Why the Architecture of Stress Models are Essential for the Future of Health and Medicine
Welcome to the latest insights from the Center for Adaptive Stress, where we delve into the pivotal role of evolutionary stress in shaping human health and behavior. Our focus is not just on stress as an isolated factor, but on stress as a fundamental framework within which complex systems, including our bodies and minds, operate and interact.
Understanding Evolutionary Stress:
At the heart of our exploration is the concept of evolutionary stress, a lens through which we can understand the intricate ways in which stress has shaped and continues to shape human evolution, behavior, and health. This perspective goes beyond viewing stress as a mere variable affecting isolated outcomes; it positions stress as a central organizing principle in the complex adaptive system that is the human body.
The Need for a Stress Model:
Recognizing the complexity of stress and its systemic effects, we emphasize the necessity of a stress model that captures these intricate dynamics. This model isn’t linear, focusing solely on cause and effect; rather, it’s holistic, considering the myriad ways stress influences and is influenced by various aspects of our lives and health. It’s about understanding how stress, in its many forms, interacts with our neurological, psychological, and immunological systems, creating patterns that can inform our approach to health and well-being.
Our Mission:
Our mission at the Center for Adaptive Stress is to deepen our understanding of this complex interplay. By viewing stress through the evolutionary lens and employing a comprehensive stress model, we aim to uncover insights that can transform our approach to health, both in terms of prevention and intervention. We believe that by embracing this broader perspective, we can better understand the nuances of human health and develop more effective strategies for managing stress in our lives.
We invite you to join us on this journey of discovery, where we unravel the complexities of evolutionary stress and its profound impact on our lives. Together, we can advance our understanding and find more adaptive, effective ways to navigate the stressors of the modern world.
Thank you for being a part of our community at the Center for Adaptive Stress.
Warm regards,
Lori Hogenkamp—-Center for Adaptive Stress
ALL ROADS LEAD TO STRESS
Imagine four experts walking into a conference: an endocrinologist describes erratic cortisol levels in patients, an immunologist reports chronic inflammation in autoimmune disease, a trauma psychologist talks about the lasting imprint of childhood adversity, and a nutritionist warns how modern diets fuel oxidative damage. At first glance, they’re discussing different problems. Yet a unifying theme emerges from their separate fields: stress regulation. Across conditions as diverse as autism and chronic illness, research from multiple disciplines is converging on the idea that how our bodies manage stress may be the key that connects them all. In other words, no matter which road of science you travel – hormones, immunity, psychology, or nutrition – all roads lead to stress.
This convergence isn’t merely poetic; it’s grounded in biology. Chronic stress triggers a domino effect throughout the body, what pioneering neuroscientist Bruce McEwen famously termed allostatic load, the “wear and tear” caused by prolonged adaptation to stress. Toxic stress – intense or long-term stress without adequate support – can push our physiology into dysregulation. Over time, the consequences of unmanaged stress ripple across bodily systems: metabolic, endocrine, immune, and more. In autism research, for instance, scientists have begun to frame autistic burnout and other challenges as potential results of accumulated stress load on the body’s regulation systems. The common denominator is clear: whether the issue is hormonal imbalance, immune flares, trauma responses, or metabolic dysfunction, the capacity to maintain balance under stress is front and center.
To understand how stress links such a wide array of conditions, it helps to look at how the body regulates stress. There are at least three major “stress-regulation channels” in our biology. Think of them like three circuits on a complex circuit board, each handling a different aspect of stress but all interconnected. Let’s take a tour of these channels – the hormone pathway, the inflammation pathway, and the brain’s predictive pathway – to see how they contribute to health and illness.
