Recently, these words were uttered to me over the phone by an adult with Anorexia Nervosa (AN) who was desperate for help. A successful professional and devoted mother to three young daughters, she, like so many who suffer from AN, seems to “have it all.” Her husband was aware of her illness – he had attended a few therapy sessions – but it was never discussed openly. Although he was terrified that she would die, he had no idea how to help her. In fact, he had been advised by her former treatment providers that he should not try to “fix” her – that was her job. Like most men, he was begging for something concrete, a specific job to do, something to latch onto and work towards to help save his precious wife.

“I know my life inside and out,” this woman told me. “I have so much insight. It just hasn’t gotten any better.”

If someone has been in therapy for 18 years – or even 18 weeks – there should be marked, measurable improvement. Even 18 days into treatment, there should be something concrete – a written treatment plan, psycho-education for the patient and family, recommendations of reading materials and resources, development of specific goals. There should be hope. Psychotherapy research has shown that the instillation of hope – which is one common factor present in all types of psychological treatment – is the predominant mechanism of change in the first few weeks of treatment.

If someone who is suffering from a life-threatening, soul-killing mental illness for 18 years without making any improvement, where is the hope? How can someone possibly have hope that their condition will improve when they have been dutifully going to therapy with eating disorder experts for almost two decades? In the amount of time it takes to raise a child from birth through high school graduation, there has been no measurable change. Can you imagine such an interminable, grueling, agonizing battle?

In these chronic cases, inevitably the patient begins to blame herself. Her family, once supportive and nurturing, becomes paralyzed with guilt and fear, with anger and frustration. They, too, lose hope.

Let me tell you this: if you have been in treatment for 18 years, 18 months, even 18 weeks, and your condition has not improved, TREATMENT HAS FAILED YOU. No matter how long you have suffered, no matter how many treatment programs you’ve been through, or how many therapists you have seen, or how many relationships have been destroyed by this horrific illness, THERE IS HOPE.

New science offers hope for people with AN. We know so much more now than we did even 5 years ago. This new knowledge is power – it is ammunition against even the most severe, chronic, “treatment resistant” cases.

If you have been in treatment for a significant period of time without improvement, please do not blame yourself. It is your treatment team’s job to help you get well. Even if you don’t want it. Even if your motivation wavers. Even if you are ambivalent about change. These feelings are symptoms of the illness, and you deserve treatment regardless. If your therapist is kind and warm and empathic and you have wonderful relationship, that is terrific – but these things alone will not get you well.

You need a treatment team that will stand up to AN; a team that will insist upon prompt nutritional restoration, achievement of your optimally healthy body weight, cessation of eating disorder behaviors, skills to cope with unhealthy thoughts and negative emotions, and treatment of any comorbid psychiatric conditions.

If your clinicians have not been able to help you, I beg you, I implore you, to find a second opinion. Find a third, fourth, fifth opinion if needed. You deserve effective treatment, and you need something concrete – a specific plan – to help you reach full recovery.

It seems that there are quite a few ineffective therapists who treat eating disorders (ED’s), and this is particularly dangerous given that EDs have such a high mortality rate and are associated with many medical and psychiatric complications.

I have had the privilege of working with many ED patients and families who have received ineffective or actively harmful treatment in the past. In talking with these patients and families about their prior treatment experiences, I have come to recognize many red flags that are very commonly associated with ineffective or harmful ED treatment.

Red Flags re: Etiology
1.) The professional informs the patient or family that the ED is “not about the food.”
2.) The professional informs the patient or family that the ED “is about control.”
3.) The professional is not knowledgeable about recent science regarding the etiology of EDs.
4.) The professional emphasizes psychosocial “causes” of EDs (e.g., family dynamics, societal pressures, identity issues) while ignoring, discounting, or minimizing the genetic and biological underpinnings.

Red Flags re: Family
1.) The professional blames the parents (either subtly or overtly) for causing or “contributing to the development of” the patient’s ED.
2.) The professional advises the parents: “Don’t be the food police.”
3.) The professional does not keep parents of minor patients (< 18 years) fully informed and actively involved in their child’s treatment.
4.) The professional views parents with suspicion or keeps them at arm’s length, without reasonable cause.

Red Flags re: Treatment
1.) The professional is not knowledgeable about evidence-based treatment for EDs.
2.) The professional cannot, or does not, explain the treatment method she uses and / or the rationale behind it.
3.) The professional recommends or allows individual psychotherapy without ongoing nutritional restoration, weight restoration, and medical monitoring.
4.) The professional is very interested in exploring “underlying issues” in an acutely symptomatic patient.
5.) The professional insists on addressing the patient’s co-morbid conditions without also (either first or simultaneously) addressing the ED symptoms.
6.) The professional has never heard of Maudsley / Family-Based Treatment (FBT), or has heard the term but knows nothing about it.
7.) The professional asserts that Maudsley / FBT “will not work” for this particular patient, without giving a convincing explanation for this assertion.
8.) The professional blames the patient (either subtly or overtly) for having an ED.
9.) The professional advises parents to send their child or adolescent away to a residential treatment center without first trying Maudsley / FBT, unless it is clearly contraindicated.

Red Flags re: Recovery
1.) The professional asserts that the acutely ill patient “has to want to eat” or “has to want to recover.”
2.) The professional emphasizes the adolescent or young adult patient’s need for control and independence as more important than her recovery from ED.
3.) The professional sets or allows a target weight range based on population indices (e.g., BMI of 18.5) or percentiles (e.g., 50th percentile for age/height) without consideration of the individual patient’s build, weight history, or optimal weight.
4.) The professional declares the patient “recovered” based on weight alone, without regard for her behavior or mental state.
5.) The professional asserts that one never recovers from an eating disorder.

This list of red flags may be useful when you are looking for or ruling out a professional or treatment program based on information on their website; it may also be useful in interviewing potential new therapists. If you or your loved one have been in treatment for a while without making progress, you can also use these red flags to help you assess the situation and determine whether to go elsewhere for a second opinion.

My advice? If you see one or two of these red flags in your therapist or treatment program, investigate and proceed with caution. If you see three or more, find a new therapist.

To the patient’s detriment, many clinicians do not add the right ingredients at the right times in the right doses. For example, many individual therapy approaches focus initially on helping the patient develop insight and motivation to recover. Full nutrition is not required, or even encouraged, until the patient has lost a significant amount of weight.

Many clinicians are simply using the wrong recipe.

