Infrared vs Traditional Sauna: What the 2025 Studies Changed

A guide from Sauna Dekor Spa Solutions, an Istanbul manufacturer building traditional saunas, infrared cabins and steam rooms since 1987.

In a traditional Finnish sauna, an electric or wood-fired heater warms a bed of stones and the air around them. The hot air heats you, from the outside in, and you can pour water on the stones for a burst of steam. In an infrared cabin, panels emit radiant energy that your skin and superficial tissue absorb directly, while the air stays comparatively cool. Everything else — heat-up time, running cost, electrical supply, how the room is built and who enjoys it — follows from that one distinction.

This page is the head-to-head. If you are choosing between three room types rather than two, our traditional vs infrared vs steam room comparison covers the wet option as well, and sauna vs steam room handles that pairing on its own.

This is the difference that matters most, and until recently the industry argued about it with brochures rather than data. Two 2025 studies changed that.

The first compared three passive heating modalities head to head in the way people actually use them. Twenty healthy adults completed hot water immersion (45 minutes at 40.5 °C), traditional sauna (three rounds of 10 minutes at 80 °C) and far infrared sauna (45 minutes at 45–65 °C), a week apart. Core temperature rose 1.1 °C in hot water and 0.4 °C in the traditional sauna. Cardiac output rose 3.7 L/min and 2.3 L/min respectively. The authors’ own summary: far infrared heating was the least impactful of the three at raising core temperature, and produced the smallest cardiovascular and immune responses (Atencio et al., 2025).

The second went straight to the tissue. Ten adults had a multisensor probe inserted into the quadriceps before a 45-minute far infrared session. Muscle temperature rose 3.0 °C at 1.4 cm below the skin, 1.9 °C at 2.4 cm and 1.1 °C at 3.4 cm — while intestinal (core) temperature did not change at all. The thermal effect had fallen by 63% at 2.4 cm depth and was negligible beyond 3.8 cm (Reed et al., 2025).

Two conclusions follow, and both are useful:

• The “penetrates 3–4 cm” claim is roughly true and mostly irrelevant. Something does reach 3.4 cm. What reaches it is about a third of the effect at the surface.
• Infrared warms tissue; traditional heats the person. If the outcome you want depends on a systemic core temperature rise — the cardiovascular training effect, the heat shock protein response — the traditional cabin is delivering it and the infrared cabin largely is not.

The most persistent piece of infrared marketing is that you sweat more, or sweat “differently”, or sweat out more of something. Sweat is a thermoregulatory response, not a result. In the muscle-probe study, mean body temperature rose 1.3 °C and participants sweated — with no change in core temperature whatsoever.

Judge a session by how you feel afterwards and by whether you go back three times a week, not by how much water you lost. Our how to use a sauna guide covers what a good session actually looks like in either cabin.

Traditional has the population data. A Finnish prospective cohort followed 1,688 people for a median of 15 years and recorded 181 fatal cardiovascular events. Compared with one sauna session per week, four to seven sessions per week carried an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.23 for cardiovascular mortality (Laukkanen et al., 2018). A 2024 review of passive heat therapies concluded that Finnish saunas, at 80–100 °C and 10–20% relative humidity, have the most consistent and robust evidence of any heat modality (Laukkanen & Kunutsor, 2024).

There is randomised evidence too. In an eight-week trial, 47 sedentary adults with at least one cardiovascular risk factor were assigned to exercise, exercise plus a 15-minute post-exercise sauna, or control. Adding the sauna to exercise produced a further 2.7 mL/kg/min in cardiorespiratory fitness, 8.0 mmHg lower systolic blood pressure and lower total cholesterol than exercise alone (Lee et al., 2022).

Infrared has small, short, mostly athletic trials. They are not nothing. A crossover trial in 16 male basketball players found a single 20-minute infrared session after resistance training attenuated the drop in countermovement jump performance, reduced muscle soreness and improved perceived recovery, with no detriment to autonomic recovery (Ahokas et al., 2023). A six-week trial in 40 female team-sport athletes using infrared three times a week found no effect on hypertrophy but a possible improvement in long-term power production (Ahokas et al., 2025).

One frequently cited head-to-head deserves a caveat. A 2015 study concluded far infrared bathing was favourable for neuromuscular recovery after maximal endurance work, and was very light loading on the body (Mero et al., 2015). But its “traditional” comparison ran at 35–50 °C with 60–70% humidity — a sanarium, not a Finnish sauna at 90 °C. It compared two mild rooms, not the two things this page is about.

