Author here. Methodology upfront because I'd ask the same things:
Data: daily records from wearable users who logged sauna sessions via connected apps. Within-person design — each user is their own control, comparing their own sauna-day nights against their own non-sauna-day nights. No cross-user comparisons.
Stats: paired t-tests, FDR-corrected p < 0.05, Cohen's d > 0.2 threshold for "meaningful effect." Anything below d=0.2 we don't report as a finding.
What we measured: minimum nighttime HR, max and average HR, HRV, activity minutes and distance, menstrual cycle phase (for female subset).
What we found:
- On sauna days, minimum nighttime HR drops ~3 bpm (~5%) vs. the same user's non-sauna days.
- Effect survives controlling for activity level. It's not "sauna users just exercised more that day."
- Strongest hypothesis: elevated parasympathetic tone from the post-sauna cooling phase carries into sleep. Consistent with heat-stress physiology literature.
- Sex difference: for women, the nighttime HR effect only crosses the d > 0.2 threshold during the luteal phase. No meaningful effect during the follicular phase. We didn't expect this; worth replicating.
What we can't control for:
- Sauna type (dry / infrared / steam), duration, temperature. Not captured.
- Dose-response. We don't know session length per user.
- Timing of sauna relative to sleep.
- Reverse causation: people may sauna on days they already feel recovered.
- Selection: wearable users who bother logging sauna are a health-conscious cohort.
What surprised us: the effect is larger than what we see for comparable-intensity exercise days. If you treat nighttime HR as a parasympathetic recovery signal, sauna beats a moderate workout on the same user. Not what I'd have predicted.
The most important thing you didn't measure: does this affect long term health in the same way exercise it known to. That is can I put a TV in my sauna and watch that for an hour every day instead of getting out and exercising - yet get the same better long term health outcomes?
My current guess is no. That is this improves a marker for good health without improving health. However this is a guess by someone who isn't in the medical field and so could be wrong.
I recently listened to a podcast about the benefits of sauna or deliberate heat exposure and the gist is that if you get your core temperature at about 39 degrees celsius your cardiovascular system is working comparably hard to light exercise.
My take is that your heart and lungs are working out, even if your body is not. Do you get the same benefits as going for a run or bike ride for a comparable amount of time? no, since your limbs don't get fit, but your heart and lungs do.
Not saying you are wrong, but I'd like to see some evidence on that. Just because your heart is pumping faster doesn't mean your cardio fitness is getting better. Otherwise we could all just snort cocaine and skip the gym. Alcohol does that too, anyone with a fitness tracker can check that.
Moreover, I'm from a very hot and humid tropical region. Its normal to ne 40°C with 80% humidity there. And you dont see people having better health or longevity (Yucatan peninsula) .
The great but not super healthy Mexican diet might offset the potential heat exposure benefits! Although I’m basing that on the diet of my Monterrey-based in-laws, not sure how different Yucatan is.
But that would be like exercise all the time which may not be optimal. (Not saying the theory holds that sauna equals exercise, but if it does, sauna all the time may not be great. Plus, there may be other confounding factors with living in various locations.)
Athletes already know the answer from years of cultural knowledge, research, and firsthand experience. No, it doesn't make your cardio fitness meaningfully better. If you did sauna training for years and then tried to ramp up for a marathon, you'd be hopelessly out of shape.
Endurance athletes obsessively track VO2 max, basically your body's ability to consume oxygen during workouts, and it certainly doesn't improve with sauna training.
It's like asking "if you only did puzzles, would you be smarter?" Well, in a way, yes, but if you actually want to compete with someone with a good education you have to read.
Same with physical exercise. It puts a lot of different stresses on your body that saunas don't. The question isn't "do saunas make you physically fit," because they don't. The question is "for people who don't want to exercise, does sauna training alone meaningfully extend your healthspan?" I'm guessing the answer is "a little but not enough," but I'm not sure.
Cardio of course is short for "cardiovascular system," which consists of a whole lot of moving parts. Saunas improve some parts of it but certainly not all of it.
Will fixing up your radiator fix your car? Maybe, if the radiator was the problem, but there's a lot of other stuff inside a car to work on, too.
Your body evolved under the expectation that it would be stressed in numerous different ways, but those stressors can all be avoided in the modern era. If you want to most reliably recreate those stresses you need to do cardio and resistance training.
A light treadmill session won't do much to improve your cardiovascular system health either. I mean it's better than nothing but don't expect too much.
Edit: I posted this accidentally when editing without noticing. Hypertrophy isn't necessarily a bad thing. I thought I was discarding the comment cuz I realized I was out of my depth. whoops
Please ignore my comment, though I will leave it to make the below comments less confusing.
Original: You don't want to "work out" your heart though. Cardiac hypertrophy is a bad thing.
The benefit of exercise is that your muscles become more oxygen-efficient. Your heart endures some stress now, so that it can work less in the future.
Cardiac hypertrophy is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be the result of positive adaptation, such as exercising.
Eccentric hypertrophy (athlete's heart) is the positive adaptation resulting from training the heart. The heart has a lower resting rate and is more efficient at pumping blood. It returns to normal size if training stops.
You'll never reach a state of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (the bad kind of hypertrophy) with exercise. Its cause is usually genetic.
Not true. You can't really train your muscles to use less oxygen for the same energy output (what "oxygen-efficiency" would imply). You rather increase their capacity to take up oxygen from the blood and burn it. They will use more oxygen to output more energy.
That additional oxygen needs to come from somewhere. Endurance training at the same time trains the heart to deliver more oxygen to the periphery; the primary mechanism is increased cardiac stroke volume.
I would assume that another factor is that the technique for a given exercise on the other hand can be improved, and that can help with decreasing the necessary energy - would that be a correct statement? And as a follow up, depending on activity type this may or may not be significant?
Yes, definitely. Technique is partly about efficient mechanical movement, sending the various parts of your body in the right direction(s) and not waste effort on movement that doesn’t contribute to propelling you forwards. But for endurance sports, it’s really about minimizing energy cost at a given speed. To use running as an example, you can improve biomechanical efficiency through better timing, correct loading of tendons, tendon stiffness, elastic energy use, and more.
You kind of can - the muscles can use aerobic or anaerobic processes. When you develop brute strength you are training those anaerobic processes. That isn't what OP was talking about, and overall it is much less energy efficient, but it does produce a large burst of energy when needed and you can train your muscles that way.
This is terribly uniformed. Do not listen to this.
Cardiac hypertrophy isn't a "bad thing". This is completely contextual. What you don't want, for example, is pathological hypertrophy from things like hypertension, or exclusive left ventricular hypertrophy without associated increase in chamber size.
The heart is very complex. You 100% should exercise it.
This is why I hate health science. Informed people can have the same information and come to opposite conclusions. The entire field is made up of contradictory explanations and principles, to the extent that it’s unknowable what’s true or not.
It’s not really about this particular claim. It’s that I can read a comment that has a reasonable chain of logic and I don’t know if it’s true. This topic is just not easily studied and theories are hard to falsify.
For endurance training the main benefit of heat training is raising blood volume.
Lungs are not a limiter. Developing stroke volume I imagine requires much higher intensity but that's just a wild guess based on my limited understanding of physiology.
If heat training is better than another interval session remains to be seen but it seems a lot of smart people believe it's worth it nowadays.
Since you mention the TV, it seems there's a big factor missing in both the article and the discussion here. Namely, that sauna time is for many people the only time they ever take to be in silence, without the countless distractions otherwise bombarding our nervous systems. I.e. it's basically a form of informal meditation, which is known to have a lot of benefic impacts on body and mind. So maybe skip the TV part?...
