Both cabins raise your core temperature, and that rise is what produces the benefits, so the choice comes down to which one you will use. A traditional Finnish sauna heats the air to 176–212°F (80–100°C) and carries the deep long-term outcome evidence: the figures for the heart, for living longer and for lower dementia risk all come from following Finnish sauna users for two decades. Infrared runs cooler, around 113–140°F (45–60°C), warming the body directly with radiant panels, so it is easier to sit in for longer, gentler on the heart during the session, and often cheaper to install at home.
Its evidence for blood pressure, chronic pain and recovery is promising but thinner and shorter. For the best-evidenced longevity and cardiovascular payoff, the traditional sauna holds the outcome data; for a tolerable, affordable heat dose you will keep up, infrared is a sound choice. A few situations call for care, and those are gathered in one place lower down.
Findings & Outcomes
⚠ Both need care with heat, alcohol, pregnancy and heart conditions. See Cautions.
Summary
Pick by what you will actually use, because both cabins do the same core thing: raise your body temperature enough that you adapt to it. The traditional Finnish sauna is the one with the deep track record. The figures for the heart, for living longer and for lower dementia risk all come from following Finnish sauna users for around twenty years, and no infrared cabin has been studied that way. If the best-evidenced longevity and cardiovascular payoff is what you are after, that evidence sits with the traditional sauna.
Infrared is the gentler, more accessible option. It runs much cooler, around 113–140°F (45–60°C), and warms the body directly with radiant panels, so it is easier to sit in for longer, kinder to the heart during a session, and usually cheaper to install at home. Its own evidence covers blood pressure, blood vessel function, chronic pain and recovery, and it rests on small, short studies rather than long follow-ups. Traditional sauna carries the strongest outcome evidence and the bigger heat dose; infrared offers tolerability, comfort and lower cost. Either delivers the core-temperature stimulus if you use it regularly and get properly hot, so the better of the two is the one you will keep doing.
How They Compare
The Heat And Mechanism Difference
The two cabins heat you in different ways, and that difference drives every other one. A traditional sauna heats the air to roughly 176–212°F (80–100°C) and warms you from the outside by convection, with the option to raise humidity by throwing water on the hot stones, the loyly that gives a Finnish sauna its character. An infrared cabin stays around 113–140°F (45–60°C) and uses radiant panels to warm the body directly. Both raise core temperature, the stimulus the body adapts to, so infrared reaches that target at a lower, more comfortable air temperature. The trade is heat dose against comfort: the hotter room delivers a bigger, faster heat load, and the cooler room is easier to tolerate for longer.
Depth Of Evidence
This is the clearest gap between the two. The strongest evidence in the whole area is the long-term observation of traditional Finnish sauna users. In a cohort of 2,315 middle-aged men followed for a median of about twenty-one years, frequent sauna use tracked with far lower sudden cardiac death (hazard ratio 0.37 for 4 to 7 sessions a week versus one), lower cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and about a third the risk of dementia (0.34) and Alzheimer's disease (0.35) compared with once-a-week use. These are associations, not proof of cause, and they carry a healthy-user confound, since fitter men tolerate frequent hot saunas more easily. Infrared has no equivalent: no cohort has followed infrared users to these hard outcomes.
The heart, longevity and dementia figures come from traditional Finnish saunas followed for two decades. No infrared cabin has been studied to those outcomes, so infrared cannot claim them.
That asymmetry is what a decision should turn on, and it is why the longevity case belongs to the traditional sauna.
Blood Pressure And Cardiovascular
Infrared has the more targeted short-term cardiovascular data. A review of the far-infrared literature found fair evidence that it helps normalize blood pressure and supports the treatment of congestive heart failure, while the same review did not support the claim that it lowers cholesterol. In men with coronary risk factors, two weeks of a daily 140°F (60°C) far-infrared sauna improved flow-mediated dilation, a measure of how well the arteries open, from about 4.0 to 5.8 percent. And a meta-analysis of Waon therapy, a Japanese far-infrared protocol, found short-term improvements in heart-failure markers such as B-type natriuretic peptide and ejection fraction. These are small, short studies measuring markers over weeks, so they sit at the emerging end, promising and early. The long-term cardiovascular outcomes were measured on the traditional sauna.