The fair summary: traditional sauna has decades of cohort data and hard endpoints; infrared has a small, promising recovery literature and no long-term outcome data. That is a real gap, and it is not infrared’s fault — it is thirty years younger. But it should inform what you expect.

A traditional cabin takes 30 to 45 minutes to reach temperature; an infrared cabin takes 10 to 15. On paper that is a convenience footnote. In practice it is the single strongest predictor of whether a home sauna gets used.

A 40-minute wait means the sauna becomes a planned event. Ten minutes means it becomes a habit. We have handed over beautiful traditional cabins that get used twice a month, and modest infrared cabins that get used five times a week. Given the dose-response in the cohort data, the room you use four times a week beats the better room you use twice a month.

The counter is a timer or remote start, which removes most of the problem on a traditional heater and should be specified as standard.

This decides more projects than any argument about physiology.

A traditional sauna heater is sized at roughly 1 kW per cubic metre of well-insulated cabin. A 2 × 2 × 2.1 m room is 8.4 m³ and wants a 9 kW heater, which in most territories means three-phase power and a dedicated circuit. An infrared cabin of the same footprint typically draws 1.5 to 3 kW on a single-phase supply.

In an apartment, a converted store or a villa where the board is already full, that is often the whole decision — and it is a legitimate one. Our sauna heater types guide covers sizing properly, and the best sauna for home sets out the decision order we use with residential clients.

Infrared is cheaper per session, and the reason is arithmetic rather than efficiency claims. A 9 kW traditional heater runs near full load through a 40-minute heat-up, then cycles for the session. A 2 kW infrared cabin runs 15 minutes of warm-up and then draws intermittently.

Two corrections to the usual comparison. First, “infrared uses 80% less energy” ignores that infrared sessions run 20 to 40 minutes against 10 to 20 minute traditional rounds. Second, in a hot climate, both cabins push heat into a conditioned space, and the air conditioning that removes it is a real running cost nobody puts in the brochure. We break the numbers down in how much an infrared sauna costs and, for the region, what a sauna costs in Dubai.

A traditional cabin is a harder building. It needs a continuous, fully sealed vapour barrier behind the cladding, a fresh-air inlet near the heater and an extract on the opposite wall, timber selected and kiln-dried for repeated 90 °C cycling, and a heater guard. A vapour barrier failure is invisible for years and then structural.

An infrared cabin is simpler: panel placement and coverage, cabling, and enough ventilation to keep the room pleasant. The failure mode is different too — panels degrade and eventually need replacing, which is a maintenance line rather than a building repair. Our infrared sauna maintenance guide covers lifespan.

What both share: timber quality determines how the cabin looks in year eight. That is where we spend our attention across the whole custom sauna range.

Choose a traditional Finnish sauna if you want the stimulus the research is built on, you have three-phase power or can get it, you enjoy intense dry heat and löyly, you are building a commercial facility where guests expect a proper sauna, or you intend to pair it with cold. The sauna and cold plunge circuit assumes real heat on the hot side. See the Finnish sauna range.

Choose an infrared cabin if your electrical supply rules out a proper heater, you find 90 °C air genuinely unpleasant, you want a ten-minute start so it becomes daily, you are fitting an apartment or a small space, or you want a comfortable warm room for reading and unwinding. That is a perfectly good reason to buy one — it is just not the same purchase. See the infrared sauna range, or what an infrared sauna is for the full explanation.

Yes, and in commercial projects we usually specify both — they attract different users at different times of day. Combination cabins exist, with infrared panels installed in a traditional room, and they work, with one honest caveat: a cabin optimised for 90 °C air is not optimised for radiant panel geometry, so the infrared side is a compromise. Where the budget and space allow two rooms, two rooms is the better answer.

Sauna Dekor has manufactured saunas since 1987 — 40 years of Finnish cabins, infrared cabins and combined rooms for hotels, spas and private residences across the UAE and internationally. The choice between infrared and traditional is usually settled by three things: your electrical supply, your honest heat tolerance, and how often you will really use it. Tell us those three and we will tell you which cabin to build.

Related: how to choose the best infrared sauna — emitter coverage, cabin build and the circuit, in that order.