Why Infrared Sauna and Massage Are the Smartest Recovery Duo
LA Times Studios may earn commission from purchases made through our links.
Once obsessed with hustle and high-intensity everything, wellness is taking a smarter turn. Longevity-focused clinics and modern spas have shifted gears from calorie burn to nervous system repair. At the center of this paradigm shift? The infrared sauna.
Infrared technology isn't new, but its integration with massage therapy is revolutionizing how we think about post-workout, post-stress, and even post-burnout care. Unlike traditional saunas, which heat the surrounding air, FAR infrared saunas use light to gently elevate your core body temperature, allowing you to sweat more deeply at a lower, more tolerable heat. This targeted approach has been shown to reduce inflammation, enhance circulation, and accelerate muscle recovery. Think of it as cellular self-care.
Matthew Perry, Learning & Development Manager at The NOW, frames the trend simply: 'Massage already downregulates the nervous system and improves lymphatic flow. Add infrared, and you're extending those benefits, helping the body stay in repair mode longer.'
The biohacking community has long praised infrared for its regenerative perks. Studies published by the NIH and longevity clinics like Next Health highlight its benefits across multiple domains: cardiovascular health, metabolic efficiency, and immune support. Regular sessions can trigger autophagy, improve sleep, and even boost collagen production, a longevity trifecta.
As health and wellness specialist Dr. Shah explains, the benefits extend beyond detox. 'Infrared saunas offer a high-tech, low-effort way to promote detoxification, stress reduction, muscle and tissue recovery, and even skin health,' he says.
This is why layering it with massage makes so much sense. Think of infrared as the warm-up act that primes the fascia, while massage delivers the main event. 'If you begin with infrared sauna, the heat warms your muscles and fascia, making them more pliable so your massage therapist can work more deeply and effectively on the body,' says Perry.
For at-home enthusiasts, red light therapy masks like those reviewed here offer a consumer-friendly entry point into infrared benefits.
Whether you start with a massage or slip into the sauna first, the pairing amplifies results. Beginning with bodywork helps calm the nervous system and improve circulation, preparing the body to receive deeper detoxification benefits in the sauna. Reversing the order, on the other hand, makes your body more receptive to deeper massage techniques.
The NOW recommends a 50-minute Swedish massage followed by a 20-minute infrared sauna session. According to Perry, this approach 'helps deepen relaxation, boost circulation, and support your body's natural recovery process.'
'Guests who combine massage with infrared sauna often experience better sleep, reduced stress, and a greater sense of recovery between treatments,' he adds. The combination has become a favorite among clients seeking an efficient yet indulgent form of recovery.
After your session, rinse off, rehydrate, and apply a nourishing moisturizer (something like Tatcha's Indigo Body Butter) to lock in moisture and support post-sauna skin recovery. From there, consider adding techniques that encourage lymphatic flow. 'Modalities that support lymphatic detox, like Gua Sha or dry brushing, are great after a sauna session to help flush out toxins,' Perry notes. These additions can amplify the benefits of both treatments.
And if you're easing sore muscles, starting with infrared can make techniques like myofascial release or trigger point therapy feel less intense, and work even better.
Infrared saunas are generally considered safe, but that doesn't mean they're for everyone. Those with cardiovascular conditions or heat sensitivities should consult a doctor first. And let's be clear: more heat doesn't mean more benefit. 'You don't need extreme heat to get results,' notes Dr. Shah. 'Infrared operates at lower temps but penetrates deeper into tissues.'
Also, beware of the wellness 'stacking' trap. Doubling down on recovery techniques can feel productive, but it's quality and timing, not just quantity, that determines results. Integrate intentionally. And always hydrate.
Infrared and massage are not just trending because they're relaxing. They reflect a broader shift toward longevity-centric care: routines that prioritize cellular function, metabolic flexibility, and nervous system regulation. It's a movement away from quick-fix detoxes and toward sustained, science-backed strategies for vitality.
For those seeking better sleep, improved focus, less burnout, or simply a way to feel better in their skin, this combo might be the recovery tool we didn't know we needed.
Click here to learn more about The NOW
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Texas politicians lead effort to study a psychedelic drug. What is ibogaine?