Pain And Recovery
Infrared has a small but consistent body of comfort and recovery data. In 34 people with rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis, eight infrared sessions over four weeks eased pain and stiffness in the short term and were well tolerated with no adverse effects, though it was an uncontrolled pilot. In active men, sitting in a far-infrared cabin after endurance training helped jump power recover better than no sauna, and the session heart rate was much lower in the infrared cabin, about 71 beats a minute against 92 in a traditional sauna, a direct sign of the gentler load. After strength training that same study found no added benefit from the cabin, so the recovery help is specific to some kinds of training. Cooler and more tolerable, infrared is well suited to recovery and joint comfort.
Tolerability And Cost
For comfort, access and budget, infrared usually comes out ahead:
- Radiant heat warms the body at a much lower air temperature, so an infrared cabin is easier to sit in for longer and better tolerated by people who find a full-heat sauna hard to bear, whether from the heat itself or a sensitive cardiovascular system.
- Home infrared units tend to cost less, run on ordinary household power, and heat up quickly.
A traditional sauna gives the bigger heat dose and the loyly and humidity experience many people are there for, and it is the version the long-term outcome data was measured on. A full traditional cabin usually costs more to build or buy and takes longer to reach temperature. The full range of ways into heat, from a hot bath to a built cabin, lives on the heat exposure page.
The Safety Difference
The risk profiles differ by temperature. Heat raises heart rate and lowers blood pressure, and that load scales with how hot and how long the session is, so the hotter traditional sauna imposes a larger acute cardiovascular strain than a cooler infrared cabin. For most healthy people both are well tolerated.
Both cabins impose heat stress, so the same cautions apply to each: unstable heart conditions, alcohol around a session, pregnancy and dehydration.
Those situations are gathered under Cautions.
The Research & Studies
Everything here is based on the research we have collected and checked, sorted into groups and ordered with the strongest evidence first. Click any claim to open the studies behind it.
How it works
Both raise core temperature: traditional heats the air to 176–212°F (80–100°C), infrared warms the body with panels at 113–140°F (45–60°C)
A traditional sauna heats the air very hot; an infrared cabin stays cooler and warms your body directly with radiant panels. Both raise your core temperature, which is the part that matters.
A systematic review of dry sauna bathing describes the two regimes: traditional Finnish saunas heat the air to about 176–212°F (80–100°C), mainly warming the body by convection, while infrared saunas use radiant heaters at about 113–140°F (45–60°C) that transfer energy directly to the body. The physiological target in both is a controlled rise in core temperature, with the flushing, sweating and rise in skin blood flow that follow. Because radiant heat warms the body directly, an infrared cabin can drive core temperature up at a much lower air temperature, which is why it feels more tolerable for longer.
The study · 1
Hussain & Cohen, clinical effects of regular dry sauna bathing: a systematic review · Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2018;2018:1857413
An infrared session raised core temperature about 1.05C in 10 healthy women with no significant blood pressure or heart-rate-variability change
In healthy women, an infrared session warmed the body by about a degree but barely moved blood pressure or heart rate variability, so its cardiovascular load is mild.
The crossover trial compared infrared sauna, moderate exercise and a control in 10 healthy women with a mean age of 36. Tympanic temperature rose about 1.05 degrees Celsius above control and 0.79 degrees above exercise during the infrared session, while blood pressure, arterial stiffness and heart rate variability showed no significant differences from control. The authors concluded the infrared response is driven by thermoregulation rather than the cardiorespiratory activation of exercise, so infrared is better understood as a mild heat stress than as a stand-in for a workout.
Who this may not transfer to:Tested only in 10 healthy women, so whether the same mild load holds in men, or in older or unwell people, is untested.
