlay panelStefanoCiciliota1Alberto C.Rossia12Kenneth A.DyaraBertBlaauwabStefanoSchiaffinoac

    Muscle type and fiber type specificity in muscle wasting.
    Ciciliot S1, Rossi AC, Dyar KA, Blaauw B, Schiaffino S.

    They explain that disuse/inactivity results in such more Type 1 atrophy than Type II atrophy so one would expect to see a lot more Type 1 atrophy in Muscle Biopsies of ME patients. Yet on the limited evidence so far and certainly in my case where I hadn't used legs for 5 months that doesn't seem to be the case.

    Interestingly, the 2nd paper generalises the group of conditions that cause Type II atrophy as Malnutrition and Inflammation which fits the Metabolic/Immune ME theories pretty well.

    I am not a biomedical mind but they mention different pathways which may contribute to Type II atrophy including TGFb (for those of you who are scientific minds you might be interested in reading these papers as at least in my view they counter the deconditioning arguments nicely if research groups doing muscle biopsies find that we have Type II atrophy and might point towards factors that are contributing to this.
  2. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Nothing about the deconditioning claim adds up.

    I hope some researchers follow up on this angle.
  3. Rick Sanchez

    Rick Sanchez Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    There is a certain irony in that the deconditioning theory was actually debunked by psych wackos from the Netherlands. Strong believers in CBT / GET who happen to be really good colleagues with wessely and co.

    Basically they ran through their older CBT studies which had employed actometers, and saw that patients who had been given CBT which was supposed to increase activity, hadn't managed to increase the patients activity at all. Given how patients in the treatment group had still claimed to improve slightly with CBT, this was a problem.

    Did this mean that patients given the treatment just reported that they were better, but did in fact not improve at all? I.E placebo?

    No, of course not. The Dutch researchers came up with the most insane rationalization ever, but they at least had to concede that the deconditioning theory could not be correct, since patients ''improved'' without even increasing their levels of activity.

    You can read the study here


    Definitely one of the best studies into cognitive dissonance. Good for a laugh if you have a dark sense of humor.
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2018
  4. Seven

    Seven Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Specially on people like me, I have a week in bed the next normal. I am relapsing remitting type, so deconditioning makes no sense. Note, I have POTs also, and I do get worst (my period drives the worst crashes).
    Luther Blissett, sea, Woolie and 8 others like this.
  5. Invisible Woman

    Invisible Woman Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    There are none so blind as those who will not see......

    It hasn't suited the BPS, insurers or DWP agenda so a great many people have spent much of the last 30 years trying to avoid looking at this kind of stuff.
  6. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    There was a study posted recently in S4ME that concluded the results did not support the deconditioning theory - cannot recall which thread that was at the moment.

    Edit: It was https://www.s4me.info/threads/eleva...ction-a-case-control-study-julia-newton.1745/
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2018
  7. Rossy191276

    Rossy191276 Established Member (Voting Rights)

    I know we all know that the deconditioning theory is ridiculous. But maybe I should have viewed this a different way.

    The type II muscle atrophy study seems to me to be vital to follow up for those groups who are talking about doing muscle studies (I think Julia Newton, NIH)

    If they can repeat these findings much more than debunking deconditioning again, its another piece to the puzzle which can lead towards finding the cause/causes of ME by looking at the pathways that can create this type II specific atrophy

Share This Page