Ben Greenfield and Joe Rogan have this conversation about infrared versus dry saunas, and it's a good one. But there's a detail buried in the middle that I want to pull into the light, because it changes everything: those Finnish longevity studies — the ones showing reduced dementia risk, reduced all-cause mortality, the profound benefits of four to five sessions per week — those were done in traditional dry saunas. Not infrared. Traditional Finnish dry saunas running at 174 to 200 degrees Fahrenheit.
Greenfield references these studies to support infrared sauna use, and I understand why — the overlap in benefits is real. But the research base is not equivalent, and we should be honest about that distinction before making protocol decisions.
I've been through the research on this. We have a full article from Dr. Sean O'Mara that lands on the opposite side of this debate — traditional dry sauna, he argues, is more effective precisely because the higher temperatures drive more significant cardiovascular adaptation and heat shock protein activation. Then there's Dr. Mercola, who splits the difference in an interesting way: near-infrared, he says, is categorically different from far-infrared, and most commercial infrared saunas use far-infrared panels. That distinction matters more than the infrared-versus-dry debate itself.
So we have a real disagreement among serious researchers. O'Mara says go hot and traditional. Mercola says near-infrared is underrated and far-infrared is oversold. Greenfield says infrared is more accessible and the deeper tissue penetration justifies lower temperatures. These are not fringe positions. They're all citing real mechanisms.
Here's what nobody disputes: frequency matters more than modality. Four times a week in any sauna is better than once a week in the "optimal" sauna. Heat shock proteins get activated. Core temperature rises. Cardiovascular adaptations accumulate. The argument about which type is better is a second-order question. The first-order question is whether you're doing it consistently.
Infrared saunas have a real practical advantage here. They're easier to tolerate for longer sessions. People who find 195 degree Finnish heat overwhelming can sit comfortably at 160 degrees and still get a meaningful sweat. If infrared is the modality that gets you into the practice four times a week instead of once, that's a win. Consistency beats perfection.
Here's what struck me reading the contrast therapy research in our database: the thermal differential between hot and cold matters more than the absolute temperature of either extreme. Studies on contrast therapy show that the oscillation — the swing from heat to cold — drives unique adaptations that neither modality achieves alone. So the debate between infrared and dry sauna may be less important than whether you're pairing either one with cold exposure afterward. The contrast amplifies the cardiovascular response, accelerates recovery, and deepens the neurochemical reset. If you're only doing heat, you're leaving something significant on the table.
If you have access to a traditional dry Finnish sauna and can tolerate the heat, use it. The evidence base is stronger and the temperatures drive more robust adaptation. If infrared is what you have — or what you'll actually use consistently — do that, four times a week, 20 to 30 minutes. And regardless of which type you use, follow it with cold. Even a cold shower. The contrast is where the real magic happens, and that part of the protocol is backed by every sauna and cold exposure study I've read in this knowledge base.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Get in. Get hot. Get cold. Repeat.