Brian Richards is making a specific argument here, and it's worth unpacking carefully. His position is that near-infrared saunas — using incandescent heat lamps — are categorically different from far-infrared panels, and that this difference matters both for detoxification and for mitochondrial activation. The 90% reduction in petrochemical toxin levels is the headline number, and it's striking enough to deserve scrutiny before you accept it.
The cardiovascular and longevity data on sauna — the Finnish cohort studies tracked by Rhonda Patrick, the Laukkanen research on cardiac mortality — is built almost entirely on traditional Finnish steam saunas. Hot, humid, high-temperature. When Richards argues for near-infrared superiority, he's making a claim that isn't well-represented in the long-term population studies we actually have. That doesn't make him wrong. It means we're comparing a century of Finnish epidemiology against a more recent and smaller body of photobiomodulation research.
The near-infrared penetration argument is grounded in real physiology. Light in the 700–1000 nanometer range does penetrate tissue more deeply than far-infrared wavelengths, which are absorbed primarily at the skin surface. The cytochrome c oxidase mechanism — near-infrared light activating mitochondrial electron transport — has legitimate peer-reviewed support. This isn't fringe science. It's a reasonable extension of established photobiology.
The detox claims are where the research gets thinner. The 90% petrochemical reduction figure comes from a small number of studies, some connected to occupational exposures like PCBs and firefighter toxin loads — populations with unusually high baseline contamination. Extrapolating that to a general wellness claim is a significant leap. Your kidneys and liver handle the overwhelming majority of toxin clearance. Sweating contributes, but it's a supporting actor, not the lead.
The EMF mitigation angle is where I'd urge the most caution. The science on non-ionizing, non-thermal EMF as a meaningful health stressor is genuinely contested. Richards speaks with confidence about it, but the evidence base here is much weaker than the heat physiology itself. It may be worth minimizing EMF exposure as a precaution, but it shouldn't be the primary reason you choose a sauna type.
Start with 20 minutes at lower intensities. Work up gradually — not because you're fragile, but because heat adaptation takes time and forcing it produces diminishing returns. The one-hour maximum Richards mentions is sensible. Longer sessions increase dehydration risk without proportionally increasing benefit. Hydrate before, hydrate after. If you have access to a traditional steam sauna, the evidence base supporting it is enormous. If you prefer near-infrared for the lower ambient temperature or the photobiomodulation angle, that's a reasonable choice — just hold the detox claims loosely.
What I find genuinely interesting about near-infrared therapy is how it connects to ancestral light exposure. For most of human history, people spent time near fire — open flames, incandescent heat sources that emit exactly the near-infrared wavelengths Richards is talking about. The idea that modern indoor living has stripped us of a light signal our mitochondria evolved to receive is worth sitting with. Not as marketing copy, but as a real question about what our biology was calibrated for. Whether that signal is therapeutic at sauna intensities is still being worked out. But the underlying premise — that light is information for our cells — is solid biology.