HPA Axis and Cortisol: The Hormone Highway
One of the most well-known stress circuits is the HPA axis – the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis – our hormone-based stress response system. When we encounter a threat or challenge, the HPA axis kicks in to release cortisol and other stress hormones that help us cope. Cortisol is often called the “stress hormone” for good reason: it’s the end-product of this hormonal highway and a key messenger that tells the body to mobilize energy. Researchers have found that the HPA axis plays a central role in conditions like autism, with cortisol as the chief hormone produced in response to stress. Under healthy conditions, cortisol follows a daily rhythm (high in the morning to energize us, low at night for sleep) and spikes appropriately during acute stress. This rhythmicity is crucial – like a daily tide that helps wash away the metabolic debris of stress and prepare for a new day.
Problems arise when the cortisol rhythm and HPA axis regulation break down. Chronic or repeated stress can lead to HPA axis dysregulation, where cortisol levels either remain too high, drop too low, or lose their normal cycle. For example, many autistic individuals show atypical cortisol patterns or exaggerated stress responses, suggesting their “hormone highway” may be running either in constant overdrive or conversely, in a state of burnout. In other chronic illnesses, from chronic fatigue syndrome to depression, flattened or erratic cortisol rhythms are frequently observed. It’s as if the body’s stress thermostat is stuck at the wrong setting. Over time, an overactive HPA axis (constant high cortisol) can wear down the body – impairing sleep, depressing immune function, and contributing to weight gain or blood sugar issues. On the flip side, an underactive or sluggish HPA response can leave one unable to mount an adequate response to everyday challenges, contributing to fatigue and inflammation.
In short, the HPA axis is our hormonal stress highway – when functioning, it’s a smooth ride adjusting to bumps on the road; when misregulated, we either plow through with screeching tires (excess cortisol) or stall out (cortisol crash). This hormone circuit teaches an important lesson: timing and moderation of stress signals matter. A spike of cortisol at the right moment can save your life; chronically elevated cortisol, however, exacts a cost on body and mind.
Inflammation and Oxidative Stress: The Immune Fire Alarm
Another major stress-regulation channel involves the immune system – specifically inflammation and oxidative stress. If cortisol is like the body’s immediate stress alarm, inflammation is more like a slow-burning fire that, when unchecked, can spread and damage tissues. Inflammation is part of our normal defense system (for healing injuries or fighting infections), but chronic stress can turn it into a persistent, smoldering flame. For instance, long-term exposure to stress can lead to physical “wear and tear,” and research shows that oxidative stress (an imbalance between damaging free radicals and antioxidants in the body) can kickstart inflammatory pathways. In essence, stress chemistry sparks a fire in our cells – releasing molecules that signal the immune system as if there’s an ongoing threat even when no infection is present.
This chronic inflammation and oxidative stress have been implicated in virtually every chronic illness, from heart disease and diabetes to neurodegenerative diseases and depression. It’s also evident in autism and related neurodevelopmental conditions: studies find higher markers of inflammation and oxidative stress in some autistic individuals, linking stress biology to features like energy metabolism differences or heightened sensory sensitivity. One way to picture it is an “immune fire alarm” that won’t shut off. A smoke alarm is lifesaving when there’s an actual fire, but a malfunctioning alarm that blares constantly is itself harmful – disrupting sleep, fraying nerves, and ultimately damaging the system it was meant to protect. Similarly, chronic inflammation is like a fire alarm ringing incessantly, contributing to tissue damage and exhaustion of the immune response. Oxidative stress, meanwhile, is the sparks and embers at the cellular level, caused by everything from psychological stress to junk food diets. Over time, these sparks can harm DNA, mitochondria, and cell membranes, aging our cells and promoting diseases of wear and tear.
The convergence of stress and inflammation is so strong that some scientists view many “diseases of civilization” as essentially stress–inflammation syndromes. It’s not that stress directly causes, say, autoimmune disease or cancer, but it creates the internal environment (via hormones and immune signals) that makes these outcomes more likely. A body caught in a loop of low-grade inflammation is like an ecosystem under constant drizzle – eventually, the dampness causes rot. And once again, we see this in autism as well: while autism is not “caused” by stress in any simple way (neurodevelopment is far more complex), the daily stress of navigating a world not suited to one’s sensory and social needs can pile on additional inflammatory burden. The key insight is that managing inflammation and oxidative stress is part of managing stress, broadly defined. Eating anti-inflammatory nutrients, getting enough sleep and recovery, avoiding chronic psychological strain – all these help douse the flames. This immune channel of stress reminds us that our health is an ecosystem, and stress can destabilize that ecosystem’s equilibrium by fanning hidden flames.