> That is this improves a marker for good health without improving health
There is a substantial body of existing research to peruse about the impact of regular sauna use on health outcomes, much of it from Finland given the prevalence of sauna usage there allowing for larger sample sizes. It's a body of evidence rather than one knock-out experimental design.
Much of that body of evidence relies on self-reported and self-assigned sauna usage rather than actual randomized trials, and also the papers show massive risk reductions that do not really fit with the country-level data (e.g., if saunas are that good for cardiovascular health and finns use them that much, why do they have similar rates of CV disease as neighboring countries that don't use that much sauna?)
This feels like a false dichotomy. Even if sauna doesn't impact long term health in a way that can replace exercise, that doesn't mean that it doesn't improve health.
Zero shot you'd make it an hour in a proper sauna for an hour. People have this idea that saunas are always enjoyable. I sauna daily, and its nice up to a point. For me thats like 10-12mins in. From then on, its tough.
When it doesn't feel enjoyable anymore, you're supposed to get out of the sauna and cool down - preferably in a lake. Then repeat as many times as you like.
Huh what? I can easily sit in a sauna for an hour without breaks as long as it has some type of ventilation.
Smoke saunas a bit less, electric or wood stove saunas no issue. It's nice to take a breather once in a while but I'd honestly have no issues sitting in a 80-90 deg sauna for an hour as long as I have enough to drink with me.
One time I sat in the sauna for six hours with a few breaks between with a group of friends shooting the shit. I had a headache the next morning but I blame it on the Jallu and not the sauna.
I generally make it about 30 seconds in a sauna (I rarely even bother trying when I have access). Should I tough it out for 10-12 like you? Should you be toughing it out for the full hour I suggested (a random time I pulled out of my head)? Or is this all nonsense and I'm just fine ignoring the whole thing?
lol, this is true. Wish I could tolerate it longer like a proper Finn. I’ll go 25 mins occasionally but mostly I do 15 mins, break, another 5-10 mins..
My take is probably too nuanced here, but the reality is that we don't know. People living in areas with longevity (blue zones), didn't really excercise (as in sports) or take multivitamins. For all we know, it might even come out that regular, gym-style excercise is even worse for longevity.
Nordic people tend to live a long life even though they historically didn't have access to fresh vegetables or fruit and brutal winters (and darkness) prohibited excercise.
ps. I'm not arguing that excercise is unhealthy, it's just that its contribution to eventual longevity, is currently unknown. Whereas anectodal evidence of saunas (being around longer than "excercise"), seems to work.
I do wonder what the correlation is: is it only because of excercise, or at least partially also due to the fact those who can set aside time and effort (and often, money) to exercise, have a "better" life than those who don't?
For example, high life expectancy in Madrid, and Switzerland are often attributed to having broad access to great healthcare and stress-free lifestyle(both), despite living a relatively "unhealthy" lifestyle, at least in Madrid. Eating fried food everyday, little exercize among elderly (at least if you don't count walking to the bar). Those 85 year+ Madrileños probably had their last formal exercise when they had to do their military service back in the day.
As in the case of top athletes, in your second article, is their longevity due to heavy exercise, or kind of, "despite it", and at least partially due to their accumulated wealth, health-conscious mindset plus the ability to afford a stress-free life?
I think the claim is more that if you provide financial support for X without solid record keeping to verify X, expect that you will get more self reported people in that description.
Put differently, relying on self reporting for any sort of status from people is just not a reliable methodology.
> People living in areas with longevity (blue zones), didn't really excercise (as in sports)
Not exercising as in sports and not exercising, period, are very different. If you look at the American blue zone, those people are certainly exercising; daily nature walks are baked into their theology.
Problem is sauna use and genetic factors corrolate too strongly to make any conclusion to the broader population. If you live in/near Finland you likely sauna often, as have all your ancestors for thousands of years. If you don't live there both are false. Thus we can't know if Sauna is helpful for the general population who isn't of a Finish background.
Japan has a +4 years lead of life expectancy over Finland; Norway almost +3 years on Finland. I am not saying this is conclusive per se, but to me the sauna-people-live-forever is not backed up by the data. I would instead reason that, e. g. weight correlates a lot more here.
Nobody is claiming they live forever. The claim is sauna use increases lifespan. There are other factors than just sauna use in lifespan though. The question is would the Japanese live even longer if they were using a sauna?
My current guess is that you get much or most of the benefits, but not all (by both value and number). If you look at the actual changes in the body during both of these activities, most are the same as exercise, but not all.
For example: body temp increases, heart rate increases, and we sweat. But the muscles aren't "engaged", consuming stuff (glycogen, etc.) while doing sauna.
There could also be sauna benefits that exercise does not impart, or is less likely to do so: sweating greater than exercise could lead to excess excretion of plastics, carcinogens, etc.
Running in mild/cold temps we do little sweating (unless long duration exercise), whereas every darn sauna at sufficiently high temps we are going to be sweating.
I think that if you have one hour or more of free time and live in an area where you have easy access to a sauna, that would result in significant better health on it's own. Even if you choose to not use the sauna.
I looked into Saunas in detail sometime back as a replacement/complement to exercise. There is a lot of research out there which says Saunas are as beneficial - but at the end of it I reached a similar conclusion - exercise is just better understood, so no point experimenting when something can go wrong.
I'm being slightly snarky, but good luck watching a TV if you're doing an intense/valuable sauna session.
When I'm in my dry sauna and really pushing myself with the heat and steam off the hot rocks, I basically have to mediate to stay in beyond 15 minutes because every part of my mind starts telling me to get out and cool down.
Even more likely is those using saunas and tracking metrics with wearables are self-selected to be healthier/more active/etc. Correlation and causation...
That seems like a very strong statement. Isn’t there evidence that Heat Shock Proteins are produced in response to time in the sauna, which have beneficial effects on muscle growth and repair?
- Is the wearable accurate enough to be sure that 3bpm is not a measurement fluke?
- Why did you use the minimum heart rate value (which could be a measurement glitch) and did not compare a percentile (e.g., 2.5th lowest percentile)?
- Were all assumptions for paired t-testing valid? How did you account for likely temporal correlations in the data (e.g., sauna could have an effect also on a night 2 days after it, same for exercise)?
- How can you define a "comparable-intensity exercise day" if you don't know the characteristics of the sauna?
> Is the wearable accurate enough to be sure that 3bpm is not a measurement fluke
If the statistical tests show significance (and are valid), the answer to this question is yes. If you have enough data you can make strong conclusions even witwith imperfect hardware.
How did you control for activity level? Do you have similar BPM plots for the different situations (sauna+exercise, sauna+no exercise, no sauna + exercise, no sauna + no exercise) for a visual representation?
> minimum nighttime HR drops ~3 bpm (~5%)
What wearables were used? These devices don't usually have enough precision to reliably detect ~3bpm changes. Also, the measurements are sensitive to skin, blood flow changes and temperature. How do you know the difference doesn't come from different sensor behavior after sauna?
Precision (inverse of variance) of estimate of mean increases directly proportional to number of samples (given some assumptions that very likely hold here). If you have measurement standard deviation of say 10 bpm, with 100 measurements you have mean estimate standard deviation of 10/sqrt(100) = 1 bpm.
But you can't really assume that the estimate of the mean represents the real value. For example, if the sensor is equally likely to show 80 or 81 BPM when the real heartrate is 80.7, the mean estimator will be biased.
> with 100 measurements
Also, wearables aren't taking 100 measurements of the BPM at a given point in time. I think the highest frequency they usually have is 1 second measurement interval. So they don't really have a lot of measurements for each point in time.
