Posted on

What’s That About?

“It’s about control.”

This statement has been applied to everything from OCD to eating disorders to self-injury to domestic violence. But, really, what does this statement mean?

When I hear that X is about Y, I generally interpret this statement in one of two ways: 1.) Y is a theme of X or 2.) Y is the most salient feature of X. For example, if someone says that Romeo and Juliet is about undying love, my interpretation is that undying love is a primary theme of Romeo and Juliet. Or if someone says: “My birthday is about me,” I interpret that as “I am the most important person on my birthday” in terms of attention, presents, and deciding how to celebrate.

In regards to the cliché that a certain psychological problem is about control, both of these interpretations make sense to a certain extent. Control is both a theme and a salient feature of OCD insofar as sufferers are overly preoccupied with controlling their external environment, as well as their thoughts and actions related to their particular obsession. For example, a person with OCD may spend hours scrubbing her body and cleaning her home in order to control the spread of germs and prevent herself or others from becoming ill.

Control is both a theme and a salient feature of eating disorders insofar as sufferers become preoccupied with controlling their dietary intake, exercise, and weight. Individuals with anorexia tend to be “over-controlled,” rigid, and perfectionistic not only with food but in other areas of their lives, while individuals with bulimia experience periods of “dyscontrol” of their emotions and food intake, resulting in binge /purge episodes.

Control is both a theme and a salient feature in the lives of individuals who engage in self-injurious behaviors such as cutting. Many, though not all, individuals who cut have experienced physical or sexual abuse, which results in feeling a lack of personal control over one’s life and one’s body. People who cut usually experience overwhelming emotions that they are unable to control. Some people use self-injury as an interpersonal message with an intent to control or manipulate others.

Control is both a theme and a salient feature in cycles of domestic violence. Through subtle and overt messages, abusers control and manipulate their victims. It is easy for abusers to control their victims because the victims are usually smaller and physically weaker than they are. In most cases, abusers have financial and / or emotional control over their victims. And, sadly, victims feel a devastating loss of personal control over their own lives.

I am concerned, however, that people who claim that a mental illness or psychological phenomenon is about control have an entirely different interpretation of this phrase. For most people, I think “It’s about control” translates to “it is caused by a lack of control or a need for control.” This interpretation has no empirical backing and, when espoused by treatment professionals, leads to ineffective treatment.

For instance, many therapists believe that eating disorders are “about control,” meaning that they believe that the etiology of eating disorders is rooted in a subconscious need for control. As a result of this theory, their treatment entails helping the patient gain a sense of personal control in other areas of her life, and advising her parents to “back off” of the power struggle around meals, with the assumption that eventually the patient will no longer feel the need to control her food intake.

There is no scientific basis for this theory or this treatment approach, and I have never met a person who has recovered this way. I’m sure such people exist, I’ve just never seen them. I would presume that these individuals went through years of treatment, suffered numerous medical and psychological problems, and spent many thousands of dollars before finally recovering. Recent scientific evidence suggests that eating disorders are biologically-based, genetically transmitted brain diseases that are triggered by an energy imbalance and perpetuated by malnutrition. There’s no room for “control” in this etiology.

While I’m on the subject of about, there’s another use of the word about that perplexes and frustrates me. Case in point: a very well-regarded eating disorder recovery website has the following mission statement on its homepage:

“We are dedicated to raising awareness about eating disorders… emphasizing always that eating disorders are NOT about food and weight.”

What does this mean? Surely, it cannot mean that food and weight are not themes in eating disorders. Nor can it mean that disturbances in food and weight are not a salient feature of eating disorders. By definition, individuals with eating disorders manifest disturbances in eating behavior, weight loss, or excessive preoccupation with weight. I can only assume, then, that this statement means that eating disorders are not caused by food and weight (or disturbances thereof). If this is the meaning of the mission statement, then the statement is undeniably false.

The latest scientific research tells us that eating disorders are, in fact, set into motion by disturbances in eating and weight. A person with a biological predisposition to anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa will not develop the illness unless he or she experiences a disturbance in eating and/or weight. Anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are triggered by under-nutrition, which may initially be intentional (e.g., the decision to diet, “eat healthy,” or exercise more) or unintentional (e.g., the result of an illness, surgery, injury, medication, or another mental illness such as depression). The cycle of starvation in anorexia nervosa is maintained by malnutrition, and the illness is most severe and most deadly when the patient is underweight. The restrict/binge/purge cycle in bulimia nervosa is also self-perpetuating and is triggered or exacerbated by disturbances in eating behavior and preoccupation with weight. Full nutrition, weight restoration, cessation of restricting, bingeing, and purging behaviors, and decrease in preoccupation with weight are essential for full recovery. In conclusion, eating disorders are absolutely about food and weight. To neglect this perfectly obvious fact is to sabotage treatment.