Interoception and Allostasis: The Brain’s Prediction Engine
Beyond hormones and immune molecules, there’s a more subtle stress-regulation channel: the brain’s predictive regulation of the body, known as interoception and allostasis. While “homeostasis” (maintaining equilibrium) is often thought of like a thermostat reacting to changes, allostasis is a more dynamic concept – it’s how the body achieves stability through change, by predicting needs and adjusting in advance. Neuroscientists sometimes describe this as the brain managing a “body budget” – allocating energy and resources based on what it expects will happen. Every sensation of thirst, hunger, pain, or calm is part of interoception – the internal sensory network by which the brain monitors the body. Using these signals, the brain makes predictions: Winter is coming, better increase appetite and store fat; That sound is scary, heart rate should go up; We’re safe at home, we can relax now. This predictive engine is constantly fine-tuning our stress response. Ideally, allostasis means your brain preemptively keeps you in balance – like a smart thermostat that not only reacts to temperature changes but also notes weather forecasts to keep the house comfortable.
However, in many chronic conditions and in autism, this predictive loop can go awry. If the brain’s expectations and the body’s feedback are mismatched, stress can result. For example, someone with PTSD might have a hair-trigger prediction of danger (due to past trauma), causing an overactive stress response to mild stimuli. In autism, research on interoception suggests that autistic individuals often perceive internal signals differently – which can lead to anxiety or meltdowns when the brain struggles to predict bodily states or emotions accurately. Inefficient allostasis means the brain is essentially overdrafting the body budget, making bad “investments” of energy. One theory even posits that many mental health disorders involve interoceptive prediction errors – the brain repeatedly guessing wrong about the body, leading to inefficient regulation and chronic stress feelings.
To illustrate, think of allostasis like predictive cruise control in a car. If it’s calibrated well, it anticipates hills and accelerates or brakes smoothly, keeping the ride steady. If mis-calibrated, it might overreact – slamming the brakes or gas too hard – causing a jerky ride (stress spikes) or draining the fuel tank (energy burnout). Emerging theories emphasize that allostasis, this anticipatory regulation of body processes, is crucial for understanding stress-related disorders. In essence, our brain’s ability to interpret and predict internal states can determine whether we stay resilient or get overwhelmed. This channel teaches us that stress isn’t just about external events, but about how our brain predicts and perceives those events internally. Improving interoception – through practices like mindfulness, biofeedback, or therapies that tune into bodily signals – can thereby improve stress regulation by refining the brain-body prediction engine.
From Toxic Stress to Dynamic Regulation: Bruce McEwen’s Legacy
No discussion of stress science is complete without mentioning the late Bruce McEwen, a towering figure whose work over decades shaped our understanding of stress and health. In the 1990s, McEwen introduced the concept of allostatic load, providing a scientific language for what chronic toxic stress does to us: it wears us down. He and colleagues showed how repeated stress responses could alter brain structures (like the hippocampus, crucial for memory and mood) and how the cumulative strain from stress leads to disease over time. Early on, McEwen’s research highlighted toxic stress – stress that is intense, prolonged, or lacking support – as especially damaging, because it overwhelms our capacity to cope and triggers physiological chaos. Intervention programs for disadvantaged children and efforts to mitigate childhood adversity have drawn directly on his evidence that early toxic stress literally gets “under the skin” to affect lifelong health.