Listed below are my professional opinions on the importance of different ingredients at various stages of eating disorder treatment:

START OF TREATMENT

Essential ingredients:
1.) Immediate requirement of full nutrition, full time
2.) Supervision after meals to prevent purging (if indicated)
3.) Moratorium on exercise
4.) A complete physical exam to check for medical complications of the eating disorder
5.) Hospitalization to correct any urgent medical issues (e.g., bradycardia, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance) or to ensure patient’s safety from self-injury or suicide

Important ingredient:
1.) Emotional, nutritional, and practical support from loved ones

Unimportant ingredients:
1.) Patient accepting or acknowledging her diagnosis
2.) Patient understanding her illness
3.) Patient insight
4.) Patient willingness to engage in treatment
5.) Patient motivation to recover

WITHIN THE FIRST MONTH OF TREATMENT

Essential ingredients:
1.) Continuation of full nutrition, full time
2.) If the patient is underweight, adjustment of nutritional intake to ensure that weight is being restored at the appropriate rate (1-3 pounds per week)
3.) Continued supervision after meals to prevent purging (if indicated)
4.) Continued medical monitoring

Important ingredients:
1.) Psycho-education for the patient and family about the etiology, symptoms (medical, behavioral, and psychological), and effective treatment for the patient’s eating disorder
2.) Separating the illness from the patient (also known as externalizing the illness)
3.) Parents and treatment professionals developing a specific treatment plan and presenting a united front against the illness
4.) Emotional, nutritional, and practical support from loved ones

Unimportant ingredients:
1.) Patient accepting or acknowledging her diagnosis
2.) Patient understanding her illness
3.) Patient insight
4.) Patient willingness to engage in treatment
5.) Patient motivation to recover

MONTHS 2-6 OF TREATMENT

Essential ingredients:
1.) Continued full nutrition, full time
2.) Achievement of optimal body weight range
3.) Continued monitoring and supervision, as needed, to prevent purging and self-injurious behavior
4.) Ongoing medical monitoring as needed

Important ingredients:
1.) Expansion of nutritional variety
2.) Some exposure to feared foods (e.g., pizza) and feared eating situations (e.g., restaurants, parties)
3.) Parents and treatment professionals continuing to follow the treatment plan and presenting a united front against the illness
4.) Emotional, nutritional, and practical support from loved ones

Unimportant ingredients:
1.) Patient accepting or acknowledging her diagnosis
2.) Patient understanding her illness
3.) Patient insight
4.) Patient willingness to engage in treatment
5.) Patient motivation to recover

MONTHS 6-12 OF TREATMENT

Essential ingredients:
1.) Continued full nutrition, full time
2.) Maintenance of optimal body weight range (for patients over 21)
3.) Adjustment of optimal body weight range to account for growth and development (for patients under 21)
4.) Abstinence from binge eating, purging, and other ED behaviors

Important Ingredients:
1.) Medical monitoring as needed
2.) Re-introduction of physical exercise as patient demonstrates readiness
3.) Gradually handing back some control over food, in an age-appropriate manner, as the patient demonstrates readiness
4.) Continued expansion of nutritional variety
5.) Exposure to more feared foods and feared eating situations
6.) Parents and treatment professionals continuing to follow the treatment plan and presenting a united front against the illness
7.) Emotional, nutritional, and practical support from loved ones

Unimportant ingredients:
1.) Patient accepting or acknowledging her diagnosis
2.) Patient understanding her illness
3.) Patient insight
4.) Patient willingness to engage in treatment
5.) Patient motivation to recover

MONTHS 12-18 OF TREATMENT

Essential ingredients:
1.) Continued full nutrition, full time
2.) Maintenance of optimal body weight range (for patients over 21)
3.) Adjustment of optimal body weight range to account for growth and development (for patients under 21)
4.) Continued abstinence from binge eating, purging, and other ED behaviors

Important ingredients:
1.) Assessment of and treatment for body dysmorphia and co-morbid conditions (e.g., depression, OCD, ADHD)
2.) Occasional medical monitoring, as needed
3.) Continued nutritional variety
4.) Patient mastery of fear foods and feared eating situations
5.) Patient willingness to engage in treatment
6.) Emotional, nutritional, and practical support from loved ones

Unimportant ingredients:
1.) Patient accepting or acknowledging her diagnosis
2.) Patient understanding her illness
3.) Patient insight
4.) Patient motivation to recover

BY THE END OF TREATMENT

Essential ingredients:
1.) Continued full nutrition, full time
2.) Maintenance of optimal body weight range (for patients over 21)
3.) Adjustment of optimal body weight range to account for growth and development (for patients under 21)
4.) Continued abstinence from binge eating, purging, and other ED behaviors

Important ingredients:
1.) No more than mild preoccupation with body image, food, or weight
2.) Ability to regulate emotions and tolerate distress
3.) Ability to eat independently and self-regulate around food without losing weight
4.) Continued treatment for co-morbid conditions, if present
5.) Emotional, nutritional, and practical support from loved ones
6.) Medical monitoring annually or as needed

PRIOR TO LEAVING HOME (to attend college or live independently)

Essential ingredients:
1.) Continued full nutrition, full time
2.) Patient acceptance of her eating disorder history and life-long predisposition
3.) Patient motivation to stay in recovery
4.) Patient insight
5.) Complete abstinence from all eating disorder behaviors (restricting, bingeing, purging) for at least 6 months
6.) Maintenance of optimally healthy body weight for at least 6 months
7.) Ability to eat independently and self-regulate around food without losing weight

Important ingredients:
1.) Specific, written relapse prevention plan which is agreed upon by patient, parents, and treatment team
2.) Medical monitoring annually or as needed
3.) Ongoing treatment for any comorbid conditions
4.) Ability to care for self, regulate emotions, and tolerate distress

In conclusion, the essential ingredients of successful treatment change considerably from beginning to end. The one ingredient that remains essential throughout the course of treatment and beyond is full nutrition, full time. Medical monitoring is essential at the beginning but somewhat less important towards the end. Certain intangible factors, such as patient insight and motivation, are unimportant in the beginning but essential for independent living in recovery.

The need to create theories arises most often when the reason or cause of an event or circumstance is not readily apparent. For example, in ancient Greek mythology, the god Apollo rode his chariot across the sky every day, carrying the sun from east to west. Now we have modern science to explain the earth’s rotation on its axis every 24 hours, thus creating the appearance of the sun moving overhead from east to west, so the myth of Apollo is no longer necessary.

In modern times, science has replaced mythology and theory as our means of understanding various phenomena. While modern science has helped us understand many phenomenon, we still do not know what happens to us after death. This explains the popularity of major world religions which offer theories to answer these questions, such as heaven in Christianity or reincarnation in Hinduism.

