It is a damn shame bordering conspiracy that metamizole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamizole, known as Analgin in eastern Europe and the Balkans, apparently also India) is not more widely available in the west. It's literally a wonder drug, the only non-narcotic (hence non-addictive) that actually relieves serious pain (including post-op) pain in my experience.
Since I've had a fair share of it in my life so far (more than 1kg of it so far, in total), and I investigated the disparaging studies and they are definitely not convincing at all; more recent ones somewhat absolve it (check the Wikipedia page).
I've never had any side effects from it, and I don't know anyone who did, unlike for any other painkiller (diclofenac, ketoprofen, ibuprofen, acetaminophen / paracetamol).
It is a medicine where I'm almost 100% sure the studies against it are intentional sabotage by pharma companies, and the vigor and persistence this is done with is really telling (lots of doctors and pharmacists in my extended family, including in regulatory bodies). The campaign against it never ends.
Metamizole is an amazing drug, I'm always grateful that I work and live in an area where it is available.
But it is not a miracle drug. Metamizole-induced agranulocytosis absolutely exists, and the insidious thing is that you don't know in advance if you will get it or not. You're trading common but avoidable side effects (ibuprofen, APAP/paracetamol) for rare but unavoidable ones (metamizole).
I've seen patients with severe side effects of all three classes of non-opioid painkillers (severe GI bleeds from ibuprofen-induced ulcers; acute liver failure from APAP overdose; metamizole-induced neutropenic fever). None of them seemed very pleasant. But if I had to choose, I'd still use APAP first line because it's the only one where you can avoid the severe side effect with certainty, by simply staying under the recommended maximum intake.
All of these studies are always performed by Finns (or SE / DK / NO + maybe Russia).
I'd love to see this (and other sauna studies) replicated by someone somewhere to the south or hotter climates in general (southern Europe, Africa, hotter parts of Asia and the Americas).
I doubt they would replicate it or any of the magical effects of saunas. Lots of the sauna studies suffer from the same issue where people self-report sauna usage rather than being assigned randomly to a treatment group. In countries where saunas are readily accessible and most people are under the impression that the more you use sauna the healthier you are, the ones that use the sauna less are probably because they tolerate it far worse. And that's probably related with age, comorbidities, physical condition, etc.
Basically, the sauna studies are probably mostly discovering that "healthier people can stand sauna longer". In countries where most people don't stand sauna for more than a few minutes, that self-selection bias won't exist.
Also location. In my country, saunas at home aren't as common in Finland, but basically every gym has one. So the people that use the sauna the most, are likely to be the most active.
If you want to experience positive health effects from sauna, you don't have to set records in heat and duration. You just get hot and sweat as much as you feel is fine. So you can do it in almost all conditions. Sweating out bad stuff from your body, activating the blood flow, unless you are at risk of a aneurysm - of course it is beneficial, even though it doesn't magically turn your health around. But a proper sauna and ice bath do revive and make you feel reborn. Try it at least at some point and then you can judge if it did not make you feel more alive and healthier and that all the studies around it a "probably bullshit".
There are two separate issues there. One, you feeling good about going to the sauna. If you feel good, that’s nice. But it’s your personal feeling from it. I personally did not have the same opinion about my lungs feeling as I was breathing fire, but to each their own. I’d rather do other nicer things to activate blood flow and feel revived.
The other is the health benefits, and that can only be measured from serious studies and not from how you or me feel about it later.
Feeling good and with lasting energy is pretty much the same as having good health.
"The other is the health benefits, and that can only be measured from serious studies and not from how you or me feel about it later."
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. (Besides, allmost everyone goes to Sauna in the nordic countries, that implies allmost everyone there is healthy by your logic)
But if Sauna for you was breathing fire .. one easy solution is to go to a less hot sauna.
> Feeling good and with lasting energy is pretty much the same as having good health.
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.
"I already live in Spain, I get more than my fair share of hot uncomfortable environments."
Well yes, that might be enough, which might be the reason there ain't so many saunas in spain, but lots of them in colder climates. (I don't go to Sauna in summer either)
So yes, to be precise, the general statement "Sauna is good for you" is probably not true in general. There are also lots of other factors, the individual tolerance to heat and your heart condition(at times I enjoy 110 degree Sauna for a long time, but if I am weak, 60 degree can already be too much for more than a few minutes), then the general atmosphere in the Sauna, is it clean, are there nice people or people you feel like getting their diseases from by sharing the same room and sweat, ... in short, do you feel safe and comfortable there (placebo is real, but so are germs).
