I thought that his opinion might interest some of you.
He said he didn't think IT needed to be changed, but the interpretation needed to be changed. He explained that many doctors have become confused with the 85% thing, and that it is only an example--that the part that mentions 15% below that expected is after "i.e." which means "for example". So there is no magic number, and that 85% is really something that came out of nowhere, and for a smart practitioner has no medical value. He also stated that someone COULD be overweight and be diagnosed with anorexia.
This might not be new information for some of you, but it really was for me.
Now this is only coming from one person, but he regularly diagnoses people, and has been working in eating disorders for about 25 years.
I did find it interesting that he looked at i.e. as an example, when it really means "that is" so I can see where health practioners could look at the 15% as a mandatory requirement.
For those of us that may not be familiar with the current criteria:
Refusal to maintain body weight over a minimum normal weight for age and height (i.e. weight loss leading to body weight 15% below that expected… or…failure to make expected weight gain during a period of growth, leading to body weight 15% below that expected.)
Intense fear of gaining weight or becoming fat even though underweight.
Disturbance in the way in which one's body weight, size or shape is experienced, undue influence of body shape and weight on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of low body weight.
In females, absence of at least three consecutive menstrual cycles when otherwise expected to occur (primary or secondary amenorrhoea), or periods only occur when given hormones (such as birth control)