The Quiet, The Difficult, The Absent: What Socializing Costs in ME/CFS

Social Impact
Energy Metabolism
Neurocognitive
She’s the quiet one in the group. Sometimes she’s not just quiet — she’s sharp, critical, negative. People notice the silence first, the flatness second, and then the edge. They interpret the quiet as disengagement, the criticism as hostility, the withdrawal as rejection. They are wrong on all counts…
Author

Yannick Loth

Published

August 7, 2026

She’s the quiet one in the group. The one sitting slightly apart, not chiming in, not matching the room’s energy. Amorphous. Barely there.

Sometimes she’s not just quiet — she’s sharp. Critical. Negative. Snaps at small things. Points out what’s wrong instead of what’s right. People notice the silence first, the flatness second, and then the edge. They interpret the quiet as disengagement. The criticism as hostility. The withdrawal as rejection.

They are wrong on all counts. What looks like absence, coldness, or difficult personality is actually biology. The person with ME/CFS is allocating scarce metabolic resources to staying conscious. The brain, running near empty, defaults to its most ancient, most energy-efficient mode: threat detection. Everything else — banter, animation, reciprocity, generosity of interpretation, even basic warmth — is a luxury the energy budget cannot afford.


1 Laughter costs energy. Genuine warmth costs more.

Every action the body performs requires ATP. Moving a muscle. Firing a neuron. Synthesizing a neurotransmitter. The healthy body produces ATP continuously, effortlessly. The ME/CFS body does not. Mitochondria are impaired at multiple points. Substrate delivery is reduced by cerebral hypoperfusion. The electron transport chain is suppressed by inflammatory signalling. Demand routinely exceeds supply.

Generating emotional affect is metabolically expensive. Smiling requires coordinated contraction of multiple facial muscles sustained for the duration of the social signal. The neurochemical substrate of positive affect — dopamine — is synthesised from tyrosine via tyrosine hydroxylase, which requires tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4) as cofactor. BH4 is depleted in many ME/CFS patients (Williams et al. 2025). The brain regions that coordinate emotional expression — prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate, basal ganglia — show reduced glucose metabolism (Siessmeier et al. 2003) and reduced basal ganglia activation during reward processing in ME/CFS (Miller et al. 2014).

Laughing is a complex motor, cognitive, and affective event. When someone with ME/CFS sits silently while the room laughs, they are not judging the joke. They are rationing ATP.


2 Socializing is a high-energy cognitive task

A group conversation demands simultaneous language processing, working memory, executive function, sensory integration, and affect generation — in real time, sustained for the duration of the interaction. Cognitive exertion increases brain ATP demand by 10–20% above baseline (Jamadar et al. 2025), and the brain has minimal energy reserves.

The basal ganglia — the brain’s effort-reward computation centre — shows reduced activation in ME/CFS during reward processing (Miller et al. 2014). The brain computes social interaction as high-cost, low-reward. This is not learned behaviour. It is a metabolic computation: the brain perceives social demands the same way it perceives physical exertion beyond capacity.

Healthy people process speech at roughly 150 words per minute, with turn-taking latencies measured in milliseconds. A brain operating near its metabolic ceiling cannot process input at that speed, cannot generate output at that speed, cannot sustain the attentional focus. So it stops trying. The person goes quiet.


3 The energy-depleted brain defaults to negativity

This is the part nobody talks about. When you run out of energy, you don’t just get quiet. You get difficult.

Self-regulation — emotional control, impulse inhibition, careful word choice, the ability to pause before reacting, the generosity to interpret someone’s ambiguous comment charitably rather than as an attack — all of this runs on the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is among the brain’s most metabolically expensive regions. When ATP is scarce, it is the first system to degrade.

This is not metaphor. Experiments by Baumeister and colleagues demonstrated that acts of self-control — suppressing emotion, making choices, resisting temptation — impair subsequent self-control, and that this depletion has a metabolic component measurable in blood glucose (Gailliot et al. 2007; Baumeister et al. 1998). While the glucose-specific model has been debated and refined in subsequent replication efforts, the core finding — that self-regulation draws on a limited resource that can be exhausted — is well-established. The brain’s capacity for emotional regulation, impulse control, and prosocial behaviour draws from the same pool as everything else. When the pool runs low, the brakes come off.

