Anorexia Nervosa vs. Bulimia Nervosa

Eating disorders represent some of the most complex, lethal, and clinically challenging psychiatric conditions encountered in modern medicine. Situated at the precarious intersection of severe psychological disturbance, neurobiological vulnerability, and profound somatic compromise, these illnesses defy simplistic characterization. Rather than being superficial choices or mere manifestations of vanity, disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa constitute deeply entrenched, life-threatening pathologies that disrupt every organ system in the human body. Clinicians and researchers alike have spent decades disentangling their shared genetic architectures, overlapping psychological constructs, and divergent physiological sequelae in an ongoing effort to improve diagnostic precision and therapeutic efficacy.

Among the spectrum of feeding and eating conditions codified in modern psychiatric nosology, anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa occupy prominent positions. Although they share an intense, obsessive overvaluation of shape and weight, their phenotypic manifestations, metabolic consequences, behavioral topography, and subjective psychological experiences diverge in profound ways. An individual battling anorexia nervosa enforces an unyielding, severe restriction of energy intake, often experiencing emaciation as an ego-syntonic triumph of self-discipline. Conversely, a patient living with bulimia nervosa is caught in a distressing, ego-dystonic cycle of voracious, loss-of-control binge eating followed immediately by desperate compensatory purging, typically maintaining a body weight within or above the normal range.

Disentangling these two disorders requires a sophisticated clinical eye that looks beyond outward physical appearances to examine underlying metabolic dynamics, psychological orientations, and neurocognitive profiles. Confusing the two conditions carries severe clinical risks: it can delay life-saving medical stabilization, lead to the implementation of inappropriate psychotherapeutic modalities, or result in mismanaged pharmacological interventions. This comprehensive analysis provides an exhaustive comparative examination of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, charting their diagnostic histories, pathophysiological footprints, core distinctions, overlapping traits, differential algorithms, and evidence-based therapeutic trajectories.

1. Introduction: The Spectrum of Eating Disorders

1.1 Historical Context and Diagnostic Evolution

The clinical recognition of eating disorders reflects a fascinating evolution in medicine, psychiatry, and cultural anthropology. Long before eating disorders were formally conceptualized as distinct psychiatric entities, historical chronicles documented dramatic patterns of voluntary self-starvation. In medieval Europe, ascetics engaged in extreme food refusal driven by religious devotion, a phenomenon retrospective historians often classify as anorexia mirabilis or “holy anorexia.” Notable figures such as Saint Catherine of Siena subjected their bodies to radical deprivation, framing their somatic wasting as an intentional mortification of the flesh to achieve spiritual transcendence. While these historical cases lacked the modern psychopathological preoccupation with a thin aesthetic silhouette, they demonstrated the human capacity to override innate homeostatic hunger cues through cognitive and ideological determination.

The medicalization of self-starvation began in earnest during the late nineteenth century. In 1873, Sir William Withey Gull in London and Charles Lasègue in Paris independently provided the first formal clinical descriptions of the syndrome. Gull coined the term anorexia nervosa, recognizing that the profound wasting observed in his young female patients was not the result of organic consumption or mesenteric disease, but rather stemmed from a morbid mental state. Lasègue termed the condition hystérique anorexie, highlighting the complex interpersonal dynamics, family distress, and psychological resistance that accompanied the progressive cachexia. Throughout the early and mid-twentieth century, however, anorexia was frequently misdiagnosed as Simmonds’ disease (hypopituitarism), leading to inappropriate endocrine therapies until psychiatric formulations reclaimed the illness in the 1960s through the landmark observational work of Hilde Bruch.

In stark contrast to the centuries-long documentation of restrictive starvation, bulimia nervosa entered formal medical literature much later. Although ancient Roman banqueters famously used emetics to prolong feasts, and episodic hyperphagia followed by vomiting was noted sporadically in nineteenth-century medical texts, bulimia as a discrete psychiatric disorder was not delineated until 1979. In his seminal paper, the British psychiatrist Gerald Russell described thirty patients who presented with an intractable fear of becoming fat, alongside episodic overeating and subsequent self-induced vomiting or purgative abuse. Russell termed this condition bulimia nervosa, identifying it as an ominous variant of anorexia nervosa that was rapidly emerging across Western clinical practices.

The diagnostic criteria for both disorders have undergone continuous refinement across successive editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Early iterations in the DSM-III and DSM-III-R suffered from rigid criteria that relegated large swathes of clinical presentations to the ambiguous category of Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (EDNOS). The publication of the DSM-IV introduced operationalized thresholds, such as the requirement of amenorrhea for anorexia nervosa and a minimum binge frequency of twice weekly for bulimia nervosa. However, these criteria proved overly restrictive and biologically arbitrary.

The release of the DSM-5 in 2013, and its subsequent Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) in 2022, instituted fundamental structural changes. The diagnostic criteria removed the requirement of amenorrhea for anorexia, enabling the diagnosis of post-menopausal women, pre-menarcheal girls, and cisgender males. It also reduced the frequency threshold for bulimic binging and purging from twice weekly to once weekly over three consecutive months. Contemporary psychiatric thinking increasingly views these disorders not as rigid, siloed categorical boxes, but as manifestations along a transdiagnostic continuum. This transdiagnostic perspective, popularized by Christopher Fairburn and colleagues, emphasizes that restrictive, bingeing, and purging behaviors are sustained by shared underlying psychopathological mechanisms—chiefly, the severe overvaluation of eating, shape, and weight.

1.2 Why Anorexia and Bulimia Are Frequently Confused

In the public consciousness and popular culture, anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are frequently conflated, spoken of interchangeably as if they were identical manifestations of self-esteem deficits or adolescent body dissatisfaction. This pervasive confusion stems partly from the shared cognitive engine that drives both illnesses. In both disorders, an individual’s self-worth, identity, and personal efficacy are almost entirely subordinated to their physical appearance, numerical scale readings, and degree of caloric control. Both disorders are characterized by intense, obsessive-compulsive preoccupations with food, hyper-vigilance regarding nutritional labels, and severe psychological distress when confronted with unpredictable eating situations.

The diagnostic boundary is further blurred by the presence of identical compensatory behaviors across both syndromes. Lay observers often assume that self-induced vomiting, the misuse of stimulant laxatives, and the ingestion of diuretics are unique diagnostic signatures of bulimia nervosa. In clinical reality, a substantial subset of individuals with anorexia nervosa regularly engage in these precise purging behaviors. The existence of the binge-eating/purging subtype of anorexia nervosa directly overlaps with the behavioral presentation of bulimia nervosa, leading to frequent diagnostic errors by clinicians who fail to establish whether the individual meets the low body weight threshold required for anorexia.

Media representations have historically exacerbated this confusion by offering sensationalized, flattened depictions of eating pathologies. Film and television narratives often reduce eating disorders to dramatic visual tropes: a young, white, affluent girl refusing a family meal or retreating to a bathroom stall to purge. These representations obscure the distinct phenomenological differences between the quiet, unyielding, ego-syntonic restraint of pure restricting anorexia and the chaotic, volatile, shame-ridden emotional turbulence that defines the binge-purge cycle of bulimia. Consequently, patients themselves often struggle to articulate their experiences, sometimes believing they have bulimia because they purge, despite experiencing profound, life-threatening emaciation that places them squarely within the diagnostic boundaries of anorexia nervosa.

1.3 Clinical Significance of Accurate Differential Diagnosis

Differentiating precisely between anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa is not an academic exercise in nosological pedantry; it is a life-or-death clinical imperative. While both conditions carry devastating physical consequences, their acute medical risk profiles, hemodynamic stability concerns, and emergency stabilization protocols diverge significantly. A patient with severe anorexia nervosa faces imminent cardiovascular collapse secondary to myocardial atrophy, acute hemodynamic shock, or the development of fatal refeeding syndrome upon caloric reintroduction. Conversely, a patient with bulimia nervosa is at acute risk of lethal cardiac arrhythmias triggered by sudden serum electrolyte derangements, such as severe hypokalemia, or catastrophic mechanical tears of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Furthermore, diagnostic accuracy dictates the selection of appropriate, evidence-based psychological and psychopharmacological interventions. The psychological state of a starved brain in anorexia nervosa severely impedes cognitive flexibility, rendering standard insight-oriented or cognitive-behavioral therapies ineffective until nutritional restoration is underway. First-line clinical interventions for anorexia, such as Family-Based Treatment (FBT) in adolescents or Specialist Supportive Clinical Management (SSCM) in adults, prioritize external behavioral scaffolding and structured parental oversight to achieve weight restoration. In contrast, bulimia nervosa responds exceptionally well to structured individual psychological interventions, particularly Enhanced Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT-E) and Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT), which target the cognitive triggers of the binge-purge cycle directly.

From a pharmacological standpoint, the distinction is equally critical. Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of bulimia nervosa at high dosages (60 mg daily), where it exhibits demonstrated efficacy in reducing the frequency of binge-purge episodes. In contrast, psychotropic medications, including SSRIs, have repeatedly failed to demonstrate clinical efficacy in acutely underweight patients with anorexia nervosa. The starved brain lacks the requisite tryptophan and serotonergic substrate to respond to SSRIs, rendering them ineffective until adequate weight restoration is achieved. Administering certain psychotropic medications, such as bupropion, to patients who purge is strictly contraindicated due to a markedly elevated risk of grand mal seizures.