In contrast to physics, chemistry, and biology, which have existed for millennia, psychology is a relatively new science. Relatively little is known about the causes of, and effective treatments for, mental illnesses. Therefore, numerous psychological theories have been proposed over the past century in attempt to explain psychological disorders. For example, in the 1950’s mental health professionals believed that autism and schizophrenia were caused by emotionally frigid “refrigerator mothers.”

With the advent of better science in recent decades, we have learned that parenting style plays no role whatsoever in the development of autism nor schizophrenia. While the precise causes of these brain disorders are unknown, we do know that autism and schizophrenia are neuro-biological disorders with strong heritability components, and that the patient’s parents can be extraordinarily valuable resources in treatment if they are given the right professional support.

While our current understanding of mental illness is in its infancy, recent scientific research has shed some light on factors that influence the development of mental illnesses. We also have some scientific data demonstrating that certain types of treatment are more effective than others for certain populations. In light of our current understanding of the etiology and effective treatment of mental illness, I am profoundly disappointed when I read about well-meaning but misinformed psychologists who cling to antiquated theories of mental illness and practice antiquated treatments.

For example, psychologist and author Judy Scheel, Ph.D., LICSW, believes that eating disorders are rooted in unhealthy or disrupted attachments to parents. In her recent Psychology Today blog post, she writes:

“For many individuals, eating disorders are attempts to fix externally what is internally vulnerable in an individual. Yet the cause of an eating disorder can often be traced back to attachment patterns that are weak or failing in childhood, which leave someone vulnerable to a whole host of self-esteem, self-worth and relationship issues later in life.”

This theory has a familiar odor. It reeks of refrigerator mothers, castration anxiety, and unconscious conflicts. In 1950, this was all we had. But now, in 2011, we know so much more.

Why do some psychologists cling to antiquated theories which have been disproven? Similarly, one may ask why many people cling to the theory of creationism when we have solid scientific evidence to support evolution. For some people, the notion that “we came from monkeys” is insulting and offensive and clashes with their existing belief system. The story of creationism is a foundation of Judeo-Christian religions, and (at least in its literal interpretation) is incongruent with Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The same is true with psychological theories. Many people who have been trained in psychodynamic or relational approaches feel that the new science runs counter to everything they have been taught and undermines the type of treatment they practice. They cling to their theories and defend them with religious fervor. The new science threatens their religion.

The problem here is that psychology is not a religion; it is a science. In the United States, we all enjoy freedom of religion – the freedom to believe whatever we wish and practice any religion we choose without persecution. We should not have freedom of science. As experts in the field of psychology with doctoral-level degrees, we should not have the freedom to write and publish whatever we happen to believe, and practice whatever method of treatment we wish, without accountability.

I was a graduate student relatively recently (2001 – 2008), and I was taught many things in my training that I no longer believe to be accurate. This is not a failure of my training; this is a reality of an evolving science. New developments occur in medicine all the time, and physicians who have been in practice for 20 years have had to learn and re-learn new ways of practicing as the science of medicine has evolved. This is expected. It is taken for granted by most patients.

As psychologists, we have a responsibility to educate ourselves about the latest scientific developments in our field and utilize our expertise to help people in need. Clinging to unproven theories, in the face of new science, is irresponsible, lazy, and potentially harmful. When challenged on their ideas, many old-school psychologists will use phrases such as “everyone’s opinion is valuable” or “can’t we agree to disagree” or “there is no right way to treat eating disorders” or “I feel unsafe.”

Here is the problem – this is not group therapy. We cannot sit around and validate one another’s feelings and hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Yes, all people are equal, but all ideas are not equal. Some ideas are supported by reliable scientific evidence and others are not. There may not be one right way to treat eating disorders but there are many wrong ways, and there are methods and techniques which clearly work better than others for most people.

We must let go of unhealthy, dysfunctional attachments to old ideas. Clearly, these attachments to antiquated theories contribute to the development of unhelpful psychotherapy. Perhaps today’s unhelpful psychotherapy is an attempt to validate one’s early training.

Let me explain. First, there are no good data to support the popular notion that the prevalence of AN has increased over the past few decades (in contrast, the prevalence of bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder has skyrocketed in recent decades, but that is beyond the scope of this post). Most data in fact suggest that the incidence of AN has remained constant throughout recorded history. Second, we do not yet know how to prevent AN, nor do we know whether AN is possible to prevent.

We do know that children are being diagnosed with and treated for AN at much younger ages now compared to a generation ago. Research has also shown that the prognosis for AN is inversely correlated with age and duration of illness prior to the start of effective treatment. In other words, the younger the patient, the better her chance for full recovery.

The 5th and 6th grade girls who are diagnosed with AN today would most likely have developed AN anyway, but in previous generations the illness would not have been triggered, diagnosed, or treated until later in adolescence, when it is more difficult to treat. Therefore, I view younger age of onset as a positive thing.

AN is triggered by an energy imbalance – that is, a period of time in which a person’s caloric intake is lower than her body’s energy needs. My theory is that kids are developing AN at younger ages because there are more opportunities for energy imbalance to occur in younger children now compared to generations past.

Several factors contribute to this trend of children developing AN at younger ages:

1.) National hysteria about the “obesity epidemic” and well-intentioned but misguided government programs aimed at children.

Children who are predisposed to AN tend to be anxious, sensitive, perfectionistic, rigid, and overly compliant with rules. These are the kids who actually take the “obesity prevention” messages to heart and follow them to the letter. They avoid “unhealthy foods” (e.g., those high in calories) in favor of “healthy foods” (e.g., those low in calories and fat), thus creating a negative energy balance and triggering AN. The irony here is that it is very unhealthy for a growing child to eat a low-fat or restricted-calorie diet.

2.) Earlier puberty.

This generation of children tends to enter puberty earlier than their parents or grandparents. The hormonal changes of puberty, combined with the increased energy needs of the pubertal growth spurt, provide a perfect opportunity for a negative energy balance. Add to that the tendency of girls to begin dieting to counteract their body’s pubertal changes to conform to the thin ideal, and you have a perfect storm.

3.) Participation in intense athletics at younger ages.

It used to be that athletically-inclined kids did not begin intense athletic training until high school. These days, 6-year-old kids begin practicing for their sport multiple nights per week and traveling to games on the weekends. These kids have extremely high energy needs, as they must consume enough food to fuel their sports in addition to keeping up with normal growth and development. Kids who are predisposed to AN are not able to eat enough to fuel their body’s needs. Further, thinness is considered an advantage in many sports such as gymnastics, track and field, cross country, dance, cheerleading, and diving.

4.) Increased stress.

The modern lifestyle is fast-paced, rushed, overscheduled, and pressured for all of us, even children. Every time I listen to an elderly person talk about their childhood, I am struck by how different life was in the 1940’s and ‘50’s and how much more laid back things were for children then. Stress can trigger loss of appetite, which creates a negative energy balance, which can be the beginning of AN in a vulnerable child.