The study · 1
Hussain et al., infrared sauna as exercise-mimetic? Physiological responses to infrared sauna vs exercise in healthy women: a randomized controlled crossover trial · Complement Ther Med 2022;64:102798
Heart And Vascular
Two weeks of daily far-infrared lifted flow-mediated dilation from 4.0 to 5.8 percent in 25 men with cardiac risk factors
In men with heart-disease risk factors, two weeks of daily far-infrared sauna improved how well their arteries opened.
The controlled study enrolled 25 men with at least one coronary risk factor (mean age 38) alongside 10 healthy controls. Participants had a far-infrared dry sauna at 140°F (60°C) for 15 minutes once a day for two weeks, then rested in a warm room. Flow-mediated dilation of the brachial artery rose from 4.0 to 5.8 percent (p less than 0.001) in the at-risk men, with no such change measured in a non-treated comparison, and forearm blood flow also improved. It is a small, short study of a surrogate marker rather than a hard outcome.
Who this may not transfer to:The treated group was men, so whether the same artery-function gain occurs in women is untested.
The study · 1
Imamura et al., repeated thermal therapy improves impaired vascular endothelial function in patients with coronary risk factors · J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38(4):1083-1088
Waon far-infrared therapy improved heart-failure markers across nine pooled studies, lowering BNP and raising ejection fraction
Pooling nine studies, a far-infrared heat protocol produced short-term improvements in several heart-failure measures, though long-term data is missing.
The systematic review and meta-analysis pooled nine studies (seven in the quantitative analysis) of Waon therapy, a Japanese far-infrared sauna protocol delivering 140°F (60°C) for 15 minutes followed by a 30-minute rest, five times a week for 2 to 4 weeks, in patients with heart failure. It reported short-term improvements in B-type natriuretic peptide, cardiothoracic ratio and left-ventricular ejection fraction. The trials were small and mostly from a single country, and the review notes the need for larger, longer studies before this becomes a settled treatment.
Who this may not transfer to:The pooled studies do not give a combined sex breakdown, so whether the effect differs for women and men is untested.
The study · 1
Kallstrom et al., effects of sauna bath on heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis · Clin Cardiol 2018;41(11):1491-1501
A review of nine papers found limited-to-moderate evidence far-infrared helps normalize blood pressure, with no support for lowering cholesterol
A review found reasonable early evidence that far-infrared sauna helps with blood pressure and heart failure, and it did not support the cholesterol claims sometimes made for it.
The review of nine published papers graded the evidence for far-infrared sauna across cardiovascular risk factors. It reported limited-to-moderate evidence for normalizing blood pressure and for treating congestive heart failure, and fair single-study evidence for chronic pain, and consistent fair evidence against the claim that it reduces cholesterol. This is a small and uneven body of work, so the blood-pressure signal is early rather than established, and it does not yet approach the depth of the traditional-sauna outcome cohorts.
Who this may not transfer to:The reviewed studies are not summarized by sex, so whether the blood-pressure benefit differs for women and men is untested.
The study · 1
Beever, far-infrared saunas for treatment of cardiovascular risk factors: summary of published evidence · Can Fam Physician 2009;55(7):691-696
Pain
Eight infrared sessions over four weeks eased pain and stiffness short-term in 34 people with rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis
In people with rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis, infrared sessions eased pain and stiffness in the short term and were well tolerated.
The pilot study treated 17 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and 17 with ankylosing spondylitis with eight infrared sauna sessions over four weeks. Pain and stiffness fell significantly during the sessions (p less than 0.05 for rheumatoid arthritis, p less than 0.001 for ankylosing spondylitis), fatigue improved, and the treatment was well tolerated with no adverse effects and no rise in disease activity. Improvements measured across the four weeks were clinically felt but did not reach statistical significance, and there was no control group, so this is an early before-and-after signal.
Who this may not transfer to:The study does not report a sex split, so whether the relief differs for women and men is untested.