Finally, longitudinal prognostic tracking demands rigorous differential diagnosis. Naturalistic outcome studies indicate that eating disorders exhibit substantial diagnostic migration over time. A patient initially presenting with restricting-type anorexia may later develop binge-eating episodes as evolutionary homeostatic mechanisms override cognitive control, transitioning into the binge-eating/purging subtype of anorexia, or, upon weight recovery, migrating into full-syndrome bulimia nervosa. Tracking these phenotypic shifts allows clinicians to anticipate complications, alter therapeutic strategies proactively, and prevent relapse before chronicity becomes permanently established.

2. Overview of Anorexia Nervosa

2.1 Core Diagnostic Criteria Under DSM-5-TR

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), the formal diagnosis of anorexia nervosa requires the fulfillment of three primary diagnostic criteria (Criteria A, B, and C), each capturing a vital dimension of the illness:

• Criterion A: Persistent Energy Restriction Leading to Significantly Low Body Weight. The individual persistently restricts energy intake relative to requirements, leading to a significantly low body weight in the context of age, sex, developmental trajectory, and physical health. The DSM-5-TR operationalizes “significantly low weight” as a weight that is less than minimally normal for adults (conventionally defined as a Body Mass Index below 18.5 kg/m²) or, for children and adolescents, a body weight or BMI that falls below the 5th percentile of expected growth trajectories.
• Criterion B: Intense Fear of Weight Gain or Interfering Behaviors. The patient exhibits an intense, unyielding fear of gaining weight or becoming fat, or engages in persistent behavior that actively interferes with weight gain, even though they are at a significantly low weight. This criterion captures both subjective phobic avoidance and objective behavioral patterns, acknowledging that some patients deny overt fear while systematically engaging in caloric restriction, hyper-exercising, or deceptive disposal of food.
• Criterion C: Disturbance in Body Image and Denial of Illness Severity. The individual displays a profound disturbance in the way in which their body weight or shape is experienced, demonstrates an undue influence of body weight or shape on their global self-evaluation, or exhibits a persistent, profound lack of recognition of the seriousness of their current, dangerously low body weight. This criterion reflects the severe perceptual and cognitive distortion that prevents the patient from appreciating the biological gravity of their emaciation.

The DSM-5-TR also delineates clear severity specifiers for adults based on current Body Mass Index (BMI), providing clinicians with an objective metric for evaluating somatic compromise:

• Mild: BMI ≥ 17 kg/m²
• Moderate: BMI 16.00 – 16.99 kg/m²
• Severe: BMI 15.00 – 15.99 kg/m²
• Extreme: BMI < 15 kg/m²

In pediatric and adolescent cohorts, these severity categories correspond to equivalent BMI percentiles, where clinical judgment accounts for historical growth percentiles and pubertal progression.

2.2 Subtypes and Behavioral Manifestations

The DSM-5-TR categorizes anorexia nervosa into two distinct clinical subtypes based on the individual’s behavioral presentation over the preceding three months: the Restricting Type and the Binge-Eating/Purging Type. Distinguishing between these subtypes is critical, as they carry divergent medical risks, psychological features, and prognostic trajectories.

In the Restricting Type, the individual accomplishes weight loss primarily through dieting, fasting, and excessive, compulsive exercise. During the active phase of the illness, the patient does not regularly engage in recurrent episodes of binge eating or purging behavior (such as self-induced vomiting or the misuse of laxatives, diuretics, or enemas). These individuals often demonstrate remarkable behavioral inhibition, rigid discipline, and a profound capacity to endure extreme physical discomfort. Compulsive physical activity in this subtype is not pursued for pleasure or fitness; rather, it takes on an urgent, driven quality where patients pace continuously, stand rather than sit, or run excessive distances regardless of physical exhaustion, joint injury, or adverse weather conditions.

In the Binge-Eating/Purging Type, the individual regularly engages in recurrent episodes of binge eating, purging behaviors, or both during the active episode. Unlike individuals with bulimia nervosa, however, patients with this subtype of anorexia nervosa are significantly underweight. The “binge” in this subtype can be objective—involving an enormous volume of food consumed with a sense of loss of control—or subjective, where the ingestion of a standard or minor portion of food (such as a single slice of bread) is perceived by the patient as a catastrophic overconsumption that triggers immediate purging. Purging mechanisms include self-induced vomiting, the ingestion of high doses of stimulant laxatives, diuretic abuse, or the misuse of prescription medications such as insulin omission in type 1 diabetics (diabulimia).

Both subtypes exhibit complex behavioral rituals surrounding food preparation, procurement, and consumption. Patients frequently cut food into microscopic fragments, arrange items obsessively on their plates in symmetrical geometries, spread food around to simulate consumption, or chew food extensively before spitting it out into napkins (chewing and spitting). Many individuals develop an intense, voyeuristic interest in culinary arts, hoarding cookbooks, watching cooking channels for hours, and preparing elaborate, calorically dense meals for family members while refusing to consume even a single bite themselves. Social eating settings are rigorously avoided, leading to severe interpersonal isolation and progressive withdrawal into the private mechanics of the eating disorder.

2.3 Pathophysiology and Systemic Medical Complications

Severe energy deprivation forces the human body to activate evolutionary survival programs, shifting from an anabolic state of growth and tissue repair into a profound, catabolic hypometabolic state. Every single organ system suffers progressive structural and functional deterioration as the body consumes its own cellular infrastructure to preserve basal neurological and cardiovascular function.

The cardiovascular system bears an immense burden under prolonged starvation. As adipose tissue and skeletal muscle reserves are exhausted, the body metabolizes cardiac myocytes, resulting in progressive myocardial atrophy and loss of left ventricular wall thickness. Clinically, this manifests as severe sinus bradycardia (heart rates frequently dropping below 40 beats per minute) and profound hypotension, mechanisms designed to minimize myocardial oxygen demand. Pericardial effusions—fluid accumulations within the pericardial sac—are observed in up to 35% of severely emaciated patients, developing insidiously as a result of hypoproteinemia and tissue wasting. Furthermore, prolonged starvation leads to dangerous prolongation of the corrected QT interval (QTc), predisposing the patient to lethal ventricular arrhythmias such as torsades de pointes and sudden cardiac arrest.

The endocrine system undergoes total collapse, an adaptation often described as the “sick euthyroid” state or low T3 syndrome. The peripheral deiodination of thyroxine (T4) shifts away from the metabolically active triiodothyronine (T3) toward the inactive reverse T3 (rT3), dramatically downregulating basal energy expenditure, inducing chronic hypothermia, cold intolerance, and constipation. The hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis reverts to a pre-pubertal state: pulsatile secretion of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) ceases, causing a precipitous drop in luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). In females, this results in functional hypothalamic amenorrhea and anovulation; in males, it causes testicular atrophy, erectile dysfunction, and marked testosterone deficiency. Concurrently, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis is hyperactivated, yielding elevated circulating levels of cortisol (hypercortisolemia), which accelerates muscle wasting and immune suppression.

Skeletal and hematological complications are similarly severe and often irreversible. Sustained estrogen deficiency, combined with elevated cortisol, low insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), and inadequate calcium and vitamin D intake, triggers profound uncoupling of bone turnover. Osteoclast activity outpaces osteoblast function, precipitating rapid-onset osteopenia and severe osteoporosis. These skeletal deficits frequently persist even after full weight restoration, leaving young individuals with permanent bone architectural damage and an elevated lifetime risk of pathological fragility fractures. Hematologically, the bone marrow undergoes gelatinous transformation (serous fat atrophy), leading to progressive bone marrow hypoplasia. This produces profound pancytopenia: leukopenia (particularly neutropenia, which impairs infection defense), normocytic normochromic anemia (causing chronic fatigue and pallor), and thrombocytopenia.

2.4 Psychological Profile and Cognitive Rigidity

The psychological architecture of anorexia nervosa is characterized by a specific constellation of neurocognitive and personality traits. Longitudinal and premorbid studies demonstrate that individuals who develop anorexia often exhibit high levels of perfectionism, neuroticism, obsessive-compulsive traits, and harm avoidance from early childhood. They are frequently described as model children—academically driven, conscientious, rule-bound, and anxious. When an individual with this underlying temperamental vulnerability encounters biological, social, or emotional stressors, caloric restriction often becomes a powerful, maladaptive mechanism to alleviate diffuse anxiety and impose order upon an unpredictable environment.

A defining characteristic of anorexia nervosa is its predominantly ego-syntonic nature. Unlike most psychiatric patients who experience their symptoms as distressing, foreign, and undesirable intrusions (ego-dystonic), the individual with anorexia embraces their dietary restriction, emaciation, and hunger sensations as integral to their identity and moral self-worth. Achieving weight loss is viewed not as a manifestation of pathology, but as an ultimate badge of self-discipline, purity, moral superiority, and emotional control. This ego-syntonic valence generates profound ambivalence toward clinical intervention. When clinicians or loved ones attempt to restore weight, the patient perceives the intervention as an existential threat, an assault on their autonomy, or an attempt to make them “lazy” or “gluttonous.” This dynamic fuels severe clinical resistance, denial of illness, and deceptive behaviors designed to thwart refeeding efforts.

