Infrared vs traditional sauna: the difference is in the panel
The peer-reviewed answer to 'which is better' is that nobody knows yet — which cuts against both sales pitches. So here's the comparison that can actually be decided.
Last verified · Ice & Cedar editorial
Two different machines are sold under one word. The health comparison between them is unsettled — genuinely, in the literature, not as a hedge. The electrical comparison is not unsettled at all, and it is probably the one that decides your purchase.
What the evidence actually says: not enough to tell
The systematic review of regular dry sauna bathing puts it in one sentence:
“There is not yet enough evidence to distinguish any particular health differences between repeat Finnish-style and repeat infrared sauna bathing.”
Read that carefully, because it defeats botharguments you have been offered. It does not say infrared is equivalent — so the infrared seller citing Finnish research is overreaching. It does not say infrared is inferior — so the traditional purist calling it a heat lamp is also overreaching. It says the comparison has not been done well enough to answer.
One thing that does transfer cleanly: the Finnish mortality cohort studied traditional Finnish sauna bathing. Infrared was not in it. Whatever weight you give that data — and we think it is observational and badly misreported — it is not evidence about a machine it never measured.
The temperatures, which are not close
| Source | Traditional | Infrared |
|---|---|---|
| Cleveland Clinic | 150–195°F | 110–135°F |
| Systematic review | 80–100°C (176–212°F) | 45–60°C (113–140°F) |
The review notes infrared runs at those lower temperatures “with similar exposure times”. And Cleveland Clinic describes the mechanism difference plainly: infrared lamps focus “a penetrating warmth directly on your skin,” where traditional methods “crank up the air temperature within an entire sauna.”
One heats the room and lets the room heat you. The other heats you and leaves the room mostly alone. Whether that is the same intervention at a different setting, or two different things, is exactly what the evidence cannot currently say.
The difference you can actually measure
Here is where we can stop hedging, because this part is arithmetic. The gap between these two categories shows up hardest in your electrical panel, and it is not subtle.
| Unit | Rated | Draw | Breaker (125% rule) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Albott infrared | 2,850 W | 11.9 A | 15 A |
| Harvia 8kW traditional | 8,000 W | 33.3 A | 45 A |
Both computed at 240V from published ratings. The infrared figure is the only amperage published by any listing we surveyed — the Albott unit states 20A itself, and our arithmetic on its 2,850W agrees. Every other number in this category, we derive.
A 15A circuit versus a 45A one. On a 100A service that is the difference between a heater that fits alongside your existing loads and a heater that starts a conversation about your panel. If your service is constrained, this is not a preference question at all — the panel decides, and it decides before you have an opinion about löyly.
How we’d actually choose
Since the evidence will not choose for you, choose on the things that are knowable:
- What your panel can feed. A 50A circuit may mean an electrician, a permit, and possibly a service upgrade. A 15A circuit usually does not.
- What you will actually use. The only consistent signal in the observational data is frequency. A cabin you use four times a week beats a better one you use monthly.
- Whether you want the traditional experience.Steam on stones is not available from an infrared cabin at any price. If that is what you are buying, infrared is not a cheaper version of it — it is a different product.
- Not the health claims. Neither side can support them against the other. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ahead of their sources.
We have not sat in either of these units and we are not going to pretend the specs settle a question about how something feels. What we can do is make sure the arithmetic is right before you spend the money.
Frequently asked questions
Is an infrared sauna as good as a traditional one?
The honest answer is that nobody has established either way, and the peer-reviewed position is more interesting than either sales pitch. A systematic review of dry sauna bathing concludes: 'There is not yet enough evidence to distinguish any particular health differences between repeat Finnish-style and repeat infrared sauna bathing.' So 'infrared gives you the Finnish sauna benefits' is unsupported — and so is 'infrared is proven worse'. The comparison has not been settled.
Do the famous sauna mortality studies apply to infrared?
No, and this is the cleanest thing on this page. The Finnish cohort data that produced the mortality associations measured traditional Finnish sauna bathing. It did not study infrared. Whatever you think of that evidence — and we think it is observational and widely misreported — it does not transfer to a different machine that was never in the study. Anyone citing Finnish mortality data to sell you an infrared cabin is extrapolating past their own source.
What temperature does an infrared sauna run at?
Much lower. Cleveland Clinic puts infrared at 110-135°F versus 150-195°F for traditional. The systematic review describes infrared as running at 45-60°C (113-140°F) versus 80-100°C for Finnish saunas, 'with similar exposure times'. Whether the lower temperature is a feature or the whole problem is exactly the question the evidence cannot currently answer.
Which one needs less electrical work?
Infrared, decisively — and this is the difference you can actually measure rather than argue about. The one infrared unit in our comparison that publishes its amperage draws 2,850W at 240V and 20A. An 8kW traditional heater draws 33.3A, which the NEC's 125% continuous-load rule sizes up to a 50A breaker. That is the gap: roughly a 25A circuit versus a 50A one. On a constrained panel, that is not a preference — it is the decision.
Is infrared cheaper to run?
It draws less power, so yes, all else equal — and you can check the arithmetic yourself rather than take our word for it. 2,850W is about a third of an 8kW heater. But run cost is draw times duty cycle times session length times your rate, and the honest version of that calculation needs your electricity rate, not a national average. Our cost calculator takes the rate as an input for exactly that reason.
Are they the same experience?
No, and this is the part where we stop pretending specs settle it. Infrared warms you directly rather than heating the whole room to Finnish temperatures. Cleveland Clinic describes the difference as lamps focusing 'a penetrating warmth directly on your skin' versus traditional methods that 'crank up the air temperature within an entire sauna'. We have not sat in either of these units, so we are not going to tell you which feels better. What we can tell you is that they are different machines, and the word 'sauna' on both listings is doing a lot of work.
What about infrared detox claims?
Be careful. Cleveland Clinic quotes their own physician on the detox research: 'That research is still in its infancy.' We do not make detox claims, and a listing that leads with one is telling you about its marketing rather than its evidence.
Related
Sources
- Hussain J, Cohen M. Clinical Effects of Regular Dry Sauna Bathing: A Systematic Review. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018. — Source of the quote that there is "not yet enough evidence to distinguish any particular health differences between repeat Finnish-style and repeat infrared sauna bathing", the 45-60°C infrared range, the 80-100°C Finnish range, and "with similar exposure times". (accessed 2026-07-16)
- Cleveland Clinic — Infrared sauna benefits — Source of the mechanism description (lamps focusing "a penetrating warmth directly on your skin" versus traditional methods that "crank up the air temperature within an entire sauna") and the "that research is still in its infancy" quote on detox claims. (accessed 2026-07-16)
- Cleveland Clinic — Sauna benefits — Source of the 150-195°F traditional and 110-135°F infrared temperature ranges. (accessed 2026-07-16)
- Laukkanen T, et al. Association between sauna bathing and fatal cardiovascular and all-cause mortality events. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(4):542-8. — The Finnish cohort study. Cited here for what it studied — traditional Finnish sauna bathing, not infrared. (accessed 2026-07-16)
- Albott Outdoor Infrared Sauna 4 Person — Amazon listing — Source of the 2,850W / 240V / 20A rating — the only listing surveyed that publishes an amperage. (accessed 2026-07-16)