Scientist-practitioner ranting notwithstanding, I think I do understand what that mission statement is intending to communicate. I think it is trying to convey that eating disorders are not just about food and weight; they also entail tremendous psychological suffering. I think the statement is trying to emphasize that correction of disturbances in eating and weight is not sufficient for full recovery, as psychological issues must be addressed as well. Finally, I think the statement hopes to convey that eating disorders are serious mental illnesses that bear little resemblance to typical dieting and body image woes.

While I applaud the website’s attempt to convey the aforementioned messages, I think the way the statement is worded has the potential to create a misunderstanding (or, at the very least, it doesn’t bring people closer to an accurate understanding). I’m guessing that eating disorder sufferers and their families, as well as the general public, will misinterpret the message, most likely in the manner I described. The consequences of such misinterpretation can be tragic.

We have a responsibility to people with eating disorders to provide them, and their families, with accurate information. Further, we have a responsibility to educate the public about eating disorders in order to reduce stigma, garner support, facilitate early detection, and lobby for more effective treatment. To start, let’s make sure the messages about eating disorders that we send, whether in person, in print, or on the internet, are accurate, understandable, easy to interpret, and scientifically-sound.

Isn’t it about time?

Posted on

Maudsley Is As Maudsley Does

Those who know me professionally are well aware that I am an advocate of the Maudsley Method of Family-Based Treatment and that I use this approach to treat my adolescent patients with eating disorders. What they may not know is that Maudsley principles pervade my treatment philosophy for eating disorder patients of all ages, regardless of the treatment approach I employ with them. For example:

• I always externalize the eating disorder and teach my patients to do the same.
• I firmly believe that patients do not choose eating disorders and that parents do not cause them. I make this point explicitly to patients and their families at the start of treatment and as many times as necessary throughout the course of treatment.
• I explanation the etiology of eating disorders as follows: We don’t know definitively what causes eating disorders, and for the purposes of this treatment, the cause isn’t terribly important right now. The most recent scientific research suggests that eating disorders are biologically-based, genetically-transmitted mental illnesses which are triggered by an energy imbalance (for example, through dieting) and perpetuated by malnutrition, with emotional stress (e.g., anxiety, OCD, depression) as an aggravating factor. I mention all of the common myths about the causes of eating disorders (e.g., the media, fear of growing up, need for control, overbearing parents) and dispute each one of them.
• At the start of treatment, I provide patients with psycho-education about the central role of full nutrition, weight restoration, and cessation of binge/purge behaviors in recovery.
• Whenever possible, I involve family members (parents, siblings, spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends) in the patient’s treatment to some extent. In some cases, family involvement may be as simple as providing family members with psycho-education, literature, and internet resources on eating disorders. In other cases, family members may participate in the evaluation or attend some therapy sessions with the patient. Regardless of the patient’s age, I like to empower those who live with her (parents, spouses, significant others) to provide meal support and help stop other symptoms such as excessive exercise, bingeing, and purging.
• I view family members as essential members of the treatment team who can provide nutritional, practical, and emotional support to the patient as she recovers.
• I make physical health (including full nutrition, weight restoration, elimination of purging and other unhealthy behaviors) the most immediate priority in treatment.
• I help patients re-learn how to eat properly on their own once they are physically healthy and psychologically prepared to assume this responsibility.
• I treat patients’ other disorders (e.g., depression, OCD, anxiety) and address their developmental, familial, and interpersonal issues after physical health has been achieved.

In my view, these principles are equally applicable for children, adolescents, college students, and adults. They apply when I am doing individual therapy using a CBT, DBT, ACT, or IPT approach. They apply when I am doing couple’s therapy when one partner has an eating disorder. And, of course, they apply when I am doing Maudsley Family-Based Therapy.

These principles are a central part of my professional identity. I stand behind them when I am giving a lecture, doing a presentation, conversing with colleagues, speaking to potential clients, talking about work with family and friends, or even answering the questions of acquaintances who are interested in what I do.