The depleted brain reverts to what is computationally cheapest: heuristic, categorical, threat-oriented processing. It scans for what is wrong because scanning for what is right is energetically expensive. It interprets ambiguity as hostility because giving the benefit of the doubt requires cognitive effort. It snaps at small provocations because inhibiting the snap requires prefrontal resources that are not available.

This is the evolutionary logic. When an organism is in a state of metabolic crisis — injured, infected, starving — the brain shifts from exploration to defence. From curiosity to vigilance. From cooperation to self-protection. The ancient subcortical circuits, honed over hundreds of millions of years for survival, take priority when metabolic resources are scarce. The energy-expensive prefrontal functions — nuanced judgment, emotional regulation, social generosity — are downgraded.

In ME/CFS, this state is chronic. The energy crisis is not temporary — it is the disease. So the defensive posture is not a bad day. It is baseline.


4 The defensive shift: why energy depletion makes you critical

When someone with ME/CFS becomes sharp, negative, or critical, it is rarely about the target of the criticism. It is about the energy state of the critic.

Several mechanisms converge to produce this:

Prefrontal hypometabolism. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) is the seat of cognitive control — the ability to override automatic responses, to regulate emotion, to select the socially appropriate output from a range of possible responses. Brain imaging shows altered glucose metabolism and cerebral blood flow in prefrontal and basal ganglia regions in ME/CFS (Siessmeier et al. 2003). When the dlPFC is underpowered, the filter between thought and speech thins. What a healthy brain would think and not say, the ME/CFS brain thinks and says — because the inhibitory circuit that would have caught it is running on empty.

Cognitive load narrows attention. The more depleted a system is, the more it narrows its processing to what is most urgent. For a brain in energy crisis, what is most urgent is threat — real or perceived. The result is a cognitive bias toward the negative. Mental fatigue research shows that depleted individuals become less capable of nuanced processing, defaulting instead to heuristic, categorical judgments. This is not personality. It is a conserved biological response to resource scarcity.

Emotion regulation costs glucose. Suppressing an emotional reaction — frustration, irritation, hurt — requires active prefrontal engagement. The Gailliot et al. studies showed that emotion suppression tasks measurably reduce blood glucose and impair subsequent self-control (Gailliot et al. 2007). While the glucose-specific mechanism has been debated, the broader principle — that sustained self-regulation consumes metabolic resources and degrades with fatigue — is well-supported. In ME/CFS, where baseline cerebral glucose metabolism is impaired, the capacity for emotion regulation is perpetually strained. Every person in the room is making small demands on the patient’s emotional regulation system. The patient has nothing in the account. The overdraft comes out as irritability, sharpness, or withdrawal.

The effort of masking. Many people with chronic illness report masking their symptoms in social settings — suppressing visible signs of pain, forcing engagement, performing normalcy. This self-reported experience aligns with the known metabolic cost of sustained emotion regulation: the person who has been masking for an hour has been running a continuous self-regulation task for sixty minutes straight, on top of the cognitive load of conversation, on top of the sensory load of the environment. When the mask slips — when the tone sharpens, when patience runs out — it is not because the person is a difficult personality underneath. It is because the energy budget for masking has been exhausted, and what remains is the unfiltered state of a brain in metabolic deficit.


5 Others’ joy becomes your stress

When friends or family are spontaneous, playful, animated, they create a more demanding environment. Spontaneity requires processing unpredicted input, which is computationally more expensive. Playfulness introduces ambiguity — is this serious, what is the expected response — that demands additional processing. Animation increases sensory load. All of this increases the metabolic cost of being present.

The expectation to reciprocate emotion adds a further layer. When someone directs joy at you, the social script demands that you reflect something back. For the person with ME/CFS, this demand arrives at a system that cannot generate the output. Prefrontal and basal ganglia circuits are hypometabolic (Siessmeier et al. 2003; Miller et al. 2014). Dopamine synthesis, which fuels positive affect, is compromised when BH4 is depleted (Williams et al. 2025). The muscles that produce facial expression are powered by mitochondria that are not delivering.