Yet what makes McEwen’s legacy so rich is that he did not stop at cataloguing damage; his later work increasingly emphasized complexity, adaptation, and resilience. As science evolved, McEwen began to paint a more dynamic picture of stress. He popularized allostasis – the idea that the body isn’t passively hammered by stress, but actively adjusts and adapts (for better or worse) to stressors. In his later years, McEwen’s focus turned to how factors like nutrition, exercise, social connection, and early-life experiences shape the brain through epigenetic changes. He even referred to himself as a “molecular sociologist,” underscoring how social and environmental contexts influence molecular biology. In other words, he moved from a somewhat linear model (stress leads to wear-and-tear which leads to disease) to a more integrative model: stress is a central organizing factor that interacts with lifestyle, genes, and environment in a two-way dialogue. Stress can harm, but with the right support and behaviors, we can also harness stress responses to rebuild and grow (think of hormesis – the idea that some stress, like exercise, makes us stronger by prompting adaptation).
McEwen’s legacy for today’s topic is twofold. First, he validated that stress regulation isn’t touchy-feely but profoundly biological – chronic stress literally reshapes brains and bodies, contributing to conditions from depression to diabetes. Second, he nudged science toward viewing health as a dynamic balance rather than a static state. He helped shift the question from “How do we eliminate stress?” (impossible, and not even desirable in small doses) to “How do we manage and regulate stress in a healthy way?” His work laid the groundwork for understanding that a well-regulated stress system can be a bridge to resilience, whereas a dysregulated one is a pathway to disease. This evolution in perspective – from seeing stress as the enemy to seeing stress as a process we can learn to regulate – underpins much of the new thinking in areas like autism and chronic illness today.
Beyond One Cause: The Limits of Linear Thinking in Health
If multiple scientific roads are pointing to stress regulation as key, why hasn’t our medical approach fully caught up? Part of the challenge is a mindset issue. Traditional evidence-based medicine (EBM) and even some alternative health movements (including the recent “Make America Healthy Again” or MAHA movement) often fall into the trap of linear, root-cause thinking. It’s the idea that for each illness, there must be one primary cause – a specific gene, a single pathogen, a lone nutrient deficiency or toxin – and thus one prime target to fix. While this approach has led to many successes (like identifying bacteria for infections or single-gene disorders), it struggles to capture complex conditions like autism or multi-factorial chronic diseases. These conditions behave more like network problems than simple cause-effect chains.
In the realm of EBM, the gold-standard methods like randomized trials are powerful for isolating effects of single variables, but they inherently simplify variables and averages. As one scholar noted, the prevailing scientific method in medicine arises from a linear cause-and-effect assumption, whereas in reality most health phenomena “emerge from nonlinearity in networked systems”. In complex adaptive systems (like a human body developing autism or a lifetime of health), many factors are necessary but not sufficient on their own to cause an outcome. For example, dozens of genes, a few prenatal environmental factors, and certain stress exposures might all interact to influence the likelihood of an autism spectrum condition – there is no single “smoking gun.” Similarly, two people with the same diagnosis might get there via very different pathways. This is the concept of equifinality (different paths, same outcome) and conversely multifinality (same initial factors, divergent outcomes). Linear thinking finds these concepts maddening, because it wants A -> B causality. But health and development don’t work like a simple domino chain; they’re more like a web.
On the flip side, the MAHA movement – which is built around improving public health by going “back to basics” and fixing root causes – correctly intuits that our modern health crises (obesity, chronic disease, developmental disorders) are systemic. MAHA proponents often challenge mainstream narratives, pointing to factors like ultra-processed foods, environmental toxins, or lifestyle changes as the “real” causes that medicine overlooks. The intention is to address causes rather than just treat symptoms, which is laudable. However, in practice some MAHA-aligned influencers replace one kind of reductionism with another. It’s not uncommon to hear claims that cutting out one supposed villain (say, seed oils in the diet) or megadosing one “miracle” nutrient will cure all ills. Social media is rife with simplistic solutions: X is the root of all evil, eliminate X and you’ll be healthy. These prescriptions may feel intuitively satisfying, but they often lean on anecdotes or “vibes” rather than a balanced view of evidence. For instance, some voices in the MAHA space rail against seed oils as toxic while praising butter and beef tallow as panaceas, despite mixed evidence and a lack of consensus among nutrition scientists.
