Models of Adaptation: What Different Frameworks Explain
Predictive regulation, cumulative costs, response ranges and resilience trajectories.
Updated 2026-10-27 · Archived
The scientific content and references belong to this edition. The complete captured record is available to download below; later corrections appear in subsequent editions. Website design and interactive software are not archived here.
Start with the question
Each model selects relationships to explain. Compare how it defines a system, which quantities change, what it predicts and which observations can test it. The following sections use these questions to examine the frameworks.
Sterling: preparing for demand
Sterling’s 2012 account emphasizes anticipation, coordinated resource allocation and learning. It gives TAP a reason to include events before a challenge and behavior that changes exposure.[1]
Sterling’s argument emphasizes anticipatory regulation; its theoretical assumptions and physiological examples should be read separately. Comparison with modern homeostatic accounts clarifies how each handles prediction, feedback and coordination.
Allostatic load: the costs of adaptation
McEwen and Stellar connect stress and individual differences with cumulative physiological costs. This perspective directs attention to repeated or persistent adaptation across time.[2]
It asks a different question from whether one response returns quickly. Neither fatigue nor the shaded area under an illustrative curve establishes a person’s allostatic load.
Reactive Scope: ranges matter
Romero and colleagues distinguish mediator ranges supporting predictable and unexpected demands from overload and failure. Their graphical account considers how history and context can change those ranges.[3]
A response range is defined for a mediator and an organism. Converting the drawing into universal human thresholds, or calling its width a measured reserve score, would require separate justification.
NIH: define the system and follow its response
The NIH framework organizes resilience around a system, a challenge and the response over time. It includes resistance, adaptation, recovery and growth.[4]
It leads to a practical question: after which challenge, over what period, and for which function? These questions provide a concrete starting point for selecting a design and interpreting trajectories.
A newer proposal: allostasis and active inference
Harrison and colleagues propose a theoretical connection between allostasis, active inference and resilience phenotypes, including actions that shape the environment.[5]
This 2025 Hypothesis and Theory paper proposes four resilience phenotypes as theoretical categories to be tested. It offers another route for connecting allostasis with resilience and warrants comparison with other frameworks.
Where TAP’s synthesis begins
TAP uses these traditions to organize three questions: what demands arise, how the system regulates, and what happens to specified functions over time. Physiological reserve is a potential contributor to a response, not the same thing as the trajectory observed after a challenge.[6]
The proposed contribution is an explicit map between explanations, assumptions and possible measurements. Its value can be assessed by whether it prevents conceptual errors and supports better testable questions. The synthesis itself has not been empirically validated.
References
- Peter Sterling (2012). Allostasis: a model of predictive regulation. Physiology & Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.06.004
- Bruce S. McEwen, Eliot Stellar (1993). Stress and the individual. Mechanisms leading to disease. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1993.00410180039004
- L. Michael Romero, Molly J. Dickens, Nicole E. Cyr (2009). The Reactive Scope Model — A new model integrating homeostasis, allostasis, and stress. Hormones and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.12.009
- LaVerne Brown, Barbara Cohen, Rebecca Costello, Olga Brazhnik, Zorina Galis (2023). Conceptualizing a resilience research framework at The National Institutes of Health. Stress and Health. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3260
- Laura A. Harrison, Antonio J. Gracias, Karl J. Friston, J. Galen Buckwalter (2025). Resilience phenotypes derived from an active inference account of allostasis. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2025.1524722
- Heather E. Whitson, Wei Duan-Porter, Kenneth E. Schmader, Miriam C. Morey, Harvey J. Cohen, Cathleen S. Colón-Emeric (2016). Physical Resilience in Older Adults: Systematic Review and Development of an Emerging Construct. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glv202
Publication record
TAP-FTR-0008 · v0.4 · English
The Allostasis Project is founded and supported by Resilio.
Record for v0.4 · Updated
Editorial responsibility: TAP Editorial Team
Editorial note
Under the editorial responsibility of the TAP Editorial Team, this publication used AI assistance for content organization and editing.
Download detailed editorial record (JSON) ↓
How responsibilities and review are recorded ↗© The Allostasis Project. All rights reserved. Reproduction or adaptation requires separate permission, subject to applicable legal exceptions.