To date, the Maudsley approach has only been empirically-supported for adolescents with anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. However, preliminary data suggest that Maudsley may be equally effective for pre-adolescent children and young adults. Regardless of what the eventual published data may say about broader applications of Maudsley, I will hold fast to these principles. At least until science or experience convinces me otherwise.

Posted on

Informed Consent

The American Psychological Association’s ethical guidelines require that psychologists obtain informed consent for treatment from all patients and parents of minor patients. But what does it mean for consent to be truly informed?

In standard practice, informed consent generally amounts to a frazzled patient or harried parent signing a consent form after a perfunctory glance. Patients and parents are often in crisis when they first present for treatment, and signing the form is just one more hoop to jump through before getting into therapy. Most therapists’ consent forms cover business procedures and confidentiality issues. This is important information, but does it amount to truly informed consent?

I don’t think so.

I believe that the APA’s ethical guidelines should be revised to require full disclosure in informed consent for psychological treatment. Specifically, therapists should be required to disclose 1.) The patient’s diagnoses and explanations of these diagnoses, 2.) What factors caused or contributed to the patient’s illness, as evidenced by the most recent empirical research and the clinician’s informed judgment, 3.) What treatment methods are available for treating the patient’s condition, 4.) Which of these methods are evidence-based, 5.) Which method(s) the therapist will use, 6.) Why the therapist has selected these methods, 7.) The anticipated course of treatment and prognosis, based upon recent empirical research, and 8.) Scientifically informed, practical resources (e.g., books, articles, websites) on the patient’s condition and the type of therapy that will be used. For patients under 18, all of the above should be explained to the parents and to the child, using language appropriate to the child’s age and developmental level. Finally, parents should be provided with guidance as to how they can help their child recover. I’m talking about specific recommendations, not just blanket statements like “be supportive.”

In my consent for therapy forms, which patients (and parents of minor patients) read and sign before meeting with me, I specify the types of treatment I use, all of which are evidence-based. After the evaluation, I provide patients(and parents of adolescent patients) with empirical research on their particular disorder, as well as information on the efficacy of various types of treatment and who recommends these treatments (e.g., APA, Society for Adolescent Medicine, etc.). I explain the type of treatment I recommend for them, why I have selected this type of treatment, how it works, and what to expect on the road to recovery. If there is a type of treatment that is likely to be effective for the patient but that I do not offer (e.g., psychiatric medication, residential treatment), I provide them with referrals to these types of treatments and explain why I think they would be beneficial. At this point, the patient has all of the information she needs to make an informed choice about treatment.

Most patients seeking therapy, and most parents seeking therapy for their children, are not aware that there are different types of psychological treatments with varying degrees of efficacy. I think most people outside of the field assume that therapy is therapy and that therapists are pretty much interchangeable, like dentists or surgeons. Many people assume that as long as you like your therapist and feel comfortable with her, that’s all that matters. While the therapeutic relationship is undoubtedly a critical aspect of treatment, there are other factors to consider in selecting a therapist. Often times, people want to see a psychologist with decades of experience. This is an understandable, albeit unreliable, method of seeking good treatment. The older, more experienced therapists were trained decades ago in theories that have since been discarded, in therapeutic methods with no scientific backing. Sometimes they become set in their ways of practicing, clinging to old theories like religious dogma in spite of evidence to the contrary. Granted, many experienced therapists have kept up with recent developments in the field and have educated themselves. Sadly, many have not.

Informed consent in therapy is complicated by the fact that different professionals have vastly different, and often contradictory, views on the causes of various mental disorders and how best to treat them. To make matters worse, the public has access to a tremendous amount of information on mental health issues through the internet, much of which is either unsubstantiated or patently false. Consequently, many patients arrive in our offices with deeply entrenched false beliefs about their illnesses. As professionals, it is our job to set the record straight.

I have had a number of patients come to me seeking therapy for the first time after being unsuccessfully treated for anxiety or depression by their primary care physician. I use the term “treated” very loosely here – their doctor spoke with them for a few minutes and wrote them a prescription for a low dose of antidepressants or sleeping pills, only to follow up with them a year later. They were not informed about evidence-based psychological treatments. They were not informed about behavioral methods of treating insomnia. And of course, they were not informed that their dose of Prozac is far too low to have any therapeutic benefit. Similarly, I have had patients come to me after years of therapy for depression or self-injury who have done endless amounts of exploration into the supposed causes of their supposed issues, without ever learning the skills they need to recover.

