Bio-Bunk? Some Answers!

There have been raging debates for over two hundred years regarding the nature of biorhythmic cycles. Around 1960 the researchers working on identifying and classifying biological cycles of a day in length (circadian) and less (ultradian), broke ranks with the original heard. Their work was tangible and they held that it was serious. In the last decade, these same chronobiologists have gradually reclaimed some of the (infradian) cycles longer than a day in length. This has occurred a little at a time suggesting they were uncovering solid evidence through painstaking serious research.

As of today, chronobiologists have blessed infradian cycle lengths within a mere day or two of the original bio-rhythm periods. And they flat out acknowledged a 28 day cycle which is one of the original three bio-rhythms. One can only marvel at how they have avoided mentioning the similarity.

With that, we will begin a series of articles addressing the objections of one of the most outspoken of the anti-biorhythmists or "Skeptics" as Robert Todd Carroll likes to call himself. In a lengthy excerpt from his book The Skeptic's Dictionary, Mr. Carroll lays out his opinions and research on bio-rhythms. What follows is part of that chapter (published elsewhere on the Internet) interlaced with comments by Russ Streiffert of BioMap^TM. Keep in mind that this is for those serously interested in the continuing debate. It is lengthy because these "skeptics" are windy.

Biorhythms

The Skeptic's Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll

With comments by Russ Streiffert - BioMap^tm

Biorhythms

The theory of biorhythms belongs under the heading of "numology" Or, perhaps it belongs under the heading of "astrolgy." It is based on the notion that the numbers 23, 28 and 33 rule our lives. The theory asserts that at the moment of birth the confluence of these magical numbers determines our daily destiny.

The author seems unsure about biorhythms and evidences this by cynically overstating the influence of biorhythmic cycles. Bio-rhythm falls under chronobiology, not magic. By the way, in the dictionary, "numology" is spelled numerology and "astrolgy" is spelled astrology.

At the moment of birth, according to the theory, three biorhythmic cycles "note 1" are set to zero. The first fourth of the first cycle is an ascent, then half of the cycle is in descent, then the last quarter of the first cycle ascends back to the zero line.

"Note 1" and other references are presented at the end of this series of articles. Numerous biological processes return to initial phase at birth. Prior to birth many cronobiologic cycles are in phase with the mother. Cycles can be imagined as circles and graphed as sign functions. These graphs represent the beginning, middle and end of cyclic processes measured out by numerous biological clocks (pacemakers).

The three cycles are a 23 day cycle (the physical), a 28 day cycle (the emotional) and a 33 day cycle (the intellectual). The cycles repeat until you die.

There are numerous infradian cycles (lasting longer than a day). All biological cycles are bio-rhythmic. After reviewing Note 1, we can conclude that the only difference between legitimate biological cycles and the cycles this author takes exception with is the theory regarding their effects.

Therefore, if your birthday is known a chart can be consulted which will tell you exactly where in each cycle your rhythms are on that day. So what, you might say. What difference does it make, you might wonder. Well, according to biorhythm theory devotees, it may make all the difference in the world. According to the theory, when certain points on the cycles are reached a person may enjoy special strength or suffer special weakness.

By the way, at certain points in many biological processes we experience these same sensations (i.e. wake/sleep cycle, eating/elimination cycle, inhale/exhale cycle, etc.)

As you can imagine, when a cycle reaches its zenith, that's good, and when a cycle reaches its nadir, that's bad.

This is a grossly incorrect interpretation as you may imagine cycles have discharge and recharge phases. Good and bad are subjective terms. Inhale may have a preferable sensation to exhale if you are going under water for a while. A resource cycling at any given rate will be recharging through approximately half of its' total period.

But what you might not see so easily is that when cycles cross the zero line on the ascent or descent, these "switch point days" are "critical" days. These are days you want to know about in advance so you can prepare for them. For example, if you are scheduled to take a test that will measure your thinking ability, make sure you do not take the test on a day when your intellectual cycle is at a critical or a low point. (Now you know why you've done so poorly on certain tests. You took them on the wrong day!

So called, critical days are merely transitions zones from recharging to discharging physiological functions. Even sawing a log can illustrate that when switching from push to pull there is a decrease in thrust toward the end of each stroke, followed briefly by a moment when nothing happens at all. Then an increase in motion in the opposite direction. This decrease-stop-increase at the end of each push and again at the end of each pull adds up to about half the cycle period. NO WORK IS DONE IN THE TRANSITION ZONE!

Of course, don't forget, that the only reason you did well on other tests was because your intellectual cycle was at a peak! If you won't take any blame, remember that you can't take any credit either.) On the other hand, if you are a long distance runner, try to pick your next race date so that you are at a peak on your physical cycle.

At least 25% of the cycle is maximum discharge. While still cynically overstating, our friend is suggesting that if you performed either of these tasks at 4:00am and score poorly you are not responsible. This is of course not true because you knew you would not perform well at 4:00am - didn't you?

The worst day of all, according to the theory, is the "triple critical", the day when all three cycles are at their nadir. Next worse is the "double critical", when two cycles meet at the switch point. As you can imagine, it gets very complicated tracing all these cycles on their ascents, descents, switch points, etc. But it does not take a mathematician to figure out that it is going to be easy to find cases that fit the theory. For example, the physical cycle is 23 days long. That means that every 11.5 days is a physical cycle switch over day, or 31.76 days every year are really bad days for your body. So, the odds of, say, having a heart attack on a given physical switch over day are about 1 in 11. Now, one valid empirical test of the theory would be to collect data on heart attack victims and see if significantly more that 9% (1 out of 11) had their heart attacks on physical switch over days.

The author suggests that statistical saturation can eradicate evidence of anything - so what? Even if this is true would it disprove bio-rhythm. The author provides no concrete reason for biological cycles to exist all around but not at these frequencies. Is he trying to prove that these cycles are unrelated to the physical, emotional, intellectual and intuition resources that they have been observed to be related with? This author has not mentioned the vast number of empirical studies conducted all over the world involving a multitude of individuals spanning centuries. Why?

 

Next:

Bio-Bunk? - More Answers!

(c)opyright 1995-2000 BioMap^tm

Articles BioMap^tm