So in general, if you don't enjoy it, don't go. But also spain can be cold I experienced, so I do recommend to try out the heat effect in a controlled environment if you have the opportunity for a nice Sauna where no one pressures you to endure more than you want to.
My partner is also from a warmer climate and she did not like Sauna first, but step by step she now enjoys it.
I don't know about that. As in yes I agree but that seems to apply to Western countries in general. For example in Tunisia, people go to public baths at least once a week and part of that involves sitting in a hot steamy room for 30+ minutes. So here you have an example for a population that does use sauna (in a way) but aren't relying on self-reporting.
As an Estonian, anything below 80°C is considered a "kids sauna". 80°C - 90°C is a cold-but-workable sauna and proper sauna starts from 90+°C. I'd assume it's the same in Finland as we share a lot of the sauna culture.
This would be same in Germany and eastern european countries too. But it really depend on humidity. High humidity saunas don't have to be hot and get tough pretty quicky. 100c dry sauna is lot more manageable than 60c humid sauna (atleast to me).
Indeed, humidity matters a lot. Most our saunas here are löyly (in Finnish) saunas, so you get a rollercoaster of dry - humid - dry cycles. Once you get to 100+c and throw a good amount of water on the stones, it can get quite challenging to endure :)
Everybody has their personal preference of course. For me, the sweet spot seems to be a moderately humid sauna at 93c. At that point, the löyly is not too harsh yet but is still hot enough to make you feel alive :)
I also prefer around 90-100c with swings of humidity. I think it's most exciting exactly because you can make it temporarily more intensive with the "humid wave".
It's the most popular type of sauna - "the sauna" for a reason.
Whether sauna is hot or not depends on whether you enjoy the cold water plunge afterwards :)
The typical preset on dry saunas in Bay Area is ~165 F (73 C). Which is cold. Waste of time and money :). Usually, by closing or pouring cold water on sensor, one can make it to 180-190 F (82-87 C) - this is where you start to feel like you are in sauna, though it takes prolong time to heat you up enough to enjoy the cold plunge. If you're lucky enough, you can get to 200, 210, 220 F (104 C) - this is where you start to feel relaxed like as if the heat is working inside you.
>Are you actually throwing water? Because even with 80 the steam is pretty hot
Of course those numbers would be impossible to enjoy in steam sauna. The only steam sauna that had a wall thermometer that i've visited in recent years was showing 55 C when it already felt pretty well and hot.
Note - steam sauna and "throwing water" are 2 different things. The steam sauna is a machine generating a lot of steam, so the room is close to 100% humidity.
The "throwing water" is like Russian "banya" - it is in-between of dry and steam, though frequently is more close to dry Finnish sauna - wooden walls, stove, etc. where in addition to the heated air, you'd throw a water on the heater/stones thus adding a hit of hot steam to that air (in some "banya" configurations if you happen to be close to and in the immediate path of that steam you can sometimes get light burns).
Just a clarification as it may not be clear from your message. A Finnish ("dry") sauna always includes throwing water on the stove, which is called "löyly".
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.
Would those be "dry saunas" or proper ones where you're allowed to throw water on the rocks? Adding humidity ('löyly') is kinda the point, and 73°C might be just fine for a small sauna, giving you a nice punchy löyly.
Depends on the location!
Very often, at public locations there is a "saua master" taking care, in smaller locations I have seen people handling this on their own.
And in one location there was a sign: "no private watering due to electrical issues"
I think I've heard US it's mostly no water at all on stove and Germany I've heard they have had these sauna-masters who come and cast water on stove.
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.
The men's sauna at Harjutori in Helsinki has a pullchain (with a handle of wood, natch), by the entrance to the room. When you walk into the men's sauna (which is BIG), you can inquire whether löyly is needed, and affirmative answers dictate a tug or two or three on the chain, which releases bursts of steam.
And anyone on the highest bench really gets cooked.
