« Aerial ropeways: automatic cargo transport for a bargain | Main | Floating / mixed links and updates (5) »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kris De Decker


As always, it is best to refresh the page before you make a comment. Our blog software blocks comments if the page is inactive for more than 60 minutes.

Chris H


Someone please show this to my wife. (Chuckling to self) I've been training her for a few years that we can feel awesome at 62F. Next year, I might try to push it to 60F. Nice to know that at one time this was more of a norm than it is today. Of course, probably then, the insulation was lacking and that was a relatively easily maintainable temp. Cheers!

Mr. S.


Sorry, I am not buying it. Not because you haven't done good work on the article: you have. Also not because N.American homes are overheated, and the residents under-dressed: they are. I do not buy it because the Japanese live the way you suggest in the winter, and it is miserable, as described less seriously in my blog post: http://hanlonsrzr.blogspot.com/2011/01/theyre-called-space-heaters-for-reason.html

You make a good point about the replacement and renovation of old buildings not necessarily being ecologically or financially justifiable. The way to make people conserve is to make them pay ALL of the externalities of what they consume, including the pollution, oil-wars and climate-change costs. Should triple the cost, and slash consumption.

I go this far. Reduce the heat to 19 or 20C, and wear long sleeves with a light sweater inside. I do not accept any temperature inside that makes me want gloves, or a hat for my balding pate. As for the building, go after the low-hanging fruit first: cheap and effective insulation such as blown insulation in the attic, weather-stripping drafts and heavy curtains for the windows at night.

Kris De Decker


@ Mr.S.: if you only want to go that far, that's perfectly fine for me. The article does not dictate any specific indoor temperature, it only explains the possibilities. If everybody would lower the thermostat just a few degrees energy savings would be substantial.

@ Cris H: remember that women generally do not support as low temperatures as men. So you better buy her a nice woollen outfit. Disagreement over indoor temperatures can lead to divorce, I am not kidding here.

Zvi Leve


This is all fine and good, but what about the vast majority of the planet's residents who live in hot climates? Air-conditioning is what is driving the increase in home energy consumption in most of the world. There certainly are clothing technologies which could make a difference there too, and quite a bit can be done by designing structures to encourage natural air circulation.

But the fact remains that one of the principal reasons for the increase in 'air conditioning' in developing countries is the toxic air pollution in urban environments.



We keep our house at 63 F in the winter and wear a sweater (two for my wife). At dinner we make sure the kitchen doors are closed and we turn on a space heater to bring it up to 68 (hate when good food cools off from plate to mouth).

But I do believe your references regarding efficiency improvements are a bit high. More typical results indicates a 1-2% efficiency improvement/F reduction. And a 2-4% savings on air conditioning for every degree the thermostat is raised.

BTW, when I was a grad student in the early 80's, a Noble Prize winning physics professor (Robert Pound) looked at covering walls with aluminum foil and using low power microwaves to heat people directly. That's right, living inside a microwave oven. VERY efficient, if an improbable solution to the energy crisis. His small test facility sat right outside my lab. It did work, but they quickly realized that furniture would have to be redesigned to slightly absorb microwaves. Or, when you plopped down on the sofa, it was like sitting on an ice cube. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/us/20pound.html



A recommendation by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers as to what temperature people should set their thermostats makes about as much sense as the American Medical Association making recommendations on when to buy a new refrigerator.

Let's examine why the ASHRAE would decide it is within the perview of their profession to make such a recommendation. The answer is obvious--it's the same old "use it up, throw it away, buy a new one" mentality. When furnaces are running hard all winter to maintain a ridiculous 71+ degrees, they need servicing and replacement more often. Now I don't believe many people would actually decide how warm to keep their house on the say-so of a specialized industry, what it means is that an entire industry, represented by this professional organization, has embraced consumerist waste because it benefits their members' profits. Not to pick on this one Society; look around, nearly every industry and business profits from increased consumption and waste. Try to name one that does not.

Until EVERYONE rejects this kind of pervasive consumerist attitude and propoganda by corporations and special interests and instead commit to REAL solutions and not just band-aids, we'll remain lemmings running for the cliff.

Alex Hallatt


I wholeheartedly agree with the idea, but it becomes problematic when you move from your home to work/other buildings which are heated. It's hard to take off your merino longjohns/top when you do this. We have a stack of woolen blankets and do the nanna thing of having them over our laps when sitting at home on a cold winter's day.

Steve B.