The inability to reciprocate becomes its own stressor — guilt, self-consciousness, the exhausting performance of feigned engagement. That guilt is metabolically real. Every thought of “I should be laughing” is an ATP expenditure the body cannot afford.

And if the gap between what the patient can give and what the social situation demands is wide enough, the response may not be quiet withdrawal — it may be irritation. Why are they so loud. Why do they need so much from me. Why can’t they see I have nothing left. The irritation is the brain’s way of protecting itself from a demand it cannot meet. It is easier to push the world away than to admit you cannot reach it.


6 The flatness is metabolic, not psychological

Flat affect — reduced emotional expressiveness, monotone voice, still face — is frequently misinterpreted as depression, social anxiety, or personality disorder. Patients are referred to psychiatric services, prescribed antidepressants, and told their social difficulties reflect avoidant or schizoid traits.

The flatness is none of these. It is the visible surface of a metabolic constraint: when ATP is insufficient to power emotional expression, emotional expression stops. The brain triages: sustain basic vital functions, sustain consciousness, then allocate whatever remains to social signalling. In severe ME/CFS, there is nothing remaining.

Emotional suppression in ME/CFS has been documented experimentally: patients show blunted electrodermal activity during emotion suppression tasks — a physiological flattening — paired with higher subjective distress (Rimes et al. 2016). The body cannot produce the normal physiological response, but the subjective experience remains. The patient feels everything. They simply cannot show it.

And sometimes what they feel is frustration. Frustration that their body will not cooperate. Frustration that others misinterpret their stillness as coldness. Frustration that the world demands outputs — smiles, words, reactions — that their mitochondria cannot fund. Frustration, unlike warmth, can be produced with minimal prefrontal coordination — it is the path of least resistance for a brain that cannot afford the expensive circuitry of positive social engagement. So frustration is what leaks out.


7 The amplifying loop

Negative affect amplifies somatic symptom perception in ME/CFS. An experimental study found that negative affect induction increased symptom reporting in ME/CFS and fibromyalgia patients significantly more than in healthy controls (Van Den Houte et al. 2017). This is not because symptoms are psychological. It is because affect and interoception share neural circuitry — anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex process both emotional valence and bodily sensation. When these circuits are sensitised by chronic inflammation, emotional distress and physical symptoms amplify each other.

The social consequence is severe. The environment is simultaneously exhausting (draining ATP), cognitively demanding, and — when it goes badly — emotionally distressing. Each dimension feeds the others. Exhaustion impairs cognitive processing. Cognitive overload makes social friction more likely. Friction produces emotional distress — and also defensiveness, withdrawal, or lashing out. Distress amplifies symptoms. Symptoms drain more energy. The cycle tightens.

Social withdrawal is not a choice in this context. It is a circuit-breaker. Removing the social demand removes the cognitive load, the emotional complexity, the risk of entering an amplification spiral whose cost — days of PEM crash — far exceeds any benefit.


8 The cost of emotional synchrony: why you cannot match their mood

There is a demand in every social interaction that healthy people never notice because they meet it automatically: emotional synchrony. The unspoken requirement to match the emotional tempo of the room. To mirror the energy, the affect, the rhythm of the people around you.

For someone with ME/CFS, this demand is metabolically ruinous.

When two people are emotionally in sync — both happy, both calm, both serious — the brain handles this efficiently. The medial orbitofrontal cortex and ventromedial prefrontal cortex, regions linked to reward and positive feeling, activate. Being in sync is metabolically cheap because it requires no conflict resolution (Kühn et al. 2011).

But when there is a mismatch — the room is laughing and you are exhausted, others are animated and you are depleted, someone directs cheerfulness at you and you feel nothing — the brain must engage a different circuit entirely. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) activates to process the conflict between what you feel and what the situation demands (Kühn et al. 2011). The DLPFC is the brain’s most metabolically expensive region. For every second of mismatch, the brain burns extra ATP to manage the gap between internal state and external expectation.