Ibogaine is illegal in the U.S., but growing evidence shows its promise treating the effects of traumatic brain injury and substance use disorder. A once obscure traditional psychedelic plant from Africa has made headlines recently as Texas pushes for more research and a prominent Republican wrote a vigorous endorsement of its possible use for the treatment of addiction and for veterans experiencing mental health issues. Ibogaine is illegal for use in the United States, but a growing body of evidence has shown its promise treating the effects of traumatic brain injury and substance use disorder. Earlier in June, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed legislation to allocate $50 million for clinical trials approved by the Food and Drug Administration to study ibogaine. Texas is set to lead research into the drug's benefits treating mental health issues and addiction as a potential medication. Former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, also a former Texas governor, wrote a June 27 Washington Post op-ed supporting ibogaine research and criticizing the legacy of the war on drugs, started by President Richard Nixon and touted by President Ronald Reagan. Perry said he has 'come to realize just how wrong that narrative was.' 'That fear-based messaging kept us from exploring treatments that could have saved countless lives,' Perry wrote. Perry and a growing number of conservatives have argued ibogaine could be one of those treatments. Here's what to know about the drug. What is ibogaine? Ibogaine derives from the root of the iboga plant native to western-central Africa. It's been used in ceremonial rituals for centuries. It has hallucinogenic properties. The United States outlawed ibogaine in 1967 along with other psychotropic drugs. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 placed it as a schedule I hallucinogenic drug, along with marijuana. Ibogaine's classification prevented researchers from studying its effects. But unlike other schedule 1 drugs such as heroin, ibogaine has anti-addictive properties. There are risks since ibogaine can delay the body's normal electrical signals that control heart rhythm, which could lead to death. Other countries, such as Mexico, have allowed its use. American veterans and others have traveled to smaller, clandestine clinics for treatment to deal with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and addiction. Many clinics are along the border and around cities such as Tijuana. Why is it in the news? At the state and federal level, there is growing interest in studying psychedelic drugs to treat veterans and others. Texas passed legislation earlier in June to study the drug with a public university alongside a company and hospital, Abbott's office said. Dr. Marty Makary, the FDA commissioner, has said expanding research on psychedelic drugs is a top priority for the Trump administration. In his op-ed, Perry cited the experiences of Morgan and Marcus Luttrell, twin combat veterans, who used ibogaine for recovery. Morgan Luttrell is now a Republican congressman from Texas who has advocated for ibogaine and other psychedelic drugs as treatment options. In January 2025, Perry and W. Bryan Hubbard, an advocate for ibogaine treatment, appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast to discuss ibogaine's benefits as a plant-based medicine. Hubbard led a Kentucky task force that sought to use opioid settlement funds to research ibogaine's effects to treat addiction, but the initiative failed to gain support in the state. Hubbard and Perry eventually launched the Texas Ibogaine Initiative, which helped spur the state funding. What has research shown? Research, such as a Stanford University study of 30 male combat veterans, has shown ibogaine's promise. Coupled with magnesium sulfate to address heart effects, ibogaine appeared to reduce symptoms of PTSD, anxiety and depression, and improve cognitive function from traumatic brain injury, according to the study, published in 2024 in the eminent journal Nature Medicine. Other studies have shown benefits treating addiction and depression. What do critics say? One issue with ibogaine is the ability to produce it, because it is derived from a rare plant and has mostly been used for ceremonial purposes. There is research to help innovate its safe production, but it could be difficult for the drug to be more widely available, as researchers at the University of California, Davis, Institute for Psychedelics and Neurotherapeutics have said. And while it's shown benefits with combat veterans, questions remain on its efficacy among randomized participants. With Texas' research, ibogaine could get closer to FDA approval for its use as a medication.
