The Different Faces of Neurodivergent Burnout: When Capacity Runs Out Understanding ADHD, Autistic, AuDHD, and Twice-Exceptional (2e) Burnout (Part 3 of 8)

Part 3: Twice-Exceptional ADHD Burnout — When Ability Hides the Cost

If ADHD burnout can be difficult to recognize because functioning is variable, twice-exceptional ADHD burnout may be even easier to miss.

The term twice-exceptional (2e) is generally used to describe people who demonstrate high cognitive ability or giftedness while also having a disability or neurodevelopmental condition. In this section, I am using 2e ADHD specifically to refer to the coexistence of high intellectual ability or giftedness and ADHD.

The research literature on twice-exceptionality has grown, but it remains much smaller than the broader ADHD literature. Research specifically examining burnout in twice-exceptional adults with ADHD is extremely limited. Therefore, 2e ADHD burnout should not be presented as an empirically established syndrome. A recent systematic review of giftedness and neurodevelopmental disorders similarly emphasized the relative scarcity and methodological variability of research on dual exceptionality.

Instead, this section asks an evidence-informed question:

What might happen when significant cognitive strengths provide resources for compensating for ADHD-related vulnerabilities so effectively that the underlying difficulty—or the cost of functioning—becomes less visible?

That question matters because twice-exceptionality can produce a striking coexistence:

A person can have extraordinary ability and significant functional difficulty at the same time.

Giftedness Does Not Cancel ADHD

One persistent misunderstanding surrounding twice-exceptionality is the assumption that high intelligence should protect someone from ADHD-related impairment.

If you’re that smart, why are you disorganized?

If you can understand something that complicated, why can’t you remember an appointment?

If you can write at that level, why can’t you answer an email?

If you can manage a crisis, why can’t you keep your house organized?

But cognitive ability and executive functioning are not interchangeable constructs.

Someone may have exceptional verbal reasoning, pattern recognition, memory for areas of interest, creativity, abstract reasoning, or problem-solving ability while simultaneously experiencing difficulties involving initiation, organization, working memory in everyday contexts, time management, sustained attention, task switching, or inhibition.

Research on twice-exceptionality emphasizes the coexistence of substantial strengths with learning, psychological, or neurodevelopmental difficulties rather than assuming that one necessarily cancels out the other (Desvaux et al., 2024; Kontakou et al., 2022).

In more everyday language, this kind of unevenness is sometimes described as a “spiky profile.”

That is not a formal diagnostic term. It is useful shorthand for a profile in which functioning may be exceptionally strong in some domains and much less reliable in others.

The profile is not globally high-functioning or globally impaired.

It is uneven.

More specifically, François-Sévigny and Pilon (2026) compared parent-reported executive-function behaviors among intellectually gifted youth with ADHD, intellectually gifted youth without ADHD, and youth with ADHD without giftedness. In their clinical sample of 110 children ages 6–16, the gifted/ADHD group showed greater difficulties on several BRIEF measures, particularly the metacognitive index, than the comparison groups. These findings provide direct evidence that intellectual giftedness does not eliminate executive-function vulnerabilities in children with ADHD. They should not, however, be generalized automatically to gifted adults or to burnout.

The contradiction is only a contradiction if we assume:

intelligence = executive functioning.

It does not.

Intelligence Can Become a Compensatory Tool

High cognitive ability may also provide resources that can be used to navigate around areas of difficulty.

A person who processes information quickly may be able to complete work at the last minute that someone else needed much longer to prepare.

A strong verbal thinker may improvise effectively when preparation was incomplete.

A highly creative person may solve a problem when organization fails.

Strong pattern recognition may help someone reconstruct information they missed.

Extensive knowledge may help fill gaps.

Rapid problem-solving may allow someone to recover from mistakes before other people recognize how much difficulty occurred behind the scenes.

These are conceptual examples, not established universal features of 2e ADHD.

But the underlying possibility is consistent with twice-exceptionality literature that raises questions about compensating as well as exacerbating mechanisms when high cognitive ability coexists with neurodevelopmental differences (Desvaux et al., 2024).

The result can be remarkably effective.

The person doesn’t simply get by.

They may excel.

And that creates a potential problem:

Successful compensation can conceal the amount of compensation occurring.