This is what most social situations are for the person with ME/CFS: a continuous state of emotional mismatch. The room is at a tempo the patient cannot match. The affect the patient can produce — flat, quiet, minimal — is incongruent with the affect the room expects. So the DLPFC runs continuously, burning energy the patient does not have, trying to bridge a gap that cannot be bridged. The result is not successful synchrony. It is cognitive depletion.

Facial mimicry requires the prefrontal cortex. Emotional mimicry — the automatic tendency to mirror the facial expressions of others — is not truly automatic when you are depleted. Producing the appropriate facial response to someone else’s emotion requires functional medial prefrontal cortex. TMS experiments have demonstrated this directly: activating the medial prefrontal cortex enhances facial mimicry; inhibiting it impairs it (Balconi and Canavesio 2013; Balconi, Bortolotti, and Gonzaga 2011). The neural hardware that produces the smile you are supposed to return is the same frontal circuitry that is hypometabolic and hypoperfused in ME/CFS.

Fatigue directly impairs emotional contagion. The evidence from sleep-deprivation research is unambiguous. Partial sleep deprivation reduces emotional contagion — people feel less happiness when observing happy faces, and their brains show reduced activation to emotional stimuli — even when their facial muscles still produce the mimicry response (Tamm et al. 2020). Total sleep deprivation reduces emotional empathy across multiple domains (Guadagni et al. 2014). In the field, sleep-deprived physicians show measurably reduced empathy and prescribe fewer analgesics to patients in pain (Choshen-Hillel et al. 2022).

If one night of poor sleep degrades emotional synchrony in healthy people, consider what years of metabolic brain dysfunction do. ME/CFS places the brain in a state analogous to continuous partial sleep deprivation — reduced cerebral glucose metabolism, impaired prefrontal function, depleted catecholamines. The neural circuits that support emotional matching, facial mimicry, and affective reciprocity are the same circuits that are most vulnerable to metabolic stress.

The social consequence. The person with ME/CFS enters a room where others are animated, engaged, emotionally fluid. Their brain immediately detects the mismatch. Their DLPFC activates to manage it. Their medial prefrontal cortex, already hypometabolic, is asked to produce appropriate facial responses. Their dopamine, already depleted, is asked to fuel positive affect. The entire synchrony apparatus runs a deficit from the first second.

What the room sees: someone who is not matching the mood. Not smiling when expected. Not laughing at the right moments. Not warming up as the conversation continues. The mismatch is visible. It makes healthy people uncomfortable — because emotional synchrony is how humans signal safety, belonging, and mutual understanding. A person who cannot synchronize reads as cold, hostile, or strange, even if the person doing the reading cannot articulate why.

What the patient experiences: an ever-widening gap between what is expected and what can be delivered. The awareness of the gap. The effort to close it. The depletion from the effort. The guilt when it fails. The withdrawal that follows, not because they chose it, but because the energy budget for trying ran out.

A research gap. No published study has directly measured emotional synchrony or emotional contagion in ME/CFS. The case rests on converging evidence: fatigue impairs emotional contagion in controlled experiments, facial mimicry depends on prefrontal circuits compromised in ME/CFS, and patients consistently describe social-emotional exhaustion as a core experience. This is a genuine unexplored research niche — and an everyday reality for patients.


9 Sickness behaviour: the evolutionary frame

The evolutionary framework of sickness behaviour — the coordinated suite of fatigue, social withdrawal, anhedonia, hyperalgesia, and irritability that accompanies infection — redirects energy away from social interaction and toward immune function. It is ancient. It is conserved across species. It is not a malfunction — it is a programme.

When an animal is sick, it withdraws from the group. It stops grooming. It stops responding to social signals. It becomes less tolerant of approach. It may become aggressive if pushed. Every one of these behaviours serves the same purpose: conserve energy for immune defence by eliminating all non-essential expenditure, including and especially social expenditure.

In acute infection, this programme runs for days and then switches off. In ME/CFS, evidence suggests that chronic inflammatory signalling keeps the sickness behaviour programme engaged far beyond any acute trigger (Vollmer-Conna et al. 2004). The patient is not choosing to be withdrawn, flat, or difficult. The patient’s brain is running software designed for a short-term infection, but the shutoff signal never arrives.