At a neuropsychological level, anorexia nervosa is marked by profound cognitive inflexibility and impaired set-shifting abilities. Patients exhibit rigid, perseverative thinking patterns, struggling to adapt when environmental rules change or expectations are violated. Functional neuroimaging studies demonstrate altered connectivity in frontostriatal networks, which mediate habit learning and executive control. Furthermore, individuals with anorexia exhibit what cognitive psychologists term impaired “central coherence”—a cognitive processing style characterized by an intense, microscopic focus on granular local details at the expense of global integration. In daily life, this cognitive bias causes the patient to become consumed by the exact gram weight of a food item, a single calorie deviation, or an isolated millimeter of subcutaneous fat, while remaining completely blind to the catastrophic failure of their overall health and life trajectory.

3. Overview of Bulimia Nervosa

3.1 Core Diagnostic Criteria Under DSM-5-TR

Bulimia nervosa is defined under the DSM-5-TR by a specific cycle of binge eating followed by inappropriate compensatory behaviors designed to prevent weight gain, occurring with specified frequency and duration. To meet diagnostic criteria, a patient must satisfy five discrete clinical requirements (Criteria A through E):

• Criterion A: Recurrent Episodes of Binge Eating. A binge-eating episode is characterized by two essential components:
  1. Eating, in a discrete period of time (e.g., within any two-hour window), an amount of food that is definitely larger than what most individuals would eat in a similar period of time under similar circumstances.
  2. A sense of lack of control over eating during the episode (e.g., a feeling that one cannot stop eating or control what or how much one is eating).
• Criterion B: Recurrent Inappropriate Compensatory Behaviors. The individual engages in recurrent, maladaptive compensatory mechanisms in order to prevent weight gain. These include self-induced vomiting; the misuse of laxatives, diuretics, or enemas; fasting; or excessive, driven physical exercise.
• Criterion C: Frequency and Duration Thresholds. Both the binge-eating episodes and inappropriate compensatory behaviors must occur, on average, at least once a week for a minimum of three consecutive months.
• Criterion D: Self-Evaluation Overly Influenced by Shape and Weight. The individual’s self-concept, self-worth, and self-evaluation are unduly and disproportionately influenced by physical body shape and weight, echoing the core psychopathology of anorexia.
• Criterion E: Exclusion of Anorexia Nervosa. The disturbance does not occur exclusively during episodes of anorexia nervosa. This diagnostic exclusion establishes the hierarchical primacy of anorexia nervosa; if an individual meets all criteria for bulimia but is significantly underweight, the diagnosis is anorexia nervosa, binge-eating/purging type.

The DSM-5-TR categorizes the severity of bulimia nervosa solely on the basis of the average frequency of inappropriate compensatory behaviors per week:

• Mild: An average of 1 – 3 episodes of inappropriate compensatory behaviors per week.
• Moderate: An average of 4 – 7 episodes per week.
• Severe: An average of 8 – 13 episodes per week.
• Extreme: An average of 14 or more episodes per week.

These frequency markers reflect the clinical reality of bulimia, where some patients engage in multiple binge-purge episodes daily, leading to extreme metabolic volatility.

3.2 The Neurobiology and Mechanics of the Binge-Purge Cycle

The binge-purge cycle of bulimia nervosa is driven by a self-perpetuating, physiological and psychological feedback loop. The cycle almost invariably originates not with a binge, but with rigid, unsustainable cognitive dietary restraint. The individual adopts unrealistically strict dietary rules, classifying vast categories of food as “forbidden” or “toxic,” and attempts to maintain a severe daily caloric deficit. This prolonged physiological deprivation depletes circulating glucose and downregulates satiety hormones, triggering powerful evolutionary hunger mechanisms. In the hypothalamus, neuropeptide Y (NPY) and agouti-related peptide (AgRP) are upregulated, generating primal homeostatic drives to seek out energy-dense foods.

Eventually, a psychological or emotional trigger—such as an interpersonal conflict, social rejection, loneliness, or anxiety—erodes the individual’s cognitive control. When the patient consumes even a small amount of a forbidden food, an all-or-nothing cognitive distortion (“dichotomous thinking”) is activated: the diet is perceived as permanently ruined. Cognitive inhibition collapses completely, and homeostatic and hedonic drives overpower executive restraint, precipitating an objective binge-eating episode. During this phase, individuals report consuming staggering caloric loads—often between 2,000 and 5,000 calories within a two-hour window—typically favoring foods high in simple carbohydrates, sugars, and fats that are easy to swallow and regurgitate.

Neurobiologically, binge eating is mediated by dysregulation within central frontostriatal and reward pathways. Functional imaging demonstrates that individuals with bulimia display altered dopaminergic neurotransmission in the dorsal and ventral striatum. During the initial phase of the binge, consumption of hyper-palatable foods triggers a surge of dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens, providing temporary relief from negative affect and emotional dysphoria. However, central serotonergic (5-HT) dysfunction contributes to a profound blunting of postprandial satiety signaling. The normal hypothalamic cascade that signals fullness is delayed or absent, allowing the patient to consume massive quantities before visceral mechanoreceptors trigger physical distress.

As the binge episode ends, the temporary hedonic high dissipates rapidly, replaced by severe physical discomfort from gastric distension, accompanied by acute panic, self-loathing, shame, and terror of weight gain. In this state of psychological distress, purging emerges as a powerful negative reinforcement mechanism. Self-induced vomiting or the ingestion of laxatives immediately evacuates the stomach or bowel, terminating the physical pain of engorgement and reducing the visceral fear of caloric absorption. The act of vomiting also triggers an endogenous opioid release and parasympathetic vagal rebound, inducing a temporary state of emotional numbness and relief. This immediate reduction in anxiety reinforces the purging behavior, ensuring that the next time the individual restricts food and experiences emotional distress, the binge-purge cycle will repeat with greater intensity.

3.3 Systemic Medical Complications and Physical Markers

The medical complications of bulimia nervosa stem primarily from the mechanical and chemical sequelae of repeated purging behaviors, as well as the physiological oscillations between acute gastric dilation and rapid dehydration. Because individuals with bulimia nervosa often maintain a normal body weight, their severe medical instability is frequently hidden, earning bulimia the moniker of a “silent killer.”

The most acute, life-threatening complication of bulimia nervosa is profound fluid and electrolyte imbalance. Chronic, self-induced vomiting results in the massive loss of stomach hydrochloric acid (HCl), sodium, potassium, and water. The loss of hydrogen and chloride ions directly precipitates hypochloremic metabolic alkalosis. In an effort to conserve volume, the kidneys activate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), retaining sodium at the expense of excreting further potassium and hydrogen ions in the distal renal tubules. This cascade accelerates the development of profound hypokalemia (serum potassium < 3.5 mEq/L, and in severe cases < 2.5 mEq/L). Hypokalemia impairs myocardial repolarization, causing severe electrocardiographic abnormalities, including T-wave flattening or inversion, the emergence of prominent U waves, ST-segment depression, and fatal ventricular tachyarrhythmias such as ventricular fibrillation.

If the primary mode of purging involves the abuse of stimulant laxatives (such as senna or bisacodyl), the electrolyte profile shifts dramatically. Laxative abuse acts primarily on the colon, causing the loss of large volumes of alkaline, bicarbonate-rich fecal fluid. This produces severe hypokalemic, hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis accompanied by profound chronic dehydration. Chronic laxative abuse damages the myenteric plexus within the colonic wall, leading to a condition known as “cathartic colon”—an atonic, non-functioning, dilated large intestine that can no longer produce peristalsis without chemical stimulation. Furthermore, when patients abruptly discontinue laxatives, rebound hyperaldosteronism triggers massive fluid retention (pseudo-Bartter syndrome), causing dramatic peripheral edema that patients misinterpret as rapid fat gain, often driving them straight back to purging.

The gastrointestinal tract suffers extensive collateral trauma from gastric acid exposure. Chronic reflux of acidic chyme into the esophagus leads to severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), erosive esophagitis, ulceration, and the development of Barrett’s esophagus (a premalignant metaplasia). Forceful retching can cause mechanical tears at the gastroesophageal junction, known as Mallory-Weiss tears, which present as acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage and hematemesis. In rare, catastrophic instances, violent emesis following a massive binge leads to full-thickness transmural rupture of the esophagus (Boerhaave syndrome) or acute gastric rupture, both of which are surgical emergencies with high mortality rates.

Bulimia nervosa also leaves characteristic somatic markers that allow astute clinicians to detect the condition during physical examination:

• Sialadenosis: Bilateral, painless hypertrophy of the salivary glands, particularly the parotid glands, which presents as swelling along the angle of the jaw, giving the patient a classic “chipmunk facies.” This hypertrophy represents compensatory hypersecretion of salivary amylase in response to recurrent cholinergic stimulation from vomiting.
• Perimolysis (Dental Erosion): Severe, irreversible chemical erosion of the lingual, occlusal, and palatal surfaces of the teeth caused by repeated exposure to gastric hydrochloric acid. This erosion degrades tooth enamel, exposes underlying dentin, sharpens incisal margins, and causes rampant dental caries and extreme thermal sensitivity.
• Russell’s Sign: The presence of calluses, hyperkeratotic plaques, abrasions, or small scars on the dorsum of the hand and knuckles. These lesions are caused by repeated mechanical friction against the incisor teeth when the individual uses their fingers to manually trigger the pharyngeal gag reflex.

