<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hormesis on Edward J. Edmonds</title><link>https://edwardjedmonds.com/tags/hormesis/</link><description>Recent content in Hormesis on Edward J. Edmonds</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://edwardjedmonds.com/tags/hormesis/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Hormetic Endocrinology</title><link>https://edwardjedmonds.com/essays/hormetic-endocrinology/</link><pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://edwardjedmonds.com/essays/hormetic-endocrinology/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Orthodox endocrinology treats hormone replacement as a problem of restoration: levels are low, so we raise them; the target is a steady state within reference ranges. This framing has served medicine well for hypothyroidism and hypogonadism alike. But it leaves unexplored a different question—whether strategic, cyclical perturbation of hormonal systems might produce adaptations that static replacement cannot. What I want to do here is construct a theoretical framework for that question, grounded in what the literature actually supports, honest about where speculation begins, and structured enough to generate falsifiable predictions.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>