Stephen, I think our network of pathways can respond to opposite signals without neutralizing them, so merging the two phases of this protocol is not necessarily out of the question. NR is not the only compound implicated for opposite actions such as mitophagy and mitogenesis. Physiologically, these opposites tend to generate each other, and sometimes a single substance can potentiate two opposite effects (see other thread).
Turnbuckle, I appreciate the bold thinking behind this protocol. However, I would consider some tweaking in light of the paradigm discussed in “On the Network Properties of Mitochondria”:*
The major insight from these studies is that mitochondria act as a network of coupled oscillators with the potential for active intracellular ROS signaling through a frequency- and amplitude-encoded process.
I don’t think the span for the cycles in the protocol can accommodate real-time “rapid fission, fusion, and translocation events.” My concern is that a linear bipolar model potentially constrains fluidity of the non-linear dynamics.
While the human mind is incapable of conceiving a thing and its opposite at the same time, the human body’s signalling pathways are actually performing simultaneous opposites, with cycles emerging out of an interplay of chaos. It’s helpful to provide hormetic nudges that disrupt homeostasis only to strengthen it. It’s not necessarily helpful to try to put the network on a set of rails. So I am thinking a recovery period of no intervention might be useful after each phase, to give the chaos of mitochondrial respiration some breathing room.
*Aon, M. A., Cortassa, S. and O'Rourke, B. (2007) On the Network Properties of Mitochondria, in Molecular System Bioenergetics: Energy for Life (ed V. Saks), Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany. doi: 10.1002/9783527621095.ch4