5.) Decrease in family meals.

For a number of reasons, including busy schedules, families are eating together less often now. If a young child is responsible for fixing her own breakfast, packing her own lunch, or microwaving her own dinner, it is much easier for her to skip meals or restrict her food intake without her parents knowing.

6.) Ignorant pediatricians.

In most cases, pediatricians are the first healthcare professionals to spot (or miss) early signs of an eating disorder. I cannot count the number of patients I have seen whose pediatrician was completely unconcerned by a child or adolescent’s weight loss or failure to gain weight. They will often say things such as “Don’t worry, she’s still in the normal weight range for her age” or “she could lose 10 more pounds and still be fine.” Even worse, many pediatricians will congratulate a child for losing weight. It is as if pediatricians have become so consumed with “fighting childhood obesity” that they have forgotten that kids are supposed to grow and gain weight from birth until age 20. Weight loss is not normal or healthy for any child or adolescent. Generations ago, people understood this, and any weight loss in a child was cause for alarm. You know how grandparents always want to feed you a lot, and say “you’re looking thin” as if it were a bad thing?

Like many diseases, AN in children presents differently than in teens or adults. Here are some key differences I have observed in the young children I treat:

1.) Young children are much less likely than teenagers to fall into AN through dieting. In little girls, the negative energy balance is more likely to result from unintentional weight loss through illness, athletic training, or “healthy eating.”

2.) Fear of fat, drive for thinness, and body dysmorphia – which are considered the hallmark cognitive symptoms of AN – are often absent in young children. Eating provokes extreme fear and resistance, but they often cannot articulate why.

3.) Young children are more likely to present with dehydration as well as malnourishment. Whereas teenage anorexics drink large quantities of water, diet soda, and black coffee, little kids sometimes cannot grasp the concept of calories. Many little kids with AN will fear and avoid anything that enters the mouth- including water, gum, vitamins, and medicine.

4.) Teens and adults with AN usually have a list of “safe foods” which are low calorie and low fat – such as salads, fruit, rice cakes, and nonfat yogurt – and they tend to fear high calorie foods such as ice cream and pizza. However, sometimes young children’s food rules and food fears make no caloric sense. For example, I have worked with children who will willingly consume any beverage, including milkshakes, but who refuse to take a bite of solid food, even a carrot stick. Other kids will have a narrow list of safe foods which are familiar but not low-calorie (e.g., chicken nuggets, pop tarts, and grilled cheese sandwiches).

5.) Young children become medically and mentally unstable much more quickly than teenagers. Post-pubescent teen girls and women, even slender ones, start out at a higher body mass and have reserves of fat. Prepubescent children are already light and very lean. A loss of even a few pounds is enough to cause severe medical problems and extreme cognitive distortions in a child. It is not uncommon for a child to go away to summer camp completely healthy and return three weeks later in grave danger.

6.) It is easier for young children to externalize their illness. They often describe feeling “taken over” by a voice or by some evil force beyond their control. They love to name their illness and refer to it in the third person, unlike teenagers who tend to balk at this exercise, or who experience their illness as more ego-syntonic. My young patients have come up with various names for their illness – the monster, the beast, the devil, Scary Larry, and Voldemort are a few that come to mind.

In my experience, young children tend to make a full recovery more quickly and more easily than teens or young adults. Because they fall into AN so quickly and because they are still so dependent on their parents, they are brought into treatment very early in the course of the illness. Their AN thoughts and behaviors are not as engrained as, say, a 16-year-old who has suffered from AN for two years.

Young children are more dependent on their parents than teens. Thus, it is far easier for both parent and child to adjust to the “magic plate” technique of parents preparing and supervising all meals and snacks – this is not so different from what most parents do for their healthy 10-year-olds anyway. It is extremely difficult for teens and especially young adults to accept the amount of parental support and supervision required for successful re-feeding.

I love treating little girls with AN. Each time I get a call from a terrified parent whose little girl who is showing signs of AN, I breathe a sigh of relief, grateful that they have come to my attention so early in the course of the illness. Although these children and their families are in for a harrowing journey, I have complete confidence that they will defeat the monster. These kids can enter their teen years fully recovered and able to enjoy high school and college unencumbered by this horrible illness.

Here are some of the most common reasons why clinicians who treat eating disorders are resistant to using FBT, along with my rebuttals to each:

1.) “I work with adults. FBT is not applicable to most adults.”

While FBT has not been adequately studied in adults, the reality is that there are no evidence-based treatments for adults with AN yet. I believe that patients over age 18 need to have loved ones fully informed about their illness and actively involved in their treatment just as much as young patients. The basic principles of FBT (with some age-appropriate modifications) are now being applied to older patients with very promising results.

As Cynthia Bulik’s recent study on Uniting Couples Against Anorexia Nervosa demonstrated, the principles of FBT can be applied very successfully to adults, using spouses or significant others for support rather than parents.

Also, there is some preliminary evidence that a modified version of FBT can be useful for college-aged patients who are temporarily living at home with parents during recovery. There may very well be a time in the not-too-distant future in which a modified form of FBT is an evidence-based treatment for adults.

2.) “Some families can’t do it.”

This statement is absolutely true – some families can’t do it. However, I believe that the true percentage of families who “can’t do it” is actually much smaller than one may think. FBT can be successful in divorced families, step-families, single-parent families, families with many children, families where both parents work full time, and families in which a parent suffers from a mental illness.

The only real contraindications for FBT in patients under18 are cases in which the patient has been physically or sexually abused by a parent, or both parents are so mentally or physically ill that they are unable to care for their children. Both of these contraindications are relatively rare, and even in these cases, one would hope that the patient would be living in a safe environment with other adults (e.g., relatives, foster parents) who could participate in FBT with the patient.

What happens too often is that parents don’t purse FBT because they aren’t aware it exists, or aren’t aware of the evidence behind it. It is also common for parents to be discouraged from doing FBT with their child because the child’s clinician (who is not really familiar with FBT or who doesn’t agree with it) tells the parent that it won’t work for their particular child for some reason.

In sum, I would estimate that maybe 10 % of families really can’t do it (I have no data to support this percentage; it is just an educated guess). The majority of families can do it if they have the proper clinical support and encouragement. The majority of parents love their children immensely and will do anything to help them recover if given the opportunity. It is up to us, the clinicians, to give families that opportunity.

3.) “Some adolescents don’t improve with FBT.”