Parents of eating disordered children have come to me for Maudsley family-based therapy after months or years of unsuccessful therapy, after multiple hospitalizations and stints in residential treatment. These families were never informed about the Maudsley Method by any of their child’s previous treatment providers. These parents, desperate to help their children, did their own research on the internet late at night, sifting through the mounds of information to try to find the one thing that would save their child’s bright future. I’ve seen patients, who have been through years of eating disorder treatment with other professionals, who have never once been told that they have a biologically-based, genetically-transmitted mental illness which is neither their fault nor their choice.

Parents of eating disordered children have a right to be informed about the Maudsley Method at the time of diagnosis. The research is clear that Maudsley is the most effective treatment for adolescents with a short duration of illness who are still living at home with their families. For various reasons, Maudsley is not the best choice for every patient or family. Nonetheless, families have the right to know it exists and to decide for themselves whether they wish to pursue it. Patients with depression, anxiety disorders, and personality disorders have the right to be informed about evidence-based treatments such as CBT, DBT, and ACT. Many lives, many years of chronic illness, and many dollars spent on ineffective treatments could be saved if patients and parents were fully informed about evidence-based treatment options from the outset. If a patient has cancer, it is her physician’s duty to inform her of the various life-saving treatment options, some of which may be available in that physician’s office or the local hospital, and some of which are only available in the nearest major city. Why should psychology be any different?

Posted on

10 Common Mistakes in Eating Disorder Treatment

Eating disorders are notoriously difficult to treat and have the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric illness. With traditional treatment, average time to recovery is 5-7 years, relapse is the norm, and many patients continue to suffer from chronic physical and mental illness for decades. Fortunately, new research has shed light on how we can help patients recover more quickly, prevent relapse, and live healthy, fulfilling lives. Below are 10 of the most common mistakes I’ve observed in the treatment of eating disorders.

1.) Setting target weight too low.

Physicians and dieticians will often set a patient’s minimum target weight at the low end of the statistically-determined “ideal” range. The minimum target weight thereafter becomes the maximum allowable weight in the patient’s mind, and she will do whatever she can to avoid going above it. There is no such thing as a universal minimum target weight. People vary dramatically in terms of body build, muscle mass, bone structure, body shape, and natural weight. Professionals need to take these factors into consideration when setting target weight ranges. The minimum target weight is often not sufficient to promote brain healing and repair the damage caused by malnutrition. “Out of immediate medical danger” does not translate to optimal physical and mental health. Many patients are left to struggle with ongoing depression, fatigue, anxiety, and preoccupation with food and weight because they haven’t reached their optimal body weight.

For children and adolescents, setting minimum target weight too low is especially dangerous because it fails to take into account the natural growth and physical development that occurs throughout adolescence. The ideal weight for a 13-year-old is not ideal for a 22 year-old. A 13-year-old patient who becomes fixated on her “minimum target weight” and maintains such a weight for a number of years is placing an indefinite moratorium on her physical, psychological, and sexual development. Another problem that is particularly disconcerting is that the minimum target weight set by professionals is often significantly lower than the patient’s pre-eating disorder weight, even if the patient was at a healthy weight before. Think about the subtle message this sends and how the ill patient may interpret it: “You were too big before, so you were right to start dieting.” This just feeds into the eating disorder. We need to send a different message: complete weight restoration is not negotiable.

2.) Discharging patients from inpatient or residential programs prematurely.

By “prematurely,” I mean several things: before the patient has reached her ideal body weight, before she has developed the skills to manage her symptoms, before other comorbid conditions have been diagnosed and treated, before the patient’s family has the knowledge and tools they need to support continuing recovery, or before a solid relapse-prevention plan is in place. According to my standards, then, the majority of patients are discharged prematurely. With treatment as usual, relapse is the norm, and repeated admission to hospitals and residential facilities is expected. It doesn’t have to be this way, and relapse may not be such a major problem if patients were treated fully and successfully the first time around. Of course, this will require healthcare reform and better insurance coverage in order to pay for a much longer duration of treatment, but I digress.

3.) Blaming parents for their child’s eating disorder.