The irritability that accompanies sickness behaviour is not a side effect. It is adaptive. An animal that is sick and weak must keep threats at a distance because it cannot fight or flee. Irritability — the low threshold for defensive reaction, the sharp response to minor intrusion — serves as a perimeter alarm. “Stay back. I am vulnerable. I cannot afford to engage.” The person with ME/CFS who snaps at a visitor who talks too loudly is not being rude. They are running an ancient survival programme that tells a depleted organism to protect itself from demands it cannot meet.


10 Beyond quiet and critical: the full psychosocial signature of energy depletion

The social consequences of ME/CFS extend far beyond the quietness and the sharpness already described. Energy depletion produces a recognizable behavioural syndrome — a predictable set of psychosocial changes that emerge whenever a human nervous system operates below its metabolic requirements. Many of these changes are not recognized as symptoms. They are interpreted as personality, as values, as who the person has become.

Reduced prosociality. When the brain is energy-depleted, helping behaviour is among the first casualties. A landmark study demonstrated that one night of sleep loss reduced willingness to help others, deactivated the brain’s social-cognition network — medial prefrontal cortex, temporoparietal junction, inferior frontal gyrus — and, at population scale, the one-hour sleep loss from daylight saving time produced a measurable drop in real-world charitable donations across millions of transactions (Ben Simon et al. 2022). Although the direct evidence comes from sleep deprivation, the underlying neural circuitry — prefrontal and temporal-parietal regions — is the same circuitry compromised by the cerebral hypometabolism of ME/CFS. When the energy budget is constrained, generous impulses are predictably downgraded.

The person with ME/CFS does not stop caring about others. But the capacity to act on that caring — to reach out, to offer help, to initiate kindness — is depleted alongside everything else. Friends and family may notice the withdrawal of practical support, the unreturned messages, the person who used to be the first to help now being the one who cannot. This is not selfishness. It is a metabolic constraint on the neural circuitry of generosity.

Conservation-withdrawal. The term comes from psychosomatic medicine: a behavioural state observed in organisms facing severe, continuing adversity in which the self withdraws from engagement, narrows its circle of trust, intensifies self-concern, and redirects all remaining resources toward self-protection (Ironside 1980). The original description reads like a clinical portrait of undiagnosed ME/CFS: withdrawal from social contact, reduced activity, narrowed interests, heightened vigilance to threat, increased self-focus — all serving the evolutionary function of preserving the organism through a period of resource scarcity.

This is not depression. It is a biologically conserved response to energy deficit that predates human psychology by hundreds of millions of years. The animal that is starving or injured does not explore, does not play, does not groom conspecifics, does not take risks, does not share food. It conserves. It withdraws. It waits. The same programme, activated chronically by the metabolic dysfunction of ME/CFS, produces the same behavioural phenotype in humans.

Reduced reward sensitivity. Fatigue does not just make things feel harder. It makes things feel less worth doing. Recent research in post-infectious fatigue found that greater fatigue was associated with reduced sensitivity to reward — independent of effort sensitivity (Scholing et al. 2025). The brain does not overestimate the cost of activities; it underweights their value. This is distinct from anhedonia (the inability to feel pleasure). The person with ME/CFS can still enjoy things — their brain simply assigns them lower motivational priority relative to the energy they require. The calculation has shifted: activities that would normally feel worth the effort no longer generate sufficient incentive to justify the expenditure.

Concretely: the person stops suggesting activities. Stops planning. Stops initiating. Not because they have lost interest in life, but because their brain has recalculated the cost-benefit ratio of every potential action and found most of them negative. The world shrinks. What remains is a narrow set of low-cost, high-necessity behaviours — eating, basic hygiene if possible, the minimum social contact required to maintain relationships that cannot be lost. Everything else is priced out of the budget.

Perceptual narrowing. Under stress and fatigue, attention narrows to central, focal stimuli and peripheral awareness degrades. This is a well-established phenomenon known as the Easterbrook effect: as arousal or load increases, the range of cues an organism can process shrinks (Easterbrook 1959). Applied to social situations, this means the depleted person misses peripheral social information — the subtle shifts in someone’s expression, the change in tone, the body language that signals a shift in the conversation. They are processing less of the social environment, not because they are not paying attention, but because their attentional bandwidth has contracted.

