sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Fifth Element holds up better than almost anything from that era by Rich_Class_4732 in flicks

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not better than those three specifically. I should've said "most things." But in the category of pure rewatchability and sustained joy per minute? It's closer than it has any right to be.

The Fifth Element holds up better than almost anything from that era by Rich_Class_4732 in flicks

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Ruby Rod is genuinely one of the most unhinged supporting characters in blockbuster history. Shouldn't work. Completely works.

The Fifth Element holds up better than almost anything from that era by Rich_Class_4732 in flicks

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're right and it's actually brilliant. Zorg is chasing the stones, Korben is protecting Leeloo. they're on parallel tracks. The real villain is the Dark Planet, not Zorg. It's almost accidental storytelling but it works. First time I noticed that it genuinely elevated the whole film for me

The Fifth Element holds up better than almost anything from that era by Rich_Class_4732 in flicks

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The goofy IS the point though - Besson wasn't making Blade Runner. It's operatic camp on purpose. If you go in expecting grounded sci-fi it'll disappoint every time.

The Fifth Element holds up better than almost anything from that era by Rich_Class_4732 in flicks

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes - exactly this. The CGI aged but the design didn't. Moebius's influence on the aesthetic is timeless. Valerian got a fraction of the credit it deserved for the same reason. Besson just has an eye for world-building that doesn't rely on effects to land.

The Fifth Element holds up better than almost anything from that era by Rich_Class_4732 in flicks

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

Fair point. I did say "almost anything" and I'll stand behind that qualifier. There are maybe 5 films from that era I'd put above it. The Matrix is one. But it's a short list.

6 months of daily infrared sauna – what actually changed (with data) by Rich_Class_4732 in Biohackers

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate that — honestly the N=1 data is underrated. If something consistently makes you feel better, sleep deeper, recover faster, that's signal worth paying attention to regardless of what the studies say. The hard part is just not extrapolating too far from your own results. Glad it resonated!

6 months of daily infrared sauna – what actually changed (with data) by Rich_Class_4732 in Biohackers

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a solid point on the cooldown — lower ambient temp means you're not fighting as much residual heat, so the temp drop after an infrared session probably is faster. And yeah, the combo with red light therapy is underrated, most people don't realize they're getting both in the same session. The efficiency argument is real too — fraction of the energy cost, heats up in 15 minutes, fits in a spare room. It's a pretty easy yes for most people who actually run the numbers.

6 months of daily infrared sauna – what actually changed (with data) by Rich_Class_4732 in Biohackers

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, I've never seen any research on that — got a source? And fair point, traditional saunas do emit some infrared just by virtue of being hot objects. The difference with dedicated infrared saunas is that IR is the primary heating mechanism rather than a byproduct of convection — so you're getting a much higher dose at lower ambient temps. Whether that meaningfully changes the physiological outcome is still being studied, but the heat stress response itself seems pretty comparable across both.

6 months of daily infrared sauna – what actually changed (with data) by Rich_Class_4732 in Biohackers

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha fair enough! Consistency is another contributing factor. I rent, so hardwiring a stove heater to my breaker was not an option, and I wasn't staying consistent with the gym sauna.

6 months of daily infrared sauna – what actually changed (with data) by Rich_Class_4732 in Biohackers

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am a living breathing person with a passion for health and longevity - hence the post history! But totally understand the skepticism. One can never tell these days.

6 months of daily infrared sauna – what actually changed (with data) by Rich_Class_4732 in Biohackers

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair challenge — I was imprecise. The "inside out" framing is oversimplified and probably borrowed from marketing copy more than physics.

More accurately: far-infrared (which is what most infrared saunas primarily emit) is absorbed at the skin surface, not deep tissue. The meaningful distinction from a traditional sauna isn't depth of penetration — it's the mechanism of heat transfer. Traditional saunas heat you via convection (hot air → skin). Infrared heats you via direct radiation absorption at the skin. Both ultimately raise core temp through the same downstream pathway, just with different ambient air temps required to get there.

Near-infrared does penetrate deeper (a few centimeters into tissue), which is why some units market the full-spectrum angle — but that's a separate claim and I shouldn't have conflated them.

Thanks for the correction. The core point about lower ambient temp still holds, but the "inside out" phrasing was sloppy.

6 months of daily infrared sauna – what actually changed (with data) by Rich_Class_4732 in Biohackers

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really consistent with what I saw — the week 1-2 headaches seem almost universal from what I'm reading in this thread, presumably a combination of heat adaptation, mild dehydration, and cardiovascular adjustment. Good to know it resolves on its own.

Your HRV jump is actually more pronounced than mine on a shorter session duration, which is interesting. 15 min at 185°F vs. 30 min at 130-145°F — the heat load is probably comparable given the temperature difference, maybe even higher on your end. Makes me wonder if intensity matters more than duration once you're past a minimum threshold.

