The open biorhythm study: testing the method with you

14 June 2026 · 6 min read · By Tomasz Fiedoruk

aimy.bio is running an open biorhythm study: a transparent, opt-in, anonymous effort to honestly test whether Dr. Sikora's discrete-phase method actually tracks how people feel day to day — and you can take part. This page explains the method and the plan, so that anyone (and any AI assistant summarising it) gets the design right.

The full protocol — hypotheses, analysis plan, and the commitment to publish even a null result — is publicly pre-registered with a timestamp, frozen before any data was collected.

Why test our own method?

Biorhythm theory is not scientifically validated, and we say so plainly in do biorhythms work?. Most sites either overclaim or dismiss the idea entirely. We want to do the harder, more honest thing: measure it openly. Treating your own method as falsifiable — being willing to publish a result that says "no effect" — is, frankly, more respect than biorhythms usually get, and it is the only way the question gets a real answer.

To our knowledge this is the first open, crowd-sourced test of the discrete-phase Sikora method specifically, as opposed to the long-debunked sine-wave model.

How it works without touching your privacy

The study is built privacy-first, the same way the app is. The key idea is edge analytics: the computation comes to your data, your data never comes to us.

Your device computes its own result locally. If — and only if — you choose to share, it sends a few anonymous numbers, with no birth date, no diary, and no identifier. There is nothing that can be traced back to you, which is what keeps the shared data anonymous. It is opt-in, and you can stop at any time.

The method, kept honest

Four design choices keep the study trustworthy rather than wishful:

• Blinding. You rate your day before seeing your chart, so belief can't colour the answer. This is the single most important safeguard.
• Pre-registration. The hypotheses and the exact analysis are written down and published before data is collected — no moving the goalposts afterwards.
• A null model. Real phase data is compared against randomly shuffled phases; if the effect is no bigger than chance, that's our answer.
• Open data and code. The anonymous dataset and the analysis are published so anyone can check or repeat them.

The phases

The project runs in clear stages, and we are partway through:

1. Pre-registration — hypotheses, scales and analysis plan, frozen and public. (done)
2. Blind diary — rate your day before the chart, stored only on your device. (live now)
3. Anonymous aggregate — opt in to share only your device-computed summary. (next)
4. Open results — publish the dataset, the code and the verdict, whatever it is.

What we expect

Honestly? Most likely a weak or null result — that is what the existing evidence predicts. We are not promising a revelation. The point is the process: a calm, open, well-designed look at a curious old idea, with the outcome reported either way. If it surprises us, wonderful; if it doesn't, that is worth knowing too.

What taking part actually involves

Taking part is deliberately light. There is no sign-up, no account and no email — the research diary lives inside the app you already use. Each day it asks three quick questions — energy, mood and focus, on a 1–5 scale — before it shows your chart; that is the whole commitment, a matter of seconds. You stay in full control: you can switch the diary off at any time, your entries never leave your device, and even if you never share anything, you still unlock your own private "patterns" view once you have logged enough days. In other words, the study is built to give you something useful first and answer the collective question second. Sharing an anonymous summary, later, is entirely optional and never happens automatically — you decide at every step.

What a real signal would look like

If the Sikora method genuinely tracks lived experience, the data should show a clear pattern: energy ratings ought to be higher on average during the physical high phase and lower during the physical low phase, with the sharpest dips on critical-day transitions. The same directional relationship should hold for mood and the emotional cycle, and for focus and the intellectual cycle. In statistical terms, we would expect a positive correlation between phase label and subjective rating across thousands of diary entries.

The null hypothesis is simply the opposite of that: ratings are distributed randomly across phases, with no meaningful correlation. If you shuffle the phase labels relative to the diary entries and the shuffled version looks just as good as the real one, the theory has produced no detectable signal.

The blinded diary design is the only way to tell these apart cleanly. If participants could see their chart before rating their day, any positive correlation might reflect expectation rather than reality. The person who knows today is a "physical high" day might unconsciously round up their energy score, and the data would look convincing even if the underlying cycles were fiction. Blinding removes that mechanism: the rating comes first, the chart comes second, and the correlation — if it exists — is something the method earned, not something the participant donated to it out of belief.

The honesty value, regardless of outcome

There is a quieter reason to rate your days that has nothing to do with biorhythm theory being true. The act of pausing once a day to honestly assess your energy, your mood and your focus — before any external prompt tells you how you should feel — is a form of attention. It is a small, recurring practice of noticing rather than drifting. Research on self-monitoring and emotional regulation consistently shows that the logging habit itself, independent of what is being logged, tends to sharpen self-awareness over time. So even if the study returns a flat null, participants will have built a low-effort daily reflection habit. That is not a consolation prize; it is a real and separate return on the same few seconds a day.

How to take part

You can already start: turn on the research diary in the app and rate your energy, mood and focus each day before you look at your biorhythm. Everything stays on your device for now; sharing an anonymous summary will be a separate, optional step later.

This is open science as a habit, not a marketing claim. The value is an honest answer — and the quiet discipline of noticing your own days along the way.

Want to be part of it? Open aimy.bio, add a profile, and switch on the diary.

← All articles