I have no counterpoint to this one. The reality is that FBT is not effective for everyone. This is not a shortcoming unique to FBT, as there are no treatments that work for 100% of patients. I doubt that there will ever be one treatment that works for everyone in the same diagnostic category, because each individual patient is unique and has their own set of circumstances. Therefore, we must continue to research other forms of treatment and work to improve upon the existing treatments. When a patient does not improve with FBT, we must offer something else – residential treatment, day treatment, cognitive behavioral therapy – whatever is most appropriate for that particular patient and that particular family.

4.) “My training and inclination is as an individual therapist. Making the switch to working with families is intimidating. Learning FBT would be like starting from scratch.”

I don’t see it as starting from scratch. Rather, I see it as adding another (very effective) tool to your existing toolbox. You certainly don’t need to abandon individual therapy just because you’ve added a new treatment to your repertoire.

While some patients will recover fully with FBT and never need individual therapy, most patients do have co-morbid disorders or other issues which need to be addressed with individual therapy. In these cases, individual therapy comes after FBT. Many times I have transitioned to individual therapy with a patient after the patient has successfully recovered with FBT. The great thing about this approach is that the eating disorder has already been fully addressed through FBT, so you and the patient can focus all your time and energy on other things, such as depression, OCD, body image issues, perfectionism, and social difficulties.

5.) “My training is in psychodynamic therapy and relational approaches. FBT is pretty concrete and behavioral. Adopting FBT would seem to remove the very things that made me want to become a therapist in the first place – the focus on depth and the therapeutic relationship.”

FBT is more concrete and behavioral than other types of therapy, and I believe that is part of why it is so effective in treating these malignant illnesses which demand immediate behavioral management in order to save the patient’s health. That being said, the therapeutic relationship is just as essential in FBT as it is in other types of treatment. The parents and the therapist must develop trust in one another, and mutual respect is key, because the parents and therapist are allies working together against the illness on behalf of the child. It is extremely rewarding to be able to offer this kind of assistance and support to terrified, confused, guilt-stricken parents, who blossom with confidence as you educate them about the illness and empower them to do what needs to be done to help their child recover.

And the kids! It is nothing short of amazing to watch the therapeutic relationship evolve and unfold so quickly as recovery progresses. In the first few sessions, the kid typically presents as catatonically depressed, curled up in a fetal position under a blanket, sobbing quietly; or the kid reacts with extreme anger and resistance, yelling and hurling insults and dropping f-bombs before running out of the room. Entire tissue boxes are gone through in one session; stuffed animals need to be placed back on the shelves after being thrown. And within a few months, the kid is smiling, laughing, so happy to see you, chattering on about their trip to Disney World or their new boyfriend or how much they love ‘90’s music exclaiming “Wow, Dr. Ravin, it must have been so cool to be a teenager back in the ‘90’s!” The transformation is astounding.

Furthermore, there is lots of room for a tremendous amount of depth when continuing to work with the patient individually after FBT has been successfully completed. In fact, is even more feasible to go into greater depth in these cases, because the eating disorder is in remission and health-threatening behaviors have long-since been eliminated, so treatment can focus exclusively on other (often more interesting!) issues.

6.) “FBT is agnostic on etiology, and I think etiology is very important.”

Yes, FBT is agnostic with regards to etiology. In other words, the clinician states clearly at the outset of treatment that we don’t know exactly what causes eating disorders, and that it is not relevant for the purposes of this treatment. I believe this agnostic stance is one of the strengths of FBT: it does not waste time on “why” but instead focuses on “how” to help the patient recover.

I agree that etiology is very important because our ideas about etiology (for better or for worse) have a huge impact on how we treat patients. Therefore, clinicians and researchers must continue to have professional discussions about etiology amongst themselves.

My concern is not the discussion of etiology amongst professionals in the field. Rather, my concerns are 1.) When clinicians have a particular presumption about etiology which is not consistent with recent scientific evidence, 2.) When that particular presumption guides the use of treatments that are less effective, and 3.) When those presumptions about etiology cause harm to patients and their families by subtly or overtly blaming the patient or the family.

In my opinion, when clinicians discuss etiology with patients and their families, these discussions should be limited to the following points:

A.) Clarifying that neither the patient nor the family is to blame for the illness.

B.) Dispelling common myths about etiology (e.g., media, control issues, overprotective parents)

C.) Discussing the “Four P’s:” predisposing factors (e.g., genetic predisposition), precipitating factors (e.g., weight loss through dieting or illness), perpetuating factors (e.g., malnutrition has a calming and mood-elevating effect on those who are vulnerable to eating disorders), and prognostic factors (e.g., importance of early and aggressive intervention, maintenance of optimal body weight).

This is all the information patients and families need to know about etiology, because let’s be frank: this is all we really know about etiology. Anything else is just a distraction.

My views on this issue are complex. Thankfully, my views became much clearer to me as I was watching an episode of the E! True Hollywood Story entitled Britney Spears: The Price of Fame. Now I am able to articulate my views on this topic in a way that most people can understand.

Numerous magazine and newspaper articles have reported that Britney Spears has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. According to unnamed “sources close to the pop star,” Spears was suffering from untreated bipolar disorder during her public meltdown and psychiatric hospitalization in 2008. While I have not treated Britney and thus cannot ethically make a diagnosis, I will say that her erratic behavior circa 2006-2008 could be explained by a bipolar diagnosis, and that the rate of bipolar disorder is thought to be quite high amongst people in the creative and performing arts.

Scientists now know that bipolar disorder is a neurobiologically-based, genetically transmitted disease. However, rather than focusing on the neurobiology or genetics of bipolar disorder, The E! True Hollywood Story explored various influences in Britney’s life that fueled her self-destructive behavior. Clearly, this type of commentary is far more interesting to the typical E! viewer than neurobiology, my own preferences notwithstanding. Several mental health professionals were interviewed and gave their opinions as to the influence of early stardom, family problems, a stage mom, excessive fame, and extreme wealth on the pop star’s behavior. Sadly, though, the viewer is led to believe that these environmental and family issues are the cause of Britney’s downfall.

Did Britney’s family or environment cause her bipolar disorder? No. Neither family nor environment can cause a brain disorder.

Did her family or environment fuel her bipolar disorder? Yes. And here’s how: Let’s say Britney had taken a different path in life, married a plumber instead of Kevin Federline and worked as a preschool teacher instead of a pop star. Let’s say she stayed in her small Louisiana hometown, never dabbled in drugs or heavy drinking, went to bed every night at a decent hour, and maintained close, age appropriate relationships with her family and good friends, making a decent living but nothing more. Would she still have developed bipolar disorder? Yes, I absolutely believe she would have (remember, most people with bipolar disorder are not pop stars, but regular people). However, her disease would have been much more easily diagnosed and treated if she had been surrounded and supported by normal, loving people who could influence her in a positive way. As it happened, her disease was certainly protracted and exacerbated by the lifestyle of a pop star, which includes late nights, insufficient sleep, excessive amounts of alcohol and drugs, and endless amounts of power and money.