If someone consistently produces excellent work, other people may have little reason to ask how that work was produced.

They see the outcome.

They do not necessarily see the process.

When Scaffolding Hides the Struggle

Cognitive ability is not the only way someone can compensate.

Adults with ADHD may also use workarounds and external scaffolding to manage executive-function difficulties.

Calendars.

Alarms.

Written lists.

Automated reminders.

Structured routines.

Templates.

External deadlines.

Organizational systems.

Environmental cues.

Digital tools.

These are common practical examples rather than a list of interventions established by one particular study.

Research does directly support the broader concept of ADHD compensatory behavior. Castagna et al. (2019) developed the Compensatory ADHD Behaviors Scale to examine compensatory strategies used in relation to ADHD symptoms and functional difficulties. Their 500-participant validation study identified present- and future-oriented compensatory behaviors and provided preliminary evidence that compensatory strategies are relevant to understanding ADHD-related functioning.

External scaffolding can move some of the executive burden outside the person’s head.

These supports are not “cheating.” They can be useful ways of reducing executive demands.

High cognitive ability may plausibly provide another layer of compensation. Someone may combine external scaffolding with rapid reasoning, creativity, pattern recognition, verbal ability, or problem-solving when internal organization is unreliable.

But the important distinction is:

Successful scaffolding does not necessarily mean the underlying executive difficulty—or declining capacity—has disappeared.

During periods of sustained depletion, a person may find themselves adding more scaffolding in an attempt to preserve previous functioning:

more reminders → more lists → more systems → more automation → more external structure → more compensatory effort

This sequence has not been established empirically as a 2e ADHD burnout mechanism.

It is a Bandwidth hypothesis.

From the outside, the person may continue functioning well enough that nobody recognizes how much more effort is now required to maintain the same visible outcome.

In that sense, scaffolding may sometimes mask the visibility of declining capacity without eliminating the underlying difficulty.

I would not assume that someone is consciously trying to hide burnout.

Often, they may not recognize what is happening themselves.

They may simply think:

The systems that used to work aren’t enough anymore. I need a better system.

So they build another system.

Then another.

The paradox is that external scaffolding can genuinely reduce executive demand and therefore be protective. At the same time, increasingly elaborate scaffolding used primarily to preserve an unsustainable level of output may allow someone to continue pushing beyond their available resources.

The question is therefore not whether scaffolding is good or bad.

It is:

What is the scaffolding supporting?

Is it helping the person function more sustainably?

Or is it primarily helping them continue meeting demands that remain unsustainable?

Within my Bandwidth model, those are very different uses of the same tool.

A possible pathway might look like:

cognitive strengths + workarounds + external scaffolding → successful compensation → difficulties remain less visible → expectations remain high → load remains high → compensation increases → eventual strain or failure of the compensatory system

This sequence is my Bandwidth formulation, not an empirically established pathway specific to 2e ADHD burnout.

But it offers a hypothesis worth studying.

When Overperformance Becomes the Baseline

The overperformance cycle discussed in Part 2 becomes especially relevant here.

A twice-exceptional person with ADHD may discover that when their cognitive resources and attention are readily accessible, they can compensate for executive difficulties by producing exceptionally strong results.

Maybe they delay a project for several days and then complete it rapidly.

Maybe they forget something important and solve the resulting problem brilliantly.

Maybe routine administrative work is difficult while complicated problems are highly engaging.

Maybe they appear composed and highly effective during performance while their organizational systems behind the scenes require substantial effort.

Over time, exceptional output can become the expected baseline.

Not only for other people.

For the person themselves.

Then something subtle can happen.

Instead of comparing functioning with what is sustainable, the person compares current functioning with what they have demonstrated they can accomplish at their peak.

That comparison can become problematic.

Because:

Peak capacity is not sustainable capacity.

And for a twice-exceptional person, the peak may be very high.

The Giftedness Trap: “But You Have So Much Potential”

Gifted people may encounter expectations related to their demonstrated ability.

You have so much potential.

That can be encouraging.

It can also become a source of pressure when inconsistent performance is interpreted as failure to use one’s abilities.

You could do better.

You’re not applying yourself.

You’re wasting your abilities.

You’re capable of so much more.

We should be careful not to claim that these experiences characterize every gifted person or that research has established them as causes of 2e burnout.

