Searching for articles with the keyword "hormesis" (a word I first learned in the latest book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who is not a person with medical training or experience) on the Science-Based Medicine website is instructive.
No it's not! 3 out of the 7 links relate to homeopathy, which the article explicitly states is problematic:
'Association with the problematic science of homeopathy. In the early 20th Century, people who promoted homeopathic medicine were prominent supporters of the concepts of hormesis.'
Your stance is based on an argumentum ab auctoritate. How about constructing an argument, rather than spewing meta-trash talk?
a word I first learned in the latest book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who is not a person with medical training or experience
Ergo, hormesis does not exist? Non sequitur.
The concept of "hormesis" is not well thought out enough or well validated enough with careful measurements to be your guide to your personal health practices. There is better health advice in some of the earlier comments here.
The only prescription of the article was to eat less & exercise more!
Thank you to the several commenters who have already politely pointed out factual and logical mistakes in this submission.
Agreed. It's called 'discussion'.
"Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads."
I don't see how this quote is relevant.