> mean estimate standard deviation
That's the standard deviation of the mean of the values. Doesn't imply that the standard deviation of the values themselves will go to zero.
> I don't understand what you mean by that.
That as a rule of thumb, you should not assume that repeating measurements will give you more precision than what the tool can offer. E.g., trying to measure down to milimeters with a ruler that has only 1cm marks will not really work well.
> But you can't really assume that the estimate of the mean represents the real value. For example, if the sensor is equally likely to show 80 or 81 BPM when the real heartrate is 80.7, the mean estimator will be biased.
Bias is different from precision. If both conditions have the same bias, their difference is still unbiased.
> Also, wearables aren't taking 100 measurements of the BPM at a given point in time. I think the highest frequency they usually have is 1 second measurement interval. So they don't really have a lot of measurements for each point in time.
I did not mean taking multiple measurements in succession. Those are likely to have correlated noise, meaning the assumptions do not hold. But between participants measurement noise is very unlikely to be correlated.
> That as a rule of thumb, you should not assume that repeating measurements will give you more precision than what the tool can offer. E.g., trying to measure down to milimeters with a ruler that has only 1cm marks will not really work well.
If you quantize so much that you have no variance in the measurements, then sure. But watches typically have 1 bpm quantization, which is fine at the scale of variation in HR.
If you have independent error in measurements and quantization that gives you variance in measurement, you very much can assume repeating measurements will give you more precision than the tool can offer. This is how e.g. particle physics (and many many other fields of science) is done.
A lot of people go to sauna after workout. I rarely go to sauna without workout so not sure if the combination is helping me or exercise or the sauna. How to control for that?
How would this play out over time? Will sauna see a 3bpm drop below baseline on days it’s used, while keeping the same baseline?
Exercise, over time, should lower the baseline (to a point). I’d think this would have the more desirable long term benefits.
One can do both, of course, but when people see headlines like this they often jump to the conclusion that sauna can replace exercise, because that’s what they want to believe.
Due to lots of long distance running my rest heart rate is below 40. I am highly skeptical I would experience a 3bpm lower heart rate after sauna. Maybe this benefit applies after infrequent activity or less intense activity only.
Just as a discussion point: how do you think these effects would translate (if at all) to regularly practicing hot yoga, say around 100-105F? Intuitively, it would combine the effort + recovery, but probably not enough time elapsed in the same session for the sweat benefit during muscle repair?
I'm equally confused as the other person above. Why not just ask participants to report what type of sauna they used? Sure humidity/duration/temp would be awesome to have, but at the very minimum knowing if a dry sauna would get the same results as a traditional steam sauna.
Just because your heart rate is lower does it mean you’re any healthier however. This is just ridiculous measurement it means nothing.
The sauna might be acting like any other drug. There are a lot of drugs that will lower nighttime heart rate. Does that mean those drugs are healthier for you?
Anecdotal, of course, but the biggest change I ever made in my life was right before bed: take a screaming hot shower with dim lighting. I'd say 95% of the time, I get in bed and just pass out and have no real memory of time passing before falling asleep.
Increasing skin temperature is known to induce sleep (can't find a source currently, sorry). Something about your skin being warmer allowing your body to cool more effectively, I think.
So a hot shower before bed is actually great for sleep, because you get the increased skin temp, relaxed muscles from the warm water, and general relaxation because showers are (for many people) relaxing.
Hot shower heats up your body, which causes it to direct blood away from the core to cool it down so it doesn't overheat. Dropping core temp triggers the brain to ramp up melatonin production. Or so I heard.
Conversely, when the temperature drops, your body directs blood away from your hands and legs because core has higher priority for survival
That's funny, I find it much easier to fall asleep in a cold environment. Then again, I also like to use a heavy blanket, so maybe it's the weight more than the cold that's helping me.
I think that's also consistent with the idea behind a hot shower. The shower doesn't help by increasing your body temperature, in fact it does the opposite. The hot shower induces the body to try to cool down, so near-skin blood vessels swell, and that dumps heat into the cold air, which reduces your core temperature, and a reduced core temperature helps you fall asleep.
I think where I read about this was Why We Sleep from Matthew Walker. But he suggests just washing your face with warm water, as opposed to a shower.
n= traditionally refers to the number of participants, not the number of data points.
The headline claim is very misleading for anyone who thought there were 59,000 people in this data set.
The absolute difference is also small. Small enough that the effect might be attributable to something secondary, such as sauna users consuming more water in recovery and being more hydrated. Heart rate has a relationship with hydration status.
A delta of 3 bpm on sauna days corresponds to around 4% delta if the baseline is 72 bpm. I've gone from a resting heart rate over a 7-day average of 64 bpm to 58 bpm by jumping 15 min. of rope a day, 4 times a week. I've lost weight, body fat, and I feel like my body is more efficient with corresponding lower heart rates throughout my active day. I like saunas for recovery and aches, they put me in a relaxed state after, and I believe the dilation is flushing my system. Like anything else, moderation. Perhaps I will add sauna to my weekly routine 1x per week or less.
PSA: if you like saunas but don't have easy access to one, those IR sauna bags you can buy online work great.
Some people find it gross to basically sweat inside a powered sleeping bag, but if you don't mind that you can get the same effects of a sauna while lying on your (covered) couch and watching YouTube.
Can anyone suggest why after covid I can't do Finnish sauna anymore? Prior to that I used to do 1-2x a week a sequence of 5x(10 minutes in sauna + 5 minutes cold water immersion + 10 minutes rest) which was absolutely great for both stress reduction and blood flow. Now if I do 5 minutes in sauna I feel like my skin was burning and I am about to die, and I need to recover for 1 hour from that to be able to just walk away from sauna.
I'm a big fan of soaking in hot water and have noticed that cardiac function seems to have a massive effect on heat tolerance as measured vs body temperature.
For example, if I've been totally sedentary for the whole day (and my feet are chilly+blue), a body temperature as low as 101F is unbearable. But if I've been actively moving around all day (and my feet are warm and pink), I only start getting uncomfortable at a body temperature around 103.5F-104F.
This also seems to correlate over a longer timespan re: exercise habits, consumption habits, sickness, etc.
Did it happen suddenly? Or did you go for a long time without using a sauna, and noticed the change only when you resumed? Did anything else about your body change, such as weight loss (perhaps from a GLP-1)?
It's possible that Covid had nothing to do with it, and your body is simply changing with age. It's depressing, but it happens!
95 is high for Finnish saunas in Finland at least. Public saunas are very rarely so hot here, and few like it that hot.
Edit: to put it into some numbers, per one study[1] Finnish sauna sessions were on average at 75.9°C with SD 9.9°C. If we assume normal distribution, that means that more than 97 % of sauna sessions are at < 95°C.
Once in a while as I get sick I have to retrain myself to going to sauna (e.g. taking lowest level, even skipping the Aufguss, German infusion where temperature is raised gradually etc.)
Also IMO your body fat/water/lean muscle ratio may play a role. I once lost 5 kg due to Influenza A and all my sport achievements as well as sauna endurance were gone
I try to do 180 minutes a week of cardio. Mostly Zone 2. Biking, elliptical, tKD. But once in a while my legs feel too tired, so I complete my weekly minutes going to the steam room. It makes sense to me since it raises your heart rate.
Also, my samsung watch can measure stress (whatever it means). It always shows the very, very minimal stress for me. The only time that I have been stressed was the day that I spent a bit too much on the steam room.
Not to be glib, but being dead lowers your night time heart rate more then exercise as well.