But clinically, the discrepancy between demonstrated ability and inconsistent executive access can become particularly difficult to interpret.

The person knows they are capable.

Other people know they are capable.

There is evidence.

They have produced exceptional work before.

So when they cannot reproduce that performance, the conclusion may become:

I should be able to do this.

That should can become one driver of overperformance.

Instead of adjusting demands to current available capacity, the person may attempt to force current functioning to match historical peak performance.

And because high cognitive ability sometimes allows that strategy to succeed, it may be reinforced.

Until it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain.

High Ability Can Delay Recognition of Declining Capacity

This may be especially important when thinking about burnout.

Imagine two people experiencing a meaningful decline in functional access.

One person’s performance quickly falls below environmental expectations.

Other people notice.

Support may be offered.

The other person began well above the threshold required by the environment.

Their functioning also declines substantially, but they remain adequately—or even impressively—productive.

The decline may be much less visible.

This example is conceptual, but it highlights why absolute performance can be a misleading measure of change.

A person does not necessarily have to be failing in order to be struggling.

Someone who metaphorically functioned at 130% and now functions at 90% may still look highly successful from the outside.

Internally, however, the difference may feel enormous.

From the outside:

Still doing great.

From the person’s internal experience:

I have lost a substantial amount of usable capacity.

That is why, when someone reports burnout, assessment should not rely solely on whether they remain employed, continue meeting deadlines, maintain grades, or produce high-quality work.

Other questions matter:

How much has this person’s functioning changed relative to their own baseline?

and

What does maintaining current performance require now compared with before?

Burnout May Make the Spiky Profile Even Spikier

The idea of a spiky profile becomes especially useful here.

A twice-exceptional person may already demonstrate very high strengths in some areas alongside much greater difficulty in others.

One of the hypotheses I explore through the Bandwidth model is that sustained depletion may make this unevenness more visible rather than simply lowering all functioning equally.

The person may retain the capacity for highly complex work that strongly engages their interests or cognitive strengths while becoming much less reliable with routine executive tasks.

They may continue thinking at a sophisticated level while experiencing increasing difficulties with initiation, organization, working memory, transitions, or everyday responsibilities.

In other words:

Burnout may not flatten a spiky profile. It may widen the visible gap between the peaks and valleys.

This is a conceptual hypothesis.

Research has not established increasing “spikiness” as a validated marker of 2e ADHD burnout.

But the existing 2e literature clearly supports the underlying idea that giftedness and executive vulnerabilities can coexist rather than cancelling each other out.

The Window of Functionality Gets More Complicated in 2e ADHD

Within my Bandwidth model, this is where the concept I call the Window of Functionality becomes particularly useful.

As described in Part 2, the Window of Functionality is my terminology for the range in which a person has sufficient accessible cognitive, emotional, and physiological capacity to function effectively without relying on substantial underfunctioning or unsustainable overfunctioning.

This is not an established research construct, validated measure, or ADHD diagnostic concept.

For a twice-exceptional person, high cognitive ability may make functioning above that sustainable range remarkably productive.

That creates a problem.

Overfunctioning does not necessarily look dysfunctional.

It may look excellent.

The person may receive praise.

Promotions.

High grades.

Leadership opportunities.

More responsibility.

More complicated assignments.

More people asking for help.

Their demonstrated ability becomes evidence that they can handle more.

External reinforcement may then join internal pressure.

You are so good at this.

I knew I could count on you.

Nobody else can do this the way you can.

Those statements may be sincere.

But high output does not establish that the process producing that output is indefinitely sustainable.

Competence Can Create More Load

This creates another possible paradox of twice-exceptional functioning:

The better someone performs, the more demands they may attract.

A competent employee receives more complicated assignments.

A responsible family member becomes the person everyone calls.

A highly capable professional receives the difficult cases.

A gifted student receives more challenging coursework.

A creative problem-solver becomes the person people seek when problems arise.

These are common-life examples, not an empirically established 2e burnout pathway.

The person’s strengths are real.

But strength can create opportunity, and opportunity can create demand.

Within the Bandwidth model, I conceptualize one possible sequence as:

high ability → successful compensation → high performance → increased expectations → increased load → greater compensatory demand → overperformance → depletion

Again:

This is my conceptual formulation, not an empirically validated pathway specific to 2e ADHD.

