3 ms·

Yes, I think they would be about the same, although when you sweat in a sauna it goes to the floor, whereas in a bathtub it hangs out in the bathwater. So as f

by sova 5y ago

Yes, I think they would be about the same, although when you sweat in a sauna it goes to the floor, whereas in a bathtub it hangs out in the bathwater. So as far as cleansing of toxins goes, maybe one is better than the other. There was another article exploring the Japanese custom of bathing at onsen, and how it is also loosely linked to extended lifespan, so I believe you are correct with your statement.

eli 5y ago
Toxins?
- jwiz 5y ago
  They are like evil spirits.
- brianwawok 5y ago
  I believe there are some heavy metals that you can only really get out of your body via sweating. But “granola” people have built up a whole story about sweating and toxin clearing that AFAIK has no basis in science.
  - NavinF 5y ago
    Citation needed for that first part. A quick google says there is no evidence that sweating out toxins improves health and the liver and kidneys remove far more toxins than sweat glands
    - brianwawok 5y ago
      Right it’s right up there with getting your back cracked to improve digestion https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/well/live/can-you-sweat-out-toxins.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/well...
    - cromulent 5y ago
      It's very rare to need to remove toxins from your body. Toxins are naturally occurring poisons of plant or animal origin. Not heavy metals, not man made toxic chemicals. The word is widely misused. If you have been poisoned by a snake, octopus, or platypus, seek medical help rather than the sauna. Stung by a nettle, maybe.
  - sova 5y ago
    It's probably hard to measure, but subjectively one feels better and thinks more clearly, so call it what you will. Saying that something is not affirmed by science is not equivalent to saying it is denied by science.
    - MauranKilom 5y ago
      > It's probably hard to measure No, mass spectrometers are not that hard to operate. > subjectively one feels better and thinks more clearly How is that related to toxins? Is coffee also removing toxins because it helps me think more clearly in the morning? Is complaining about public transport to a friend also removing toxins because it makes me feel better? > Saying that something is not affirmed by science is not equivalent to saying it is denied by science. Thankfully science has given us tools to base our conclusions on more than our fallible subjective impressions and whimsical correlations. "It seems to help, must be that we're removing something bad" is how you get bloodletting.
      - sova 5y ago
        So based on the unnecessarily hostile feedback I can now explain that I was using the word toxin quite loosely and simply meant some undesirable waste products in the body. I did not actually mean tetrodotoxin or something like what a puffer fish would give you on a not-so-friendly poke. Sweating out waste products helps, and the heat also sticks with you for a while after a sauna session or a long bath, so that probably stimulates the organs into doing their natural processes better, clearing out yet more waste products. I don't get why this is such a contentious claim, either you get benefits from it and you do it, or you live your whole life waiting for someone else to prove its good before you try it out for yourself. I remind you of the incompleteness theorem, that there are truths that are true yet are unreachable by axiomatic induction.
        MauranKilom 5y ago
        > I remind you of the incompleteness theorem, that there are truths that are true yet are unreachable by axiomatic induction. Science can strictly speaking not prove any truth, so the incompleteness theorem is irrelevant. Science tries to establish useful models. A model's usefulness is determined by its ability to predict the future (roughly speaking), whereas models whose predictions turn out untrue are eventually discarded. It is perfectly fine to throw in hypotheses for how things work - that's how science advances. But there is a fine line between suggesting a causation and assuming that it is true just because it makes sense but hasn't been scientifically tested yet. That's more or less the opposite of science, which is (I guess) why there has been a relatively strong response to your statements. That way lies healing crystals.