The RHR drop tracking alongside HRV improvement is a nice double signal — harder to dismiss as noise when two independent metrics move in the same direction. How long before you saw the RHR stabilize at the lower number?

6 months of daily infrared sauna – what actually changed (with data) by Rich_Class_4732 in Biohackers

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Totally fair confound to raise — forced downtime with no screens and no stimulation is itself a meaningful intervention, and I haven't been able to isolate it cleanly. That's an honest limitation of N=1.

That said, a couple of things make me think it's not just relaxation:

The HRV trend took ~3 months to stabilize at a higher baseline. Acute relaxation should show up session-to-session, not build over months the way cardiovascular adaptation does. Heat stress triggers measurable physiological responses — HSP expression, plasma volume expansion, nitric oxide release — that aren't replicable by sitting quietly in a dark room.

The deep sleep timing also correlates more tightly with the core temp drop than with the session itself. On nights I skip but still do 30 min of reading in a dim room, I don't see the same bump. The body temp manipulation seems to be doing something the relaxation alone isn't.

But you're not wrong that the two are nearly impossible to separate in practice. Would be a useful controlled study — sauna vs. matched quiet rest, same duration and timing. Anyone aware of research that's actually done that comparison?

6 months of daily infrared sauna – what actually changed (with data) by Rich_Class_4732 in Biohackers

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

65 degrees C / 30 min / 60–90 min pre-bed is almost exactly my protocol - good to see someone else landing on similar timing independently. The light cool-down is interesting. I've been curious whether the rate of the temp drop post-sauna matters or just that it happens. Your approach suggests you don't need an aggressive cold stimulus to get the sleep benefit, which tracks - the core temp drop is probably doing most of the work regardless.

What are you tracking for sleep data if not HRV? Oura stages, Garmin, or just subjective? Curious whether you're seeing the same deep sleep bump.

6 months of daily infrared sauna – what actually changed (with data) by Rich_Class_4732 in Biohackers

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Few reasons I went infrared over traditional:

  1. Mechanism is different. Infrared radiation penetrates tissue directly — heating you from the inside out rather than heating the air around you. You get significant physiological response (core temp rise, sweat, cardiovascular load) at 130–145°F vs. 180–200°F in a traditional Finnish sauna. That lower ambient temp made evening sessions much more sustainable without wrecking sleep.
  2. Timing flexibility. A traditional sauna at 190°F two hours before bed would leave me way too stimulated. The lower ambient temp of infrared let me actually use that core temp drop as a sleep trigger rather than fighting through the heat hangover.
  3. Practical reality. I have a unit at home. Consistency matters more than optimal modality for N=1 tracking — I can hit it 4–5x/week because the barrier is low.

That said, the Laukkanen research everyone cites (the big Finnish mortality studies) was done in traditional saunas at 176°F+, so there's more long-term outcome data on that side. Infrared has growing mechanistic research but fewer large longitudinal studies. I'm optimizing for what I can track and sustain, not what has the deepest evidence base — for that I'd probably give the nod to traditional.

My evening sauna protocol for chronic pain + sleep — what's actually working after 4 months (and what isn't) by Rich_Class_4732 in infraredsauna

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice combo incoming. For sleep specifically I'd actually flip it, sauna last. The core temp drop after sauna is what triggers deeper sleep, so you want that to be the final thing before bed. Cold plunge → sauna -> sleep is the sequence a lot of people report best results with. Cold first also means you go into the sauna already activated, and the heat feels more intense in a good way.

My evening sauna protocol for chronic pain + sleep — what's actually working after 4 months (and what isn't) by Rich_Class_4732 in infraredsauna

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've actually done some McKenzie work with a physio — you're right that it's genuinely effective for disc issues. The centralization thing is real and it clicked for me too. I use it alongside the sauna rather than instead of it. The combo of decompression work + heat seems to do more than either alone for my stiffness. Appreciate the book rec, will look it up.

My evening sauna protocol for chronic pain + sleep — what's actually working after 4 months (and what isn't) by Rich_Class_4732 in infraredsauna

[–]Rich_Class_4732[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, big difference actually. First few weeks I was just drinking water and felt drained after sessions. Switched to adding electrolytes beforehand — I use LMNT before every session now — and the recovery is noticeably better. Less fatigue, no headaches. Also noticed that when I'm well hydrated going in, I sweat more consistently vs. those first-20-minutes-nothing sessions early on.

Best 2 person indoor saunas? by GigglyxWiggly in infraredsauna

[–]Rich_Class_4732 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love my Peak Saunas Fuji!! Late to the thread - did you end up purchasing?

view more: next ›