Article citationsMore>>

Carruthers, B. M., De Merileir, K. L., Peterson, D. L., Klimas, N. G., Lerner, A. M., Bested, A. C., Flor-Henry, P., Joshi, P., Powles, A. C. P., Sherkey, J. A., & van de Sande, M. I. (2003). Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Clinical Working Case Definition, Diagnostic and Treatment Protocols. Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 11, 7-116.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J092v11n01_02

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Heart Rate Thresholds to Limit Activity in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients (Pacing): Comparison of Heart Rate Formulae and Measurements of the Heart Rate at the Lactic Acidosis Threshold during Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing

  AUTHORS: C. (Linda) M. C. van Campen, Peter C. Rowe, Frans C. Visser

  KEYWORDS: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, Cardiopulmonary Ex-ercise Testing, Peak Oxygen Consumption, Lactic Acidosis Threshold, Oxygen Consumption at the Anaerobic Threshold, Workload, Pacing, Heart Rate For-mulae

  JOURNAL NAME: Advances in Physical Education, Vol.10 No.2, May 20, 2020

  ABSTRACT: Introduction: Based on the hypothesis that oxidative metabolism is impaired in ME/CFS, a previous study recommended a pacing self-management strategy to prevent post-exertional malaise. This strategy involved a prescription to maintain a heart rate below the anaerobic threshold during physical activities. In the absence of lactate sampling or a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), the pacing self-management formula defines 55% of the age-specific predicted maximal heart rate as the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold. Thus far there has been no empiric evidence to test this self-pacing method of predicting heart rate at anaerobic threshold. The aim of this study was to compare published formula-derived heart rates at the anaerobic threshold with the actual heart rate at the lactic acidosis threshold as determined by CPET. Methods and Results: Adults with ME/CFS who had undergone a symptom-limited CPET were eligible for this study (30 males, 60 females). We analysed males and females separately because of sex-based differences in peak oxygen consumption. From a review paper, formulae to calculate maximal predicted heart rate were used for healthy subjects. We compared the actual heart rate at the lactic acid threshold during CPET to the predicted heart rates determined by formulae. Using Bland-Altman plots, calculated bias: the mean difference between the actual CPET heart rate at the anaerobic threshold and the formula predicted heart rate across several formulae varied between -28 and 19 bpm in male ME/CFS patients. Even in formulae with a clinically acceptable bias, the limits of agreement (mean bias ± 2SD) were unacceptably high for all formulae. For female ME/CFS patients, bias varied between 6 and 23 bpm, but the limits of agreement were also unacceptably high for all formulae. Conclusion: Formulae generated in an attempt to help those with ME/CFS exercise below the anaerobic threshold do not reliably predict actual heart rates at the lactic acidosis threshold as measured by a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Formulae based on age-dependent predicted peak heart rate multiplied by 55% have a wide age-specific variability and therefore have a limited application in clinical practice.