Is having a lower night time heart rate the core goal of exercise? Is it even a goal at all? Or is it just an indicator of other goals being reached? I'm genuinely curious, I wasn't aware that the number mattered, more than what that number actually represents.
No, immediately lowering heart rate isn't a goal of exercise. The reason it's a meaningful measure at all is because a lower resting heart rate, not overnight in response to a stimulus, but a permanently lower resting heart rate, is a sign that your overall cardiorespiratory system has become more efficient in terms of how much blood it can deliver per beat, how much oxygen it can deliver per unit of blood, and how much energy can be generated per unit of oxygen in your mitochondria. When those efficiencies improve, fewer beats per minute results in the same level of work done in your cells. Thus, resting heart acts as a proxy measure of aerobic fitness, not a goal in and of itself. All of those are long-term adaptations. Conversely, there are many ways to acutely lower heart rate that are clearly not healthy. Death, obviously, but taking opioids or many other kinds of depressants, not moving ever, sleeping 23 hours a day, will all lower your average heart rate immediately without making you fitter or healthier.
I know that for myself exercise increases my resting heart rate in the short term. It only decreases after a day or two, sometimes more depending on how fatigued I am.
I thought that was common, with recovery times obviously decreasing the fitter ones gets.
This would not pass peer review for a journal as written.
Maybe the conclusion is correct, or maybe not, but as written the methodology is under specified, statistics are not supported, and there too many confounders not addressed. One should not take anything from this without a better write up. Just misunderstanding what n= means is a huge flag.
Since the author is here, I have to ask: Why a blog post and not an actual paper? Why spray this onto the internet without validating the work? Or, conversely, why not caveat the work as exploratory data science?
N=1, but I started rowing (indoor, on an erg) an hour a day -- not hard, generally 120-140 bpm -- every day starting February 28, after rowing inconsistently for a year or more before that. My resting (not sleep) pulse has dropped by 10% over the past ~7 weeks, from 60 to 54.
Sumo wrestlers in Japan have a life expectancy
between 60-65 years or so - significantly lower than
the other japanese.
I am not saying that sauna has no positive effect
at all, but I would reason that the number one risk
factor is ... weight. And I'd also still say that
exercise is correlated here, if only secondary, e. g.
you may be able to maintain better bodily functions
if you exercise, if you can avoid injury. I do not
think that going into the sauna rather than e. g.
light running for 5 to 10 minutes or so, is anywhere
near on the same level.
Seems to me what we now know about neural networks, we should maybe weighted sum of inputs, that fire off the desired output. The human body/brain process all kinds of stimulus at once, and might only react to a combination of inputs.
Its a cloudflare gateway timeout, so not working for anyone on any browser right now. Seems like a contradiction if cloudflare cant cache what is presumably a static site.
> Motivated to understand the immediate physiological response to saunas, we looked at the same-day effects across ~59,000 daily records from 256 users.
I can tell you wrote the article with ChatGPT. I’m out as soon as I pick up the smell. I don’t dislike the usage of AI, I just don’t trust. It if you haven’t written it yourself.
I feel like we need an acronym for this kind of comment. I am pretty sure approximately 100% of HN posts now include at least one comment where someone, somehow, knows that an article is written by AI and resents it.
For Claude we have the ever present "you are absolutely right" and this is like it's human mirror.
Something like TLDR; but meaning "uhg, written by AI".
Author here. Methodology upfront because I'd ask the same things:
Data: daily records from wearable users who logged sauna sessions via connected apps. Within-person design — each user is their own control, comparing their own sauna-day nights against their own non-sauna-day nights. No cross-user comparisons.
Stats: paired t-tests, FDR-corrected p < 0.05, Cohen's d > 0.2 threshold for "meaningful effect." Anything below d=0.2 we don't report as a finding.
What we measured: minimum nighttime HR, max and average HR, HRV, activity minutes and distance, menstrual cycle phase (for female subset).
What we found: - On sauna days, minimum nighttime HR drops ~3 bpm (~5%) vs. the same user's non-sauna days. - Effect survives controlling for activity level. It's not "sauna users just exercised more that day." - Strongest hypothesis: elevated parasympathetic tone from the post-sauna cooling phase carries into sleep. Consistent with heat-stress physiology literature. - Sex difference: for women, the nighttime HR effect only crosses the d > 0.2 threshold during the luteal phase. No meaningful effect during the follicular phase. We didn't expect this; worth replicating.
What we can't control for: - Sauna type (dry / infrared / steam), duration, temperature. Not captured. - Dose-response. We don't know session length per user. - Timing of sauna relative to sleep. - Reverse causation: people may sauna on days they already feel recovered. - Selection: wearable users who bother logging sauna are a health-conscious cohort.
What surprised us: the effect is larger than what we see for comparable-intensity exercise days. If you treat nighttime HR as a parasympathetic recovery signal, sauna beats a moderate workout on the same user. Not what I'd have predicted.
The most important thing you didn't measure: does this affect long term health in the same way exercise it known to. That is can I put a TV in my sauna and watch that for an hour every day instead of getting out and exercising - yet get the same better long term health outcomes?
My current guess is no. That is this improves a marker for good health without improving health. However this is a guess by someone who isn't in the medical field and so could be wrong.
I recently listened to a podcast about the benefits of sauna or deliberate heat exposure and the gist is that if you get your core temperature at about 39 degrees celsius your cardiovascular system is working comparably hard to light exercise.
My take is that your heart and lungs are working out, even if your body is not. Do you get the same benefits as going for a run or bike ride for a comparable amount of time? no, since your limbs don't get fit, but your heart and lungs do.
Not saying you are wrong, but I'd like to see some evidence on that. Just because your heart is pumping faster doesn't mean your cardio fitness is getting better. Otherwise we could all just snort cocaine and skip the gym. Alcohol does that too, anyone with a fitness tracker can check that.
Moreover, I'm from a very hot and humid tropical region. Its normal to ne 40°C with 80% humidity there. And you dont see people having better health or longevity (Yucatan peninsula) .
40° internal body temperature is not the same as 40° weather.
Yucatan is not the same as Dubai in Summer.
Your body is under heat shock trying to keep up in a Sauna (that isn't considered warm until 60°). Versus a healthy body CAN keep up in 40°.
The Yucatan equivalent of a Sauna is more like doing hard labor on a roof on a sunny day with no breeze.
The great but not super healthy Mexican diet might offset the potential heat exposure benefits! Although I’m basing that on the diet of my Monterrey-based in-laws, not sure how different Yucatan is.
LOL, Monterrey diet is healthy compared to the diet in the Yucatan peninsula.
Tamales, Cochinita (roasted pork with herbs), salbutes, trancas. Everything of course cooked in Lard. With CocaCola on the side.
So yeah, that's a strong point.
But that would be like exercise all the time which may not be optimal. (Not saying the theory holds that sauna equals exercise, but if it does, sauna all the time may not be great. Plus, there may be other confounding factors with living in various locations.)
Athletes already know the answer from years of cultural knowledge, research, and firsthand experience. No, it doesn't make your cardio fitness meaningfully better. If you did sauna training for years and then tried to ramp up for a marathon, you'd be hopelessly out of shape.
Endurance athletes obsessively track VO2 max, basically your body's ability to consume oxygen during workouts, and it certainly doesn't improve with sauna training.
It's like asking "if you only did puzzles, would you be smarter?" Well, in a way, yes, but if you actually want to compete with someone with a good education you have to read.
