Physical function and psychosocial outcomes after a 6-month self-paced aquatic exercise program for individuals with [ME/CFS], 2025, Broadbent+

So, really, a chat with coffee and cookies would have done just the same. No surprise there. This is why they always try to make it pleasant, because then the pleasantness is reflected in the assessment, giving it a "placebo" bump, that is, mixing unrelated factors into the outcome and distorting its real value in a specific, preferred, direction.

 

No, Dr Broadbent gave me the two pieces of information on SF36 PF that I provided in my post above preceded by the words "Dr Broadbent..." i.e.:

All the rest of my post is me providing context with other studies.

Anyone is free to email Dr Broadbent or ask her to join the conversation.

 

Thank you for explaining.

I’m assuming she reads this thread if you’ve asked for her permission to share the info on the forum. So my PS was mostly to her

 

I did not specify which patient forum, so if you want her to see something, I would email her directly or invite her to the thread.

 

To be honest, I’m assuming she already knows about the forum and possibly this thread as well. She’s been around for long enough to be exposed to it.

 

The 6 minute walking distance seem to have increased with 53.8 meters in the intervention group and 19.2 meters in the control group. So the difference is around 35 meters, which is around the minimal important difference and similar to what recent Long Covid exercise trials found, for example here:
Preprint - Resistance Exercise Therapy for Long COVID: a Randomized, Controlled Trial 2025 Berry et al. | Science for ME

 

I believe they used the ISWT in that paper and not the 6MWT.

 

Oops, sorry for the confusion.

Looked for another reference figure: in the PACE trial the GET group also increased with around 35 meters compared to the control group on the 6MWT.

 

No worries!

So they did no better than GET. That probably indicates that it isn’t effective at all.

 

I don’t think I fully realized how little that is until now. Weeks of intervention just to walk around the corner of a city block.

 

And it’s just once without any mention of the potential repercussions later.

 

A few small steps for patients made into giant leap (of disinformation) by GET.

 

"Back to normal". Normal for a 78 year-old.

This is the point that settled that facts don't matter when it comes to us, that we can be lied about in public with total impunity. It was always clear, but this just made it absurd in a "going downstairs to get to the roof and everyone pretends like it's legit" kind of way.

 

I get the impression that when they do, it's because of subsets. So there are some who have clear benefits, while none for the rest, and the difficulty is in understanding what makes those positive responders different from the rest. So it can still require some working out, and large trials, to see those.

But we absolutely don't see those in any of this research. It's just bad all over the place. Except for those who are misdiagnosed, and especially for those who recover naturally. So the whole thing seems to be stuck in an infinite loop entirely because of those natural recoveries, which they seem to desperately hold on to the idea that it is their doing that does it.

Even though it's clearly not the case. It already was, but Long Covid has entirely destroyed this premise. But the infinite loop must infinitely loop on. They've been saying for decades that they've already worked it out, will work it out better with more time and funding. Except they haven't moved one bit from the starting line, which they conveniently placed at the same spot as the finishing line. They quite literally confused themselves, and can't face admitting it. To the point where most involved seem to genuinely hold on to those desperate beliefs, long after any pretense that they are legitimate has expired.

Looking at a few studies posted today about LC, good grief is is just mediocre all-around. Just entirely useless, adds nothing at all that we couldn't have told them 20 years ago. It's just generic waffling that is so unambitious it couldn't even accidentally produce anything useful in a century.

 

That's what happened to me. The fact is that exercise in general is a terrible way to lose weight because it takes so much time to actually do enough to lose weight. The amount of activity in this study burns a trivial amount of kcals so the null hypothesis is expecting no weight change.

 

HCPLive: Aquatic Exercise Improves Physical, Psychosocial Outcomes in People With ME/CFS

“Six months of self-paced, low-moderate aquatic exercise significantly improved fatigue, depression, walk distance, lower limb strength and peak expiratory flow. PEM was not worsened by the intervention, which is extremely important for ME/CFS management. This mode of physical activity may be safe, effective in improving functional capacity, and manageable for individuals with ME/CFS,” Broadbent and colleagues wrote.1

The investigators noted that the improvements in fatigue and depression, via the FACIT and HADS scores, respectively, were important findings, as patients with ME/CFS have high rates of depression and post-exercise malaise is a primary concern. Although no changes were seen in Sit–Reach scores or Apley Shoulder Test scores, there was large variability within and without the groups. Broadbent and colleagues also noted limitations of the study including a small sample size and considerable variance.

“Since there are few recent robust controlled physical activity intervention studies, the impact of different modes of exercise rehabilitation on individuals with ME/CFS is somewhat uncertain. This RCT provides evidence of efficacy and safety for low-intensity aquatic exercise rehabilitation,” Broadbent and colleagues concluded.1
​

https://www.hcplive.com/view/aquatic-exercise-improves-physical-psychosocial-outcomes-me-cfs

 

It’s easy to get good results when you ignore the control group.