3.4 Psychological Profile and Emotional Dysregulation

The personality and emotional landscape of bulimia nervosa contrasts sharply with the rigid, inhibited profile of restricting anorexia. Individuals with bulimia typically exhibit high levels of novelty seeking, trait impulsivity, sensation seeking, and pronounced affective instability. Rather than over-controlling their internal emotional states, they struggle with severe emotional dysregulation and low distress tolerance. When confronted with intense negative affect—whether sadness, anger, interpersonal shame, or anxiety—they experience a subjective inability to soothe themselves, turning to binge eating and purging as rapid, maladaptive coping strategies.

A central psychological hallmark of bulimia nervosa is its overwhelmingly ego-dystonic presentation. Individuals with bulimia perceive their binging and purging behaviors as deeply distressing, chaotic, alien, and humiliating. Unlike the patient with anorexia, who displays pride in their physical emaciation, the patient with bulimia is tormented by profound self-disgust, moral guilt, and remorse following each episode. Consequently, the illness is wrapped in an impenetrable wall of secrecy. Patients go to extraordinary lengths to hide their behaviors: purchasing food at multiple grocery stores to avoid suspicion, hoarding wrappers in private hiding spots, and running shower faucets to mask the sounds of vomiting. This pervasive shame delays clinical presentation; on average, individuals with bulimia suffer in silence for five to ten years before seeking professional help.

Because of this high trait impulsivity and emotional volatility, bulimia nervosa demonstrates high comorbidity with other “multi-impulsive” psychiatric conditions. Clinicians frequently encounter co-occurring substance use disorders, with elevated rates of alcohol dependence, stimulant abuse, and cannabis use. Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), such as skin cutting or burning, is significantly more prevalent in bulimia than in restricting anorexia, serving an identical functional purpose of managing overwhelming emotional pain. Furthermore, there is a striking overlap between bulimia nervosa and Cluster B personality disorders, particularly Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Patients with both bulimia and BPD present with chronic feelings of emptiness, unstable interpersonal relationships, intense fears of abandonment, and recurrent suicidal behaviors, requiring specialized dialectical behavioral approaches to establish emotional equilibrium.

4. Key Differences Between Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa

The following head-to-head comparison table synthesizes the fundamental dimensions that distinguish anorexia nervosa from bulimia nervosa across diagnostic, behavioral, psychological, and physiological domains:

Diagnostic Dimension	Anorexia Nervosa (AN)	Bulimia Nervosa (BN)
Body Weight & BMI	Significantly low body weight; BMI strictly < 18.5 kg/m2 in adults (or < 5th percentile in children/adolescents). Emaciation is a required diagnostic criterion.	Body weight is typically within or above the normal range (BMI ≥ 18.5 kg/m2). Overt emaciation is diagnostic of anorexia, not bulimia.
Intake Pattern	Persistent, severe caloric restriction. In the binge-eating/purging subtype, binges are often subjective or consist of modest caloric amounts.	Recurrent, objective binge-eating episodes involving an enormous volume of food (often 2,000–5,000+ kcal) consumed within a discrete window.
Sense of Control	Pervasive, rigid control over eating and biological hunger cues. Control is a source of pride, mastery, and anxiety reduction.	Acute, distressing loss of control during binge episodes, accompanied by an inability to stop or moderate consumption.
Psychological Orientation	Predominantly ego-syntonic: symptoms, restriction, and thinness are valued, defended, and integrated into identity. Treatment is resisted.	Predominantly ego-dystonic: behaviors are viewed as shameful, alien, and disgusting. Patients desire relief, though secrecy delays help-seeking.
Temperament & Personality	High perfectionism, harm avoidance, behavioral over-control, obsessive-compulsiveness, and profound cognitive rigidity.	High novelty seeking, trait impulsivity, emotional dysregulation, affective instability, and low distress tolerance.
Diagnostic Precedence	Holds diagnostic hierarchy. If a patient meets criteria for bulimia but is underweight, the diagnosis is anorexia (binge-eating/purging subtype).	Subordinate to anorexia nervosa. A patient cannot receive a concurrent diagnosis of bulimia if they are significantly underweight.
Core Metabolic Profile	Hypometabolic, catabolic state: low T3 syndrome, hypercortisolemia, pancytopenia, hypothermia, low LH/FSH, and severe osteopenia/osteoporosis.	Normometabolic or fluctuating state: high risk of acute hypokalemia, hypochloremic metabolic alkalosis (vomiting), or metabolic acidosis (laxatives).
Key Physical Signs	Lanugo (fine downy hair), severe muscle wasting, prominent bony protuberances, sunken cheeks, acrocyanosis, and dry scaly skin.	Bilateral parotid gland enlargement (sialadenosis), perimolysis (dental enamel erosion), and Russell’s sign on knuckles. Normal body habitus.
Pharmacotherapy Status	No medications approved by the FDA. SSRIs are ineffective in the underweight state and must not be used as primary interventions.	Fluoxetine is FDA-approved (at 60 mg/day) and demonstrates clinical efficacy in reducing binge-purge frequencies. Bupropion strictly contraindicated.
Primary Cause of Somatic Death	Cardiovascular collapse secondary to myocardial atrophy, acute hemodynamic failure, multi-organ failure, or fatal refeeding syndrome.	Sudden cardiac arrhythmia triggered by severe hypokalemic electrolyte derangements, or mechanical rupture of the esophagus or stomach.

4.1 Weight and Body Mass Index (BMI) Parameters

The single most definitive boundary separating anorexia nervosa from bulimia nervosa is the individual’s objective body weight and Body Mass Index (BMI). In psychiatric nosology, weight status serves as an absolute diagnostic fork. To meet the criteria for anorexia nervosa under the DSM-5-TR, an individual must display a significantly low body weight relative to their age, sex, developmental trajectory, and physical health status. In adults, this is clinically defined as maintaining a BMI below 18.5 kg/m², with severe presentations dropping well below 15.0 kg/m². In children and adolescents, clinicians calculate BMI-for-age percentiles, with any trajectory falling below the 5th percentile indicating significant underweight status.

Conversely, bulimia nervosa presents almost exclusively in individuals whose body weight falls within or above the normal range (BMI equal to or exceeding 18.5 kg/m²). Many individuals with bulimia maintain a completely normal weight, and a substantial proportion are classified as overweight or living with obesity. Because purging behaviors (particularly vomiting and laxatives) are metabolically inefficient—retaining between 50% and 70% of ingested calories during a binge—individuals with bulimia do not achieve the profound, systemic energy deficits seen in anorexia.

This biological parameter is codified through strict diagnostic hierarchy rules. The DSM-5-TR explicitly dictates that if an individual exhibits recurrent binge-eating episodes accompanied by self-induced vomiting, laxative abuse, or intense fear of weight gain, but their body weight is below the minimally normal threshold (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²), the diagnosis must be Anorexia Nervosa, Binge-Eating/Purging Type. The diagnosis of bulimia nervosa is completely superseded. The clinical rationale behind this diagnostic hierarchy rests on somatic risk: the biological consequences of severe starvation and emaciation are so profound that they override all other behavioral manifestations, dictating immediate medical stabilization and refeeding as clinical priorities.

4.2 Patterns of Food Intake and Loss of Control

The qualitative and quantitative patterns of food intake reveal stark divergences between the two disorders. In the restricting subtype of anorexia nervosa, nutritional intake is characterized by relentless, sustained, and highly calculated hypocaloric restriction. The individual establishes a rigid caloric ceiling—often limiting daily intake to 200 to 800 calories—consisting almost entirely of low-energy-density “safe” foods (such as plain lettuce, celery, black coffee, or broth). The hallmark of pure restricting anorexia is the near-total absence of loss-of-control eating; the individual exercises iron-willed, continuous behavioral suppression over physiological hunger signals.

In bulimia nervosa, the intake pattern is fundamentally chaotic, oscillating between extreme dietary restriction and massive, uncontrolled consumption. An objective binge-eating episode in bulimia is defined not merely by eating too much, but by consuming an unequivocally massive volume of food within a discrete time window, accompanied by an agonizing sense of loss of control. During a binge, individuals describe feeling disconnected from their physical bodies (depersonalization), eating at lightning speed without tasting food, consuming items that are raw, frozen, or discarded, and feeling powerless to halt the behavior until painful gastric distension occurs.

The distinction becomes more nuanced when comparing bulimia nervosa to the binge-eating/purging subtype of anorexia nervosa. Patients with binge-eating/purging anorexia may experience true objective binges, but they also frequently engage in subjective binge eating. A subjective binge occurs when an individual consumes an amount of food that is socially normative or even small (such as half a sandwich or a small bowl of cereal), but experiences an overwhelming psychological sense of loss of control, viewing the food as a catastrophic breach of their restrictive rules. In bulimia nervosa, the binge episodes required for diagnosis must be genuinely objective in volume, reflecting a metabolic collapse of restraint under intense homeostatic pressure.

4.3 Psychological Relationship to the Illness (Ego-Syntonic vs. Ego-Dystonic)

Perhaps no psychological feature differentiates these two disorders more clearly than the patient’s internal relationship to their symptoms. Anorexia nervosa is primarily an ego-syntonic illness. The core manifestations of the disorder—starvation, severe emaciation, visible skeletal landmarks, and the refusal of sustenance—are experienced by the individual as congruent with their fundamental values, aspirations, and self-ideal. The patient does not view their low weight as a sickness; they view it as an extraordinary personal accomplishment, an indisputable demonstration of will, purity, and superior discipline over biological frailty. Consequently, patients with anorexia frequently defend their behaviors, display profound anosognosia (lack of insight into the medical severity of their illness), and perceive healthcare providers as adversaries attempting to undermine their achievements.

