The Sauna Divide: Finnish vs. Infrared – What the Science Actually Says
Let’s talk saunas. I get this question all the time—in DMs, on LinkedIn, at events, even in casual chats:
“Susanna, what’s better: Finnish sauna or infrared?”
It sounds simple—but it’s not. And I’ve avoided giving a one-size-fits-all answer for a reason. I have my personal favorite though.
So today, I want to walk you through my honest thoughts. The science, yes—but also the nuance. The physiological differences, the clinical use cases, and some personal reflections from my own journey through sauna research.
Let’s unpack it together.
A Little History: Where This All Started
The Finnish sauna isn’t just a wellness trend. It’s part of a cultural heritage—a practice rooted in centuries of tradition. A Finnish home without a sauna? Almost unthinkable. Babies were born in them. Elders healed in them. And in modern Finland, it’s as much a ritual as it is a routine.
The typical Finnish sauna is dry, heated to 80–100°C, using hot stones that radiate warmth into the air. You can toss water on the stones to get a short burst of humidity (called löyly), but it’s mostly about ambient heat and full-body thermal stress.
Now—infrared saunas are a more recent invention. They don’t heat the air the same way. Instead, they use infrared light to directly warm your body. The air temperature stays much lower—typically 40–60°C—which makes it more tolerable for many people.
But here’s a question I often ask myself (and now, you):
Is an infrared cabin really a sauna—or is it something entirely different?
Traditionally, “sauna” refers to hot-air bathing—a sweaty, high-heat experience. Infrared cabins, while therapeutic, don’t recreate that same intense heat exposure. They offer a different kind of stress. Not better. Not worse. Just... different.
Let’s dig into the differences—scientifically.