Finnish sauna heat exposure induces stronger immune cell than cytokine responses

Not to be done too often but every once in a while I find it helpful. Not all that different from a strongly chlorinated pool.

Another cool one, especially if you don’t have a sauna, is doing a mustard bath. You will sweat like a stuck pig

I'm also still unclear on how it was used to treat human illness (treating boats and roofs is clear enough)

One used to read regularly (like a few times a year) about someone who came home drunk and went to (electric) sauna and passed out... and died.

Saunas in new construction now all have timers.

Neither of these are practised anywhere in Finland at least. But there are at least one Finnish swimming bath where they had to limit steam competitions and made a button controlled mechanism to administer water instead of free usage. Not because electrical shock prevention but because bad human behaviour per se.

And anyone on the highest bench really gets cooked.

When needing to define type of stove, it's electric stove, wood heated stove. Latter has two types, which continuous wood burning is still common (this stove you can add burning wood during bathing) and older not so much any more used before bathing heated type stove which you cannot add wood while bathing. Oldest type is smoke-sauna, which doesn't have chimney at all. Wood is burnt in stove when heating, then when burnt enough sauna is ventilated first and then bathing starts.

But all these different heating elements are commonly stoves, just adding electric-, wood-, or smoke- stove is added context requiring.

Infra saunas then have those lamps of course, no stove there.

It's the most popular type of sauna - "the sauna" for a reason.

People have different preferences for the warmth of the sauna -- as low as 65°C for some elderly folks, all the way up to 120°C for more hardcore people -- but water is always thrown on the stove. You won't get burns, but it can have a real sting. It's enjoyable, but may feel uncomfortable as a new experience.

I'm referring to feeling like that specifically after the sauna. I also feel great after eating a great steak and yet it's not the same as having good health.

> Yes and there are studies, so do you have anything concrete why they ain't beneficial, besides your personal dislike?

> You lead with "Basically, the sauna studies are probably mostly discovering that "healthier people can stand sauna longer" that implies you did not even read them.

Not that they are not beneficial, but that the benefits are not as large as they are assumed to be. The main reason is that there are no randomized trials and practically no replications outside of nordic countries. Also, if you compare the risk reduction reported by sauna use to other health interventions, you'll quickly see that it doesn't really make that much sense. Depending on the studies, you'll see risk ratios that say that frequent sauna use is as effective (or more) as doing high intensity exercise or smoking cessation.

> (Besides, allmost everyone goes to Sauna in the nordic countries, that implies allmost everyone there is healthy by your logic)

Actually, you have that backwards. If finnish people go so much to the sauna compared to other countries and it's as good as the studies say, why are they not much more healthy than other countries? Prevalence of cardiovascular disease in Finland is pretty similar to other countries. Same with life expectancy. There are two options: either the finns are doing something radically different from other countries that negates the benefits from sauna use; or the risk reduction shown from the studies is not real.

The most likely explanation is that sauna provides similar benefits as any of the other interventions based around mildly stressing your body: somewhat beneficial but nothing magical, with probably an additional, significant placebo effect.

> But if Sauna for you was breathing fire .. one easy solution is to go to a less hot sauna.

Another easy solution is to not go to a sauna and just do anything else that's beneficial to me in that time and not extremely uncomfortable. I already live in Spain, I get more than my fair share of hot uncomfortable environments.

But traditional summer cottages and villas have been either intentionally or still built wood burning stoves unless three phase power is easily available not bring cost up too much because remote location and long distance to grid. We have about half a million summer cottages in Finland. Which almost all have saunas and I would guess that perhaps 5% would have electric saunas as most summer cottages are built quite long time ago and off grid.

There are fancy (luxury) summer cottages where there is not one but either two or even three saunas built or moved there. All different types of course if having many. One electric inside for convenience.

Traditional (continuous) wood burning sauna, "jatkuvalämmitteinen" in Finnish, right next to lake because that type is consider to give better 'löyly' (steam in sauna) than you get from electric stove and thus preferred by many.

Third if some have is usually oldest type, the smoke-sauna. Which is really nice to have if you can afford keeping and have patience to make use of it few times a year. It takes lot of time and bit of knowledge too to warm it up which can take up to 6-8 hours, before it's ready to start bathing there. This was most common type about hundred years ago in country side.

Fourth type is or mostly was between smoke-sauna and continuously burning stove sauna. Its stove burns wood during heating, but then during bathing it's just releasing heat accumulated during heating. This type name in Finnish is "kertalämmitteinen kiuas" ie. onceheated-stove. And was most common in towns and cities before continuously warming stove was invented and became popular about 60 years ago.

I go sauna four times a week, once evening where I live and three times a week early in morning when I go swimming to (county owned) swimming baths.

e: typos, and clearer expressions.

AH, MANY THANKS! That was the wording I was actually looking for when our twins arrived - I couldnt even sit down to read a printed newspaper article with 2 pages....

I didn't make anything up, I looked at you sources and then I did more reading.

And you can, too.

Is eating healthy more healthy for somebody who is rich and can hire a private chef, than it is for somebody who is unemployed and has a lot of time to cook healthy food.

Is exercise more healthy for a rich person than for a poor person?

I'm sorry but are you seriously considering "bored rich folks like to play-act working in their free time" to be real and widespread - among rich - phenomenon?

It is evidence that you don't want to accept because it's not compatible with your world view. And what do you offer instead - assumption that poor people are hard working folks and that rich people are slackers? And that's somehow not an attempt to shore up a purely political position? Please show ANY evidence supporting your thesis. Also it's not misuse of statistics at all! Mean is perfectly appropriate statistic here. Again - you make some assumption providing no support for it whatsoever.