Phil Wilson is making a specific and somewhat bold argument: not all infrared saunas are the same, and far infrared — operating in that 7 to 14 micron wavelength range — does something fundamentally different from what you get in a traditional Finnish steam sauna or a near infrared unit. The mechanism he's pointing to is molecular. Far infrared wavelengths vibrate water molecules directly, which weakens ionic bonds and theoretically facilitates the release of stored toxins and heavy metals. The proof he offers is pragmatic: you're sweating within eight minutes instead of forty. Your heart rate climbs. You feel it immediately.
That rapid physiological response is worth taking seriously. When your body responds that quickly and that measurably, something real is happening.
Here's the honest truth: the knowledge base contains a direct counterargument. Dr. Mercola — in an article we've indexed — argues the opposite position. His take is that near infrared is superior for cellular regeneration and mitochondrial function, specifically because those shorter wavelengths penetrate deeper into tissue and stimulate cytochrome c oxidase, an enzyme critical to energy production. Far infrared, by his analysis, stays closer to the skin surface.
So you have two experts, both thoughtful, pointing in opposite directions. Wilson says far infrared wins on detoxification. Mercola says near infrared wins on cellular repair. They're arguably measuring different outcomes.
This is actually how the sauna research landscape looks broadly. Multiple articles in our library — from the Sunlight Saunas piece to the Mark Idour interview — describe near, mid, and far infrared as serving distinct physiological functions. The honest answer is that they probably do different things. The question is what you're optimizing for.
Strip away the near-versus-far debate, and there's remarkable consensus underneath: regular heat exposure works. The Finnish sauna literature — which Wilson references and which underpins the cardiovascular mortality data Rhonda Patrick has popularized — doesn't depend on infrared at all. Traditional steam saunas produce the same heat shock protein cascade, the same growth hormone response, the same cardiovascular adaptations. The mechanism is elevated core body temperature. How you get there matters less than that you get there consistently.
Wilson's point about measurability is underappreciated. If your heart rate isn't climbing and you're not sweating within the first ten minutes, you haven't crossed the threshold where the interesting biology starts. That's a useful filter regardless of sauna type.
If you have access to a far infrared unit like the Relax Sauna, use it. The rapid onset is a genuine advantage for time-constrained protocols. Three to four sessions per week, twenty minutes minimum once you're sweating. Cool down deliberately afterward — don't just walk out into air conditioning. Let your body temperature normalize gradually.
If you're choosing between sauna types, stop trying to optimize the last 10% before you've built the habit. Any sauna that gets you sweating consistently will deliver most of the benefit. Pick the one you'll actually use.
Hippocrates' quote — find me a way to create fever and I will cure any disease — sounds hyperbolic until you realize that fever is one of the most sophisticated immune responses in biology. Your body raises its core temperature deliberately to create an environment where pathogens struggle to replicate and heat shock proteins can do their housekeeping work. What infrared saunas are doing, in essence, is borrowing that ancient biological mechanism and applying it voluntarily. You're not fighting an infection. You're running the fever protocol as a training stimulus. That's not a metaphor. That's the actual physiology.