But it illustrates why ability itself does not guarantee sustainability.

The Asynchronous—or Spiky—Profile

Twice-exceptionality can produce notably uneven functioning.

Someone may be extraordinarily advanced in one area and have meaningful difficulty in another.

They can understand complex theory but struggle with paperwork.

Solve sophisticated problems but lose their keys.

Write beautifully but struggle to initiate writing.

Handle an emergency calmly but become overwhelmed by multiple routine errands.

Manage significant professional responsibilities while household tasks accumulate.

These are illustrations rather than diagnostic characteristics.

But the broader unevenness is consistent with the 2e literature.

This is what the lay term spiky profile is trying to capture.

The person’s functioning does not form one smooth line.

It has peaks and valleys.

And under sustained stress or depletion, those differences may become more noticeable.

A person’s strongest cognitive abilities may remain highly available because they are deeply practiced, strongly engaging, meaningful, or intrinsically rewarding.

Meanwhile, routine or executive-heavy tasks may become more difficult.

Someone may therefore still be able to do something objectively complicated while struggling to do something objectively simple.

But:

Task complexity is not the same thing as neurological cost.

That statement is part of my Bandwidth conceptualization rather than an established neuroscientific rule.

A complex task that strongly engages someone’s cognitive strengths may place a very different pattern of demands on them than a seemingly simple task requiring self-initiation, sequencing, working memory, repetitive effort, or sustained attention to low-interest details.

That difference can be easy for outsiders—and the person themselves—to misinterpret as selective effort.

“If You Can Do That, You Can Do This”

Few statements capture the misunderstanding of an uneven profile better than:

“If you can do that, you can do this.”

Not necessarily.

Different tasks place different demands on people.

Interest differs.

Executive demand differs.

Working-memory demand differs.

Emotional salience differs.

Novelty differs.

Structure differs.

The amount of external scaffolding differs.

And current state differs.

The ability to complete one highly complex task therefore does not prove equivalent access to the resources required for another.

This returns us to a central principle of the Bandwidth model:

Ability is not the same thing as access.

For a twice-exceptional person, that distinction can be particularly difficult to recognize because ability may be so visible.

Perfectionism and Overcompensation

Perfectionism deserves careful treatment because it should not be assumed to characterize all gifted, ADHD, or twice-exceptional people.

For some individuals, however, perfectionistic behaviors may become part of a compensatory strategy.

If I check everything repeatedly, maybe I won’t miss something.

If I prepare excessively, maybe nobody will see how disorganized I feel.

If I never produce mediocre work, maybe the last-minute process won’t matter.

If I work harder, maybe I can stay ahead of my inconsistency.

If I don’t make mistakes, maybe nobody will be disappointed.

These are clinical illustrations, not established universal mechanisms of 2e ADHD.

When perfectionistic compensation does occur, it can increase the amount of effort required for ordinary tasks.

“Write the report” becomes:

Write an exceptional report.

“Prepare for the meeting” becomes:

Prepare for every possible question.

“Do your job” becomes:

Never let anyone see you struggle.

When sufficient capacity is available, someone may sustain that approach for a considerable period.

When available capacity decreases, however, the standards may remain while the resources used to meet them become harder to access.

That discrepancy can create substantial internal pressure.

When the Compensatory System Starts Failing

This may be one way a 2e ADHD burnout experience eventually becomes visible.

Strategies that previously worked stop working as reliably.

Deadline pressure may no longer produce the same results.

Working longer may produce diminishing returns.

An organizational system may itself become another thing to maintain.

The person may become more forgetful despite safeguards.

Task initiation may become harder.

Recovery may take longer.

Household tasks may accumulate.

Decision-making may become increasingly effortful.

These are hypothesized patterns, not validated diagnostic features of 2e ADHD burnout.

And the person’s first response may not be to reduce demand.

It may be to add more compensation.

Another calendar.

Another reminder system.

Another productivity method.

Another workaround.

Another external scaffold.

More effort.

More hours.

More pressure.

This matters because a gradual decline in compensatory effectiveness may not initially look like visible failure.

It may look like:

increasing complexity behind the scenes simply to maintain the same external performance.

Eventually, a person may find themselves staring at something they intellectually understand perfectly and still struggling to initiate it.