The issue with both conventional and alternative linear approaches is that they can lead to symptom-chasing or tunnel vision. Mainstream medicine might try one drug after another for an autoimmune patient – each drug addressing a piece of the puzzle (inflammation, pain, etc.) but never stepping back to see why the whole system is inflamed to begin with. Meanwhile, an alt-health approach might obsess over one factor (gluten, or glyphosate, or gut flora) and throw dozens of natural supplements at a patient, still without truly restoring balance to the system. Both can miss the forest for the trees. In a complex system like the human body, there usually isn’t a single tree that caused the forest fire – it’s an interplay of weather, underbrush, sparks, and more. Thus, focusing on one tree (be it a molecule or a food ingredient) may not prevent future fires.
This doesn’t mean evidence is useless or that root causes don’t exist – rather, it means we have to expand our thinking to networks of causes and feedback loops. It means recognizing that for conditions like autism and chronic illness, we should move beyond looking for a lone bullet. The limitations of EBM in this regard have even led doctors to call for an updated paradigm “using chaos and complexity science” to address 21st-century health problems. Likewise, the limitations of one-size-fits-all alternative fixes compel a more personalized and systemic outlook. Complexity doesn’t offer the easy certainty of a single-cause narrative, but it offers something more fitting to reality: a way to understand health as a coordination of many factors, more like an ecosystem than a machine.
From Symptom-Chasing to System-Building
What’s the practical upshot of embracing this complexity? It’s a shift from chasing symptoms or single causes to building systems. Instead of asking “What pill or nutrient fixes this symptom?”, we ask “How can we support the entire ecosystem of the body so it regulates itself better?” This is a fundamentally different mindset, one that seeks coherence and balance rather than silver bullets. If health is like a garden, symptom-focused approaches are like whack-a-mole with weeds; a system-building approach is about cultivating soil health, proper sunlight, and diverse plants so that weeds have a harder time taking over in the first place.
In the context of stress and autism or chronic illness, this means focusing on stress regulation capacity as a goal in itself. Rather than viewing stress-related symptoms (be it anxiety, inflammation, fatigue, or behavioral challenges) as isolated problems to suppress, we view them as signals of underlying dysregulation. The aim is then to foster resilience factors and reduce stressors in a personalized way. This might involve interventions that seem modest on their own but together restore balance: consistent sleep routines to normalize cortisol rhythms, anti-inflammatory dietary changes to cool down the immune system, therapy to process trauma and reduce hyper-vigilant predictions, exercise to build metabolic and hormonal resilience, mindfulness to improve interoceptive awareness, social support to provide external buffering of stress, and so on. The key is synergy – each piece supports the others in bringing the system toward coherence.
Personalization is crucial here. Complex systems like our bodies have individual quirks – our genetic makeup, childhood experiences, and even our microbiomes mean that what constitutes a stressor or a support can vary widely between people. For example, one autistic person might find relief and regulation through a structured daily routine and sensory accommodations, while another might thrive by improving gut health and nutrient status to support their energy levels and mood. Both are addressing stress regulation, but through different entry points. A system-building approach honors these individual differences (sometimes called “bio-individuality” or different bio-neurotypes in neurodiversity parlance) rather than insisting on a one-size solution.
Moreover, system-building means recognizing that health interventions often work best in combination. It’s the orchestra concept: in an orchestra, no single instrument by itself produces the symphony, but each contributes to the harmony. In health, you might need a bit of nutrition, a bit of therapy, a bit of medicine, a bit of lifestyle change – together – to truly move the needle. This is why some pioneering clinics and integrative medicine practices use team-based approaches for conditions like chronic pain or autism, bringing together physicians, nutritionists, psychologists, and others to craft a comprehensive plan. The goal is to improve the overall ecosystem coherence of the person’s health – ensuring all the “roads” (hormonal, immune, neural, etc.) are pointing in a healthy direction and not at odds with each other.