Yes every sauna I have ever been to in Europe (spas, various gyms) have electric heater with stones on top. Infra saunas are only for cheapest installs at home and usually dont generate enough heat.
Also, 80° celzius minimum for proper saunas, I have been to >100 celzius ones and its a struggle to remain for 15 mins inside.
Another point - I consider the after-part most crucial for health benefits to me - as-cold-as-possible long shower or even better a similar dip pool. Few days after that my cold resistance is significantly higher. Just the heating of body in sauna I can reach also ie with cardio workout or free weights, which brings tons of other benefits.
That "electric heater stones on top" is usually called stove, "kiuas" in Finnish :)
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.
Also while 73°C is a proper sauna, there are plenty of hotter ones. 90°C is closer to what I'm used to at my apartment building's common sauna. I do take two breaks when I'm there for 30 mims though.
It's a sauna so humidity depends on how much water I feel like throwing on the stones ("kiuas"). I throw at about once per minute, but I have no idea what that would mean in humidity.
I knew a guy that would bring a steak sealed in a vac seal bag to the gym and leave it in the sauna while he worked out. One hour later he was done working out and it was ready to eat too. Not sure I can actually recommend it to others but the novelty was interesting till they nearly kicked him out of the gym.
On a recent visit to Finland I found out that basically all supermarkets sell aluminium foil bags for the purpose of cooking sausages on the sauna stove while you use the sauna.
And also replicated with participants not used to high temperatures inside a typical Finnish sauna. As the study said such people are very difficult to find in Finland. But I wonder if a person who has never been to a real sauna would tolerate this study protocol (2*15 min at 73° Celsius) without any training.
Sauna and hot climates may sound counterintuitive, but it has been tested by most Finns that when you come out of a hot sauna any outside temperature feels cool.
I'm an immigrant in Scandinavia, originally from a hot country, in my experience a 73C steam sauna is quite tolerable for a 2*15 min session.
The first time I was in a sauna after moving was a bit harder than after getting used to it but doable.
Nowadays I just love them, my friends and I built a couple of saunas to leave by the lake in their summerhouses, the cravings of going from hot -> very cold, and back to the heat is hard to explain, and I totally recommend it.
Northern Spaniard there, bring a Saunaa lover Finn with one of these climate-change induced hours at 43C at some day or two in Summer... in the Atlantic, in Bilbao, which is... inside a valley.
I've been in saunas at 60-70C and the feeling inside was much bearable because of the lack of humidity than 43C under a climate closer to UK than inner/Mediterranean Spain.
What about Japanese hot springs? ("onsen")
Those are typically around 40°C but could be up to 60°C. Because it is hot water and not hot air the temperature would be transferred differently to the body though, so I don't think the numeric temperature is directly comparable.
Onsen baths are taken all year round: including summers that get hotter than in Finland, but especially enjoyed in winter.
I am a Spanish guy currently living in Japan, and honestly I hate sauna but love onsen. Most on my Spanish colleagues seem to think the same. I guess the main factor being that both Spain and Japan are have really hot summers, so why would you get in a hot room to sweat like a pig when you are already sweating outside?
Hammam is not as hot as sauna and not as dry. Sauna's air temperatures can reach above 100 degress Celsius and humidity is usually relatively low (around 20%).
> Hammam's temperatures are around 40-50 degrees Celsius and humidity is close to 100%.
Which makes it absolutely unbearable. By the way, that combination of temperature + humidity will cause severe hyperthermia (which can be deadly) faster than people think.
Don't attribute to ideals what is simple self-preservation.
No sane person wants to become a legitimate military target. They want to sleep in their own beds, at home, without risking their families lives. Just like the rest of us.
Since I've had a fair share of it in my life so far (more than 1kg of it so far, in total), and I investigated the disparaging studies and they are definitely not convincing at all; more recent ones somewhat absolve it (check the Wikipedia page).
I've never had any side effects from it, and I don't know anyone who did, unlike for any other painkiller (diclofenac, ketoprofen, ibuprofen, acetaminophen / paracetamol).
It is a medicine where I'm almost 100% sure the studies against it are intentional sabotage by pharma companies, and the vigor and persistence this is done with is really telling (lots of doctors and pharmacists in my extended family, including in regulatory bodies). The campaign against it never ends.
reply