Re: Safety of FIR saunas

[Guest guest]

We have just been discussing this. There is more info on far infared saunas

on the onibasu archive.

Did they give you a book by Dr. Sherry to read?

If so, the protocol recommended is different and dangerous in that it uses

l-glutathione and ALA in high doses.

Andy believes that ALA or Lipoic Acid in high, irregular doses, releases,

then redistributes mercury in the body, rather than escorting it out of the

body, which is what his low and slow method is designed to do.

Over the years I have heard of many people getting ill from saunas, and some

getting better.

Have you done a hair test on your child yet?

Mercury toxic people sometimes cannot stand heat very well sometimes and

sometimes do not sweat properly.

We bought a heavenly heat sauna because they have a longstanding reputation.

If we could do it over again, all four walls would be glass instead of just

three. The wood smell has still not cured in a year and a half, and is too

strong of a smell. Our chemically sensitive son won't use it, but we think

it will air out within another year, and then he can try using it. Our son

is chemically sensitive and it is commonplace to air something out for a

couple of years before using it with this kind of sensitivity.

The HTH sauna makes false claims. It sounds like a lot of the FIR sauna

info. was hype. 50% of their research they attribute to FIR was based on

research from a conventional sauna.

OUR sauna has FIR and conventional, evidently the FIR from heavenly heat is

the safest kind, if you are going that route.

Andy is cautious about saunaing and thinks conventional is better than FIR

because of the uneven heat distribution, among a lot of other technical

concerns (found in the archives).

We have Four FIR units in our sauna which more evenly distributes the heat.

If we try the sauna, we will not use irregular, high doses of ALA, or Lipoic

acid, which can be dangerous. Andy says ALA in small doses of 1/8-1mg per

lb of body weight and increasing slowly every five weeks. The ALA is dosed

3 days on and four to eleven days off. The ALA is given every 3 hours.

Andy says this is very important to prevent the heavy metals from

redistributing.

Some mercury toxic people tolerate saunas better after they chelate with the

culter protocol.

Our family has not tolerated the sauna very well, but we plan to use it as a

supplement and as a way of " keeping cleaned out " , after chelation with the

cutler protocol.

Andy says that 20 min to an hour in the sauna is equal to 50 mg dmsa,

another chelator. Dr. Rae (another doctor we saw) prescribed four sauna

rounds in a row over a day. I believe they would repeat this day after day,

there was no set structure to days on and off.

The problem is that the chelation happens like a dance, with the heavy

metals switching partners with the half life of the chelator every three or

four hours. How can you possibly regulate the timing of this very well with

a sauna? It seems very hard to control. I think there might be a higher

risk for redistribution of heavy metals if I understand things correctly.

I am still learning how to incorporate our sauna into our cutler protocol.

[Guest guest]

Axe wrote:

> The HTH sauna makes false claims. It sounds like a lot of the FIR

> sauna info. was hype. 50% of their research they attribute to FIR

> was based on research from a conventional sauna.

So do many others. As far as the sauna detox references go, you can

make that 100% of the commonly published references that are actually

attributable to regular saunas.

The FIR sauna industry is riddled with companies that have

misrepresented what infrared does and probably more importantly, how

their saunas are built - a very critical safety issue.

My book will hopefully be published this summer: " Breaking Through The

Hype, The Reality of FIR Saunas. "

Bob

Heavenly Heat

[Guest guest]

> > The HTH sauna makes false claims. It sounds like a lot of the FIR

> > sauna info. was hype. 50% of their research they attribute to FIR

> > was based on research from a conventional sauna.

Perhaps it would be better to say " technically innacurate. "

The lack of technical accuracy may relate to why when I ask technical

questions regarding this topic on the list I don't get answers, I get

invective.

> So do many others.

Yup.

This is the industry standard. Any company that has ethical qualms

and doesn't do it suffers reduced sales as a result.

Realistically we have to say that it is up to consumers to self

educate so that this kind of hype becomes a detriment to sales and the

sauna companies can stop using it.

> As far as the sauna detox references go, you can

> make that 100% of the commonly published references that are

> actually attributable to regular saunas.

>

> The FIR sauna industry is riddled with companies that have

> misrepresented what infrared does

Yes, it is quite farcical to those of us with a technical background.

But it does seem to sell saunas.

> and probably more importantly, how

> their saunas are built - a very critical safety issue.

Yes, there is a whole familiy of " clip together " wood faced saunas

that I see at shows all the time. I see them when I smell

phenol-formaldehyde adhesive and turn my head in the direction of the

odor - I have never been chemically sensitive and I can smell these

things a mile away when they are COLD.

> My book will hopefully be published this summer:

> " Breaking Through The Hype, The Reality of FIR Saunas. "

Hopefully a great tool to help sauna buyers become more konwledgeable

so the hype won't work to sell saunas any more and the vendors can

focus on providing techincally accurate information.

Andy