Same with physical exercise. It puts a lot of different stresses on your body that saunas don't. The question isn't "do saunas make you physically fit," because they don't. The question is "for people who don't want to exercise, does sauna training alone meaningfully extend your healthspan?" I'm guessing the answer is "a little but not enough," but I'm not sure.
You’ve honed in specifically on VO2 but what about cardio health in general? Like light treadmill, not like a demanding marathon.
Cardio of course is short for "cardiovascular system," which consists of a whole lot of moving parts. Saunas improve some parts of it but certainly not all of it.
Will fixing up your radiator fix your car? Maybe, if the radiator was the problem, but there's a lot of other stuff inside a car to work on, too.
Your body evolved under the expectation that it would be stressed in numerous different ways, but those stressors can all be avoided in the modern era. If you want to most reliably recreate those stresses you need to do cardio and resistance training.
A light treadmill session won't do much to improve your cardiovascular system health either. I mean it's better than nothing but don't expect too much.
Edit: I posted this accidentally when editing without noticing. Hypertrophy isn't necessarily a bad thing. I thought I was discarding the comment cuz I realized I was out of my depth. whoops
Please ignore my comment, though I will leave it to make the below comments less confusing.
Original: You don't want to "work out" your heart though. Cardiac hypertrophy is a bad thing.
The benefit of exercise is that your muscles become more oxygen-efficient. Your heart endures some stress now, so that it can work less in the future.
Cardiac hypertrophy is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be the result of positive adaptation, such as exercising.
Eccentric hypertrophy (athlete's heart) is the positive adaptation resulting from training the heart. The heart has a lower resting rate and is more efficient at pumping blood. It returns to normal size if training stops.
You'll never reach a state of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (the bad kind of hypertrophy) with exercise. Its cause is usually genetic.
Not true. You can't really train your muscles to use less oxygen for the same energy output (what "oxygen-efficiency" would imply). You rather increase their capacity to take up oxygen from the blood and burn it. They will use more oxygen to output more energy.
That additional oxygen needs to come from somewhere. Endurance training at the same time trains the heart to deliver more oxygen to the periphery; the primary mechanism is increased cardiac stroke volume.
I would assume that another factor is that the technique for a given exercise on the other hand can be improved, and that can help with decreasing the necessary energy - would that be a correct statement? And as a follow up, depending on activity type this may or may not be significant?
Yes, definitely. Technique is partly about efficient mechanical movement, sending the various parts of your body in the right direction(s) and not waste effort on movement that doesn’t contribute to propelling you forwards. But for endurance sports, it’s really about minimizing energy cost at a given speed. To use running as an example, you can improve biomechanical efficiency through better timing, correct loading of tendons, tendon stiffness, elastic energy use, and more.
You kind of can - the muscles can use aerobic or anaerobic processes. When you develop brute strength you are training those anaerobic processes. That isn't what OP was talking about, and overall it is much less energy efficient, but it does produce a large burst of energy when needed and you can train your muscles that way.
This is terribly uniformed. Do not listen to this.
Cardiac hypertrophy isn't a "bad thing". This is completely contextual. What you don't want, for example, is pathological hypertrophy from things like hypertension, or exclusive left ventricular hypertrophy without associated increase in chamber size.
The heart is very complex. You 100% should exercise it.
Wikipedia says Athlete's heart is benign: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletic_heart_syndrome
This is why I hate health science. Informed people can have the same information and come to opposite conclusions. The entire field is made up of contradictory explanations and principles, to the extent that it’s unknowable what’s true or not.
The flat earthers are why I hate astronomy.
Afaict, the grand parent poster is just very wrong. You do want to cause acute stresses to your heart (cardiovascular exercise) to get it work better.
Claims about flat earth are falsifiable with at-home experiment.
It’s not really about this particular claim. It’s that I can read a comment that has a reasonable chain of logic and I don’t know if it’s true. This topic is just not easily studied and theories are hard to falsify.
That seems… misguided.
Sources?
Your heart is also a muscle.
For endurance training the main benefit of heat training is raising blood volume. Lungs are not a limiter. Developing stroke volume I imagine requires much higher intensity but that's just a wild guess based on my limited understanding of physiology.
If heat training is better than another interval session remains to be seen but it seems a lot of smart people believe it's worth it nowadays.
Since you mention the TV, it seems there's a big factor missing in both the article and the discussion here. Namely, that sauna time is for many people the only time they ever take to be in silence, without the countless distractions otherwise bombarding our nervous systems. I.e. it's basically a form of informal meditation, which is known to have a lot of benefic impacts on body and mind. So maybe skip the TV part?...
Agreed - one is muscular/metabolic demand, the other (sauna) is thermoregulation.
Agreed on the long-term effect too: doing a study on long term health is a completely different story
> That is this improves a marker for good health without improving health
There is a substantial body of existing research to peruse about the impact of regular sauna use on health outcomes, much of it from Finland given the prevalence of sauna usage there allowing for larger sample sizes. It's a body of evidence rather than one knock-out experimental design.
Much of that body of evidence relies on self-reported and self-assigned sauna usage rather than actual randomized trials, and also the papers show massive risk reductions that do not really fit with the country-level data (e.g., if saunas are that good for cardiovascular health and finns use them that much, why do they have similar rates of CV disease as neighboring countries that don't use that much sauna?)
This feels like a false dichotomy. Even if sauna doesn't impact long term health in a way that can replace exercise, that doesn't mean that it doesn't improve health.
Zero shot you'd make it an hour in a proper sauna for an hour. People have this idea that saunas are always enjoyable. I sauna daily, and its nice up to a point. For me thats like 10-12mins in. From then on, its tough.
When it doesn't feel enjoyable anymore, you're supposed to get out of the sauna and cool down - preferably in a lake. Then repeat as many times as you like.
I go for 15 min sessions at 90 Celsius and the first 10 mins are ok, the last 5 are tough, like I have to control my breath to hang in there
Huh what? I can easily sit in a sauna for an hour without breaks as long as it has some type of ventilation.
Smoke saunas a bit less, electric or wood stove saunas no issue. It's nice to take a breather once in a while but I'd honestly have no issues sitting in a 80-90 deg sauna for an hour as long as I have enough to drink with me.
One time I sat in the sauna for six hours with a few breaks between with a group of friends shooting the shit. I had a headache the next morning but I blame it on the Jallu and not the sauna.
I generally make it about 30 seconds in a sauna (I rarely even bother trying when I have access). Should I tough it out for 10-12 like you? Should you be toughing it out for the full hour I suggested (a random time I pulled out of my head)? Or is this all nonsense and I'm just fine ignoring the whole thing?
IMHO. 10-20 mins is good enough. I wouldn't try to stay for an hour.
If 10mins feels too much, do less.
30 seconds? What kind of torture room of a sauna are you going in?
Heat tolerance varies. For some of us, all saunas feel like torture rooms!
You are clearly not Finn (/s)
lol, this is true. Wish I could tolerate it longer like a proper Finn. I’ll go 25 mins occasionally but mostly I do 15 mins, break, another 5-10 mins..
Finns don't do it that long. It's typically 5-15 minutes per sitting, with 2-4 sittings per session.
My take is probably too nuanced here, but the reality is that we don't know. People living in areas with longevity (blue zones), didn't really excercise (as in sports) or take multivitamins. For all we know, it might even come out that regular, gym-style excercise is even worse for longevity.
Nordic people tend to live a long life even though they historically didn't have access to fresh vegetables or fruit and brutal winters (and darkness) prohibited excercise.
ps. I'm not arguing that excercise is unhealthy, it's just that its contribution to eventual longevity, is currently unknown. Whereas anectodal evidence of saunas (being around longer than "excercise"), seems to work.