Parents have traditionally been excluded from their children’s eating disorders treatment in large part because professionals have blamed them for causing the eating disorder. This viewpoint is based in psychoanalytic theory, not empirical fact, and to date there has been no reliable scientific evidence that parents cause eating disorders. Blaming parents is harmful to the entire family. It disempowers parents, angers and confuses the patient and her siblings, and interferes with the recovery process. Only a generation ago, parents were blamed for causing their children’s autism and schizophrenia. We now know that these illnesses are biologically-based brain disorders, and the idea of a “refrigerator mother” causing her son’s autism is ludicrous. I look forward to the day when the general public has the same sentiment about parents causing eating disorders.

4.) Failure to involve parents and other family members in the patient’s treatment.

Parents have a right and a responsibility to be fully informed and actively involved in their child’s treatment. Imagine how confusing and disempowering it is for parents to drop their child off at various appointments without being informed about the treatment and without being given an opportunity to ask questions, voice their concerns, or help with the recovery process. Likewise, adolescents have a right to have their parents fully informed and actively involved in their treatment. No child would have to manage cancer or diabetes independently. Why should it be any different for eating disorders? The research clearly indicates that involving parents in an adolescent’s eating disorder treatment dramatically increases her chance of full recovery.

Some therapists argue that involving parents in an adolescent’s treatment is counterproductive because it interferes with the adolescent’s burgeoning autonomy and encourages the family unit to remain enmeshed. In reality, the opposite is true. The eating disorder itself is disruptive to normal adolescent development and causes the patient to remain dependent on her parents. Family-based treatment approaches, such as the Maudsley Method, are first and foremost respectful of adolescent development. These approaches empower parents to help their children recover so that they may return to normal adolescent life, unencumbered by the illness.

5.) Basing interventions on unsubstantiated theories about the causes of eating disorders.

Our ideas about etiology inform our treatment approach. Consequently, incorrect assumptions about eating disorders tend to result in ineffective treatment. Let’s say, hypothetically, that controlling parents cause eating disorders. Or that media images which glorify thinness are responsible for eating disorders. Or that anorexia nervosa is caused by sexual abuse or is rooted in a desire to avoid growing up. Even if these things were true (and there is no reliable scientific evidence that they are), the first priorities in treatment should still be nutritional rehabilitation, weight restoration, and medical stability. Why? Because the patient’s life and health depend on it. Because research has consistently shown that many of the physical and mental symptoms of eating disorders are caused or exacerbated by malnutrition, restrictive eating, bingeing, and purging, and that these symptoms diminish with normalized eating and weight restoration. Because spending more time at a suboptimal weight, or engaging in food restriction, binge eating, or purging, is causing more physical and emotional damage. Because a weight-recovered, medically stable eating disordered patient who is receiving full nutrition is better equipped to explore and process the issues that may have triggered eating disorder symptoms in the first place.

6.) Viewing the patient’s symptoms as rationally chosen behaviors.

Recent research suggests that eating disorders are genetically-transmitted, biologically based mental illnesses, just like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. No one would choose the agony and suffering of an eating disorder. I think the general public may get confused about this point because, for healthy people, eating and exercise are voluntary behaviors that are largely under conscious control. For eating disorder patients, restrictive eating, fasting, excessive exercise, bingeing, and purging are compulsive behaviors brought about by a brain condition, perpetuated by malnutrition, and aggravated by emotional stress.

Not only is it incorrect to view eating disorders as choices, but it is dangerous as well. It leads to blaming patients for their illnesses, trying to talk them out of their symptoms, and giving them the responsibility of choosing recovery. Almost invariably, people with anorexia are not able to choose recovery because denial and lack of insight are hallmark symptoms of the illness. People with bulimia are more likely to acknowledge their disorder and enter treatment voluntarily, but they are often unable to interrupt the binge/purge cycle without a major intervention and significant support from others. Insight and motivation are not prerequisites for entering treatment, restoring weight, or stopping unhealthy behaviors. Rather, increased insight and desire to maintain health are natural consequences of full nutrition, improved brain health, abstinence from eating disordered behaviors, and good therapy.

7.) Overemphasizing psychological recovery while underemphasizing physical recovery.