Ultimately, moving from symptom-chasing to system-building is empowering. It turns the focus to strengthening the foundations of health (sleep, nutrition, stress coping, environment) and tailoring support to the individual’s context. It also reduces the blame game of root-cause thinking (“It’s all due to X!”) and replaces it with a more compassionate view: chronic illness or developmental differences arise from a web of influences, and therefore our support must weave a web of solutions. This is inherently a more hopeful stance, because even if we cannot change certain risk factors (like genes or early life adversity that already occurred), we can always work on other strands of the web to improve a person’s well-being.
The Evolutionary Stress Framework: An Ecosystem Approach
One promising example of this complexity-embracing mindset is the Evolutionary Stress Framework (ESF). The ESF is a relatively new model that explicitly integrates insights from neuroscience, epigenetics, evolutionary biology, and functional medicine into a cohesive approach to stress and health. Rather than treating stress as just one variable, the ESF uses stress as a lens – essentially saying: what if we view health conditions through how the organism manages stress across its lifetime and evolutionary history? This framework looks at conditions like autism not as errors or singular gene defects, but as adapted neurotypes – natural variations in how humans can be – that come with certain trade-offs. Those trade-offs often revolve around stress mechanisms. For instance, an autistic person might have extraordinary attention to detail or memory (potential evolutionary advantages in some contexts) paired with a nervous system that is highly sensitive and prone to overload in a chaotic environment (a stress trade-off that can lead to distress in modern society).
The key principles of ESF align with what we’ve been discussing: it’s holistic, dynamic, and personalized. It explicitly promotes a systems perspective, emphasizing the complex interplay of genetic, environmental, social, and nutritional factors rather than pinning health down to a single cause. In the ESF, stress is not just an on/off factor; it’s a framework that considers an individual’s stress sensitivity (how reactive their system is), their stress buffers (supports like community, routine, nutrition), and their stress exposures. In other words, it’s a 3D view of stress: internal capacity, external support, and challenges faced. By mapping these, one can better understand why one person stays healthy under pressure while another falters.
Another hallmark of the ESF is its focus on trade-off adaptations. This means acknowledging that a trait that is helpful in one context might be a liability in another. For example, a hyper-vigilant stress response (perhaps due to certain gene variants or childhood trauma) might protect someone in dangerous environments but cause anxiety and hypertension in safe but high-pressure modern life. ESF tries to chart those trade-offs, especially in neurodivergent individuals, to make sense of their stress “settings.” It respects that diverse neurotypes (neurological profiles) have evolved – suggesting there was an adaptive context for them – and thus we shouldn’t aim to “fix” people into one mold, but rather support their unique stress profile.
Crucially, the Evolutionary Stress Framework calls for dynamic interactions over linear causality. It echoes the complexity science view: acknowledging equifinality and multifinality (multiple paths to health or disorder, and multiple outcomes from similar starts). By doing so, it aligns well with both the neurodiversity movement (which sees neurological differences as natural variations) and the precision medicine movement (which aims for personalized care). ESF doesn’t throw out scientific evidence; it actually pulls in more science – from epigenetic research showing how stress can turn genes on/off, to neuroimaging showing brain connectivity differences, to metabolic testing from functional medicine that can reveal nutrient or mitochondrial issues. But it wraps all this evidence in a guiding principle: the goal is to improve the person’s adaptive capacity and coherence, not just reduce a checklist of symptoms.
For example, an ESF-informed approach to an autistic individual with anxiety and gut issues might involve: a dietary intervention to reduce gut inflammation (lowering physiological stress), therapy or coaching to build cognitive-behavioral skills for dealing with sensory overload (improving stress coping), perhaps targeted nutrients or supplements to support neurotransmitter balance (acknowledging biochemical individuality), and importantly, accommodations in their environment (like noise-cancelling headphones or a flexible work schedule) to reduce unnecessary stressors. None of these singlehandedly “cures” autism (which isn’t the goal at all), but together they enhance the person’s quality of life and health by aligning with their stress profile. The ESF essentially asks, what does this individual’s system need to be more regulated and thrive, given who they are and where they came from?
