A Commentary on “Comparing Operationalizations of Eating Disorder Recovery Using a Comprehensive Lens: Physical, Behavioral, and Cognitive Domains” by Bardone‐Cone et al.

Defining recovery in eating disorders remains a major challenge due to the absence of standardized, empirically validated criteria. Bardone-Cone et al. (2025) address this gap by testing multidimensional, transdiagnostic recovery criteria spanning physical, behavioral, and cognitive domains. This commentary evaluates the suitability of these criteria for anorexia nervosa (AN). Applying a partial version of the proposed criteria to two independent AN datasets, a high-severity inpatient/day-patient sample and an outpatient sample, revealed very low rates of full recovery and marked instability over time. These findings suggest that, when applied to AN, the criteria may be overly restrictive and insufficiently sensitive to clinically meaningful change, defining recovery as rare and fragile. Three key implications emerge: AN recovery definitions should incorporate broader functional outcomes such as social functioning and quality of life; lived experience perspectives are essential for capturing subjective and identity-related aspects of recovery; and recovery should be conceptualized as a nonlinear, evolving process rather than a binary state. Although Bardone-Cone et al.'s work represents an important step toward standardizing recovery definitions, further refinement is needed to ensure that recovery criteria are clinically meaningful and diagnosis-sensitive for AN.