The study · 1
Oosterveld et al., infrared sauna in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis · Clin Rheumatol 2009;28(1):29-34
Exercise Recovery
After endurance training, infrared aided jump-power recovery; session heart rate ran 71 versus 92 beats a minute against a traditional sauna
In active men, sitting in a far-infrared cabin after endurance training helped jump power recover, and the session itself was much easier on the heart than a traditional sauna.
The crossover study put 10 healthy, physically active men through far-infrared bathing, traditional sauna and no sauna after strength and endurance sessions. After endurance training, counter-movement jump at 30 minutes was significantly higher following far-infrared bathing, 13.4 inches (0.34 m), than no sauna, 12.6 inches (0.32 m). Heart rate during the far-infrared session averaged 71 beats a minute against 92 in the traditional sauna, reflecting the lower air temperature and humidity. After strength training, far-infrared bathing produced no measurable advantage over no sauna. It is a very small study in men.
Who this may not transfer to:Only men were studied, so whether the recovery benefit and the session heart-rate difference are the same in women is untested.
If recovery after endurance work is the aim, the gentler infrared cabin is a reasonable choice; after strength work this study found no added benefit, so do not count on it there.
The study · 1
Mero et al., effects of far-infrared sauna bathing on recovery from strength and endurance training sessions in men · SpringerPlus 2015;4:321
Longevity And Mortality
Traditional sauna 4 to 7 times a week: about 63 percent lower sudden cardiac death in Finnish men (hazard ratio 0.37)
Finnish men who used a traditional sauna most often had far fewer heart deaths over 20 years, and this kind of long-term outcome evidence exists for the traditional sauna but not yet for infrared.
The Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease cohort followed 2,315 men aged 42 to 60 for a median of 20.7 years. Compared with using a sauna once a week, using it 2 to 3 times a week and 4 to 7 times a week tracked with progressively lower risk: sudden cardiac death hazard ratios of 0.78 and 0.37, with similar inverse associations for fatal cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality, after adjustment for the usual cardiovascular risk factors. These were traditional Finnish saunas, and no infrared cabin has been followed to hard outcomes on this scale or timeframe, which is the central difference in the evidence between the two.
Who this may not transfer to:The cohort was all men, so whether the same size of benefit holds for women is untested; the underlying cardiovascular physiology is shared, but the numbers are from men.
The study · 1
Laukkanen et al., association between sauna bathing and fatal cardiovascular and all-cause mortality events · JAMA Intern Med 2015;175(4):542-548
Cognition
Traditional sauna 4 to 7 times a week: about a third the dementia risk in Finnish men (hazard ratio 0.34)
The same men who used a traditional sauna most often had about a third the dementia risk of once-a-week users, and again this long-term evidence is for the traditional sauna, not infrared.
Following the Kuopio cohort of 2,315 men aged 42 to 60 for a median of 20.7 years, sauna use 2 to 3 times a week and 4 to 7 times a week carried adjusted hazard ratios of 0.78 and 0.34 for dementia, and 0.80 and 0.35 for Alzheimer's disease, relative to once-a-week use. The association is observational and specific to traditional saunas; the far cooler infrared cabin has no comparable long-term follow-up to cognitive outcomes.
Who this may not transfer to:All participants were men, so whether the association holds at the same size in women is untested.
The study · 1
Laukkanen et al., sauna bathing is inversely associated with dementia and Alzheimer's disease in middle-aged Finnish men · Age Ageing 2017;46(2):245-249
When To Choose Which
Match the choice to your body, your budget and what you will keep up.
Lean toward infrared if you find a full-heat sauna hard to tolerate, you want something gentler on the heart during the session, you are working on recovery or joint comfort, or cost and easy home installation matter. It reaches the core-temperature stimulus at a temperature most people can sit in comfortably for longer, which for many is what turns a good intention into a weekly habit.
Lean toward the traditional sauna if you want the option with the deep long-term outcome evidence for the heart, mortality and the brain, you enjoy the bigger heat dose and the loyly and humidity, and you tolerate high heat well. This is the version behind the longevity figures, and it delivers a larger heat load per minute.
