Search results

Thanks @Trish @rvallee & @NelliePledge I’ll maybe just stick with my Fitbit 4. It has HR & an overnight HRV. The free app is interesting and scoring symptoms is probably useful too. But I don’t think I’ll fork out for the monitor and monthly subscription. Thanks.

Manually From my Fitbit. I have chosen step count ranges to equate to each number they give.

Yes I noticed that was there. Will be interesting to see what it shows I also like the comparison feature. I added “steps” & have defined my own boundaries for the scores they offer.

Wow!!

Thanks @yannlk I might just stick with my current methods. I’m probably not very good at obeying a device over my own instincts anyway!! I'm a bit confused by their reply. Did they think S4ME was a bit outdated??

Do studies never have to define this?

I’m curious how folk, who have been using this for a while, are finding it? Any updates? I’ve downloaded the free App for now. I’ve had ME 12 years and already get steps, heartrate & hrv numbers from my Fitbit. Does this add more above that?

Actually yes! That is exactly what they should have done. So little supporting evidence for so called “effort preference” by what ever name!

Their terms are so slippery. They suggest one thing to the world, whilst the term “supposedly” means another thing to experts. Personally, I don’t like “risk preference” @Trish simply because most of the choices we make are not what we would prefer if we were well. I think we have very tough...

It’s like the name Chronic Fatigue Syndrome all over again.

Oh and of course ongoing PEM can escalate what might be an okay activity when rested, into an activity that induces both more rapid fatiguability AND worse PEM.

I think I’m not unusual in having both fatiguability and PEM separated by time. I know some researchers like to roll both concepts into one. But they are absolutely not the same! The fatiguability is physically limiting right then in the moment, but it is the delayed PEM that concerns me more...

Maybe also ask for the instructions themselves at the same time.

It seems to me that it doesn’t necessarily tell us much about the patients, but that rather the clinicians admitting patients are admitting similar patients to all the clinics. Thus they must all be using similar criteria. Whether those criteria actually correctly identify ME, is probably less...

Thank you!

Sadly only the abstract is visible

A couple of things strike me about this “effort preference” test. (It’s bonkers obviously, and my comments are in addition to agreeing with the various criticisms above). 1. The different probabilities of the rewards seems incredibly obtuse. In my experience (of teaching science to adults)...

If as Nath said (quoted from above), “the brain is telling them don’t do it”, then I can see only one reason to label the effect “effort preference”. IMO this name was a blatant attempt to blame patients. The effect observed would surely be more accurately described as “effort inhibition”, if...

Surely the arrows are better placed like this. (Yellow arrows added) Or maybe their final image should be at the start as leading to everything else and the Reduced Activity is the final Outcome

I’ve not tried the Switch ones, but I have other Loops ones. I find they make such a difference for me.