Keeping buildings warm (and cool) is the biggest source of CO2 pollution. Wouldn't it be funny if we destroy civilization in order not to feel uncomfortable because we didn't bother to put on appropriate clothing.

Another factoid: restaurants/movies etc.. typically keep the space colder in the summer than they do in the winter. This proves it's not about normal human comfort, rather a psychological need (weakness) to "feel" warm or cold relative to how we perceive the season.



You forgot the most important piece of clothing, the hat. Most of the heat is lost throught the neck and head because the body can't periodically shut down blood flow to the brain as is done with the other extremities. I worked outside construction for ten years and just putting on a hat that covered the head and back of the neck or even better a hooded sweatshirt or coat instantly boosted the comfort level.



I wish more people had a basic understanding of how temperature and power are related.

Calculating the power savings from lowering the thermostat setting is actually really simple. Power is proportional to temperature difference. For my home, I know I consume about 2000W of power to maintain the inside temperature 10 degrees C above the outside temperature. Therefore I know I consume about 200W for every degree C of temperature difference. Lowering the temperature inside by 1 degree thus reduces my power consumption by 200W. Over a 24 hour period that saves me 200*24 = 4800 Wh or 4.8 kWh which costs about $0.50 where I live. So for my home, I simply memorize this rule of thumb: It saves me $0.50 per day or $15 per month for every degree C I lower the thermostat.

I think every home owner should know what is the cost of 1 degree for their home.

Calculating the percentage savings from lowering the temperature is even easier. It depends only on temperature and not on any properties of your home. It's simply the reduction in temperature divided by the initial temperature difference you were maintaining. Take the case of heating your home to 18 degrees C when it is 10 degrees C outside. The temperature difference you are maintaining is 8 degrees. Thus reducing the temperature by 2 degrees will save you 2/8 = 0.25 or 25%.

There are minor influences from geothermal heating, solar gain, and occupant heat output, but the above formulas generally hold true, especially for larger temperature differences.

Jeremy In Kansas


"You heat people, not rooms" is what I learned when I lived in the Colorado Rockies with only a wood-burning stove for heat.

Kris De Decker


@ Rob: thanks for the clear explanation

@ Scott: the advantage of a hat is mentioned in the article. By the way, the US Air Force Survival Book writes that "Research has shown when a clo value of 10 is used to insulate the head, hands and feet, and the rest of the body only protected by one clo, the average individual can be exposed to -23°C (-10°F) for 30 to 40 minutes". So indoors at more common temperatures you can choose to wear a hat and nothing else and still stay warm. But I suppose most people prefer more traditional clothing options.

@ Alex: I know what you mean. From the moment you step outside the door wearing thermal underwear you are in for trouble. You cannot even take the bus.

@ Zvi: this article is about heating systems, not cooling systems. I think there are enough people living in cold climates to justify it. I will write about low-tech cooling technology some other time (in summer I guess...)



Please tell me that you're planning to do an article on how going naked inside the home can greatly reduce air conditioning costs! I've found that it's comfortable up to about 85F without a fan, and it saves a lot of money on laundry.



Sorry, I don't see how synthetic fabric can be considered "sustainable."

(Why does it say, "We're sorry, we cannot accept this data," whenever I press the "Post" button? A more helpful comment in this dialogue might be to refresh your browser.)

Kris De Decker


@ Jan: indeed, "please refresh the page to make a comment" would be a much more useful message than "we cannot accept this data". Unfortunately, I cannot change it. And the guys at TypePad (blogging platform) say that it is impossible that anyone stays at the same webpage for more than 60 minutes.

Concerning the sustainability of synthetic fabric: the energy saved by lowering the thermostat is much larger than the energy required to manufacture the garments. Furthermore, I think the use of oil as a material or the use of oil as a fuel are two very different things. If we would just make (durable) consumer goods out of oil instead of mainly burning it, the ecological damage would be limited. For clothes, the natural alternatives are generally not much better. Cotton is an ecological disaster and you should also know that sheep are often treated with pesticides and fungicides, which is not very sustainable either (I should note that Icebreaker does not do that: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1971425,00.html ).

@ Doug: why would I write an article on how going naked inside the home can greatly reduce air conditioning costs? You wrote that already... http://academicnaturist.blogspot.com/2007/09/help-earth-by-going-naked.html



Regarding clothing: Its true natural fabrics often disguise unnatural levels of embodied energy to grow, treat water, harvest, clean, die, manufacture and then distribute globally to retail stores. But once you start wearing clothes, washing is the biggest energy hog. And again natural fabrics are often at a disadvantage here, as well. Maybe its not so much a matter of going au natural, but remaining dressed and a bit grungy..