Atlantic
21 hours ago
- Atlantic
‘I'm Not Quite Sure How to Respond to This Presentation'
The past three weeks have been auspicious for the anti-vaxxers. On June 9, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. purged the nation's most important panel of vaccine experts: All 17 voting members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which sets recommendations for the use of vaccines and determines which ones must be covered through insurance and provided free of charge to children on Medicaid, were abruptly fired. The small, ragtag crew of replacements that Kennedy appointed two days later met this week for the first time, amid lots of empty chairs in a conference room in Atlanta. They had come to talk about the safety of vaccines: to raise concerns about the data, to float hypotheses of harm, to issue findings. The resulting spectacle was set against a backdrop of accelerating action from the secretary. On Wednesday, Kennedy terminated more than $1 billion in U.S. funding for Gavi, a global-health initiative that supports the vaccination of more than 65 million children every year. Lyn Redwood, a nurse practitioner and the former president of Children's Health Defense, the anti-vaccine organization that Kennedy used to chair, was just hired as a special government employee. (She presented at the ACIP meeting yesterday.) A recently posted scientific document on the ACIP website that underscored the safety of thimerosal, an ingredient in a small proportion of the nation's flu vaccines, had been taken down, a committee member said, because the document 'was not authorized by the office of the secretary.' (A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told me in an email that this document was provided to the ACIP members in their meeting briefing packets.) What's clear enough is that, 61 years after ACIP's founding, America's vaccination policy is about to be recooked. Now we've had a glimpse inside the kitchen. The meeting started with complaints. 'Some media outlets have been very harsh on the new members of this committee,' said Martin Kulldorff, a rangy Swedish biostatistician and noted COVID contrarian who is now ACIP's chair. (Kuldorff was one of the lead authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a controversial proposal from the fall of 2020 to isolate seniors and other vulnerable people while reopening the rest of society.) In suggesting that he and Kennedy's other appointees are opposed to vaccination, Kulldorff said, journalists were misleading the public, weakening trust in public health, and fanning 'the flames of vaccine hesitancy.' This was, in fact, the most pugnacious comment of the two-day meeting, which otherwise unfolded in a tone of fearmongering gentility. Robert Malone, a doctor and an infectious-diseases researcher who has embraced the 'anti-vaccine' label and published a conspiracy-theory-laden book that details government psyops against the American people, was unfailingly polite in his frequent intimations about the safety of vaccines, often thanking CDC staff for their hard work and lucid presentations. With his thick white beard, calm affect, and soldierly diction—Malone ended many of his comments by saying, 'Over' into the microphone—he presented less as a firebrand than as, say, the commanding officer of a submarine. When Malone alluded to the worry, for example, that spike proteins from the mRNA-based COVID vaccines linger in the body following injection, he did so in respectful, even deferential, language, suggesting that the public would benefit from greater study of possible 'delayed effects' of immune-system activation. The CDC's traditional approach—its 'world-leading, rigorous' one, he clarified—might be improved by examining this question. A subject-matter expert responded that the CDC has been keeping tabs on real-world safety data on those vaccines for nearly five years, and has not detected any signs of long-term harm. Later, Malone implied that COVID or its treatments might have, through some unspecified, bank-shot mechanism, left the U.S. population more susceptible to other illnesses. There was a 'paradoxical, sudden decrease' in flu cases in 2020 and 2021, he noted, followed by a trend of worsening harm. A CDC staffer pointed out that the decrease in flu during those years was not, in fact, a paradox; well-documented shifts in people's health behavior had temporarily reduced the load of many respiratory illnesses during that same period. But Malone pressed on: 'Some members of the scientific community have concern that they're coming out of the COVID pandemic—exposure to the virus, exposure to various countermeasures—there may be a pattern of broad-based, uh, energy,' he said, his eyes darting up for a moment as he said the word, 'that might contribute to increased severity of influenza disease.' He encouraged the agency to 'be sensitive to that hypothesis.' Throughout these and other questions from the committee members, the CDC's subject-matter experts did their best to explain their work and respond to scattershot technical and conceptual concerns. 'The CDC staff is still attempting to operate as an evidence-based organization,' Laura Morris, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Medicine, who has attended dozens of ACIP meetings in the past and attended this one as a nonvoting liaison to the committee from the American Academy of Family Physicians, told me. 'There was some tension in terms of the capacity of the committee to ask and understand the appropriate methodological questions. The CDC was trying to hold it down.' That task became more difficult as the meeting progressed. 'The new ACIP is an independent body composed of experienced medical and public health experts who evaluate evidence, ask hard questions, and make decisions based on scientific integrity,' the HHS spokesperson told me. 