This narrowing has social consequences. The person who misses peripheral cues responds less appropriately, misreads situations more often, and appears socially clumsy or disconnected. They are not. They are operating with a reduced perceptual field, and the information they are missing is the information that healthy people use unconsciously to navigate social interaction.

The cumulative picture. Taken together, these changes describe a person who is: less generous, more withdrawn, less motivated by reward, more self-focused, and processing a narrower slice of the social world. This is not a personality. It is not a moral failing. It is not who the person “really is underneath.” It is the predictable behavioural output of a brain that has been forced into energy-conservation mode, and it maps almost perfectly onto the sickness-behaviour framework that evolution built for exactly this purpose (Morris et al. 2013).

The tragedy is that without diagnosis — without understanding that these changes are symptoms of a metabolic disease — the person and everyone around them constructs explanations that place the cause in character. “They’ve become selfish.” “They don’t care anymore.” “They’re not the person I married.” The biology of energy depletion is invisible. The behaviour it produces is interpreted as who the person has decided to be.


11 What the person with ME/CFS is doing instead of participating

The quiet, still presence in the room is not passive. The brain is actively working — allocating, monitoring, conserving.

Every few seconds, an internal computation runs: how much energy do I have, how much will the next minute demand, what is the least costly way to remain present? The patient tracks sensory load, noise levels, visual complexity, number of speakers. They monitor autonomic status — heart rate, breathing, early warning signals of PEM. They weigh the cost of every potential action. Speak now, or save that energy for standing up later. Defend against that comment, or let it go and save the ATP.

And when the energy runs too low for even this management — when the monitoring itself becomes too expensive — the system defaults to its cheapest mode: defence. Every input is a potential threat. Every question is a demand. Every smile is a withdrawal request on an account with nothing in it. The personality that emerges — critical, distant, reactive — is not the person. It is the person stripped of the metabolic resources required to be generous.

When you don’t know you have ME/CFS. For many people, this happens before diagnosis — sometimes years before. The exhaustion, the social withdrawal, the irritability, the inability to keep up — these are felt but not understood. The person does not know why socializing has become so punishing. They do not know that their mitochondria are failing. They only know that being around people makes them feel worse, and that fighting through it only deepens the crash.

Without a biological explanation, the brain does what brains do with unexplained distress: it looks for causes in the environment. These people are draining me. That friend is too demanding. That group is too stressful. I must be an introvert. I must not like these people anymore. Maybe I am depressed. The interpretations that emerge from energy depletion — threat scanning, negativity bias, defensive posture — become the story the person tells themselves about why they are withdrawing.

They begin to isolate. Not because isolation is what they want, but because isolation is the only pattern that reliably reduces symptoms. The cost-benefit analysis, run without conscious awareness, converges on a single strategy: spend less time with people who require energy, more time with people who demand less. The quiet friend who doesn’t need constant engagement. The relative who sits in comfortable silence. The online space where participation is optional and asynchronous. The person who gives them attention without asking for performance in return.

This is rational behaviour in the context of an unrecognized metabolic disease. But without the diagnosis, it looks like something else — social anxiety, avoidance, personality change, relationship deterioration. The person is not choosing solitude. They are gravitating toward the only social environments their energy budget can sustain. The isolation is not the problem. It is the solution to a problem that has not yet been named.


12 Severe ME/CFS: when even a whisper triggers a crash

For severe patients, the energy cost of socializing crosses a threshold where even minimal interaction is hazardous. A whispered conversation — a few sentences, spoken slowly from someone beside the bed — can trigger a PEM crash lasting days. Conversations are classified as off-limits in the cognitive triage hierarchy for severe ME/CFS (Loth 2026).

At this level, the quiet presence becomes a silent one. The patient is no longer amorphous in the group — they are absent from it. Alone in a dark room, conserving energy for breathing, for swallowing, for lying still. Visitors are restricted to minutes. Voices must be soft. Questions must be answerable with a nod or a single word.