- sova 5y ago
  Fresh air is usually nicer than stale, old air. And when one sweats out "old water" it gets replaced by the fresh water one intakes. I bet if we collected enough sweat from sauna-goers and sprinters we would find things in it that you would rather have not in your body. Of course, I can already hear the chorus of indolence cheer "there's no science to support this claim" and yet there is also no science to deny it. The body is a gigantic circulatory system, out with the old, in with the new, I don't see why it would be any different with sweat.
  - qamblor 5y ago
    Yes, our bodies have a specialized method for removing "old water" so it can be replaced by the fresh water one intakes. Urination. Your kidneys are working day and night to dump those "things in it that you would rather have not in your body" into your urine - not your sweat. Animals that sweat are a minority. The idea that there are toxins that can only be collected and removed and by your sweat glands, instead of your kidneys, should be treated with suspicion. I would also like to point out that even if one can detect the "presence of toxins" in sweat, however that is defined, it is not proof that sweat is an effective, efficient, or primary vector of their removal - it only proves that those toxins permeating your body happen to leach into your sweat. The rest of your body could either be removing 10000x as much of the same toxin every time you urinate compared to an hour of sweating, and the sweat could just have some insignificant dregs that happened to leach in - or there could be 100000x as much of the toxin remaining in your body no matter how much you sweat, either diffuse or concentrated in some non-sweat-gland-adjacent organs, making their removal through sweat completely ineffective.
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    Sweat does contain more than water and salt (urea for example). This is actually long established. But these substances are hardly toxins, even though the body has reasons excreting them. It's still unclear how you think the concentration of these things on the skin will be lower with sweat dripping down (and evaporating) than when surrounded by a hundred liters of bathwater though.
    - 5y ago
- cromulent 5y ago
  Yeah, people misuse the word "toxins" to mean "toxic environmental chemicals". It actually means a naturally occurring poison from an animal or plant.
MauranKilom 5y ago
> Yes, I think they would be about the same, although when you sweat in a sauna it goes to the floor, whereas in a bathtub it hangs out in the bathwater. So as far as cleansing of toxins goes, maybe one is better than the other. This seems nonsensical. During the activity, bathing has your sweat diluted by a factor of at least 100, whereas your skin remains covered in sweat in a sauna. Afterwards, you remove the sweat (rinsing and/or towel) in both cases.
- yazaddaruvala 5y ago
  Dry saunas don’t work this way. Your sweat in a dry sauna is a way for your body to cool itself, while you always “feel wet” you’re actually constantly evaporating sweat off you. In fact, if you ever stop sweating in a dry sauna, leave. You are de-hydrated and it’s no longer safe for you in a sauna.
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    The previous post literally said "it goes to the floor", so clearly was talking about sweat dripping down. That obviously requires enough un-evaporated sweat on your skin for droplets to form. And even in the context of dry sauna, are you saying the mentioned toxins will all evaporate? Because if not, they will actually accumulate on your skin (whereas in a bath they will be diluted by the bathwater).