> I'm not arguing that excercise is unhealthy, it's just that its contribution to eventual longevity, is currently unknown
I see numerous studies indicating that exercise contributes directly to eventual longevity, e.g.:
https://www.ama-assn.org/public-health/prevention-wellness/m...
https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2025/07/02...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3395188/
Thank you for the resources.
I do wonder what the correlation is: is it only because of excercise, or at least partially also due to the fact those who can set aside time and effort (and often, money) to exercise, have a "better" life than those who don't?
For example, high life expectancy in Madrid, and Switzerland are often attributed to having broad access to great healthcare and stress-free lifestyle(both), despite living a relatively "unhealthy" lifestyle, at least in Madrid. Eating fried food everyday, little exercize among elderly (at least if you don't count walking to the bar). Those 85 year+ Madrileños probably had their last formal exercise when they had to do their military service back in the day.
As in the case of top athletes, in your second article, is their longevity due to heavy exercise, or kind of, "despite it", and at least partially due to their accumulated wealth, health-conscious mindset plus the ability to afford a stress-free life?
There is some evidence suggesting that "blue zones" are largely about pension fraud. https://fortune.com/europe/2024/12/14/are-blue-zones-myth-ex...
You're saying that crime leads to longevity? Big if true.
I think the claim is more that if you provide financial support for X without solid record keeping to verify X, expect that you will get more self reported people in that description.
Put differently, relying on self reporting for any sort of status from people is just not a reliable methodology.
No, he is saying bad record keeping means misreporting identity has a bigger chance of happening.
Fraud leads to people officially living beyond their natural death, yes.
> People living in areas with longevity (blue zones), didn't really excercise (as in sports)
Not exercising as in sports and not exercising, period, are very different. If you look at the American blue zone, those people are certainly exercising; daily nature walks are baked into their theology.
For all we know, there is a link between cardiac/circulatory problems and arteriosclerosis (that is, loss of elasticity of the vessels).
So it could be that exercise helps keep this elasticity, the same way maybe sauna does? Also antioxidants from vegetables etc.
So it could be that it is a _factor_, but definitely needs way more study.
I am also not in the medical field, but I think arteriosclerosis is a well known link for cardiovascular disease.
Problem is sauna use and genetic factors corrolate too strongly to make any conclusion to the broader population. If you live in/near Finland you likely sauna often, as have all your ancestors for thousands of years. If you don't live there both are false. Thus we can't know if Sauna is helpful for the general population who isn't of a Finish background.
Japan has a +4 years lead of life expectancy over Finland; Norway almost +3 years on Finland. I am not saying this is conclusive per se, but to me the sauna-people-live-forever is not backed up by the data. I would instead reason that, e. g. weight correlates a lot more here.
Your comparison reads to suggest that Japan doesn't have Onsen culture or that sauna does not exist in Norway.
That's to say, many cultures from around the globe have developed similar activities that heat the body.
Nobody is claiming they live forever. The claim is sauna use increases lifespan. There are other factors than just sauna use in lifespan though. The question is would the Japanese live even longer if they were using a sauna?
A lot of Mediterranean countries also have high life expectancy and are the opposite of a sauna culture.
Cyprus summers are like 45C and its almost like a sauna :)
Maybe eating a lot of fish, rather than meat, has an impact too.
The "blue-zone" studies are flawed, so we shouldn't infer too much from lifestyle generalizations about people in them.
https://www.science.org/content/article/do-blue-zones-suppos...
Saunas have not been around longer than exercise.
My current guess is that you get much or most of the benefits, but not all (by both value and number). If you look at the actual changes in the body during both of these activities, most are the same as exercise, but not all.
For example: body temp increases, heart rate increases, and we sweat. But the muscles aren't "engaged", consuming stuff (glycogen, etc.) while doing sauna.
There could also be sauna benefits that exercise does not impart, or is less likely to do so: sweating greater than exercise could lead to excess excretion of plastics, carcinogens, etc.
Running in mild/cold temps we do little sweating (unless long duration exercise), whereas every darn sauna at sufficiently high temps we are going to be sweating.
I think that if you have one hour or more of free time and live in an area where you have easy access to a sauna, that would result in significant better health on it's own. Even if you choose to not use the sauna.
I looked into Saunas in detail sometime back as a replacement/complement to exercise. There is a lot of research out there which says Saunas are as beneficial - but at the end of it I reached a similar conclusion - exercise is just better understood, so no point experimenting when something can go wrong.
I'm being slightly snarky, but good luck watching a TV if you're doing an intense/valuable sauna session.
When I'm in my dry sauna and really pushing myself with the heat and steam off the hot rocks, I basically have to mediate to stay in beyond 15 minutes because every part of my mind starts telling me to get out and cool down.
Even more likely is those using saunas and tracking metrics with wearables are self-selected to be healthier/more active/etc. Correlation and causation...
A sauna will do nothing for muscular-skeletal health.
That seems like a very strong statement. Isn’t there evidence that Heat Shock Proteins are produced in response to time in the sauna, which have beneficial effects on muscle growth and repair?
>which have beneficial effects on muscle growth and repair?
Repair from what?
I don’t think the TV in the sauna will have long term health outcomes.
It will certainly affect the health of the TV.
One hour in sauna? :O
A random time I pulled out of my head. If this is real the next question is what is the optimal time. (also temperature and humidity levels)
If you're watching TV in a sauna you haven't turned the sauna on.
If this was a peer-reviewed paper, it won't pass.
- Is the wearable accurate enough to be sure that 3bpm is not a measurement fluke? - Why did you use the minimum heart rate value (which could be a measurement glitch) and did not compare a percentile (e.g., 2.5th lowest percentile)? - Were all assumptions for paired t-testing valid? How did you account for likely temporal correlations in the data (e.g., sauna could have an effect also on a night 2 days after it, same for exercise)? - How can you define a "comparable-intensity exercise day" if you don't know the characteristics of the sauna?
> Is the wearable accurate enough to be sure that 3bpm is not a measurement fluke
If the statistical tests show significance (and are valid), the answer to this question is yes. If you have enough data you can make strong conclusions even witwith imperfect hardware.
Unless the effect they're measuring is that the wearable measures differently in sauna days.
Strong conclusion that the hardware is precisely imperfect?
> Effect survives controlling for activity level.
How did you control for activity level? Do you have similar BPM plots for the different situations (sauna+exercise, sauna+no exercise, no sauna + exercise, no sauna + no exercise) for a visual representation?
> minimum nighttime HR drops ~3 bpm (~5%)
What wearables were used? These devices don't usually have enough precision to reliably detect ~3bpm changes. Also, the measurements are sensitive to skin, blood flow changes and temperature. How do you know the difference doesn't come from different sensor behavior after sauna?
> What wearables were used? These devices don't usually have enough precision to reliably detect ~3bpm changes.
For large sample averages this doesn't really matter.
It does, specially if the error bars from multiple measurements show higher precision than what would be expected.
I don't understand what you mean by that.
Precision (inverse of variance) of estimate of mean increases directly proportional to number of samples (given some assumptions that very likely hold here). If you have measurement standard deviation of say 10 bpm, with 100 measurements you have mean estimate standard deviation of 10/sqrt(100) = 1 bpm.
> of estimate of mean
But you can't really assume that the estimate of the mean represents the real value. For example, if the sensor is equally likely to show 80 or 81 BPM when the real heartrate is 80.7, the mean estimator will be biased.
> with 100 measurements
Also, wearables aren't taking 100 measurements of the BPM at a given point in time. I think the highest frequency they usually have is 1 second measurement interval. So they don't really have a lot of measurements for each point in time.