If Britney’s therapist had held a family session with Lynne and Jamie Spears and Kevin Federline in attempts to “explore the family dynamics which contributed to the disorder,” that would be a complete waste of time. The elder Spears’ and Mr. Federline – the very people who are in the best position to help Britney recover – would have felt subtly blamed and marginalized. There is nothing to be gained, and everything to be lost, by approaching a brain disorder in this fashion.

The most ideal situation for Britney would be for her parents and K-Fed (and any other people close to her) to work together to provide family-based support to help her recover and to help eliminate any environmental or family factors which may be fueling her disease. It would be most helpful for her family members to be educated about bipolar disorder and understand that it is a biologically-based brain disease that she did not choose and that they did not cause. The family would also need to know that certain environmental factors, such as pregnancy and childbirth, stress, insufficient sleep, drugs and alcohol, medication non-compliance, or excessive emotional distress, can trigger episodes and exacerbate symptoms. The family would need to learn pro-active ways to help Britney manage her environment in a way that is most conducive to achieving mental and physical wellness.

In considering this example, it is important to bear in mind that people with bipolar disorder run the gamut from pop stars to professors to businessmen to truck drivers to homeless panhandlers. Families of people with bipolar disorder also run the gamut – some are amazing and supportive, others are average, and some are downright abusive. If treatment for bipolar disorder is to be successful, the clinician must perform a thorough evaluation of the patient and family, and the information gleaned from that assessment should be used to guide treatment decisions. A good clinician would not presume that the family of a person with bipolar disorder is dysfunctional or abusive, or that family dynamics caused or contributed to the development of the disorder. Similarly, a good clinician would not presume that the family is healthy or that there is nothing the family needs to change. Quite simply, a good clinician would not assume anything – she would simply perform an assessment and tailor her approach to the strengths, limitations, and realities of that particular patient and family, in line with the most recent evidence-based research.

Eating disorders are also neurobiologically-based, genetically transmitted diseases which patients don’t choose and parents don’t cause. Family issues and environment certainly can fuel eating disorders by encouraging dieting or glorifying thinness, by making diagnosis more difficult or treatment less accessible, or by making recovery harder than it needs to be.

All eating disorder patients have a biological brain disease which most likely would have arisen, at some point in time and to some degree, regardless of family or environment. Some patients have family or environmental issues which are fueling their disorder, and some do not. If such familial or environmental issues exist, they usually become quite obvious if you do a thorough assessment. These family or environmental issues will need to be addressed in treatment, not because they caused the eating disorder, but because they can trigger or exacerbate symptoms and interfere with full recovery.

But if there are no obvious familial or environmental issues fueling the disorder, please don’t waste time searching for them. You aren’t doing the patient or the family any good by “being curious,” or “just exploring.” You are simply satisfying your own voyeuristic drive, as I fulfilled mine by watching the E! True Hollywood Story on Britney Spears.

- Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Last weekend, I attended the annual National Eating Disorders Association conference in New York City. It was a fantastic conference and an exhilarating experience, a whirlwind of thinking and conversing and listening and networking.

That said, I attended a few lectures that made me cringe and perhaps set the field back a few years. One well-known psychologist and author stated in her lecture that there’s a false dichotomy between research and practice, because all clinicians are, ipso facto, researchers. She went on to explain to the clinicians in the room that that if you work with eating disorder patients and you contemplate eating disorder issues, then you are a researcher.

I think, therefore I am…a researcher?

And therein lies the rub. Working with eating disorder patients and thinking about them does not make you a researcher anymore than watching MSNBC and contemplating the mid-term election makes you a political scientist.

Historically, a major problem within the field of eating disorders is that etiological theories were formed, and treatment approaches created, based upon clinicians’ casual observation and reflection. Hilde Bruch, MD, who wrote the highly influential book The Golden Cage (1978), based her theories on her observation and treatment of the anorexic patients in her practice. Bruch concluded that anorexia nervosa occurs almost exclusively in upper-class white families (because those were the families, residing in her primarily Caucasian neighborhood, who could afford to enter treatment with her), that dysfunctional patterns of family interaction are key in the etiology of anorexia nervosa (because she observed strained and tense relationships between her severely ill patients and their worried parents) and that anorexia represents a misguided attempt at forming an identity and asserting some control over an otherwise uncontrollable life (based upon the self-reports of malnourished patients suffering from a brain disease).

This book was immensely popular amongst clinicians and the general public, as it was the first book to attempt to explain anorexia nervosa, and these theories became professional dogma. Bruch’s ideas spread like wildfire, and it would be many years before scientific research would be published to counter her claims. And to this day, more than three decades later, many clinicians, anorexics, and their families still hold these beliefs.

We are, in general, resistant to change. People have a very hard time letting go of long-held beliefs, which may explain why societal change tends to happen incrementally over generations. Many clinicians have so much pride in the work they have done in the past, and so much prejudice against new ideas which are diametrically opposed to their own, that they vigorously defend the theories they have held forever even when all reliable evidence points to the contrary. They seek to assimilate new information into their preexisting beliefs (for example, a racist person may boast about having one black friend, claiming that his buddy is “not like most black people”) rather than abandoning their old beliefs once it becomes clear that they are flawed. To quote the 17th century philosopher John Locke: “New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.”

It is essential, therefore, that the most recent scientific research on the etiology and effective treatment of eating disorders is featured prominently and unapologetically at local, national, and global events aimed professionals, patients, and families in the eating disorder world. The new message cannot be muted or diluted with antiquated theories or treatments under the politically-correct assumption that all ideas are equally valid. As it is, big-name wealthy treatment centers get the most publicity, most likely because of their massive donations to eating disorder organizations who feature them prominently in exhibit halls at conferences. People are so easily swayed by catch phrases and neat giveaways and glossy brochures featuring impossibly happy eating disordered teenagers riding horses and finger painting. But these centers do not necessarily offer the most effective treatments. If we want our field to make progress, if we truly want to save more lives and rescue more sufferers from the agony of this illness, money cannot trump science.

One of the most promising statements I heard all weekend was this, from a psychologist who is the director of an eating disorders treatment program:

“It is no longer acceptable, in 2010, for clinicians to practice a certain way simply because they have been practicing that way for years.”

My friend Carrie Arnold and I gave a standing ovation to that one and clapped until our hands hurt.

We invite you to join us in doing the same.