by sova 5y ago

eli 5y ago

Toxins?

jwiz 5y ago
They are like evil spirits.
brianwawok 5y ago
I believe there are some heavy metals that you can only really get out of your body via sweating. But “granola” people have built up a whole story about sweating and toxin clearing that AFAIK has no basis in science.
- NavinF 5y ago
  Citation needed for that first part. A quick google says there is no evidence that sweating out toxins improves health and the liver and kidneys remove far more toxins than sweat glands
  - brianwawok 5y ago
    Right it’s right up there with getting your back cracked to improve digestion https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/well/live/can-you-sweat-out-toxins.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/well...
  - cromulent 5y ago
    It's very rare to need to remove toxins from your body. Toxins are naturally occurring poisons of plant or animal origin. Not heavy metals, not man made toxic chemicals. The word is widely misused. If you have been poisoned by a snake, octopus, or platypus, seek medical help rather than the sauna. Stung by a nettle, maybe.
- sova 5y ago
  It's probably hard to measure, but subjectively one feels better and thinks more clearly, so call it what you will. Saying that something is not affirmed by science is not equivalent to saying it is denied by science.
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    > It's probably hard to measure No, mass spectrometers are not that hard to operate. > subjectively one feels better and thinks more clearly How is that related to toxins? Is coffee also removing toxins because it helps me think more clearly in the morning? Is complaining about public transport to a friend also removing toxins because it makes me feel better? > Saying that something is not affirmed by science is not equivalent to saying it is denied by science. Thankfully science has given us tools to base our conclusions on more than our fallible subjective impressions and whimsical correlations. "It seems to help, must be that we're removing something bad" is how you get bloodletting.
    - sova 5y ago
      So based on the unnecessarily hostile feedback I can now explain that I was using the word toxin quite loosely and simply meant some undesirable waste products in the body. I did not actually mean tetrodotoxin or something like what a puffer fish would give you on a not-so-friendly poke. Sweating out waste products helps, and the heat also sticks with you for a while after a sauna session or a long bath, so that probably stimulates the organs into doing their natural processes better, clearing out yet more waste products. I don't get why this is such a contentious claim, either you get benefits from it and you do it, or you live your whole life waiting for someone else to prove its good before you try it out for yourself. I remind you of the incompleteness theorem, that there are truths that are true yet are unreachable by axiomatic induction.
      - MauranKilom 5y ago
        > I remind you of the incompleteness theorem, that there are truths that are true yet are unreachable by axiomatic induction. Science can strictly speaking not prove any truth, so the incompleteness theorem is irrelevant. Science tries to establish useful models. A model's usefulness is determined by its ability to predict the future (roughly speaking), whereas models whose predictions turn out untrue are eventually discarded. It is perfectly fine to throw in hypotheses for how things work - that's how science advances. But there is a fine line between suggesting a causation and assuming that it is true just because it makes sense but hasn't been scientifically tested yet. That's more or less the opposite of science, which is (I guess) why there has been a relatively strong response to your statements. That way lies healing crystals.
sova 5y ago
Fresh air is usually nicer than stale, old air. And when one sweats out "old water" it gets replaced by the fresh water one intakes. I bet if we collected enough sweat from sauna-goers and sprinters we would find things in it that you would rather have not in your body. Of course, I can already hear the chorus of indolence cheer "there's no science to support this claim" and yet there is also no science to deny it. The body is a gigantic circulatory system, out with the old, in with the new, I don't see why it would be any different with sweat.
- qamblor 5y ago
  Yes, our bodies have a specialized method for removing "old water" so it can be replaced by the fresh water one intakes. Urination. Your kidneys are working day and night to dump those "things in it that you would rather have not in your body" into your urine - not your sweat. Animals that sweat are a minority. The idea that there are toxins that can only be collected and removed and by your sweat glands, instead of your kidneys, should be treated with suspicion. I would also like to point out that even if one can detect the "presence of toxins" in sweat, however that is defined, it is not proof that sweat is an effective, efficient, or primary vector of their removal - it only proves that those toxins permeating your body happen to leach into your sweat. The rest of your body could either be removing 10000x as much of the same toxin every time you urinate compared to an hour of sweating, and the sweat could just have some insignificant dregs that happened to leach in - or there could be 100000x as much of the toxin remaining in your body no matter how much you sweat, either diffuse or concentrated in some non-sweat-gland-adjacent organs, making their removal through sweat completely ineffective.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  Sweat does contain more than water and salt (urea for example). This is actually long established. But these substances are hardly toxins, even though the body has reasons excreting them. It's still unclear how you think the concentration of these things on the skin will be lower with sweat dripping down (and evaporating) than when surrounded by a hundred liters of bathwater though.
  - 5y ago
cromulent 5y ago
Yeah, people misuse the word "toxins" to mean "toxic environmental chemicals". It actually means a naturally occurring poison from an animal or plant.

MauranKilom 5y ago

> Yes, I think they would be about the same, although when you sweat in a sauna it goes to the floor, whereas in a bathtub it hangs out in the bathwater. So as far as cleansing of toxins goes, maybe one is better than the other. This seems nonsensical. During the activity, bathing has your sweat diluted by a factor of at least 100, whereas your skin remains covered in sweat in a sauna. Afterwards, you remove the sweat (rinsing and/or towel) in both cases.

yazaddaruvala 5y ago
Dry saunas don’t work this way. Your sweat in a dry sauna is a way for your body to cool itself, while you always “feel wet” you’re actually constantly evaporating sweat off you. In fact, if you ever stop sweating in a dry sauna, leave. You are de-hydrated and it’s no longer safe for you in a sauna.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  The previous post literally said "it goes to the floor", so clearly was talking about sweat dripping down. That obviously requires enough un-evaporated sweat on your skin for droplets to form. And even in the context of dry sauna, are you saying the mentioned toxins will all evaporate? Because if not, they will actually accumulate on your skin (whereas in a bath they will be diluted by the bathwater).