The Myth of Lifelong Eating Disorders - Why Full Recovery from Eating Disorders Is Possible

The Myth of Lifelong Eating Disorders

The belief that eating disorders are inevitably lifelong illnesses remains an annoyingly persistent and widespread cultural myth. It’s even more frustrating when this view is reinforced by medical professionals or treatment providers, as it can be discouraging and harmful for people in recovery.

Fortunately, modern medical and psychological research increasingly recognises that this perspective is outdated. Recent longitudinal studies and findings from neuroplasticity research tell a far more nuanced and hopeful story. Structural and functional changes in the brain caused by illness can normalise or show significant restoration. Long-term follow-ups demonstrate that long lasting recovery is not only possible but well documented—even after decades of struggling.

Despite the evidence, the "once an eating disorder sufferer, always an eating disorder sufferer" myth persists for several reasons:

Language and Attitudes Borrowed from Addiction Culture

Much of the language surrounding eating disorders has been shaped by addiction culture. Phrases like “once an addict, always an addict” may be catchy and memorable—but they are slogans rather than scientific conclusions. Older clinical models often compared eating disorders to chronic substance addiction—conditions in which a person is considered to be “in lifelong recovery” but never fully recovered. While there are some behavioural similarities, like secrecy, ritualised actions, and distress when stopping the behaviour, eating disorders are not addictions. The underlying causes and recovery processes are different. Equating the two is an oversimplification.

Some support communities use 12-step frameworks built around lifelong management—even if their effectiveness is questionable, since you can’t fully abstain from food. I take other issues with the 12-step model, you can read about them here. While these models can help certain people, they do not represent the full clinical picture. Research shows that many people achieve full recovery, even if this outcome is less well known to the public.

Short-Term Relapse Can Create Long-Term Pessimism

The first couple of years after treatment carry a higher risk of relapse. Because clinicians and families witness these early setbacks, it can create understandable pessimism. Recovery is rarely linear—relapse is the rule rather than the exception. Slips, lapses, and relapses indicate areas that still need attention, tell you there is still work to be done. Long-lasting recovery likely isn’t possible until these aspects are addressed.

To outside observers—or someone feeling discouraged—a single lapse can look like proof that the illness is permanent. This black-and-white interpretation overlooks that learning curves are part of lasting change. Setbacks can provide information that strengthens long-term recovery rather than making it impossible.

Over time, those who fully recover tend to leave the treatment system, while clinicians continue to see individuals in early or chronic stages. This “revolving door” effect can unintentionally reinforce the impression that eating disorders are always lifelong—a classic example of selection bias.

Palliative Thinking

Some treatment professionals advocate for palliative care or harm-reduction approaches after many years of illness, once an eating disorder is considered chronic. While supportive care is important, and it’s essential to respect the individual’s autonomy, long-term studies show that meaningful recovery can occur even after 15, 20, or more years. Assuming that a condition is lifelong can limit expectations and narrow the range of treatment and support options available. We can - and must - do better than this.

Cultural Stigma and Identity Narratives

The media often frames eating disorders as personality traits or personal choices rather than treatable health conditions. Portrayals frequently romanticise them—especially anorexia—depicting them as lifelong demons that must be battled forever. Bit too theatrical for my taste and entirely unfounded.

Yes, eating disorders are very serious illnesses with a high mortality rate; anorexia nervosa ranks second only to opioid addiction in terms of death risk. At the same time, misunderstandings about genetics lead many people to assume that a highly heritable illness is permanently hardwired. This overlooks the role of epigenetics and neuroplasticity, which show that environment, behaviour, and experience can reshape how genetic vulnerabilities are expressed over time.

Confusing Relapse Risk with Lifelong Illness

Eating disorders, like many health conditions, carry a risk of relapse, especially during periods of intense stress. Risk, however, does not equal inevitability. A genetic predisposition means vulnerability, not certainty that you will develop an eating disorder.

As research shows, having a particular genetic risk factor may make someone more sensitive to stress, change how their nervous system processes reward, or increase anxiety, but it does not determine that an eating disorder will inevitably develop. As the saying goes, “Genes load the gun, but the environment pulls the trigger.”