By viewing health through this evolutionary and stress-regulation lens, we create space for bridge-building between paradigms. The ESF bridges medical and social models of disability (validating biological realities and the importance of support and acceptance). It bridges alternative and conventional medicine, since it’s happy to use nutritional or lifestyle strategies alongside clinical treatments if they serve the goal of system balance. It also bridges the individual and the environment, constantly asking how we can improve the fit between a person’s neurobiology and their surroundings to minimize toxic stress and maximize positive stress (like meaningful challenges and growth). In short, the Evolutionary Stress Framework exemplifies the “systems-building” ethos: treat the whole ecosystem, not just one pest, and appreciate the unique landscape of each person.
A Call to Action: Toward a Stress-Resilient Future
If all roads lead to stress, then perhaps the journey forward – for healthcare, research, and personal health strategies – is to make stress our ally rather than our enemy. This op-ed has taken you through a tour of ideas: the hormone highways of cortisol, the immune system’s fire alarms, the brain’s predictive engine, the wisdom of Bruce McEwen’s work, and the promise of new frameworks like the ESF. The common thread is a call to rethink and reframe our approach to health and development. Instead of asking, “What single thing caused this complex condition?” we ask, “How can we strengthen the system to better regulate itself?” Instead of endless debates pitting mainstream versus alternative viewpoints, we focus on building bridges – because ultimately, both the conventional doctor and the holistic healer want people to suffer less and live more fully. Stress regulation may be that meeting ground.
For the general reader, what does this mean? It means viewing your own health as an ecosystem. Consider doing a “stress audit” of your life: How is your sleep (hormonal rhythm)? How is your diet (inflammatory or anti-inflammatory)? How do you unwind and recover (calming that predictive brain)? Do you have social connections or therapies addressing emotional load (external buffers)? By identifying areas of chronic dysregulation, you can start to make small changes that reinforce your resilience. This might be as straightforward as committing to a consistent bedtime, or as big as seeking trauma-informed counseling – whatever strengthens your personal stress circuitry. The call to action is to shift from a firefighting mode to a fire-proofing mode. Don’t wait for burnout or a health crisis to force change; proactively tend to the various “roads” of stress in your life so they all lead toward well-being.
For healthcare providers and policymakers, the call to action is to embrace complexity in training and practice. This could mean encouraging interdisciplinary teams that include nutritionists, mental health professionals, and social workers in managing chronic illness – reflecting the reality that food, mind, and environment all matter. It could mean funding research that looks at interactions (gene-environment, or multi-factor interventions) rather than just isolated variables. And critically, it means listening to patients’ lived experiences, which often naturally describe complex patterns (“My pain gets worse when I don’t sleep” or “My autistic child does great with a predictable routine but melts down in chaotic settings”) – these narratives are gold for understanding where the system is coherent or incoherent.
Finally, for movements like MAHA or the neurodiversity community, the call is to find common cause in systemic solutions. It’s tempting to rally around singular causes or miracle cures, but lasting change will come from coalition-building that addresses food systems, environmental health, stress in schools and workplaces, access to mental health care, and so on, simultaneously. By all means, demand better nutrition and less corporate influence – but also acknowledge the importance of socioeconomic stress and trauma. Conversely, those focused on trauma and social determinants must also acknowledge biology. A stress-centric approach naturally dissolves false dichotomies: is it psychological or biological? Environmental or genetic? In truth it is all of the above, interwoven. When we appreciate that, we can craft responses that are as multi-layered as the problems themselves.
