1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 15th April 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Time course of exercise induced alterations in daily activity in CFS, 2005, Black and McCully

Discussion in 'ME/CFS research' started by Hutan, Apr 4, 2022.

  1. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,938
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280928/

    Abstract
    In a previous study we demonstrated that while people with CFS had lower daily activity levels than control subjects, they were able to increase daily activity via a daily walking program. We reanalyzed our data to determine the time course of activity changes during the walking program. Daily activity assessed via an accelometer worn at the hip was divided into sleep, active, and walking periods. Over the first 4–10 days of walking the subjects with CFS were able to reach the prescribed activity goals each day. After this time, walking and total activity counts decreased. Sedentary controls subjects were able to maintain their daily walking and total activity goals throughout the 4 weeks.

    Unlike our previous interpretation of the data, we feel this new analysis suggests that CFS patients may develop exercise intolerance as demonstrated by reduced total activity after 4–10 days. The inability to sustain target activity levels, associated with pronounced worsening of symptomology, suggests the subjects with CFS had reached their activity limit.
     
    Michelle, cfsandmore, Sean and 11 others like this.
  2. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,938
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    This brief note was mentioned by @strategist. It's interesting in terms of exercise physiology evidence, but the sample size is very small. I think it's most interesting in terms of history. In 2005, Black and McCully realised that their initial analysis had led them to a faulty conclusion, and they were attempting to inform others.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2022
  3. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,213
    Location:
    Australia
    Patients using accelerometers for 4 weeks strongly refutes the claim by PACE that they are an undue burden for patients.
     
    Mithriel, Michelle, Hutan and 6 others like this.
  4. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,468
    Location:
    Canada
    That was always a "dog at my homework" excuse. It was insulting in itself, far more that it was accepted. Especially as it's noted by the steering group that it was initially performed, without any mention of burden, and that the only comment they had related to the other study that found no benefits.

    Impunity breeds ineptitude.
     
    Mithriel, Sean, Michelle and 3 others like this.

Share This Page