Imagine a cup that must overflow for an eating disorder to develop. Genetic sensitivity may mean your cup is partially full when you are born, but life experiences and your environment add or remove liquid. Many of these factors can be changed, and even gene expression can shift through epigenetic processes. Therapy and neurological healing can increase your cup`s capacity to hold stress without overflowing. The cup itself can grow.

Historical Bias in Early Treatment Research

Earlier clinical research focused heavily on severe, hospitalised cases, which contributed to the narrative of chronicity. The reality is that those were simply the patients most readily available for study.

Since then, our understanding of these illnesses and the populations they affect has grown—for example, we now know that men, neurodivergent folks, and older adults, including those with ARFID, are more frequently impacted than earlier research suggested.

Modern long-term follow-up studies reveal a much more varied picture—including substantial rates of full recovery. As research has expanded beyond hospital settings, our understanding of outcomes has become both more optimistic and more nuanced.

Incomplete Understanding of Genetics

Eating disorders show moderate to high heritability in twin studies, but genes do not code directly for certain eating disorders like anorexia, BED or bulimia themselves. Instead, they influence traits such as anxiety, perfectionism, metabolic sensitivity to fasting, and responsiveness to reward or punishment.

These are risk factors, as illustrated with the cup metaphor. The brain remains plastic, and gene expression is dynamic, allowing recovery to build new neural pathways and shape biological responses.

Eating disorders are biopsychosocial illnesses, shaped by the dynamic interaction of biology, psychology, and environment. Focusing narrowly on heredity and using that to argue that full recovery is impossible oversimplifies what science actually shows.

Why Does It Matter How We Talk About Recovery?

How professionals frame recovery matters. Research shows that negative expectations—like telling someone full recovery is impossible—can create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Expecting poor outcomes can reduce effort and engagement, keeping someone stuck in remission rather than moving toward full recovery. Presenting an ED as a permanent, “hardwired” condition can foster a fixed, helpless mindset, whereas emphasising neuroplasticity and growth supports patients’ belief in their ability to change.

Patients often internalize how their providers see them. Viewing someone as a “chronic patient” can turn the illness into part of their identity, making recovery feel like losing themselves. It is much harder to let go of something that feels like a core part of who you are.

Framing recovery as achievable helps maintain motivation and engagement, and empowers sufferers to pursue full recovery.

In Part Two of this blog post, we will explore what the science says about neuroplasticity and the genetics of eating disorders.

Sources:

1. Bronleigh, M., Baumann, O., & Stapleton, P. (2022). Neural correlates associated with processing food stimuli in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa: An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of fMRI studies. Eating and Weight Disorders.

2. Chen, X., Ai, C., Liu, Z., & Wang, G. (2024). Neuroimaging studies of resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging in eating disorders. BMC Medical Imaging.

3. Wagner, A., Greer, P., Bailer, U. F., et al. (2006). Normal brain tissue volumes after long-term recovery in anorexia and bulimia nervosa. American Journal of Psychiatry.

4. Foerde, K., Steinglass, J. E., Shohamy, D., & Walsh, B. T. (2015). Changes in brain and behavior during food-based decision-making following treatment of anorexia nervosa. Journal of Eating Disorders.

5. Frank, G. K. W. (2019). Neuroimaging and eating disorders. Current Opinion in Psychiatry.

6. Frieling, H., Römer, K. D., Scholz, S., et al. (2010). Epigenetic dysregulation of dopaminergic genes in eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders.

7. Hübel, C., Marzi, S. J., Breen, G., & Bulik, C. M. (2019). Epigenetics in eating disorders: A systematic review. Molecular Psychiatry.

8. Booij, L., & Steiger, H. (2020). Applying epigenetic science to the understanding of eating disorders: A promising paradigm for research and practice. Current Opinion in Psychiatry.

9. Campbell, I. C. (2011). Eating disorders, gene–environment interactions and epigenetics. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

10. Eddy, K. T., Tabri, N., Thomas, J. J., et al. (2017). Recovery from anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa at 22-year follow-up. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.