When someone’s identity has been strongly connected to competence, that can become deeply destabilizing.

The question may shift from:

Why can’t I get this done?

to:

What happened to me?

When Intelligence Can No Longer Outrun Load

This is where the concept of allostatic load from Part 1 becomes relevant.

High cognitive ability does not exempt the body or brain from the effects of prolonged or repeated stress. Allostatic-load theory describes the cumulative physiological costs associated with repeated adaptation to environmental demands (McEwen, 2000; McEwen & Wingfield, 2003).

Research also demonstrates that stress-related signaling can impair prefrontal cortical functions involved in working memory and higher-order regulation (Arnsten, 2009).

A person may therefore be extraordinarily intelligent and still become depleted.

They may understand what is happening.

They may analyze it brilliantly.

They may even know what changes would probably help.

And still struggle to implement them.

Again:

Insight does not equal access.

Intelligence can help someone understand their functioning.

It does not create unlimited regulatory or executive resources.

My Own Experience of 2e ADHD Burnout

This particular profile is also where professional observation and lived experience intersect for me.

In my own experience with neurodivergent burnout, one of the most confusing parts has been the discrepancy between what I know I am capable of doing and what I can reliably access at a particular moment.

I can engage deeply with complex clinical concepts, research, writing, pattern recognition, and problem-solving—and still struggle to initiate an ordinary household chore.

During periods of burnout, I have experienced increased difficulty with task initiation, decision-making, cognitive overload, word retrieval, and completing ordinary tasks I objectively know how to do.

That discrepancy can be difficult to reconcile when you are accustomed to being capable.

It is tempting to think:

This task isn’t difficult. I should be able to do it.

But that assumes difficulty can be measured only by intellectual complexity.

I do not think it can.

One of the lessons burnout has reinforced for me is that understanding a task, possessing the skill to complete it, and having reliable access to the capacity required to initiate and sustain it are three different things.

That distinction has influenced how I think about burnout clinically.

My personal experience is not research evidence, and I do not present it as such.

It is lived experience that informs the questions I ask of the research.

It has also reinforced one of the central principles of my Bandwidth model:

Capacity is not character.

Why 2e Burnout Can Feel Like Losing Yourself

For someone whose identity has long been connected to competence, reduced functional access can feel like more than exhaustion.

It can feel like identity disruption.

If you have often been:

the smart one,

the capable one,

the problem-solver,

the person who figures things out,

the person everyone depends on,

then declining access to those abilities can feel frightening.

But the underlying abilities may not necessarily be gone.

Their reliable availability under current conditions may have changed.

The question becomes less:

“Am I still capable?”

and more:

“Under what conditions can I sustainably access my capabilities?”

That is a Bandwidth question.

And it moves the focus away from proving competence and toward understanding sustainability.

What 2e ADHD Burnout May Look Like

Because 2e ADHD burnout is not an established diagnostic or research construct, the following should not be treated as diagnostic criteria or as an empirically validated symptom list.

Instead, these are hypothesized clinical patterns that might be worth exploring when a twice-exceptional person with ADHD reports prolonged depletion or a meaningful decline from their own baseline.

Possible patterns might include greater discrepancies between intellectual ability and everyday functioning; a more visibly spiky profile; increasing difficulty initiating routine or low-interest tasks despite preserved high-level cognitive ability; wider fluctuations between periods of strong productivity and reduced functioning; increasing reliance on external scaffolding; greater difficulty maintaining previously effective organizational systems; cognitive fatigue despite continued sophisticated reasoning; increasing household or administrative difficulty while professional performance remains relatively preserved; and confusion or shame about functioning that seems inconsistent with the person’s intelligence.

Some individuals may also describe increased recovery needs after periods of intense performance, greater reliance on urgency or overpreparation, or difficulty reducing expectations because historical peak performance has become their assumed baseline.

Again, none of these patterns establishes the presence of a validated syndrome called 2e ADHD burnout.

The key comparison is not with other people.

It is with the person’s own previous functioning and the effort required to maintain it.

The Bandwidth View of 2e ADHD Burnout

Within my Bandwidth model, I would conceptualize twice-exceptional ADHD burnout through six interacting dimensions.

Architecture refers to ADHD-related attentional and executive differences existing alongside significant cognitive strengths.

