Allostatic load/allostatic overload

[HossRyams]

Through a number of practice exams and their solutions, I've come across two particular definitions for 'allostatic load'. I actually never learnt the term 'allostatic overload' because my school used the Grivas textbook, hence we learnt 'allostatic load' to be the cumulative wear and tear on the body as a result from a prolonged activation of the allostatic response. But I've come across countless solutions that state that allostatic load is actually the 'number of stressors' and this whole cumulative wear and tear business is actually 'allostatic overload'.
But now I'm doing another exam which is using the initial definition of allostatic load and I'm especially confused.
Do you think the examiners would take both definitions for allostatic load - that is either (1) the cumulative wear and tear etc. and (2) the number of stressors, or is one better to use than the other, and which would that be?
Thanks in advance!

[Genericname2365]

Thanks for posting this, I'd been meaning to ask this for a few days now. 

[Felicity Wishes]

Allostatic load is the number of stressors and allostatic overload is the wear and tear and all of that. (As you have said)
I would go with that definition because it clearly distinguishes the two and it makes more sense.