> mean estimate standard deviation
That's the standard deviation of the mean of the values. Doesn't imply that the standard deviation of the values themselves will go to zero.
> I don't understand what you mean by that.
That as a rule of thumb, you should not assume that repeating measurements will give you more precision than what the tool can offer. E.g., trying to measure down to milimeters with a ruler that has only 1cm marks will not really work well.
> But you can't really assume that the estimate of the mean represents the real value. For example, if the sensor is equally likely to show 80 or 81 BPM when the real heartrate is 80.7, the mean estimator will be biased.
Bias is different from precision. If both conditions have the same bias, their difference is still unbiased.
> Also, wearables aren't taking 100 measurements of the BPM at a given point in time. I think the highest frequency they usually have is 1 second measurement interval. So they don't really have a lot of measurements for each point in time.
I did not mean taking multiple measurements in succession. Those are likely to have correlated noise, meaning the assumptions do not hold. But between participants measurement noise is very unlikely to be correlated.
> That as a rule of thumb, you should not assume that repeating measurements will give you more precision than what the tool can offer. E.g., trying to measure down to milimeters with a ruler that has only 1cm marks will not really work well.
If you quantize so much that you have no variance in the measurements, then sure. But watches typically have 1 bpm quantization, which is fine at the scale of variation in HR.
If you have independent error in measurements and quantization that gives you variance in measurement, you very much can assume repeating measurements will give you more precision than the tool can offer. This is how e.g. particle physics (and many many other fields of science) is done.
I'd like to see a bit more detailed methods.
- How was the controlling for the other factors done? A linear model?
- What were the sauna vs non-sauna baseline HRs in fig 1? Could you plot raw averages?
- Was the min HR explicitly computed during the night (in Fig 2), or was it assumed min HR occurs during the night?
- Reporting only significant results is not prudent even with multiple comparisons corrections, please report all tests made
A lot of people go to sauna after workout. I rarely go to sauna without workout so not sure if the combination is helping me or exercise or the sauna. How to control for that?
You are replying to a comment that said they log and control for time of activity.
How would this play out over time? Will sauna see a 3bpm drop below baseline on days it’s used, while keeping the same baseline?
Exercise, over time, should lower the baseline (to a point). I’d think this would have the more desirable long term benefits.
One can do both, of course, but when people see headlines like this they often jump to the conclusion that sauna can replace exercise, because that’s what they want to believe.
Due to lots of long distance running my rest heart rate is below 40. I am highly skeptical I would experience a 3bpm lower heart rate after sauna. Maybe this benefit applies after infrequent activity or less intense activity only.
Also not controlled: Maybe on Sauna days they drank more water before bed? Or less alcohol?
Just as a discussion point: how do you think these effects would translate (if at all) to regularly practicing hot yoga, say around 100-105F? Intuitively, it would combine the effort + recovery, but probably not enough time elapsed in the same session for the sweat benefit during muscle repair?
Would a hot tub session (say at 100 - 105 F) be comparable or yield similar results?
Dr. Rhonda Patrick has been beating the drum for saunas for a long time, and she's reported that a hot tub can be equivalent or better: https://x.com/foundmyfitness/status/1955294334535995850?lang...
It would be very interesting if lowering night heart rate only happens with certain sauna type.
> What we can't control for: - Sauna type (dry / infrared / steam), duration, temperature. Not captured
Could probably capture humidity/duration/temperature using a sensor in wearable device...
we agree - but thats not that simple :)
> who logged sauna sessions via connected apps
It seems you ask participants to log if they went to sauna. Out of curiosity, why is it not simple to also ask for a type?
i was mostly refering to humidity/duration/temperature given that most devices do not report back these values
I'm equally confused as the other person above. Why not just ask participants to report what type of sauna they used? Sure humidity/duration/temp would be awesome to have, but at the very minimum knowing if a dry sauna would get the same results as a traditional steam sauna.
What if they jumped between saunas? And with self-reporting, the more you ask I guess the less precise the result... Sensors, however...
Appreciate it as a regular sauna-goer. I am also struggling to wake up after sauna evenings and maybe you research explains why
Or the sauna is a relaxing thing like a happy place and that reduces heart rate?
how does this reduction in heartbeat at night affect the body?
Just because your heart rate is lower does it mean you’re any healthier however. This is just ridiculous measurement it means nothing.
The sauna might be acting like any other drug. There are a lot of drugs that will lower nighttime heart rate. Does that mean those drugs are healthier for you?
Why didn't you put the methodology in the post? Also, which devices were used to record? How do you know people went to sauna?
Anecdotal, of course, but the biggest change I ever made in my life was right before bed: take a screaming hot shower with dim lighting. I'd say 95% of the time, I get in bed and just pass out and have no real memory of time passing before falling asleep.
Increasing skin temperature is known to induce sleep (can't find a source currently, sorry). Something about your skin being warmer allowing your body to cool more effectively, I think.
So a hot shower before bed is actually great for sleep, because you get the increased skin temp, relaxed muscles from the warm water, and general relaxation because showers are (for many people) relaxing.
Hot shower heats up your body, which causes it to direct blood away from the core to cool it down so it doesn't overheat. Dropping core temp triggers the brain to ramp up melatonin production. Or so I heard.
Conversely, when the temperature drops, your body directs blood away from your hands and legs because core has higher priority for survival
That's funny, I find it much easier to fall asleep in a cold environment. Then again, I also like to use a heavy blanket, so maybe it's the weight more than the cold that's helping me.
I think that's also consistent with the idea behind a hot shower. The shower doesn't help by increasing your body temperature, in fact it does the opposite. The hot shower induces the body to try to cool down, so near-skin blood vessels swell, and that dumps heat into the cold air, which reduces your core temperature, and a reduced core temperature helps you fall asleep.
I think where I read about this was Why We Sleep from Matthew Walker. But he suggests just washing your face with warm water, as opposed to a shower.
It makes your body cool down, which is desirable for sleep.
n= traditionally refers to the number of participants, not the number of data points.
The headline claim is very misleading for anyone who thought there were 59,000 people in this data set.
The absolute difference is also small. Small enough that the effect might be attributable to something secondary, such as sauna users consuming more water in recovery and being more hydrated. Heart rate has a relationship with hydration status.
A delta of 3 bpm on sauna days corresponds to around 4% delta if the baseline is 72 bpm. I've gone from a resting heart rate over a 7-day average of 64 bpm to 58 bpm by jumping 15 min. of rope a day, 4 times a week. I've lost weight, body fat, and I feel like my body is more efficient with corresponding lower heart rates throughout my active day. I like saunas for recovery and aches, they put me in a relaxed state after, and I believe the dilation is flushing my system. Like anything else, moderation. Perhaps I will add sauna to my weekly routine 1x per week or less.
> I've gone from a resting heart rate over a 7-day average of 64 bpm to 58 bpm by jumping 15 min. of rope a day, 4 times a week.
Over how long of a time period?
PSA: if you like saunas but don't have easy access to one, those IR sauna bags you can buy online work great.
Some people find it gross to basically sweat inside a powered sleeping bag, but if you don't mind that you can get the same effects of a sauna while lying on your (covered) couch and watching YouTube.
Can anyone suggest why after covid I can't do Finnish sauna anymore? Prior to that I used to do 1-2x a week a sequence of 5x(10 minutes in sauna + 5 minutes cold water immersion + 10 minutes rest) which was absolutely great for both stress reduction and blood flow. Now if I do 5 minutes in sauna I feel like my skin was burning and I am about to die, and I need to recover for 1 hour from that to be able to just walk away from sauna.