I am not entirely sure why many clinicians work with patients on developing insight and searching for a root cause early in treatment, prior to nutritional restoration and medical stability. We still do not know the causes of many types of cancer, but cancers are treated aggressively as soon as they are diagnosed. A surgeon will operate on a patient to remove a tumor regardless of whether he knows what caused it. It is tragically comical to imagine a doctor and patient searching for the cause of the tumor while it metastasizes.

One of the earliest things we’re taught in our clinical training is how to build a positive, trusting relationship with the patient. If the patient doesn’t trust us and feel comfortable with us, the therapy won’t work. Indeed, psychotherapy research across various disorders and types of treatment has demonstrated that the therapeutic relationship is a very powerful predictor of outcome. However, the therapeutic relationship is more complicated in working with eating disorders because success in therapy requires that the patient do the exact opposite of what her disorder wants: eat more and gain weight. Early in treatment, it often seems as though maintaining a positive therapeutic relationship and helping the patient recover are mutually exclusive. So often, well-meaning eating disorder therapists work hard early on to gain a patient’s trust and build a positive therapeutic relationship in the hopes that the patient will eventually develop the insight and motivation to address her symptoms. While this rapport-building is going on, the patient is becoming sicker, weaker, thinner, more depressed, and more entrenched in her symptoms. Allowing the patient to marinate in malnutrition and continue to engage in her symptoms delays recovery, increases her risk of medical complications, and prevents her from being able to engage in the psychological work of recovery.

The therapeutic relationship is only therapeutic insofar as it facilitates health, growth, and recovery. I have found that my relationships with patients improve naturally, and dramatically, once they are no longer engaging in restricting, bingeing, or purging. I would much rather have an angry, tearful adolescent patient hurl vile words at me as I’m pushing full nutrition and weight restoration than a quiet, sweet adolescent patient who enjoys talking with me as her health declines and her vital signs dwindle.

8.) Overemphasizing physical recovery while underemphasizing psychological recovery.

This is the polar opposite of #7. It happens far less often that #7, but it does happen. Full nutrition, weight restoration, medical stability, and cessation of binge/purge behaviors are absolutely necessary, but not sufficient, for recovery. Restoring physical health is only the beginning of a long, difficult process. The psychological aspect of eating disorders cannot be ignored or minimized. Patients need low-stress environments and lots of support from loved ones. Most patients need psychotherapy to address anxiety, depression, perfectionism, social concerns, body dysmorphia, and other issues that may have contributed to the eating disorder. Therapy can help patients develop the skills they need to manage their emotions, cope with stress, stay healthy, and prevent relapse. Some patients need psychiatric medication to treat comorbid conditions such as ADHD, OCD, or major depression. Fully addressing the patient’s psychological needs, as well as her physical and nutritional needs, gives her the best shot at lasting recovery.

9.) Failure to intervene immediately, and aggressively, at the first sign of weight loss or change in eating or exercise behavior.

The research is very clear on this point: early intervention predicts better prognosis. We should not wait for a teenager to develop full-blown anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa before stepping in to help her. We should not wait for her to drop to 15% below her ideal body weight, miss 3 consecutive menstrual periods, or develop a dangerously low heart rate. We should not wait until she has binged or purged twice a week for three months. Let’s step in when she is 1% below her ideal body weight, when she has missed one menstrual period, when she has purged one meal. Better yet, let’s step in as soon as we notice body image concerns, changes in eating or exercise habits, or excessive preoccupation with body weight and shape.

10.) Using physical appearance or statistically-determined BMI charts as definitive measures of physical or mental health.

There is a common misconception that all people with eating disorders are emaciated. This is not necessarily true. Certainly, individuals in the acute phase of anorexia nervosa are often shockingly thin. However, most people with eating disorders don’t “look sick.” Individuals with bulimia are usually of normal weight. People with anorexia who are at or near their ideal body weight, but still actively struggling with eating-disordered thoughts and feelings, generally “look normal.” Further, it is impossible to tell whether a person is underweight simply by looking at them. Because ideal body weights are highly individualized based upon bone structure, muscle mass, body shape, and weight history, a person may fall within the “ideal” BMI range and still be significantly malnourished or dehydrated. The danger in using physical appearance as a gauge of mental or physical health is that people who “look normal” may be overlooked. Their eating disorders may not be as easily detected and may not be taken as seriously. These patients don’t believe they deserve treatment because they’re not thin enough, not sick enough, not worthy enough. As professionals, we must not fall prey to this distorted thinking.