Talk:Sauna suit

Unreliable Sources
I had to remove a citation from http://www.sweatsuits.co.uk/benefits-of-sauna-suits that basically said: "Other noted benefits of sauna suits due to the increased sweating process include detox, injury prevention and healthy skin". Other dead giveaways for an unreliable source is use of the words "detox", "healthy skin", "sweating out toxins", and the fact that the source isn't a medical journal. Even among newspapers and magazines, there are respectable ones that wouldn't publish stories without a scientific basis, and then there are ones that will print anything that a staff writer churns out. Fshafique (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS criteria not suited to a Fashion page
The subject of sauna suit use seems to encompass a wide range of opinions from strong support to strong condemnation. Certainly, the three tragic deaths in 1997 clearly demonstrate that abuse of sauna suits coupled with diet and fluid intake restrictions can have terrible consequences. However, these were very extreme cases, far from the circumstance of the ordinary user. In the 20+ years since then, the need for moderation and care in sauna suit use has become widely emphasized, so fortunately there have been no unhappy recurrences. Today, most people use sauna suits as a simple training aid, in my opinion just to get the feeling of having had a good workout, and thus get encouragement to commit to their exercise goals. As widely noted, the sweat lost in a sauna suit is immediately replaced by drinking, so I believe that it is the increased commitment to exercise goals that is the actual weight loss mechanism. In this respect, a sauna suit acts in much the same way as any other athletic clothing, it makes the wearer feel good about their exercise!

I think that it is not appropriate to apply MEDRS criteria to a page that is classified in the Fashion category. Thus, the recent wholesale deletion of sections containing general descriptive material is too harsh. The page is intended to address the interests of a wide audience, so it needs to describe things as they are and not as one personally may wish. I have therefore, with respect, reverted most of the recent deletions. However, to acknowledge the legitimate concerns that have been expressed, I have used the explicit references to the 1997 deaths to augment the cautions already given for moderate and careful use. Amgis (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit was reverted because the sources are dead, weak, or primary, and the content addressed health issues, making it held to a MEDRS standard. The edit history indicates there should be editor discussion to reach WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's just not true. Most people don't use sauna suits, and it's not advised for most people to use sauna suits. For most people, dehydration is not a fitness goal. They are mostly used before photo shoots. Are we going to represent dehydrated cardio as "get the feeling of having had a good workout"? It's widely not recommended.

There are some existing claims that the suits have "benefits" because it takes longer for the body to restore homeostasis after exercise. What was removed from the article claimed "increased fat loss, improved cardiovascular health and boosted muscle performance". It was based on a single study. How can one study measure "improved cardiovascular health"? There were deaths so we would need a better source for medical claims. Demurherbs (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with the comments. It is not accurate to dismiss the sources the original article as "weak". One is to the CDC, which must be the absolute gold standard, one is to a peer reviewed journal, two are to major university websites, two are to major health websites, one to a boxing traning consultancy and one to a community interest group. None are from sauna suit manufacturers, and none has any sales interest in them. (Neither do I, I am just an ordinary person who occasionally uses a sauna suit for my training). The majority of the sources advise against the use of sauna suits for weight loss, and those that do accept it, give substantial caveats and warnings. Nothing is remotely close to the circumstances connected to the tragic deaths in 1997. In those cases there were multiple elements involved, notably coach instruction, restricted diet, and restricted hydration. Blaming everything on sauna suit use takes focus away from those primary causes of the tragedies. As far as I know, there have not been any serious incidents since then, so it would seem that the lesson was learned not to engage in extreme behaviors.

It is not accurate to claim "Most people don't use sauna suits", nor to suggest that "they are mostly used before photo shoots". Actually, the cited article talks about excessive hydration and does not mention sauna suit use at all. A simple web search for "sauna suit" returns hundreds of hits, mostly advertisments from suppliers. Clearly, there must be very many users out there else the market would not be so prolific. If is further apparent that large numbers of users are satisfied with their apparel. A single page on Amazon lists 1573 reviews with 4.5 star rating. The included comments from users indicate substantial general satisfaction.

The main concern here is about extreme sauna suit use for dramatic weight loss. Thus, it is not clear why the two subsequent sections on body wrapping usage and psoriasis treatment were also deleted. Neither involves any net water loss, people usually drink additional fluids while attempting to "flush out toxins" so as to keep the flow going, and the psoriasis treatment has no sweat producing objective at all.

I can fully support the concern not to encourage people to do foolish things while wearing a sauna suit. However, neither do I think it appropriate to pursue that position by creating an article that tells only one side of the story. To be useful, an encyclopedia article needs to describe the circumstances as they are, not as one would wish them to be. A balanced article describes the range of viewpoints, even those with which one personally disagrees. I sincerely believe that the original article gives a balanced view of sauna suit usage, including major opinions against weight loss effectiveness and also explicit warnings about dangers of immoderate use. I certainly don't like the excessive advertising claims of suppliers, none are represented here, but a big number of users find benefit in sauna suit use. Both they and the several previous editors who have contributed to the original text are also entitled to a voice.

In view of the above, I have reverted to the original text. I have adjusted the wording of the weight loss section to emphasize further the dangers of extreme use and to place the opinions of those who oppose sauna suit use first. I have also revised two of the outdated links. Nothing in the text either recommends or encourages irresponsible sauna suit use. Therefore, I respectfully ask that despite their personal strong opinions, the further editor will show the grace to allow the differing opinions of others also to be expressed.

Amgis (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverted by WP:BRD until there is consensus among editors, WP:CON. Concerning references by summary, 1) the Boxingscience.co.uk is not a good WP:RS source, 2) the CDC ref was already used, so apply WP:REFNAME if used again, 3) the NCAA ref concerns one instance (not a rigorous, peer-reviewed assessment), 4) the pilot experiment is a small study of primary research, as is PMID 30377634 - per WP:MEDASSESS, such studies are low in evidence quality, and unsuitable for an encyclopedia, 5) the body wrapping ref is dead, and the practice is quackery, and 6) the use for psoriasis is plain nonsense and not supported by any medical publication or dermatology association. Zefr (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Defering to Zefr on the wrapping and psoriasis claims the main use of these suits is for rapid weight loss by those trying to drop weight classes before competitions or before photo shoots. This is not my personal opinions. The "improper" use of these suits for weight loss is the norm and dangerous enough for a major sporting association to impose bans after several deaths occurred. For claims of other benefits like improvement of cardiovascular health with moderate use one small study and personal experience are not enough for this. The difference is between the personal experience of taking longer to return to baseline (and perception of unmeasured benefits in the individual experience) is not a medical reliable source. The standard is higher than the personal experience of small numbers of individuals. Demurherbs (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)