I'm a big fan of soaking in hot water and have noticed that cardiac function seems to have a massive effect on heat tolerance as measured vs body temperature.
For example, if I've been totally sedentary for the whole day (and my feet are chilly+blue), a body temperature as low as 101F is unbearable. But if I've been actively moving around all day (and my feet are warm and pink), I only start getting uncomfortable at a body temperature around 103.5F-104F.
This also seems to correlate over a longer timespan re: exercise habits, consumption habits, sickness, etc.
Did it happen suddenly? Or did you go for a long time without using a sauna, and noticed the change only when you resumed? Did anything else about your body change, such as weight loss (perhaps from a GLP-1)?
It's possible that Covid had nothing to do with it, and your body is simply changing with age. It's depressing, but it happens!
No idea. How hot is and was your sauna? Is it possible that it's hotter than it used to be? Maybe try one that's slightly less hot?
I've got the opposite problem: saunas don't seem to be able to make me sweat anymore, so I'm looking for the hottest saunas I can find.
The usual 95"C, nothing extraordinary. Sweating after covid got impaired, I might have some thermoregulation issue.
95 is pretty hot. At commercial spas I see them start at 70, and rarely above 90.
95 is normal where I live for Finnish saunas. Then there are other types of saunas that start lower, but Finnish are always around 95.
95 is high for Finnish saunas in Finland at least. Public saunas are very rarely so hot here, and few like it that hot.
Edit: to put it into some numbers, per one study[1] Finnish sauna sessions were on average at 75.9°C with SD 9.9°C. If we assume normal distribution, that means that more than 97 % of sauna sessions are at < 95°C.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6262976/
Once in a while as I get sick I have to retrain myself to going to sauna (e.g. taking lowest level, even skipping the Aufguss, German infusion where temperature is raised gradually etc.)
Also IMO your body fat/water/lean muscle ratio may play a role. I once lost 5 kg due to Influenza A and all my sport achievements as well as sauna endurance were gone
After covid I've found i cannot stand the cold. A friend of mine can't stand alcohol since.
I try to do 180 minutes a week of cardio. Mostly Zone 2. Biking, elliptical, tKD. But once in a while my legs feel too tired, so I complete my weekly minutes going to the steam room. It makes sense to me since it raises your heart rate.
Also, my samsung watch can measure stress (whatever it means). It always shows the very, very minimal stress for me. The only time that I have been stressed was the day that I spent a bit too much on the steam room.
FWIW you should probably be doing some max intensity, or at least high intensity cardio.
Zone 2 is great but the best health outcomes are from people who do high intensity exercise interspersed with zone 2 exercise.
Not to be glib, but being dead lowers your night time heart rate more then exercise as well.
Is having a lower night time heart rate the core goal of exercise? Is it even a goal at all? Or is it just an indicator of other goals being reached? I'm genuinely curious, I wasn't aware that the number mattered, more than what that number actually represents.
The goal is improving cardiovascular fitness, and a low heart rate means your cardiovascular system is operating efficiently.
It's just another measure. It's not ceteris paribus better to have a lower one.
From the author, "Strongest hypothesis: elevated parasympathetic tone from the post-sauna cooling phase carries into sleep"
AKA, they use it as a proxy to infer a deeper state of rest and improved recovery state. Says nothing about the fatigue generated from using a sauna.
No, immediately lowering heart rate isn't a goal of exercise. The reason it's a meaningful measure at all is because a lower resting heart rate, not overnight in response to a stimulus, but a permanently lower resting heart rate, is a sign that your overall cardiorespiratory system has become more efficient in terms of how much blood it can deliver per beat, how much oxygen it can deliver per unit of blood, and how much energy can be generated per unit of oxygen in your mitochondria. When those efficiencies improve, fewer beats per minute results in the same level of work done in your cells. Thus, resting heart acts as a proxy measure of aerobic fitness, not a goal in and of itself. All of those are long-term adaptations. Conversely, there are many ways to acutely lower heart rate that are clearly not healthy. Death, obviously, but taking opioids or many other kinds of depressants, not moving ever, sleeping 23 hours a day, will all lower your average heart rate immediately without making you fitter or healthier.
I know that for myself exercise increases my resting heart rate in the short term. It only decreases after a day or two, sometimes more depending on how fatigued I am. I thought that was common, with recovery times obviously decreasing the fitter ones gets.
This would not pass peer review for a journal as written.
Maybe the conclusion is correct, or maybe not, but as written the methodology is under specified, statistics are not supported, and there too many confounders not addressed. One should not take anything from this without a better write up. Just misunderstanding what n= means is a huge flag.
Since the author is here, I have to ask: Why a blog post and not an actual paper? Why spray this onto the internet without validating the work? Or, conversely, why not caveat the work as exploratory data science?
I also recommend reading about the effects on microplastics studied by Blueprint:
https://cptsd.sites.umassd.edu/bryan-johnson-and-microplasti...
Should I assume a steam room has the same effect? I prefer it over sauna
N=1, but I started rowing (indoor, on an erg) an hour a day -- not hard, generally 120-140 bpm -- every day starting February 28, after rowing inconsistently for a year or more before that. My resting (not sleep) pulse has dropped by 10% over the past ~7 weeks, from 60 to 54.
I didn’t see a reference to the amount of time in the sauna required to receive this effect. Was that measured as part of this research?
N=256
Well ...
Finland life expectancy for 2023 was 81.69.
Norway life expectancy for 2025 was 83.23.
Japan life expectancy for 2025 was 85.27.
Sumo wrestlers in Japan have a life expectancy between 60-65 years or so - significantly lower than the other japanese.
I am not saying that sauna has no positive effect at all, but I would reason that the number one risk factor is ... weight. And I'd also still say that exercise is correlated here, if only secondary, e. g. you may be able to maintain better bodily functions if you exercise, if you can avoid injury. I do not think that going into the sauna rather than e. g. light running for 5 to 10 minutes or so, is anywhere near on the same level.
I feel better after sitting in a steam room two or three times a week. That's proof enough for me.
Seems to me what we now know about neural networks, we should maybe weighted sum of inputs, that fire off the desired output. The human body/brain process all kinds of stimulus at once, and might only react to a combination of inputs.
Website doesn’t load, it times out. Anyone have tl;dr?
it works for me - what browser are you using?
Its a cloudflare gateway timeout, so not working for anyone on any browser right now. Seems like a contradiction if cloudflare cant cache what is presumably a static site.
indeed - fixed now, let me know if you can see it!
> Motivated to understand the immediate physiological response to saunas, we looked at the same-day effects across ~59,000 daily records from 256 users.
Editorialized title is wrong. n=256
Fair flag: 256 users, 59k days
@dang can fix this right up, I believe
Why is this quackery front page?
I can tell you wrote the article with ChatGPT. I’m out as soon as I pick up the smell. I don’t dislike the usage of AI, I just don’t trust. It if you haven’t written it yourself.
I feel like we need an acronym for this kind of comment. I am pretty sure approximately 100% of HN posts now include at least one comment where someone, somehow, knows that an article is written by AI and resents it.
For Claude we have the ever present "you are absolutely right" and this is like it's human mirror.
Something like TLDR; but meaning "uhg, written by AI".
This article is a brilliant skewering of the 'em dash means LLM' heuristic as a broken trick deployed by those too-clever-by-half.
1. https://www.scottsmitelli.com/articles/em-dash-tool/
Thank you for this. This is like finding a book where someone has written down what I've been thinking, but better than I ever could.
AI;DR
We don't need an acronym; people just need to stop posting these utterly worthless comments.