Either works if you use it consistently. Both raise core temperature, the active ingredient, so the practical verdict is that the best sauna is the one you will actually get into regularly and hot enough for long enough. Frequency and a real heat dose matter more than which technology heats the room. If a cooler cabin is what gets you in four times a week for years, that beats a hotter one you rarely use.
Go Deeper
- Heat exposure: the full evidence on heat, the mechanism, and every way in from a hot bath to a built sauna.
- Heat without a sauna: the hot-bath protocol with the best data, and how to get a heat dose with what you already have.
- Heat and cold: contrast therapy: pairing a sauna with a cold plunge, what the trend gets right, and where it runs ahead of the research.
- Hypertension: the blood-pressure benefit heat has the best evidence for, in the context of the condition it matters most for.
The Chinese Medicine View
In Chinese medicine, deliberate sweating heat is a warming, exterior-releasing method (解表 jiě biǎo), one of the classical Eight Methods. It opens the pores, moves the Qi and Blood, warms and moves Yang, and disperses Cold-Damp stagnation, the heavy, chilled, sluggish quality many people feel most in winter. As a description of what a person feels in a sauna, the flushing, the sweat, the loosening, it fits. As a causal claim it is a separate language laid over the same events: Qi is not blood flow and Yang is not nitric oxide, and neither picture proves the other.
Between the two cabins, the traditional sauna gives the fuller sweating, exterior-releasing effect the classics describe, since it is hotter and, with loyly, more like a warm steaming. The tradition also carries a caution the modern comparison echoes: heavy sweating is understood to consume fluids, and because sweat and Blood are held to share a source, someone who runs hot, sleeps poorly, wakes in the small hours with a dry mouth and a red tongue, described as Yin-deficient with empty heat rising, is guided away from prolonged intense heat and heavy sweating.
For that person the gentler, cooler infrared cabin, used for a shorter time and with attention to rehydrating, sits more comfortably with the traditional guidance to warm and move without over-draining. Someone cold and damp in constitution, heavy and chilled, does well with either form of warmth. Season matters too, since everyone takes less heat in high summer than in deep winter. If you have a practitioner, this is a good thing to ask, because the answer depends on your pattern.
Cautions
Everything to be aware of is here, in one place. This practice suits most healthy people; a few situations call for real care.
The hotter traditional sauna at 176–212°F (80–100°C) is a larger acute cardiovascular load than a cooler infrared cabin
A review of the evidence on sauna bathing describes the acute physiology: skin blood flow rises, heart rate climbs, and blood pressure falls afterward, a load that scales with how hot and how long the session is. Because a traditional sauna runs far hotter than an infrared cabin, its acute cardiovascular strain is greater, which is part of why infrared is more tolerable for the heat-sensitive. The review reports sauna is well tolerated by most healthy people and flags the situations that call for care, including recent cardiac events, unstable angina, dehydration, alcohol use around sessions, and pregnancy.Laukkanen et al., cardiovascular and other health benefits of sauna bathing: a review of the evidence
Heart conditions, get cleared first
Both forms of heat raise heart rate and lower blood pressure, which is a real load on a compromised heart, and the hotter traditional sauna loads it more. If you have unstable angina, a recent heart attack, severe aortic stenosis, decompensated heart failure or an arrhythmia, talk to a doctor before starting, and a cooler infrared cabin used briefly is the gentler place to begin.
Alcohol and heat
Drinking before or during a sauna worsens the blood-pressure drop, blunts your sense of how hot you are getting, and raises the risk of fainting and dehydration. Alcohol and heat are a common thread in sauna deaths, so keep them apart for either cabin.
Pregnancy
Raising core temperature high in early pregnancy is generally advised against, so prolonged intense heat is best set aside, especially in the first trimester. Keep any heat moderate and sessions short, and check with your clinician before using a sauna of either kind.