There is one recently published randomized controlled trial of outpatient vs. residential treatment. Results of this study demonstrated that adolescents who were randomly assigned to outpatient treatment fared just as well as those who were randomly assigned to residential treatment. Given that outpatient treatment is less expensive and less disruptive to the adolescent’s life, the authors conclude that outpatient treatment is preferable.

I am a firm believer in evidence-based outpatient treatments which keep family members fully informed and actively involved whenever possible. Patients who receive treatment which prioritizes nutritional rehabilitation, weight restoration, and cessation of restricting/bingeing/purging behaviors as the essential first step, are more likely to achieve full recovery in less time. In an ideal situation, a skilled therapist can utilize the strengths and resources of the family and coach them in understanding eating disorders, refeeding their loved one, and interrupting her eating disorder behaviors. Families can also be coached in how to maintain a home environment which is conducive to recovery while their loved one participates in therapy to acquire healthy coping skills, learn how to prevent relapse, and manage any comorbid conditions. This is how the Maudsley Method of Family-Based Treatment works. At this time, the Maudsley method is the only empirically-supported treatment for adolescent anorexia nervosa, and has also been shown to be equally effective in treating adolescent bulimia nervosa. Empirical studies on the use of a modified Maudsley approach in treating young adults with eating disorders have not yet been published. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that many young adults respond favorably to a modified Maudsley approach – even those who have been ill for many years and have had numerous stays in inpatient or residential treatment. And, let’s face it: we don’t really have a good alternative treatment for young adults with anorexia nervosa.

The majority of patients who are treated with Maudsley do achieve and maintain full recovery. Simply put, Maudsley works, and there aren’t any great alternatives. Thus, Maudsley should typically be the first-line treatment, especially for adolescents with anorexia nervosa, and should commence immediately following diagnosis. That being said, Maudsley may not be appropriate in a minority of cases. For example, families who are unable to find evidence-based treatment providers near their home, families in which neither parent has the necessary time or energy due to very demanding careers or caring for other small children, families in which parents cannot agree to Maudsley and refuse to compromise or work together, families in which there is abuse or addiction, or families in which one or both parents suffers from a physical or mental illness which impairs their ability to parent their child effectively.

Despite the promise of the Maudsley Method, it is not necessarily effective or appropriate for all patients (this statement, while often cited by critics of Maudsley, is annoying and virtually meaningless because NO form of treatment for any psychological or medical illness is ever appropriate and effective for 100% of patients. This is not a weakness of a particular treatment method; this is just reality). For the aforementioned reasons, there is, and probably always will be, a need for residential treatment for eating disorders.

Residential treatment for eating disorders, as it exists today, has several benefits and several drawbacks. The benefits include:
• Supported nutrition to promote appropriate weight restoration
• Round-the-clock monitoring to prevent patients from engaging in bingeing, purging, restricting, and substance use
• Protection from self-harm and suicide
• Providing the patient with a respite from the stresses of school, work, sports, and everyday life
• Providing the family with a respite from the daily strain of caring for their loved one

The drawbacks to residential treatment, as it exists today, include:
• Prolonged separation from the family and home environment
• Prolonged absence from school, friends, extracurricular activities, and normal routines
• Exposure to other eating disorder patients, which can result in acquisition of new symptoms, solidification of identity as an “eating disorder patient,” and competitiveness with other patients about who is sicker or thinner
• Artificial environment – a “bubble” – which does not translate to real-world living
• Exposure to outdated and unproven theories about the etiology and treatment of eating disorders (e.g., blaming “family dysfunction,” search for “root causes,” exploration of supposed “underlying issues”)
• Failure to plan adequately for a smooth transition home
• Insufficient family involvement (weekly phone sessions and “family weekend” pay lip service to family involvement, but they often play the blame game, focus on presumed family dysfunction, advise parents to “back off” and not be the “food police,” and fail to educate families as to how to help their loved one recover. In essence, many family sessions send all the wrong messages and fail to send the helpful ones).
• Over-diagnosis of and over-medication for supposed comorbid disorders which are largely, if not entirely, the result of malnourishment and / or refeeding
• Attempts to use psychotherapy of any kind on patients who are not able to benefit cognitively or emotionally.

These last two points are particularly striking to me (granted, these problems occur with less-informed outpatient treatment as well). I have had many patients who were diagnosed with and medicated for severe mental illnesses such as major depression, bipolar disorder, or even borderline personality disorder, while they were underweight or re-feeding in residential treatment. In many patients, these symptoms decrease substantially or disappear altogether once the patient has reached and maintained a healthy body weight for a number of months. I have several patients who arrived at my office after years of ineffective treatment, with multiple psychiatric diagnoses, taking multiple medications. After weight restoration and maintenance along with evidence-based psychological interventions, these patients no longer required medication for any psychiatric symptoms and no longer met criteria for ANY mental disorder. Sometimes, less is more.

What many psychiatrists and other mental health professionals fail to understand is that all people who are malnourished or re-feeding, even those without eating disorders, exhibit symptoms that mimic certain mental disorders (see Minnesota Starvation Study). Diagnoses made while a patient is underweight or re-feeding are often inaccurate. Medicating a patient for a presumed mental illness which is actually the direct result of a malnourished and / or refeeding brain is at best ineffective and at worst quite harmful. Obviously, many patients with eating disorders do have genuine comorbid psychiatric issues, and clearly these need to be identified and treated. But even those patients with legitimate comorbidities may find that their other symptoms are more manageable, or require less medication, when their eating disorder is under control.

Nearly all patients in residential treatment for eating disorders are there because they are significantly malnourished or actively engaging in frequent binge/purge behaviors. These are patients with significant (though temporary) brain damage which renders them unable to process emotions, think rationally, perceive other people’s intentions, or think logically about food, weight, or body image. We know that this brain damage is reversible only after months of full nutrition, weight restoration, and abstinence from eating disorder symptoms. I understand the rationale that, since patients are in residential treatment, they should be given every possible type of treatment available from equine therapy to process groups to CBT to psychoanalysis to making pretty necklaces. I understand that the directors of residential treatment centers want to provide patients with every possible tool for recovery. But what if the patients are not yet equipped to use these tools? And what if some of these tools can be harmful? Again, this may be a case of less is more.