In direct opposition, bulimia nervosa is fundamentally an ego-dystonic disorder. The individual experiences the core behaviors of the illness—the chaotic, loss-of-control bingeing and the subsequent purging in bathrooms—as shameful, distressing, repulsive, and completely antithetical to their idealized self-concept. Rather than taking pride in their actions, patients with bulimia are consumed by profound guilt, self-hatred, and moral failure. They actively despise the binge-purge cycle, yet feel hopelessly addicted to its neurobiological and affect-regulating properties.

These divergent psychological profiles produce radically different patterns of clinical engagement and therapeutic alliance formation. The patient with anorexia nervosa is almost universally brought to clinical attention by alarmed third parties—parents, spouses, school nurses, or primary care physicians. In the consulting room, they are often guarded, hostile, resistant to treatment, and highly protective of their behaviors. Conversely, the patient with bulimia nervosa frequently seeks help voluntarily, driven by the intense distress and exhaustion of maintaining their hidden cycle. However, their pervasive shame creates significant barriers to honesty, leading them to minimize purging frequencies or downplay the duration of the illness unless interviewed by a sensitive, non-judgmental clinician.

4.4 Biochemical, Laboratory, and Physical Signatures

The metabolic and physiological footprints of anorexia and bulimia diverge significantly across routine laboratory assessments and physical examinations, reflecting starvation versus recurrent purgative evacuation.

In anorexia nervosa, laboratory panels reflect systemic hypometabolism, catabolic tissue breakdown, and endocrine downregulation:

• Complete Blood Count (CBC): Pancytopenia is common, characterized by leukopenia with absolute neutropenia, normocytic normochromic anemia, and thrombocytopenia resulting from bone marrow hypoplasia and gelatinous degeneration.
• Thyroid Panel: Reveals “euthyroid sick syndrome” (low T3 syndrome), characterized by low total and free T3, low or normal T4, and normal thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), reflecting downshifted metabolic output.
• Hepatic Enzymes: Paradoxical elevations in serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT), caused by hepatic glycogen depletion and starvation-induced liver autophagocytosis.
• Lipid Profile: Paradoxical hypercholesterolemia, resulting from down-regulated hepatic clearance and decreased production of bile acids despite negligible dietary fat intake.
• Reproductive Hormones: Marked suppression of luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estradiol, and testosterone, reflecting HPG axis regression.

In bulimia nervosa, laboratory panels reflect acute fluid shifts, acid-base volatility, and electrolyte wasting:

• Serum Electrolytes: Hypokalemia (low potassium) is the primary metabolic hazard, accompanied by hypochloremia (low chloride).
• Acid-Base Balance: The panel typically shows elevated serum bicarbonate (> 30 mEq/L) indicating hypochloremic metabolic alkalosis in individuals who vomit. In patients who abuse laxatives, the panel reveals hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis with low bicarbonate.
• Serum Amylase: Fractionated amylase testing reveals marked hyperamylasemia, specifically the salivary isoenzyme, caused by chronic hyperstimulation of the parotid glands.
• Renal Function: Elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and serum creatinine, reflecting prerenal azotemia secondary to chronic dehydration and volumetric contraction.

Physical examination findings present an equally striking contrast. The patient with severe anorexia nervosa displays unmistakable markers of starvation: lanugo (fine, downy, unpigmented hair across the back, face, and arms, grown as an evolutionary response to hypothermia), profound hollow orbital sockets, prominent zygomatic arches, scaphoid abdomen, severe muscle atrophy, extreme dry scaly skin (xerosis), and peripheral acrocyanosis (bluish, freezing extremities). The patient with bulimia nervosa, by contrast, typically presents with a completely normal somatic habitus, but exhibits pathognomonic focal markers: bilateral, tender swelling of the parotid glands (sialadenosis), subconjunctival hemorrhages from the mechanical pressure of vomiting, dental enamel demineralization (perimolysis), and scarred calluses across the metacarpophalangeal joints (Russell’s sign).

5. Similarities and Overlapping Clinical Features

5.1 Core Psychopathology of Body Image

Despite their divergent behavioral topographies and physical presentations, anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa share an identical psychological core: the pervasive, pathological overvaluation of body shape, weight, and caloric control. In the transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioral model developed by Christopher Fairburn, this core psychopathology is the foundational engine sustaining all clinical eating disorders. Whereas psychologically healthy individuals construct their self-worth upon a balanced foundation of diverse domains—such as interpersonal relationships, intellectual pursuits, career achievements, creative passions, and moral values—the individual with an eating disorder evaluates their self-worth almost exclusively through the narrow lens of their body shape, scale readings, and ability to control dietary intake.

This cognitive distortion drives intense, compulsive body-checking behaviors. Patients in both cohorts spend extraordinary amounts of time engaged in repetitive, ritualistic inspections of their bodies. They weigh themselves multiple times daily, meticulously measure their waists with tape, scrutinize specific anatomical landmarks (such as the visibility of the clavicles, ribs, or hip bones) in mirrors, and repeatedly pinch skin folds on their thighs or abdomen to assess perceived “fatness.” These body-checking rituals generate high anxiety, as normal postprandial fluid retention or slight scale fluctuations are catastrophized as massive, uncontrolled weight gain.

Paradoxically, body checking often alternates with complete body avoidance. When emotional distress becomes intolerable, patients may cover all mirrors in their living spaces, wear heavily oversized clothing to obscure their physical contours, refuse to know their weight at medical appointments, and avoid bathing in illuminated rooms. Furthermore, both groups experience profound perceptual body size distortion. Neuroimaging and psychophysical research demonstrate that individuals with anorexia and bulimia exhibit altered parietal lobe processing, which mediates the internal mental representation of the body (somatosensory schema). Consequently, when a severely emaciated patient with anorexia looks in a mirror, they do not merely experience an abstract cognitive fear of fatness; their parietal processing systems generate a distorted visceral perception, causing them to genuinely see their emaciated thighs or abdomen as wide and flaccid.

5.2 Etiological and Genetic Underpinnings

Modern psychiatric genetics and neurobiology have permanently dispelled the outdated myth that eating disorders are purely cultural phenomena or willful lifestyle choices. Anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa possess substantial, shared biological vulnerabilities. Twin and family studies have consistently established that both conditions exhibit high heritability estimates, ranging from 50% to 70%. A family history of an eating disorder increases a first-degree relative’s risk of developing an eating disorder tenfold, with genetic factors influencing both the restrictive and bulimic phenotypes.

A landmark 2019 genome-wide association study (GWAS) conducted by the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC-ED) yielded groundbreaking insights into the biological nature of anorexia nervosa, demonstrating that its genetic architecture is fundamentally metabo-psychiatric. The study identified eight significant genetic loci that not only correlated with other psychiatric disorders (such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia), but also displayed striking negative genetic correlations with metabolic phenotypes, including body mass index, fasting insulin, leptin levels, and lipid profiles. This discovery explains why individuals with anorexia can effortlessly sustain profound starvation states that would trigger intolerable hunger in neurotypical individuals: their underlying genetics alter metabolic set points and homeostatic feedback systems.

At the neurobiological level, both disorders involve dysregulation within central frontostriatal circuits and monoaminergic neurotransmitter networks. Functional neuroimaging reveals aberrant signaling within the serotonergic (5-HT) system, which modulates mood, impulse control, and appetite. Premorbidly, individuals prone to eating disorders often possess an overactive central serotonergic system, which generates chronic dysphoria, perfectionism, and anxiety. Caloric restriction lowers plasma levels of tryptophan—the essential amino acid precursor to serotonin—effectively downregulating brain 5-HT synthesis. For an individual genetically predisposed to anorexia, starvation acts as a powerful neurochemical anxiolytic, temporarily relieving dysphoria. In bulimia nervosa, unstable oscillations between fasting and bingeing create volatile fluctuations in central serotonergic and dopaminergic signaling, impairing top-down prefrontal inhibitory control over striatal reward mechanisms.

These biological liabilities interact dynamically with ubiquitous sociocultural risk factors. In Westernized societies, the pervasive idealization of extreme thinness, combined with the cultural stigmatization of higher body weights, serves as an environmental trigger. Sociocultural pressures operate through peer comparison, social media algorithms, athletic subcultures (such as ballet, gymnastics, and distance running), and weight-focused family environments, triggering dietary restraint in genetically vulnerable individuals.

5.3 Psychiatric Comorbidity Profiles

Anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa rarely present in isolation; both disorders are characterized by exceptionally high rates of psychiatric comorbidity, with over 70% of patients meeting diagnostic criteria for at least one additional DSM-5-TR disorder throughout their lifetime. The presence of these co-occurring conditions complicates clinical presentation, increases somatic severity, and demands integrated psychiatric care.