'Bottom line: this process reflects open scientific inquiry and robust debate, not a pre-scripted narrative.' The most vocal questioner among the new recruits—and the one who seemed least beholden to a script—was the MIT business-school professor Retsef Levi, a lesser-known committee appointee who sat across the table from Malone. A scruffy former Israel Defense Forces intelligence officer with a ponytail that reached halfway down his back, Levi's academic background is in data modeling, risk management, and organizational logistics. He approached the proceedings with a swaggering incredulity, challenging the staffers' efforts and pointing out the risks of systematic errors in their thinking. (In a pinned post on his X profile, Levi writes that 'the evidence is mounting and indisputable that mRNA vaccines cause serious harm including death'—a position entirely at odds with copious data presented at the meeting.) Shortly before the committee's vote to recommend a new, FDA-approved monoclonal antibody for preventing RSV in infants, Levi noted that he'd spent some time reviewing the relevant clinical-trial data for the drug and another like it, and found some worrying patterns in the statistics surrounding infant deaths. 'Should we not be concerned that maybe there are some potential safety signals?' he asked. But these very data had already been reviewed, at great length, in multiple settings: by the FDA, in the course of drug approval, and by the dozens of members of ACIP's relevant work group for RSV, which had, per the committee's standard practice, conducted its own staged analysis of the new treatment before the meeting and reached consensus that its benefits outweighed its risks. Levi was uncowed by any reference to this prior work. 'I'm a scientist, but I'm also a father of six kids,' he told the group; speaking as a father, he said, he personally would be concerned about the risk of harm from this new antibody for RSV. In the end, Levi voted against recommending the antibody, as did Vicky Pebsworth, who is on the board of an anti-vaccine organization and holds a Ph.D. in public health and nursing. The five other members voted yes. That 5–2 vote aside, the most contentious issue on the meeting's schedule concerned the flu shots in America that contain thimerosal, which has been an obsession of the anti-vaccine movement for the past few decades. Despite extensive study, vaccines with thimerosal have not been found to be associated with any known harm in human patients, yet an unspecified vote regarding their use was slipped into the meeting's agenda in the absence of any work-group study or presentation from the CDC's staff scientists. What facts there were came almost exclusively from Redwood, the nurse who used to run Kennedy's anti-vaccine organization. Earlier this week, Reuters reported that at least one citation from her posted slides had been invented. That reference was removed before she spoke yesterday. (HHS did not address a request for comment on this issue in its response to me.) The only one of Kennedy's appointees who had ever previously served on the committee—the pediatrician Cody Meissner—seemed perplexed, even pained, by the proceedings. 'I'm not quite sure how to respond to this presentation,' he said when Redwood finished. He went on to sum up his concerns: 'ACIP makes recommendations based on scientific evidence as much as possible. And there is no scientific evidence that thimerosal has caused a problem.' Alas, Meissner's warnings were for nought. Throughout the meeting, he came off as the committee's last remaining, classic 'expert'—a vaccine scientist clinging to ACIP's old ways—but his frequent protestations were often bulldozed over or ignored. In the end, his was the only vote against the resolutions on thimerosal. Throughout the two-day meeting, Kuldorff kept returning to a favorite phrase: evidence-based medicine. 'Secretary Kennedy has given this committee a clear mandate to use evidence-based medicine,' he said on Wednesday morning; 'The purpose of this committee is to follow evidence-based medicine,' he said on Wednesday afternoon; 'What is important is using evidence-based medicine,' he said again when the meeting reached its end. All told, I heard him say evidence-based at least 10 times during the meeting. (To be fair, critics of Kuldorff and his colleagues also love this phrase.) But the committee was erratic in its posture toward the evidence from the very start; it cast doubt on CDC analyses and substituted lay advice and intuition for ACIP's normal methods of assessing and producing expert consensus. 'Decisons were made based on feelings and preferences rather than evidence,' Morris told me after the meeting. 'That's a dangerous way to make public-health policy.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Ant Group introduces AI app for entry into healthcare sector
Global digital technology provider Ant Group has introduced its AI application, AQ, for accelerating its entry into the healthcare sector. The app is designed to streamline users' daily healthcare management by offering more than 100 AI-driven services, encompassing doctor recommendations, medical report assessment, and tailored medical advice. It facilitates connections between users and digital offerings from over 5,000 hospitals and close to a million doctors throughout China. Ant Group CEO Cyril Han said: 'Ant Group hopes that through AQ, it can provide everyone with a trusted healthcare manager, advancing inclusive healthcare and bringing every Chinese citizen one step closer to a healthier life.' Driven by Ant Group's Healthcare Large Model, AQ draws on more than ten years of healthcare expertise. This model features advanced medical reasoning and multimodal interaction capabilities while prioritising user privacy and security. The Healthcare Large Model enables medical institutions and doctors to deliver more efficient, accessible, and tailored services. In March 2025, Ant Group furthered its commitment by partnering with IT industry leaders to integrate the Healthcare Large Model into All-in-One Large Model Machines for Healthcare, allowing hospitals to deploy AI models securely on-premises. Ant Group's contributions extend to assisting hospitals in creating user-facing applications. For instance, Angel, an AI agent developed in Zhejiang Province, has already catered to more than 1,000 medical facilities and managed over 50 million user interactions. The company also aids in the development of Yibaoer, an AI agent for medical insurance inquiries. In January 2025, Ant Group acquired Haodf, enhancing its healthcare offerings with the AI Doctor Assistant, which aids in AI-assisted diagnosis and patient education. Additionally, around 200 doctors are collaborating with Ant Group to develop AI Doctor Agents, providing healthcare advice to patients, especially those with limited medical access. "Ant Group introduces AI app for entry into healthcare sector" was originally created and published by Hospital Management, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
