Neurasthenia was considered to be a result of lower processes (intake and transformation of food) becoming too demanding for the upper processes (respiration). The upper organisation was thought to be reaching its conclusion before it fully balanced nourishment with respiration. Excessive independence of the metabolic processes from the upper organisation of respiration were thought to bring about ‘hysteria’ - neurasthenia's polar opposite.
Please don't downvote because I don't mean this post as a snarky jab or justification of pseudo-science - I just have to wonder why if you're going to have such an encompassing definition of something like CFS, why would you then dig around in the mud of cellular automata instead of looking at overarching qualities as some did in the late 19th century? It seems to me that you either need to confront the definition or work on the same level as it.