On PR I started a thread questioning "energy envelope" as an appropriate term. I think ME should avoid "energy" as a term until someone proves that ME involves actual energy (ATP). The perception of "lack of energy" could have causes that don't involve actual limitations on ATP or its proper usage. The same feeling could be due to neurological (not psychological!) dysfunction. The problem with analogies that sort of fit and which do provide expected results in a very limited set of circumstances is that they can lead to misleading conclusions, such as treatments that won't work because the theory is wrong. How many people spend a lot of money and effort trying treatments to "boost ATP production" without any evidence that they are suffering from low ATP?
Does socializing for less than a minute exceed your ATP production limits? Does that socializing consume more ATP than watching a movie (lots of neurons firing in the visual cortex)? To me that doesn't fit a model involving energy limitations.
Maybe there's a better term for pacing activities rather than "energy".
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