Mood and anxiety disorders represent the most pervasive comorbid diagnoses across both cohorts. Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is diagnosed in 50% to 75% of patients with anorexia and bulimia. While some depressive symptoms—such as apathy, anhedonia, insomnia, and cognitive slowing—are direct neurobiological consequences of starvation (as documented in the historic Minnesota Starvation Experiment), true affective disorders frequently precede the onset of the eating pathology and persist long after nutritional rehabilitation. Anxiety disorders, including Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and Social Anxiety Disorder, are similarly ubiquitous, typically emerging during early childhood as intense social evaluative fears and perfectionistic anxiety.

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) exhibits a profound, specific relationship with anorexia nervosa. Patients often experience ego-dystonic obsessions and engage in non-food-related compulsions (such as symmetry rituals, excessive checking, and contamination fears) that mirror their rigid eating rituals. In both anorexia and bulimia, lifetime exposure to interpersonal trauma and the prevalence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are substantially elevated. Trauma-related symptoms—such as intrusive memories, hyperarousal, and somatic dissociation—frequently trigger eating disorder behaviors, which serve to numb emotional distress or symbolically control the physical body.

Tragically, both disorders carry exceptionally high rates of suicidal behavior. Eating disorders have the second-highest mortality rate of any psychiatric class, eclipsed only by opioid use disorders. In anorexia nervosa, suicide is the leading non-somatic cause of death, with the standardized mortality ratio for suicide estimated at over thirty times that of the general population. In bulimia nervosa, while overall somatic mortality is lower, rates of suicide attempts are strikingly high, driven by trait impulsivity, rapid mood swings, and the profound hopelessness generated by the intractable binge-purge cycle.

5.4 Diagnostic Migration and Clinical Crossover

One of the most clinically compelling arguments supporting a transdiagnostic view of eating disorders is the high frequency of diagnostic migration throughout an individual’s lifetime. Far from remaining static diagnostic entities, anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa exhibit fluid, bidirectional phenotypic crossover. Longitudinal cohort studies demonstrate that within five years of initial clinical presentation, up to 50% of patients initially diagnosed with anorexia nervosa (restricting type) migrate into the binge-eating/purging subtype of anorexia or transition fully into normal-weight bulimia nervosa.

The biological engine driving this common migration from restricting anorexia to bulimic symptomatology is evolutionary survival physiology. The human body is genetically equipped to defend against starvation. Prolonged, unyielding caloric restriction eventually triggers a metabolic crisis: extreme hunger signaling, coupled with chronic leptin depletion and elevated ghrelin, exerts profound homeostatic pressure that eventually breaches the patient’s cognitive inhibitory controls. When the dam of cognitive restraint finally breaks, the individual experiences their first objective binge episode. Horrified by the caloric consumption, the individual turns to self-induced vomiting or laxatives to evade weight gain, establishing the binge-purge cycle of bulimia nervosa.

Conversely, migration from bulimia nervosa to restricting anorexia nervosa occurs much less frequently (observed in roughly 5% to 10% of cases), as transitioning to pure starvation requires extraordinary behavioral inhibition that is neurobiologically difficult to sustain once the binge-purge cycle is established. However, patients with bulimia frequently migrate into the diagnostic category of Other Specified Feeding or Eating Disorder (OSFED) or Binge Eating Disorder (BED). Even after achieving clinical remission—defined as the cessation of purging and the maintenance of a normal body weight—many individuals retain persistent, subthreshold cognitive distortions, remaining vulnerable to relapse during periods of significant developmental or psychosocial stress.

6. Differential Diagnosis and Clinical Decision-Making

6.1 Step-by-Step Diagnostic Assessment Algorithm

Conducting an accurate differential diagnosis across the eating disorder spectrum requires an exhaustive, multi-step clinical assessment that integrates somatic metrics, behavioral analysis, and psychiatric evaluation. Clinicians must avoid relying exclusively on superficial patient self-reporting, as shame, denial, and cognitive distortions frequently obscure the true severity of symptoms. The following algorithmic approach provides a systematic framework for clinical decision-making:

1. Step 1: Quantitative Somatic and Weight Evaluation. The initial branch of the diagnostic algorithm requires establishing the patient’s objective weight status relative to their biological baseline. Calculate the patient’s current Body Mass Index (BMI = kg/m²) in adults, or determine the BMI-for-age percentile using standardized growth curves in children and adolescents. Obtain a detailed historical weight trajectory spanning the preceding two to five years. If the patient’s BMI is strictly below 18.5 kg/m² (or below the 5th percentile for age and sex), the clinician is operating within the Anorexia Nervosa diagnostic pathway. If the BMI is equal to or exceeds 18.5 kg/m², the clinician directs the evaluation toward Bulimia Nervosa, Atypical Anorexia Nervosa, or Purging Disorder.
2. Step 2: Typography and Quantification of Food Intake. Conduct an in-depth behavioral dietary inventory spanning the preceding three months. Differentiate whether the dietary pattern is characterized by uninterrupted hypocaloric restriction, or if it includes recurrent episodes of binge eating. If binge eating is reported, rigorously evaluate the nature of the binge:
   • Objective Binge: Consuming an unequivocally large amount of food within a discrete period (≤ 2 hours) with an undeniable sense of loss of control.
   • Subjective Binge: Feeling an intense loss of control while consuming an amount of food that is socially normative or small.
3. Step 3: Systematic Inventory of Compensatory Behaviors. Quantify the exact frequency, timing, and specific modalities of all compensatory mechanisms utilized to offset caloric intake over the preceding three months:
   • Self-induced vomiting (manual gag reflex induction vs. spontaneous regurgitation).
   • Pharmacological abuse: stimulant laxatives, osmotic agents, loop diuretics, over-the-counter diet pills, or illicit stimulants.
   • Insulin omission or dose reduction in patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM).
   • Driven, compulsive exercise (quantified by duration, intensity, and the inability to take rest days despite illness or injury).
   • Prolonged periods of complete fasting.
4. Step 4: Examination of Core Psychopathology and Insight. Assess the degree to which body weight and physical shape govern the patient’s global self-evaluation. Evaluate whether the symptoms are experienced as ego-syntonic (defended, valued, denied as problematic) or ego-dystonic (generating intense shame, guilt, and emotional anguish). Determine the extent of anosognosia and the patient’s capacity to comprehend the somatic risks of their current state.
5. Step 5: Diagnostic Synthesis and Subtyping. Apply DSM-5-TR diagnostic hierarchies to assign the final primary diagnosis and appropriate specifiers:
   • Underweight (BMI < 18.5) + Restriction Only = Anorexia Nervosa, Restricting Type.
   • Underweight (BMI < 18.5) + Recurrent Bingeing and/or Purging = Anorexia Nervosa, Binge-Eating/Purging Type.
   • Normal/Higher Weight (BMI ≥ 18.5) + Objective Binges + Purging (≥ 1x/week for 3 months) = Bulimia Nervosa.
   • Normal/Higher Weight (BMI ≥ 18.5) + Severe Energy Restriction + Massive Weight Loss = Atypical Anorexia Nervosa (OSFED).
   • Normal/Higher Weight (BMI ≥ 18.5) + Purging Without Objective Binges = Purging Disorder (OSFED).

6.2 Navigating Atypical Presentations and Gray Areas

While textbook diagnostic boundaries appear clean, clinical practice is saturated with complex, atypical presentations that challenge categorical frameworks. A common and medically perilous gray area is Atypical Anorexia Nervosa, classified under Other Specified Feeding or Eating Disorder (OSFED). In atypical anorexia, an individual exhibits every psychological, behavioral, and cognitive criterion of anorexia nervosa—severe energy restriction, profound fear of weight gain, and intense body image disturbance—and has undergone massive, rapid weight loss, yet their current body weight remains within or above the technically “normal” BMI range (≥ 18.5 kg/m²).

Clinicians frequently underdiagnose atypical anorexia because the patient does not present with overt cachexia. However, extensive physiological research demonstrates that individuals with atypical anorexia suffer from systemic medical complications—such as severe bradycardia, orthostatic hypotension, electrolyte derangements, and bone mineral loss—at rates and severities indistinguishable from individuals with low-weight anorexia nervosa. The human cardiovascular and endocrine systems respond to the magnitude and velocity of nutritional deprivation, not merely the final numerical BMI. Dismissing an individual’s severe restriction simply because their BMI is currently 22 kg/m² is a dangerous medical error that delays critical intervention.

Another diagnostic gray area is Purging Disorder, where a normal-weight individual regularly uses compensatory behaviors (such as self-induced vomiting or laxative abuse) to influence their shape and weight, but does not engage in objective binge-eating episodes. These patients purge after eating normal meals or subjective binges. Careful clinical interviewing is required to prevent misdiagnosing purging disorder as bulimia nervosa. Furthermore, clinicians frequently struggle to categorize individuals who hover precisely at the borderline weight threshold (e.g., a BMI of 18.4 vs. 18.6 kg/m²) who simultaneously engage in objective binge eating and purging. In such cases, clinicians must look beyond an isolated scale reading to evaluate longitudinal weight trajectories, premorbid growth percentiles, and the presence of physiological markers of starvation (such as hypothermia or amenorrhea) to determine whether the presentation is best managed under the anorexia or bulimia clinical framework.

6.3 Medical Triage, Level-of-Care Determinations, and Hospitalization

The initial medical assessment of an eating disorder must determine the appropriate level of care required to preserve patient safety. Patients must be triaged through a stepped-care framework spanning five clinical levels: Outpatient Care, Intensive Outpatient Programming (IOP), Partial Hospitalization Programming (PHP), Residential Treatment, and Acute Inpatient Medical Stabilization. The decision to admit a patient to an acute medical inpatient unit is governed by clear, non-negotiable physiological criteria established by organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the Academy for Eating Disorders (AED).