In conclusion, “All Roads Lead to Stress” is not a pessimistic statement – it’s a unifying one. It reminds us that by improving how we and our systems handle stress, we can make progress on many fronts at once: mental health, physical disease, developmental differences, and societal well-being. The science is pointing us toward integration. The challenge now is to apply this wisdom in our daily lives and institutions. Let’s move beyond the era of fighting over whose road is right, and instead build a better network – a resilient, flexible, and compassionate infrastructure for health where every individual’s journey can find support. The destination we’re aiming for is a world where stress is properly acknowledged and managed as a central player in health, where complexity is embraced rather than flattened, and where each person – neurotypical or neurodivergent, chronically ill or robust – has the tools and understanding to navigate their unique road. All roads lead to stress, but with insight and intentionality, all roads can also lead to a healthier, more adaptive future.
Citations
Neuroscientist Bruce McEwen, who studied the impact of stress on the brain, has died. News·2020 https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/27135-neuroscientist-bruce-mcewen-studied-impact-stress-brain-died
Frontiers | A molecular framework for autistic experiences: Mitochondrial allostatic load as a mediator between autism and psychopathology. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.985713/full
Gao J, Zou J, Yang L, et al. Alteration of peripheral cortisol and autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:928188. Published 2022 Jul 15. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.92818. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9334910
Juszczyk, G., Mikulska, J., Kasperek, K., Pietrzak, D., Mrozek, W., & Herbet, M. (2021). Chronic Stress and Oxidative Stress as Common Factors of the Pathogenesis of Depression and Alzheimer’s Disease: The Role of Antioxidants in Prevention and Treatment. Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland), 10(9), 1439. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10091439 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8470444
Lifestyle, Oxidative Stress, and Antioxidants: Back and Forth in the Pathophysiology of Chronic Diseases. Front. Physiol., 01 July 2020 Sec. Redox Physiology. Volume 11 – 2020 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.00694. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2020.00694/full
Body Budget and Emotions – Radiant Rebirth, 20202. https://www.radiant-rebirth.com/post/body-budget-and-emotions
Barrett, Lisa Feldman. 2017a. How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. HarperCollins
Barrett, Lisa Feldman. 2017b. “The Theory of Constructed Emotion: An Active Inference Account of Interoception and Categorization.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 12 (11): 1833.
Barret, Lisa Feldman. 2020. Seven and a Half Lessons about the Brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Interoception in Autism: A Narrative Review | PRBM
Loureiro F, Ringold SM, Aziz-Zadeh L. Interoception in Autism: A Narrative Review of Behavioral and Neurobiological Data. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2024;17:1841-1853
https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S410605 https://www.dovepress.com/interoception-in-autism-a-narrative-review-of-behavioral-and-neurobiol-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-PRBM
An active inference theory of allostasis and interoception in depression
Lisa Feldman Barrett, Karen S. Quigley and Paul Hamilton
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological SciencesVolume 371, Issue 1708
Published:19 November 2016 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0011 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2016.0011
Santamaría-García, H., Migeot, J., Medel, V., Hazelton, J. L., Teckentrup, V., Romero-Ortuno, R., Piguet, O., Lawor, B., Northoff, G., & Ibanez, A. (2025). Allostatic Interoceptive Overload Across Psychiatric and Neurological Conditions. Biological psychiatry, 97(1), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2024.06.024 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12012852
Sturmberg JP. Evidence-based medicine-Not a panacea for the problems of a complex adaptive world. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Oct;25(5):706-716. doi: 10.1111/jep.13122. Epub 2019 Mar 19. PMID: 30887648. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30887648
What is the Evolutionary Stress Framework? – Center For Adaptive Stress
What RFK Jr. and the MAHA movement gets wrong about meat | Vox
by Kenny Torrella Apr 3, 2025, 12:45 PM EDT. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/406933/maha-meat-dairy-rfk-dietary-guidelines
The illusion of evidence based medicine – The BMJ
2022; 376 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o702 (Published 16 March 2022)
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o702/rr-33
What is the Evolutionary Stress Framework? – Center For Adaptive Stress
Leave a Reply