Like @Peter Trewhitt I can experience the more paradoxical aspects of PEM immediately, and I think I am then in "rolling PEM", or PEM has been growing and by chance came apparent when doing something or other. But who really knows? We need research.
Yes, same here @Peter Trewhitt and @Midnattsol My experience as well.I would make a distinction between my current symptoms worsening and the underlying condition worsening, though I find it hard to find the language to accurately describe this and on any particular day I am not always clear what is PEM and what is a worsening in the underlying condition as both are related to each other.
I see PEM as variation around an approximate level, though this is not a fixed base line, but one that can alter with the level of exertion and frequency of triggering PEM, but also that this approximate baseline can gradually or rapidly lower because of an ME relapse, a worsening in the underlying condition.
I agree that no one seems to know what 'malaise' means but I think 'crash' implies something severe and sudden, and PEM may be neither.I was thinking, preparing my talk on Thursday, that PEM is still not the ideal term for the signature feature of ME/CFS. It identifies the right ball park but it is easy to take it as meaning something that is not quite what matters. People are often puzzled by it or argue over it and the word malaise. I often think the simple term 'crash' is much easier for people to grasp, although that doesn't cover the whole PEM issue either.
If new symptoms occur with worsening I would see that as simply a shift in level or spectrum, just as one might have new features with rheumatoid arthritis during a 'flare'.
Moreover, I don't think it is necessarily good to link this tightly to exertion. What I hear is that it is all very unpredictable. And ascribing worsening to exertion involves a causal inference. Human beings can be taken as reliable witnesses of symptoms but we are no way reliable witnesses to causal connections. We constantly mis-ascribe cause.
We want the description of the illness to be free of inferences. Just how it is. That is the advantage of crash.
To me it doesn't carry the implications of being brought to a standstill like crash does.
In terms of general understandability and familiarity from other long term conditions, I'd say flare is better than crash.
I've yet to find a really good but very concise paper on is a robust well argued and referenced summary of is the body evidence supporting why we can be confident it isn't psychological and is a physical disease along with the latest findings.
The key thing I've yet to find a really good but very concise paper on is a robust well argued and referenced summary of is the body evidence supporting why we can be confident it isn't psychological and is a physical disease along with the latest findings.
I think a fact sheet about PEM needs a way to capture the full range of people's experiences of PEM in ME/CFS, and not assume one sort of disease always produces worse flare ups than another.And that's the catch, I think. PEM makes me feel like death dug up, but I'm not in bed. If I really had no food in the house, I could drive to the little supermarket a mile away. The difference is the underlying severity of the ME/CFS.
My sense is that if the aim is persuade medical professionals not necessarily directly involved in ME/CFS (which tends to mean they are out causes) that the syndrome has a very particular history pattern that can be described without necessarily referring to causation but which often seems to reflect exertion and which at present does not make sense in terms of any understood regulatory pathways.
I'm generally mild. With PEM, I have been unable to get to the store two minutes of walking from the apartment we were currently living in. I might not be in bed when like that, but I am not necessarily able to walk very far without support, and even with support my body can just quit on me.And that's the catch, I think. PEM makes me feel like death dug up, but I'm not in bed. If I really had no food in the house, I could drive to the little supermarket a mile away. The difference is the underlying severity of the ME/CFS.
So we tell it as a story? A sort of witness account, where the judge will stop you if you try offer explanations or motivations, because you're only allowed to describe what you saw?
I might not be in bed when like that, but I am not necessarily able to walk very far without support
I understand the desire to keep the link to exertion but I am not absolutely clear why we would be 'in real trouble without it.
But surely that doesn't mean that we have to pretend that we don't have this symptom?It tends to provide fodder for those who see people with ME/CFS as lazy, having a 'negative effort preference'. It is something health professionals have an excuse to be sceptical about.
My thought is that there is a need both to avoid inference of cause and to avoid denying apparent cause. There is a very consistent story that worsening occurs after exertion but there is also a sense in which this is tripping something that can also have a mind of its own (or a cytokine of its own maybe).
My sense is that if the aim is persuade medical professionals not necessarily directly involved in ME/CFS (which tends to mean they are out causes) that the syndrome has a very particular history pattern that can be described without necessarily referring to causation but which often seems to reflect exertion and which at present does not make sense in terms of any understood regulatory pathways. I have met people who crash and they are in bed so they must be crashed. I cannot deny that. It is as much as anything a way of getting the medical community to see that the problem is not just talk.