And even at this extreme — maybe especially at this extreme — the patient may be aware of how they sound when they do speak. Brief. Blunt. Ungrateful. They know. The awareness itself costs energy. The guilt costs energy. There is no resolution except acceptance: this is what survival looks like when every word is an expenditure the body cannot afford.


13 What this means for people who love someone with ME/CFS

If someone in your life has become quiet, critical, difficult, or absent — understand what you are seeing.

They are not pulling away from you. Their brain is rationing energy for survival and defaulting to its lowest-cost operating mode.

When their voice sharpens, it is not about you. It is the sound of a prefrontal cortex that cannot afford to filter.

When they seem negative or pessimistic, it is not a worldview. It is the computational bias of a depleted system scanning for threat because scanning for safety costs more.

When they cancel plans — again — they are doing the math: energy cost of this event versus energy available, which may be less than zero.

When they go quiet in a group, do not draw attention to it. Do not ask what is wrong. Do not pressure them to participate. The pressure itself costs energy.

When they are sharp or critical, do not escalate. Do not defend. Do not argue. The argument will cost them energy they do not have, and they will pay for it later — in hours or days of worsened symptoms that you will not see.

Instead: let the silence be fine. Let the flatness be fine. Let the criticism land without retaliation. Let the fade into the background be fine. Preserve the space they are in without demanding they fill it. This costs you nothing. It might be the only interaction they can afford.


14 What this means for people living with ME/CFS

If you have ME/CFS and feel guilt about who you have become — quieter, flatter, more critical, more difficult, more absent — the biology is on your side.

The quietness is not a personal failure. It is a metabolic constraint. Your brain is not generating the output because your mitochondria are not generating the ATP.

The sharpness, the negativity, the defensiveness — these are not character flaws. They are the predictable outputs of a brain running on empty. The prefrontal cortex that would produce warmth, patience, and generosity is the same prefrontal cortex that is hypometabolic, hypoperfused, and depleted. You are not a difficult person. You are a person whose metabolic resources for being easy are committed to staying alive.

The guilt — the feeling that you should be more present, more engaged, more kind — is a cognitive load in itself. It costs energy. Every thought of “I should be nicer,” “I should be more fun,” “I should be a better friend” is an ATP expenditure your body cannot afford. Reducing that guilt is not self-indulgence. It is an energy-conserving intervention.

Your limits are real. Your energy is not infinite. Protecting it is not selfish. When you sit quietly, when your face does not move, when your voice comes out sharper than you intended, when you are barely there — you are not failing at being human. You are surviving a disease that makes being human metabolically expensive, and you are doing it with whatever energy you have left. That is enough.

