Hormesis

[ralis]

"Can Poison Be Good For You? Understanding Hormesis"

 

 

"Hormesis is a little-known term with huge implications. It refers to a fascinating phenomenon: a favorable biological reaction to low doses of chemical toxins, radiation or some other form of stress that is damaging, even fatal, in higher doses.

 

It was first scientifically noted by German pharmacologist Hugo Schulz in 1887, who found that disinfectants -- which, in large doses, kill yeast -- actually stimulate yeast growth when administered in small doses. Of course, many had observed it anecdotally, and poetically, before that. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche famously observed, "What does not destroy me makes me stronger," which gets the gist, but overstates a bit -- a more precise phrasing might be, "What stresses me within certain parameters makes me better adapted."

 

The mechanism of hormesis appears to be overcompensation to re-establish homeostasis -- which is a technical way of saying that an organism, or group of them, responds to small stresses by becoming more robust, or numerous, to adapt to a challenging environment.

 

The hormetic response with which most of us are familiar comes from exercise. Lifting weights, for example, does not immediately make you stronger -- it actually weakens the body in the short term and releases a cascade of destructive molecules (free radicals) that can injure tissues. A 2005 study by Hungarian researchers suggested that the body responds to this situation by producing more antioxidants, initiating DNA repair and generally slowing the aging process. The result over the next few hours or days is stronger muscles and generally, a healthier, more resilient body.

 

To put this in an evolutionary context, the exerciser's body is essentially saying: "This person is in an environment that requires strenuous exertion. I'll respond to the damage the exertion causes by overcompensating via creating extra muscle tissue, making her stronger and better able to survive."

 

Similarly, many substances that are universally, and quite correctly, regarded as "healthy" are, in fact, toxins. Dietary phytochemicals -- the compounds that give fruits and vegetables their bright colors -- are toxic chemicals that plants have evolved as a defense against fungal and insect pests. These are likely mildly toxic to human beings as well, but in the concentrations found in common foods, probably fall within the "stimulating" range. Result: lowered risk of cancers, cardiovascular disease and neurodegenerative disorders.

 

Hormesis may also help to explain the conundrum of "healthy drinking." Ethyl alcohol is indeed a toxin, with a long, sad history of causing irreversible tissue damage and death at high doses. Used responsibly, however, it has been shown in plasma samples to boost antioxidant activity. This may help explain why many studies have found modest cardiovascular benefit from moderate consumption, such as one alcoholic drink daily. However, the effect is small enough -- and the risk of abstainers becoming alcoholics large enough -- that I do not believe non-drinkers should start consuming alcohol in pursuit of health.

 

In a larger sense, hormesis may help explain why people who lead strenuous lives with plenty of moderate physical challenges may be healthier and live longer than those in more comfortable circumstances. A 2008 paper titled "Hormesis in Aging" by researchers from the Laboratory of Cellular Aging, Department of Molecular Biology, University of Aarhus in Denmark concluded that "single or multiple exposure to low doses of otherwise harmful agents, such as irradiation, food limitation, heat stress, hypergravity, reactive oxygen species and other free radicals have a variety of anti-aging and longevity-extending hormetic effects."

 

All of which suggests that one of the best routes to health is to make yourself a little uncomfortable now and then. The most profitable discomforts are likely those with which human beings have a long evolutionary history such as physical exertion, getting hungry, regularly tipping back a modest measure of alcohol, short-term exposure to cold or heat, and so on. Conversely, novel stressors -- such as the stew of noxious synthetic chemicals in the modern environment with which we have no evolutionary history -- are best regarded as guilty until proven innocent.

 

Which brings up a word of caution: Throughout history, irresponsible politicians and commentators have cited the hormetic effect to justify reducing restrictions on pollution -- claiming that a little poison or radiation in the water, air or food supply is good for us. This is dangerous nonsense. Hormesis appears to be of value only when dosages are very carefully controlled, which does not describe releasing random mixtures of toxins, especially synthetic ones, into general circulation. There's still a great deal we don't understand about hormesis. Until we do, the smartest policy for governments and industry is to keep the public's exposure to environmental toxins as low as possible."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/hormesis_b_1214355.html

Edited January 21, 2012 by ralis

[Apech]

Thanks Ralis very interesting.

 

It suggest I think that we are actually biologically geared up to adapt to changing and mildly antagonistic environments. The idea that healthy balance is a kind of stress free comfort zone is wrong. Rather we should enjoy a level of challenging stimulation. A waking up process rather than a sleepy one.

[Chang]

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Friedrich Nietzsche.

[Apech]

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Friedrich Nietzsche.

 

Yes that is quoted in the OP.

[dwai]

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Friedrich Nietzsche.

Similia similibus curantur -- samuel hahnemann

[Mark Foote]

It suggest I think that we are actually biologically geared up to adapt to changing and mildly antagonistic environments. The idea that healthy balance is a kind of stress free comfort zone is wrong. Rather we should enjoy a level of challenging stimulation. A waking up process rather than a sleepy one.

 

I tried tonight to explain to someone how waking up could be falling asleep. The Tibetans sit in a wooden box when they are on retreat, so I've heard, so that they sleep sitting up. I slept sitting up in an easy chair for about six months a long time ago, but I keep that experience close; to fall asleep sitting up, I looked to wake up, to be where I was from moment to moment and feel. Sometimes now in the lotus, when I have trouble staying alert, I look to fall asleep. Same thing.

 

Either way, there's a stretch involved, and if the stretch no longer initiates action reciprocally to sustain a balance, I wake up. In the lotus, I can only cat-nap very briefly before I wake up. In the easy chair, I could sleep a couple of hours, then I would shift position and go back to sleep for another two hours.

 

I guess the lotus is a level of challenging stimulation, or even the Burmese posture or half lotus. Or even sleeping sitting up in an easy chair...

[Jetsun]

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Friedrich Nietzsche.

 

Except that's not actually true, or like Ralis says it's only true within certain parameters.