Variability refers to fluctuations in access to executive functioning and other capacities, potentially obscured by very high peaks in performance.

Processing Direction refers to where attention and cognitive resources are most readily directed—for example, toward complex, novel, meaningful, or highly engaging material rather than routine or low-interest demands. This is Bandwidth terminology rather than an established 2e ADHD mechanism.

State refers to the person’s current physiological and emotional conditions, including stress, fatigue, activation, and depletion that may influence functional access.

Load includes expectations, unfinished tasks, work and household demands, relationships, administrative responsibilities, emotional stress, and the effort required to maintain compensatory systems.

Context Fit refers to how well the person’s environment matches their neurological profile. Environments may reward high intellectual output while overlooking the executive cost required to produce it.

Again, these dimensions constitute my conceptual framework, not an empirically validated model of 2e ADHD burnout.

Within that framework, the Window of Functionality may become particularly deceptive.

Above the window, the person may look exceptional.

Inside the window, they may look merely competent.

Below it, they may appear unexpectedly impaired relative to their demonstrated intellectual ability.

If the person—and everyone around them—learns to value primarily the above-the-window version, sustainable functioning may begin to feel like underachievement.

That may be one of the most important conceptual traps in twice-exceptional burnout:

Sustainability can feel like failure when overperformance has become your definition of normal.

But sustainable capacity is not underachievement.

It is capacity that can still be accessed tomorrow.

When Ability Hides the Cost

Twice-exceptionality complicates our understanding of burnout because strengths can coexist with—and potentially help compensate for—vulnerabilities.

Intelligence may help.

External scaffolding may help.

Workarounds may help.

Creativity may help.

Problem-solving may help.

All of those things can be genuine strengths.

But visible performance still does not tell us exactly what that performance requires internally.

That is why the question should not always be:

“How do I get back to producing at my maximum?”

Perhaps another question is:

“What level of functioning can my nervous system sustain without repeatedly borrowing capacity from tomorrow?”

For some twice-exceptional people, that may require redefining what successful functioning means.

Because the goal cannot simply be to prove what you are capable of doing.

You may have already proven that many times.

The more important question may be whether the way you are accessing that capability is sustainable.

Capacity is not character.

Ability is not access.

Peak performance is not sustainable capacity.

And perhaps most importantly for twice-exceptionality:

Being capable of more does not mean you are required to continually do more.

The next profile changes the picture considerably. ADHD-related burnout experiences may involve questions about executive demand, variability, compensation, and overextension. Autistic burnout has a substantially more developed direct empirical literature and introduces other mechanisms more clearly—including sensory load, camouflaging, cumulative environmental mismatch, reduced tolerance to stimuli, and changes in access to previously available skills.

Darcy Stephens, LPCC

References

Arnsten, A. F. T. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 410–422. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2648.

Castagna, P. J., Roye, S., & Calamia, M. (2019). The Compensatory ADHD Behaviors Scale (CABS): Development and initial validation. Assessment, 26(5), 783–798. DOI: 10.1177/1073191118774841.

Desvaux, T., Danna, J., Velay, J.-L., & Frey, A. (2024). From gifted to high potential and twice exceptional: A state-of-the-art meta-review. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 13(2), 165–179. DOI: 10.1080/21622965.2023.2252950.

François-Sévigny, J., & Pilon, M. (2026). Executive function behaviors in intellectually gifted/ADHD children compared to intellectually gifted children and ADHD children: The clinical utility of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF). Child Neuropsychology, 32(2), 227–254. DOI: 10.1080/09297049.2025.2545030.

Kontakou, A., Dimitriou, G., Panagouli, E., Thomaidis, L., Psaltopoulou, T., Sergentanis, T. N., & Tsitsika, A. (2022). Giftedness and neurodevelopmental disorders in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 43(7), e483–e497. DOI: 10.1097/DBP.0000000000001103.

McEwen, B. S. (2000). Allostasis and allostatic load: Implications for neuropsychopharmacology. Neuropsychopharmacology, 22(2), 108–124. DOI: 10.1016/S0893-133X(99)00129-3.

McEwen, B. S., & Wingfield, J. C. (2003). The concept of allostasis in biology and biomedicine. Hormones and Behavior, 43(1), 2–15. DOI: 10.1016/S0018-506X(02)00024-7.