Rise slowly and rehydrate
Blood pressure is low when you finish, so stand up gradually, and if you feel lightheaded, sit down where you are rather than walking it off. You lose water and electrolytes in the heat, so drink water before and after and replace electrolytes on longer or hotter sessions.
Do not overdo the heat or the time
More heat and more time is not automatically more benefit, and it raises the strain. Start shorter and cooler if you are older, unwell or new to it, build up over weeks, and let how you feel guide the dose rather than pushing for the hottest room you can bear.
Start slow, be smart, read the research, and consult a professional if you have any concerns. This is here to inform your choice, not make it for you.
Common Questions
Which is better for living longer, infrared or traditional sauna?
The traditional sauna, on the evidence as it stands. The figures for lower cardiovascular death, lower all-cause mortality and lower dementia risk all come from following Finnish traditional sauna users for around twenty years, and there is no equivalent long-term study of infrared cabins. Those findings are observational, so they show a strong association rather than proof of cause, but the depth of outcome data is real and it belongs to the traditional sauna. Infrared may well share the benefit, since both raise core temperature, but that has not been measured over the long term, so for the best-evidenced longevity case the traditional sauna is the answer.
Is infrared sauna easier on the body than a traditional one?
Yes, during the session. Because an infrared cabin runs far cooler, around 113–140°F (45–60°C) against 176–212°F (80–100°C) in a traditional sauna, it imposes a smaller acute cardiovascular load. In one recovery study, session heart rate averaged about 71 beats a minute in a far-infrared cabin against 92 in a traditional sauna, and a crossover trial in healthy women found an infrared session raised body temperature by about a degree while barely moving blood pressure or heart rate variability. That gentleness is why infrared suits people who find full heat hard to tolerate. The flip side is a smaller heat dose per minute, so an infrared session needs a bit longer to reach the same core-temperature target.
Does infrared sauna actually do anything, or is it just marketing?
It has early but consistent evidence. Small trials show far-infrared sauna improving blood vessel function in men with heart-disease risk factors, helping normalize blood pressure, easing pain and stiffness in rheumatic disease, and aiding recovery after endurance training. A meta-analysis of the Waon far-infrared protocol found short-term improvements in heart-failure markers. It works, though its evidence lacks the depth and length of the traditional sauna's. Infrared rests on small, short studies of markers and symptoms, while the traditional sauna has the long-term outcome cohorts. Some claims made for it, such as lowering cholesterol, are not supported by the evidence.
How hot and how long should each session be?
For a traditional sauna, roughly 174.2–212°F (79–100°C) for 10 to 20 minutes is the range the research used. For an infrared cabin at 113–140°F (45–60°C), plan on a bit longer to reach the same core-temperature rise, often 20 to 40 minutes. In both cases the target is getting properly warm; you do not need the highest temperature you can stand, so start at the shorter, cooler end and build over a month. Frequency matters more than intensity: two to three sessions a week already shows cardiovascular benefit in the research, and the largest associations appeared at four to seven a week.
Can I get the same benefit from a hot bath?
For the effect with the best trial evidence, largely yes. The single strongest heat trial used hot baths, not a sauna, and produced artery and blood-pressure gains its authors compared to taking up exercise, because a bath raises core temperature, the active ingredient. What a bath does not reach is the very high heart-rate load of a hot traditional sauna, and the long-term longevity figures were measured on saunas. The hot-bath protocol with the best data, and the rest of the at-home options, are covered on heat without a sauna.
Explore Related
Other pages this one connects to, by the evidence they share, the outcomes they touch, and the ground they cover.
Pages that lead here: Heat Exposure
All 10 sources on this page independently checked and cross-referenced.
Thomas Dehli, Founder & Editor, Sacred Lotus
Sacred Lotus has published Chinese medicine reference material since 2001. Integrative pages are held to the same standard as the herb and formula library: cite the source, grade the claim at its real strength, and say where the research has not looked. This page is educational and it is not medical advice. Last reviewed and updated August 10, 2026.
Evidence strength
How confidently the research supports a claim. Strength describes the evidence, not our endorsement.