References

Balconi, Michela, Adriana Bortolotti, and Ludovico Gonzaga. 2011. “Emotional Face Recognition, EMG Response, and Medial Prefrontal Activity in Empathic Behaviour.” Neuroscience Research 71 (3): 251–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2011.07.1833.
Balconi, Michela, and Ylenia Canavesio. 2013. “High-Frequency rTMS Improves Facial Mimicry and Detection Responses in an Empathic Emotional Task.” Neuroscience 236: 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.01.035.
Baumeister, Roy F, Ellen Bratslavsky, Mark Muraven, and Dianne M Tice. 1998. “Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (5): 1252–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252.
Ben Simon, Eti, Raphael Vallat, Aubrey Rossi, and Matthew P Walker. 2022. “Sleep Loss Leads to the Withdrawal of Human Helping Across Individuals, Groups, and Large-Scale Societies.” PLoS Biology 20 (8): e3001733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001733.
Choshen-Hillel, Shoham, Inbar Sadras, Tom Gordon-Hecker, Shir Genzer, David Rekhtman, Eugene M Caruso, Katherine L Clevers, et al. 2022. “Physicians Prescribe Fewer Analgesics During Night Shifts Than Day Shifts.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (27): e2200047119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200047119.
Easterbrook, James A. 1959. “The Effect of Emotion on Cue Utilization and the Organization of Behavior.” Psychological Review 66 (3): 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047707.
Gailliot, Matthew T, Roy F Baumeister, C Nathan DeWall, Jon K Maner, E Ashby Plant, Dianne M Tice, Lauren E Brewer, and Brandon J Schmeichel. 2007. “Self-Control Relies on Glucose as a Limited Energy Source: Willpower Is More Than a Metaphor.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (2): 325–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.325.
Guadagni, Veronica, Ford Burles, Michele Ferrara, and Giuseppe Iaria. 2014. “The Effects of Sleep Deprivation on Emotional Empathy.” Journal of Sleep Research 23 (6): 657–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12192.
Ironside, Wallace. 1980. Conservation-Withdrawal and Action-Engagement: On a Theory of Survivor Behavior.” Psychosomatic Medicine 42 (1 Suppl): 163–75.
Jamadar, Sharna D., Anna Behler, Hamish Deery, and Michael Breakspear. 2025. “The Metabolic Costs of Cognition.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 29 (6): 541–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.11.010.
Kühn, Simone, Barbara C N Müller, Andries van der Leij, Ap Dijksterhuis, Marcel Brass, and Rick B van Baaren. 2011. “Neural Correlates of Emotional Synchrony.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 6 (3): 368–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq044.
Loth, Yannick. 2026. “Myalgic Encephalomyelitis / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Comprehensive Medical Documentation.” https://yannickloth.github.io/health-me-cfs/.
Miller, Andrew H., James F. Jones, Daniel F. Drake, Hao Tian, Elizabeth R. Unger, and Giuseppe Pagnoni. 2014. “Decreased Basal Ganglia Activation in Subjects with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Association with Symptoms of Fatigue.” PLoS One 9 (5): e98156. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098156.
Morris, Gerwyn, George Anderson, Piotr Galecki, Michael Berk, and Michael Maes. 2013. “A Narrative Review on the Similarities and Dissimilarities Between Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) and Sickness Behavior.” BMC Medicine 11: 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-64.
Rimes, K. A., J. Ashcroft, L. Bryan, and T. Chalder. 2016. “Emotional Suppression in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Experimental Study.” Health Psychology 35 (9): 979–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000341.
Scholing, Janna M et al. 2025. “Greater Fatigue Is More Strongly Associated with Reduced Reward Sensitivity Than with Increased Effort Sensitivity: Evidence from a Post-COVID-19 Cohort.” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity - Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbih.2025.101001.
Siessmeier, Thomas, Waldemar A Nix, Jochen Hardt, Mathias Schreckenberger, Ulrich T Egle, and Peter Bartenstein. 2003. Observer Independent Analysis of Cerebral Glucose Metabolism in Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 74 (7): 922–28.
Tamm, Sandra, Johanna Schwarz, Hanna Thuné, Göran Kecklund, Predrag Petrovic, Torbjörn Åkerstedt, Håkan Fischer, Mats Lekander, and Gustav Nilsonne. 2020. “A Combined fMRI and EMG Study of Emotional Contagion Following Partial Sleep Deprivation in Young and Older Humans.” Scientific Reports 10: 17944. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74489-9.
Van Den Houte, M., K. Bogaerts, I. Van Diest, J. De Bie, P. Persoons, L. Van Oudenhove, and O. Van den Bergh. 2017. “Inducing Somatic Symptoms in Functional Syndrome Patients: Effects of Manipulating State Negative Affect.” Psychosomatic Medicine 79 (9): 1000–1007. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000527.
Vollmer-Conna, Ute, Cassandra Fazou, Barbara Cameron, Herong Li, Christine Brennan, Laurie Luck, Tracey Davenport, Denis Wakefield, Ian Hickie, and Andrew Lloyd. 2004. “Production of Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines Correlates with the Symptoms of Acute Sickness Behaviour in Humans.” Psychological Medicine 34 (7): 1289–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291704001953.
Williams, Grant E, Sharon Hausman-Cohen, Maryelaine Sotos, Emily Gutierrez, Carol Bilich, Francis W Mueller, and Shaun Jagshi. 2025. “The Role of GCH1 Deficiency and Tetrahydrobiopterin in Mental Health.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 26 (16): 8030. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26168030.