Acute Inpatient Medical Admission Criteria for Anorexia Nervosa include:

• Severe Bradycardia: Sustained heart rate < 40 beats per minute.
• Hemodynamic Instability: Systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure < 50 mmHg, or marked orthostatic changes (pulse increase > 20 bpm or systolic drop > 20 mmHg upon standing).
• Profound Hypothermia: Core body temperature < 35.5°C (95.9°F).
• Extreme Emaciation: Body weight < 75% of median expected body weight for age and height, or BMI < 14.0 kg/m².
• Cardiac Dysrhythmias: Marked prolongation of the QTc interval (> 460 ms) or significant unifocal/multifocal arrhythmias.
• Acute Medical Refusal: Complete refusal of food and oral fluids requiring nasogastric enteral feeding.

Acute Inpatient Medical Admission Criteria for Bulimia Nervosa include:

• Severe Electrolyte Derangements: Serum potassium < 3.0 mEq/L, serum chloride < 85 mEq/L, or serum bicarbonate > 35 mEq/L uncorrectable through routine outpatient oral repletion.
• Intractable Purging: Uncontrolled, continuous binge-purge cycles (e.g., 5 to 10+ episodes daily) that cannot be interrupted in less restrictive settings.
• Gastrointestinal Emergencies: Gross hematemesis, clinical signs of esophageal tear (Mallory-Weiss tear or Boerhaave syndrome), or acute severe epigastric pain suggesting gastric dilation or pancreatitis.
• Cardiac Arrhythmias: Palpitations accompanied by electrocardiographic evidence of ventricular irritability or marked QTc prolongation secondary to hypokalemia.

Once medical stabilization is achieved—vital signs normalized, electrolytes balanced, and immediate cardiac stability secured—the patient transitions to residential or partial hospitalization programs to address the profound behavioral and psychological infrastructure of the disorder before stepping down to intensive outpatient or standard outpatient management.

6.4 Tailoring Evidence-Based Treatment Strategies

Given the biological and psychological differences between anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, their evidence-based treatment pathways diverge substantially across both psychological modalities and psychopharmacological options.

For Anorexia Nervosa, psychological intervention cannot succeed in a severely starved brain. The initial phase of treatment focuses on nutritional rehabilitation, medical stabilization, and weight restoration. In children and adolescents, the gold-standard, first-line treatment is Family-Based Treatment (FBT), also known as the Maudsley approach. FBT operates from an agnostic stance, viewing parents not as the cause of the illness, but as the essential resource for recovery. In Phase 1 of FBT, parents are completely empowered to take charge of all meal planning, portioning, and consumption monitoring, unburdening the anxious adolescent from the overwhelming task of feeding themselves. In adults with anorexia, where FBT is developmentally inappropriate, evidence supports Specialist Supportive Clinical Management (SSCM), Enhanced Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT-E), and the Maudsley Model of Anorexia Nervosa Treatment for Adults (MANTRA), which directly target cognitive inflexibility, perfectionism, and pro-anorectic beliefs once adequate nutritional restoration is achieved.

From a pharmacotherapeutic standpoint, there are currently no medications approved by the US FDA for the treatment of anorexia nervosa. Systematic reviews demonstrate that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as fluoxetine or sertraline are ineffective in the acutely underweight state. In severe, treatment-refractory anorexia marked by extreme anxiety, obsessive rumination, and delusional body image distortions, low-dose atypical antipsychotics—specifically olanzapine (2.5 mg to 10 mg daily)—have demonstrated clinical utility in randomized trials. Olanzapine reduces obsessive cognitive food anxiety and promotes modest increases in the rate of weight restoration, though it must be used with careful cardiac monitoring due to potential metabolic and QTc effects.

For Bulimia Nervosa, the therapeutic hierarchy is very different. Because the majority of patients maintain a normal weight, immediate nutritional refeeding to reverse cachexia is rarely required. The gold-standard, first-line psychotherapy is individual Enhanced Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT-E). CBT-E is a highly structured, present-focused intervention divided into four clinical stages. Stage 1 focuses on establishing a pattern of regular, non-negotiable eating (three planned meals and two to three planned snacks per day), which directly disrupts the restriction-hunger-binge cycle. Later stages systematically dismantle dichotomous thinking, address the overvaluation of shape and weight, and integrate behavioral exposure to “forbidden” foods.

For patients who do not respond fully to CBT-E, Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) has demonstrated equivalent long-term clinical efficacy. IPT does not focus on food or eating behaviors directly; instead, it addresses the interpersonal context—grief, role disputes, role transitions, and interpersonal deficits—that triggers negative affect, which in turn fuels the binge-purge cycle. In younger cohorts, Family-Based Treatment adapted for bulimia (FBT-BN) is also highly effective.

In stark contrast to anorexia, pharmacotherapy plays a validated role in bulimia nervosa. The SSRI fluoxetine is FDA-approved for bulimia nervosa at an optimal therapeutic dosage of 60 mg daily—a significantly higher dose than that typically prescribed for major depressive disorder. Large-scale randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated that fluoxetine 60 mg/day produces rapid, substantial reductions in binge-eating and vomiting episodes, independent of its antidepressant effects, likely by stabilizing central serotonergic neurotransmission in satiety pathways. Critically, the antidepressant bupropion is strictly contraindicated in individuals with bulimia nervosa (and anorexia nervosa) due to a documented, unacceptably high risk of grand mal seizures, likely precipitated by rapid fluid and electrolyte shifts altering the seizure threshold.

7. Frequently Asked Questions

7.1 Can an individual be diagnosed with anorexia and bulimia simultaneously?

No, an individual cannot receive a simultaneous, concurrent dual diagnosis of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa under the diagnostic criteria of the DSM-5-TR or the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Contemporary psychiatric nosology strictly enforces a rule of diagnostic mutual exclusivity between these two conditions.

This exclusivity is governed by a clear diagnostic hierarchy centered on the somatic criterion of body weight. Criterion E of bulimia nervosa explicitly mandates that the binge-purge disturbance must not occur exclusively during episodes of anorexia nervosa. Consequently, if a patient meets every behavioral and cognitive benchmark for bulimia nervosa—engaging in massive objective binge eating followed by self-induced vomiting multiple times weekly—but their body weight falls below the minimally expected normal threshold (BMI < 18.5 kg/m² in adults), the correct clinical diagnosis is Anorexia Nervosa, Binge-Eating/Purging Subtype.

When an individual’s presentation evolves over time—for instance, a patient who was once severely emaciated with anorexia achieves a normal BMI but continues to binge and purge regularly—clinicians do not apply a concurrent diagnosis. Instead, they document a diagnostic migration or cross-over, retiring the diagnosis of anorexia nervosa and formally assigning a new primary diagnosis of bulimia nervosa to reflect the patient’s current phenotypic presentation.

7.2 Why does anorexia nervosa carry a higher mortality rate than bulimia nervosa?

Anorexia nervosa has the highest somatic mortality rate of any functional psychiatric disorder, with an estimated crude mortality rate between 5% and 10% per decade of illness, yielding a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) approximately six times higher than that of age-matched peers in the general population. While bulimia nervosa also carries an elevated mortality risk (SMR of approximately 1.5 to 2.0), the mortality of anorexia is substantially higher due to the devastating somatic consequences of chronic, unyielding catabolic starvation.

In anorexia nervosa, prolonged energy deprivation forces the human body into end-stage multi-organ atrophy. The primary somatic cause of death is sudden cardiovascular failure. As skeletal muscle is consumed, the myocardium undergoes progressive structural myocyte loss, leading to severe left ventricular thinning, profound sinus bradycardia, pericardial effusion, and irreversible electromechanical dissociation or ventricular fibrillation. Furthermore, emaciated patients face an exceptionally high risk of fatal refeeding syndrome during treatment, as rapid shifts in phosphate and potassium trigger acute congestive heart failure and respiratory paralysis. In addition to physical collapse, the intense, unremitting psychological pain of anorexia produces an astronomical suicide rate, representing up to one-third of all deaths in this cohort.

In bulimia nervosa, the somatic risk profile is structurally different. Because patients maintain a normal or near-normal body mass, their bodies preserve vital organ architecture, myocardial mass, and skeletal integrity. Somatic mortality in bulimia is almost exclusively driven by sudden, catastrophic acute events rather than slow organ wasting: fatal cardiac arrhythmias precipitated by acute hypokalemic electrolyte derangements, or mechanical gastrointestinal disasters such as Boerhaave syndrome (esophageal rupture) or acute gastric necrosis. Because these acute crises can often be medically reversed if detected promptly in an emergency setting, the overall lifetime mortality of bulimia remains lower than that of chronic anorexia nervosa.

7.3 How does purging in anorexia differ from purging in bulimia?

While the mechanics of purging—such as self-induced vomiting or the ingestion of stimulant laxatives—are physically identical across both conditions, the behavioral, psychological, and physiological context in which the purging occurs differs dramatically between anorexia and bulimia.

