This is a quick story looking at any potential health benefits from saunas, particularly infrared saunas.
The story attempts to address the issue by looking at a handful of small studies, and interviewing two people directly involved with the research. An outside source would have been helpful to sort through the claims and discuss what isn’t known or poorly researched–such as the benefits and harms to pregnant women, babies and children. We were also disappointed how the story used hospital-based infrared warmers for newborns as an example of why infrared saunas are safe–when the setting and equipment are vastly different.
For many people, using a sauna is enjoyable. Is it also good for their health? The research is unclear, and any claims of benefit need to be examined carefully, especially as “infrared saunas” become the next trendy way to spend money, and get aggressively marketed by private companies as having both specific and mystical health and beauty benefits.
The story does not mention costs. Standard saunas are generally available at fitness gyms, but it’s unclear where a person finds an “infrared” sauna, and if they cost more to install and/or use.
The discussion of benefits when quantified, relied on relative and vague numbers, such as “people who spent 15 minutes a day for two weeks in an infrared sauna enjoyed a significant drop in blood pressure compared to a control group.” We’re not told by how many points their pressure dropped, nor if the change was clinically meaningful. Also, the unhelpful fact that a study in Finnish men “enjoyed a 23% drop in their risk for a fatal heart disease or episode” doesn’t really give us a sense of the overall magnitude of the effect. (As a side note, the verb “enjoy” was used three times to explain findings in clinical studies–which isn’t the most accurate way to explain to readers what was measured.)
Effect on sperm count is mentioned. But that’s far from the only risk. There are large segments of the population who are generally told not to use saunas–such as pregnant women or people with chronic diseases. What makes saunas inherently dangerous for them? Is it also true for infrared saunas? We don’t know or learn in this article.
We’re told that there isn’t a lot of research and that the studies are with low numbers and almost all looked at traditional saunas–yet it might be better if the conclusion re-emphasized these important limitations, instead of “you have little to lose and possibly something to gain.” Readers do stand to lose money from trying out an infrared sauna, especially if it does nothing for their health.
Both of the sources have direct ties to the research mentioned. One of the sources, Dr. Beever, appears in advertisements/advertorials for the Sunlighten brand of infrared saunas. The story would have been strengthened by including an expert independent of the research.
Alternatives are not discussed, especially for the health claims mentioned like sleep improvement or better heart health. How do infrared saunas compare, for example, to exercise, diet modifications or other alternatives? Also, can the effects of a sauna be replicated by going out in hot weather and/or working up a sweat? What makes saunas unique and worth the time, effort and cost?
Saunas can be found in many health gyms–but what about infrared saunas, which is the focus of the piece? We’re not told.
The column is titled “You asked” so we’re assuming this story was prompted by a reader query. One thing we would have liked to have seen included is why they’re asking right now--a Google search revealed lots of news outlets writing about infrared saunas in the past few months, with health claims that might be exaggerated.
Multiple sources would suggest low reliance on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like