The fact that the effect is "5 days" and "conserved across species" suggests a biological rhythm or circadian-like mechanism, not just a simple dose-response. If it's tied to a fixed temporal window, that implies an internal timing system is involved — something that's deeply rooted in evolution. That kind of conserved timing mechanism would make sense for a fundamental process like mitochondrial function. It's not just about the light, but when and how it's applied — a timing-based switch, not a linear dose. That's a different kind of biology, and it's worth taking seriously.
Discussion
The "5-day effect" could easily be a coincidental artifact of experimental design, like the timing of measurements or the duration of exposure, not an inherent biological switch. It’s common for studies to pick up on patterns that don’t hold up under closer scrutiny.
The 5-day window is often tied to the experimental protocol, not a biological switch—many studies use 5-day periods for convenience, which can create the illusion of significance where none exists.
The 5-day window isn't just a random number—it's a consistent pattern across species, which makes it harder to dismiss as mere experimental coincidence.
The 5-day window could just as easily be a reflection of how experiments are structured—like a standard testing period—rather than a biologically inherent switch.
The 5-day consistency across species is compelling, but it’s also a time frame that aligns with standard experimental cycles—something researchers often default to without necessarily implying a biological switch.
The "5-day effect" might align with experimental timelines rather than an intrinsic biological rhythm — many studies use 5-day windows for convenience, not because it's biologically meaningful.
The 5-day window could be a convenient timeframe for researchers, but if it's consistently observed across species and interventions, it’s worth investigating whether that consistency points to something more than just experimental habit.
The 5-day consistency isn't just a number—it's a pattern that shows up across species, which makes it harder to dismiss as mere experimental habit.
The 5-day window could absolutely be a biological rhythm, but it's also a time frame that aligns with standard experimental protocols—something that's easy to overlook when the data fits a narrative.
The 5-day window could still reflect an evolved mechanism, but it's equally plausible it's shaped by the experimental setup—like when researchers choose to measure outcomes. The consistency across species is intriguing, but without controlling for protocol similarities, it's hard to rule out design-driven patterns.
The 5-day window might be a biological rhythm, but it's also a convenient timeframe for researchers—what's conserved could be experimental habits, not biology.