In the binge-eating/purging subtype of anorexia nervosa, purging frequently follows subjective binge eating or even normal, highly controlled meals. A patient with anorexia may consume an objectively tiny portion of food—such as an apple, a single rice cake, or half a cup of yogurt—and experience an overwhelming surge of panic and perceived fullness. In this state of cognitive distortion, the patient purges not to evacuate a massive volume of food, but to eliminate any caloric intake, attempting to preserve an emaciated physical state. When objective binges do occur in anorexia, they are typically smaller in volume compared to those seen in bulimia.

In contrast, purging in bulimia nervosa almost invariably occurs as the direct culmination of an objective binge-eating episode. The individual has consumed a massive, dense quantity of food (frequently thousands of calories) in an uncontrolled frenzy. The purging behavior in bulimia is driven by severe physical pain from acute gastric distension, accompanied by intense panic regarding the massive caloric load. Purging serves as an immediate negative reinforcement mechanism, providing visceral physical decompression and emotional relief from distress.

Finally, the underlying metabolic state during the purge differs profoundly. In anorexia nervosa, the purge occurs in an already dehydrated, catabolic body with depleted glycogen stores, setting the stage for rapid cardiovascular and electrolyte collapse. In bulimia nervosa, the purge occurs in a body experiencing acute digestive overload, triggering rapid fluid shifts from the vascular space into the gastrointestinal tract, predisposing the individual to severe rebound hypovolemia and secondary hyperaldosteronism.

7.4 What are the primary differences in medical refeeding and nutritional rehabilitation?

The protocols, clinical hazards, and nutritional philosophies guiding medical refeeding and dietary rehabilitation diverge significantly between anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, reflecting their divergent metabolic starting points.

In Anorexia Nervosa, nutritional rehabilitation is an acute, high-risk medical intervention that requires stringent clinical oversight. The central danger during the initial refeeding phase is Refeeding Syndrome—a potentially lethal metabolic condition triggered by the rapid reinstitution of carbohydrate nutrition to a starved individual. When carbohydrates are reintroduced, the body shifts abruptly from catabolic fat oxidation to anabolic carbohydrate metabolism. This surge stimulates massive insulin secretion, which drives circulating phosphate, potassium, and magnesium out of the bloodstream and into the cells to facilitate glycolysis and protein synthesis. The resulting severe hypophosphatemia, hypokalemia, and hypomagnesemia can trigger acute heart failure, lethal cardiac arrhythmias, pulmonary edema, seizures, and death.

Consequently, nutritional rehabilitation in anorexia requires continuous monitoring of serum electrolytes (particularly phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium) every 12 to 24 hours during the first two weeks of refeeding. Modern evidence-based protocols recommend starting caloric intake at moderate levels (typically between 1,200 and 1,500 kcal/day, or in higher-calorie refeeding protocols, 1,400 to 2,000 kcal/day under continuous medical telemetry) with aggressive prophylactic electrolyte supplementation, titrating upward by 200 to 300 kcal every few days to achieve a target weight gain of 2 to 3 pounds (1.0 to 1.5 kg) per week in inpatient settings.

In Bulimia Nervosa, nutritional therapy does not focus on reversing physical wasting or preventing refeeding syndrome, as these patients maintain normal glycogen reserves and lean tissue mass. Instead, nutritional rehabilitation in bulimia is a behavioral intervention designed to break the psychological and physiological cycle of binging and purging. The primary goal is the immediate establishment of mechanical eating: a structured, predictable pattern consisting of three balanced meals and two to three planned snacks per day, spaced no more than three to four hours apart.

Nutritional therapy in bulimia focuses on dismantling rigid food rules, gradually reintroducing “fear foods” (such as carbohydrates and fats) into structured meals, and eliminating prolonged periods of fasting that trigger biological hunger-driven binges. Caloric progression is not stepped upward to force tissue accretion; rather, it is maintained at an isocaloric maintenance level from the outset. Furthermore, postprandial behavioral support is prioritized in bulimia: patients require intensive psychological scaffolding and delay strategies during the critical 60 to 90 minutes following a meal to tolerate visceral fullness and prevent purging.

8. Conclusion: A Comprehensive Understanding of Eating Pathologies

8.1 Synthesis of Core Distinctions and Convergences

Anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa stand as two distinct yet intimately related manifestations of a shared, underlying psychopathological drive: the destructive, overvalued quest to achieve self-worth, emotional regulation, and personal control through the rigorous manipulation of eating, shape, and weight. Disentangling their clinical presentations requires an integrated understanding of both their sharp diagnostic boundaries and their profound dimensional commonalities.

The fundamental diagnostic line separating the two disorders remains an objective, biological parameter: somatic body weight. Anorexia nervosa demands the presence of significantly low body weight (BMI strictly below 18.5 kg/m² in adults), sustained through chronic, severe energy restriction that frequently presents as an ego-syntonic source of pride and discipline. Bulimia nervosa presents in individuals of normal or above-normal weight who are caught in an exhausting, ego-dystonic cycle of objective, loss-of-control binge eating followed by desperate compensatory purging, accompanied by intense feelings of guilt, shame, and remorse.

Yet, looking beneath these divergent outward phenotypes reveals an identical cognitive engine. Both disorders are characterized by intense, obsessive-compulsive preoccupations with food, pervasive body checking and avoidance rituals, and profound perceptual distortions regarding physical body dimensions. Furthermore, their high polygenic heritability, overlapping frontostriatal neurocircuitry, elevated psychiatric comorbidity, and frequent longitudinal diagnostic migration demonstrate that anorexia and bulimia are not mutually isolated islands, but rather dynamic, shifting states along an interconnected transdiagnostic eating disorder continuum.

8.2 Future Directions in Research and Clinical Management

As psychiatric medicine advances, the management of eating disorders is entering a new era of biological discovery and therapeutic innovation. Landmark advances in psychiatric genomics, including the continuing work of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, are charting the complex polygenic architecture of eating disorders, uncovering novel loci that bridge metabolic pathways and psychiatric traits. In the coming years, genetic and neuroimaging biomarkers may enable the development of precision medicine approaches, identifying which patients are biologically predisposed to severe restrictive trajectories versus impulsive bulimic phenotypes, allowing clinicians to tailor interventions long before severe somatic complications materialize.

In the psychopharmacological realm, emerging investigations are exploring novel agents that move beyond traditional monoaminergic reuptake inhibitors. Researchers are actively examining the therapeutic potential of neuroplasticity-enhancing compounds, including psychedelic-assisted psychotherapies (such as psilocybin and MDMA-assisted therapy) in highly controlled clinical trials, evaluating their efficacy in dismantling the deeply entrenched, rigid cognitive beliefs that sustain chronic anorexia nervosa. Concurrently, investigations into gut-brain axis communication, the intestinal microbiome, and the neuroendocrinology of satiety peptides (such as GLP-1, ghrelin, and peptide YY) offer promising targets for disrupting the dysregulated hunger and reward circuits that drive binge-eating behavior.

Ultimately, transforming the long-term prognosis of eating disorders requires breaking down clinical and societal silos. It demands the universal implementation of early screening protocols across primary care, athletic, and school health environments to identify disordered eating behaviors before chronicity takes root. Furthermore, it requires the establishment of comprehensive, interdisciplinary clinical teams—seamlessly integrating medical physicians, psychiatric providers, specialized clinical psychologists, registered dietitians, and family systems—to address the full complexity of these illnesses. By approaching anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa with diagnostic rigor, neurobiological humility, and unyielding therapeutic empathy, the medical community can illuminate the pathway out of the labyrinth of eating pathology, guiding individuals toward full, sustained somatic and psychological recovery.

References

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
• American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: Text revision (5th ed., text rev.). American Psychiatric Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
• American Psychiatric Association. (2023). Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with eating disorders (4th ed.). American Journal of Psychiatry, 180(2), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.20230001
• Fairburn, C. G., Cooper, Z., & Shafran, R. (2003). Cognitive behaviour therapy for eating disorders: A “transdiagnostic” theory and treatment strategy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(5), 509–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00088-8
• Gull, W. W. (1874). Anorexia nervosa (apepsia hysterica, anorexia hysterica). Transactions of the Clinical Society of London, 7, 22–28.
• Lock, J., & Le Grange, D. (2015). Treatment manual for anorexia nervosa: A family-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Mehler, P. S., & Andersen, A. E. (2017). Eating disorders: A guide to medical care and complications (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Russell, G. (1979). Bulimia nervosa: An ominous variant of anorexia nervosa. Psychological Medicine, 9(3), 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329170003197X
• Treasure, J., Duarte, T. A., & Schmidt, U. (2020). The cognitive-interpersonal maintenance model of anorexia nervosa revisited: A summary of the evidence for cognitive, socio-emotional and interpersonal predisposing and perpetuating factors. Journal of Eating Disorders, 8(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-020-00364-z
• Watson, H. J., Yilmaz, Z., Thornton, L. M., Hübel, C., Coleman, J. R., Gaspar, H. A., Bryois, J., Hinney, A., Leppä, V. M., Mattheisen, M., Medland, S. E., Ripke, S., Yao, S., Giusti-Rodríguez, P., Hanscombe, K. B., Adan, R. A., Alfredsson, L., Ando, T., Andreassen, O. A., … Bulik, C. M. (2019). Genome-wide association study identifies eight risk loci and implicates metabo-psychiatric origins for anorexia nervosa. Nature Genetics, 51(8), 1207–1214. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-019-0439-2