In my ideal world, residential treatment would retain the benefits it currently has while eliminating the drawbacks. Here’s how it would work:
• The immediate focus would be on full nutrition, full time so that patients can restore their weight as quickly as is medically safe and can break the binge/purge cycle (if applicable). This would include three meals and three snacks per day, carefully monitored. “Magic plate” would be employed, and patients would be required to eat 100% of their meals and snacks. There would be no “rewards” for eating well or “punishments” for eating too little. Eating disorder patients are punished enough by their illness, so the last thing they need is a punitive external measure. Rather, there would be no alternative other than to consume full nutrition, preferably through food, but otherwise through a supplement or nasogastric tube.
• Patients would be carefully monitored and prevented from hiding food, bingeing, or purging.
• Patients would be monitored for urges to self-injure or commit suicide and kept safe from any possible means of self-harm.
• No new diagnoses would be made and no new medications prescribed.
• No individual therapy, family therapy, or group therapy of any kind would be provided. However, a psychologist specializing in eating disorders would be available daily to provide supportive counseling for patients who request it.
• Patients would spend their days participating in relaxing, rejuvenating activities such as reading, watching movies, playing board games, getting massages, taking nature walks and practicing gentle yoga (when medically appropriate).
• Patients would be educated about the genetic and neurobiological basis of eating disorders as well as the role of under-nutrition and compulsive exercise in the development and maintenance of these illnesses. They would be provided with scientifically valid information on effective treatments for eating disorders and relapse prevention.
• Through phone conferences and/or in-person sessions, family members would be educated about the genetic and neurobiological basis of eating disorders as well as the role of under-nutrition and compulsive exercise in the development and maintenance of these illnesses. They would be provided with scientifically valid information on effective treatments for eating disorders and skills to help their loved one continue on the path to recovery at home.
• Family members would be provided with daily updates on their loved one’s progress, regardless of the patient’s age. Family members would also be encouraged to contact the treatment center at any time with questions or concerns.
• Family members and friends of the patient would be strongly encouraged to call and visit the patient whenever possible.
• A physician would set an accurate target weight range for each patient, taking into account her pediatric growth charts, weight/build history, and genetics. The target range would represent the patients’ ideal, healthiest weight, not some arbitrary minimum BMI. Research shows that the vast majority of adult patients require a BMI of at least 20 in order to achieve complete physical and mental recovery, so that would be a good starting point.

Patients would be discharged from my ideal treatment facility only after the following criteria were met:
• The patient has achieved 100% of her ideal body weight.
• The patient eats 100% of her meals and snacks with little resistance.
• The patient reports a significant decrease in urges to restrict, binge, or purge.
• The patient is not experiencing suicidal ideation or urges to self-harm.
• The patient expresses readiness for discharge and willingness to work towards recovery.
• The family has been well-educated about eating disorders and feels confident to manage their loved one’s symptoms at home.
• The patient and her family members have collaboratively developed a specific, written outpatient treatment plan. This plan includes referrals for evidence-based psychological treatment for the individual patient and her family as well as regular medical monitoring. In addition, the plan contains specific strategies for dealing with the patient’s eating disorder behaviors and for creating a pro-recovery home environment.

Although it exists only in my imagination, I would predict that a residential treatment center such as the one I described would be more effective than most currently existing treatment centers. It would also be much cheaper, since far fewer staff would be required. Granted, patients may have a longer duration of residential treatment than they do now, since the goal is 100% weight restoration, but patients would be less likely to relapse. Since this treatment center would be cheaper anyway, and patients would be less likely to require repeated admissions, the overall cost to the patient’s family and to society would be much lower.

The following data were collected from parents of some of my patients (past and present) as well as from parents on FEAST’s caregiver forum, Around the Dinner Table. A total of 22 parents submitted responses. The patients (20 female, 2 male) ranged in age from 10 – 24 years when their family started Maudsley (mean age = 15.3 years).

The patients in my sample varied dramatically with regard to the length of their illness. Some parents reported that they began Maudsley within a month after their child’s first eating disorder symptoms appeared. Other parents had watched their child continue to suffer from the devastating effects of ED through many years of ineffective treatment and numerous hospitalizations before finally turning to Maudsley as a last resort.
Granted, this is not good science, but it is a start.

Length of time from onset of symptoms to beginning of refeeding
Mean = 18.8 months
Median = 6.25 months
Range = 1 – 132 months

Length of time from start of refeeding to weight restoration
Mean = 6.7 months
Median = 4.5 months
Range = 2 – 24 months

Length of time from weight restoration to acknowledgement of having ED
Mean = 1.1 months
Median = 0 (acknowledged having ED when he/she became weight restored)
Range = 0 – 16 months
(90 % of the sample acknowledged having ED at or before weight-restoration)

Length of time from weight restoration to developing motivation to recover
Mean = 4.6 months
Median = 0 months (motivation developed at the time of weight restoration)
Range = 0 – 24 months

Length of time from weight restoration to eating independently while maintaining weight
Mean = 7.8 months
Median = 6.5 months
Range = 0 – 36 months

Length of time from weight restoration to mood normalization
Mean = 3.3 months
Median = 2 months
Range = 0 – 12 months

Length of time from weight restoration to normalization in anxiety (return to pre-ED level)
Mean = 6.5 months
Median = 3 months
Range = 0 – 36 months

Length of time from weight-restoration to absence of body dysmorphia
Mean = 6.9 months
Median = 4 months
Range = 0 – 24 months

Clearly, more rigorous research is necessary in order to draw definitive conclusions. However, I’ve drawn some preliminary conclusions based on my data:

1.) The Maudsley Method can be effective for children, adolescents, and adults. It can be effective for both males and females.
2.) The Maudsley Method can be effective even for young adults who have been ill for 10 years or more.
3.) Most patients who are beginning Maudsley treatment have anosognosia – they do not recognize that they are ill and do not have motivation to recover. The patient does not have to “want to get better” in order for treatment to begin.
4.) The majority of patients develop insight and motivation to recover around the time that they reach a healthy body weight. For some patients, insight and motivation develop gradually after a number of months at ideal body weight.
5.) Patients generally require continued meal support for an average of 6 months after weight restoration.
6.) The manualized Maudsley approach (Lock, LeGrange, Agras, & Dare, 2001) recommends beginning to hand control of eating back to the patient when she reaches 90% of ideal body weight. This is probably too soon for most patients.
7.) The majority of patients must sustain a healthy body weight for 3-6 months before depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia abate.

This is interesting food for thought (pun intended). I am interested in conducting a much larger survey on families that have used Maudsley. I’d like to gather enough participants and enough data points to be able to do some actual complex statistical analyses – maybe some ANOVA’s or multiple regressions. Through this study, I’d like to examine which variables contribute to recovery time. For example, what features differentiate patients who are able to eat independently at weight restoration vs. those who need continued meal support? What differentiates the patients whose psychological symptoms melt away with weight restoration vs. those who continue to struggle? Most importantly, I would like to use data from this future study to find ways in which the Maudsley method could be improved.

What questions would you like to see answered? I welcome any and all suggestions!