Although these results are positive and promising, some
limitations to the methodologic approach should be considered
upon interpreting the results. Inclusion of a control
group receiving usual care means that the significant results
may have been due to the additional attention received
rather than the intervention. Patients in the
intervention group may have been particularly receptive to
EAT or these particular modes of exercise, creating a selfselection
bias, and the results may not apply to those with
no interest in EAT. This may limit the generalizability
of the findings but does not invalidate the results. Finally,
this study investigated the short-term benefits of the EAT
intervention but not the longer-term results. It may be meaningful
to investigate whether the improvement is sustained
over the long term with participants who continue to practice
EAT.