When saying that "too much" of something is actually not that thing, is that a fallacy?

I recently heard a writer about empathy respond to one of her critics by saying: "He clearly did not read the definition of empathy that I use in my research carefully enough. What people are usually saying when they talk about "too much" empathy is actually enmeshment, and that is something completely different. It's sort of like saying that a diet is too healthy." Essentially the definition of the word makes it unimpeachable. And further saying that something is healthy, does not actually provide a meaningful definition of what healthy is and reasonable people can debate the substance of a healthy diet. It sounds like a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Is that the case?

Interestingly, in my last book I wrote about how too much empathy is a driver of several psychological disorders (I provided academic references). Regardless, I don't think there are any fallacies here, just perhaps some philosophical or scientific debate as to why, after a certain amount, any additional of the thing in question becomes maladaptive (or bad). So if someone claimed one cannot have "to much" of something, they might be making a factual claim where they can be right or wrong, or just sharing an opinion.