3 ms·
That adage only really applies to chemical toxicology. It doesn't work on non-chemicals: UV, radiation, noise, heat/cold, pressure, physical trauma, repetitive
by tantalor 2y ago
That adage only really applies to chemical toxicology.
It doesn't work on non-chemicals: UV, radiation, noise, heat/cold, pressure, physical trauma, repetitive motion, exertion, posture, etc.
- jkingsman 2y agoI would argue it certainly does — heat/cold is comfort vs injury. Pressure is massage vs. crush injury. Trauma, I suppose, is definitionally bad. Repetitive motion is muscle mass and strength increase vs RSI. Exertion is cardiovascular health vs exhaustion. Posture, I'll give you — I don't think there's such a thing as posture that is /too/ good as long as you're staying mobile/stretching/taking breaks. Perhaps a more intuitive way of stating it is, "Some classically bad things can be good in small or optimized doses. Some classically good things can be bad when taken to excess."
- crowcroft 2y agoStrictly speaking yes, but I think it can be applied well enough in some cases to things like exertion/repetitive motion when thinking about specific contexts. Running is good for you, running 20km every day for years will prematurely destroy most people's knees. I guess applying the adage in that way makes it become a tautology though, too much is in fact, too much.
- lxgr 2y agoMost of which are in turn influencing biochemical processes in an organism, so I'd say the point still stands.