Ross Couper


Going outside in the cold, but keeping warm because of some form of exercise, seems to make even a coldish inside temperature feel warm for up to an hour, despite shedding your outer layers as you come back inside.

This winter I've been keeping a kitchen at about 12°C and using clothing to keep comfortable and apart from some minor condensation problems, mostly inside a microwave oven, it has worked reasonably well. But after returning from a morning run 9°C feels OK for much longer than it takes for me to recover from the exercise.



Really interesting article :) I live in Sweden, and here it is definitely possible to get a set of long Merino underwear for less than 200 Euro, last week I bought one in 100% wool for about 70 Euro.

The norwegian company Slackline have created a garment called the "hyggepiece" ( http://www.outnet.se/slakkline/hyggepiece.php?group=prod_prod_grp-s1/368 ), a thicker hooded overall, meant to be used for example in the TV sofa. I guess that would be a great idea in this context?

Kris De Decker


Daniel, thanks for the link! I was happy to find out that pink was not the only colour though... Here is the translation:

"Slakklines Hygge Piece is wonderful to put on after a full day of climbing or boarding when you are relaxing outside the tent. Plenty of pockets so you can fit everything you need to have ready and solid two-way zipper from knee to the tip of the hat. Are you daring, pull on it when you walk around town. You'll sure get a lot of eyes turned towards you! Hyggepiecen is the ultimate garment for chilly evenings! Material: 100% cotton. Unisex Sizes."



Kris, in the UK there is data on average internal temperatures going back to the 70s:


Figure 27 Standards of comfort - mean internal and average winter external temperatures

Most of this trend is down to a rise in central heating ownership over the period from 30% to 90% (see Figure 21 Central heating ownership)

Kris De Decker


Thank you, JamieB !

Joseph Bronson


Great article BUT. My wife has a condition called multiple chemical sensitivity. This condition is getting more and more press all the time as many more people world wide are diagnosed with MCS. My wife cannot wear synthetic materials because everything that we put on our skin has an effect on our bodies. Most people do not know that this effect is occurring because it usually takes many years for the effects to show up in people without MCS. These long term effects are usually not understood because very few researchers have connected the dots. My wife has had immediate adverse effects to the wearing of synthetic material. We now only wear natural fibers. Please do more research before promoting the use of petro-chemical based materials. They are part of the chemical stew that we must disengage from if we are ever going to become environmentally sane.
Yes, it is less destructive to the natural environment to produce petro-chemical clothes instead of energy. But, it is unbelievably detrimental to our internal environment to wear those clothes. Good health to you.



Interesting article but no mention of the crucial feet/head problem, nor of the great constriction people can feel wearing winter clothes indoors.

My solution:

The last 2 winters I have lived in couch potato mode in NE Europe winters at a measured 8-10 C in a largely unheated flat. Below 7 C, I would need fingerless gloves to type with. How do I manage to stay warm and comfortable and motionless at 8-10 C?

I wear clothes as follows:

1. surplus British Army calf-length indoor slippers for only €6 with (a). drawstring around the calf on outer boot to stop cold air falling in from above (b)outer boot of padded cotton (c). inner removable boot of washable synthetic.

2. Swedish second-hand army Arctic trousers or Milspec US army thermal trousers, no long underwear needed. I wear any sox that come to hand, not necessarily woollen.

3. Trevira synthetic T-shirt under 300g/m2 synthetic fleece high-collar shirt under another fleece shirt of same specs. under a sleeveless padded cotton jacket. The collar is also padded, hence I have a total of 3 padded collars zipped shut at throat. So I need no scarf, inside or outside the apartment.

Body core is consequently protected by 4 layers, 3 of synthetic and 1 of padded cotton (synthetic filling). The sleeveless jacket, which permits great arm freedom and has no fitted shoulders, is crucial in imparting a feeling of not being constricted by all the clothing. I rarely need a woollen hat inside.

This clothes combination has the magnificent advantage that I need not change it it any way when going outside to -5 C: I wear the same clothes amount inside and out. I wear no cotton at all except for underwear below the waist. Hence any sweat generated while wearing this combination wicks away during and after a brisk walk of 45 mins at e.g. 0 C.

Kris De Decker


James, the feet/head problem is certainly mentioned in the article, see also comment #13. Thanks for describing us your wardrobe. It's great to know that people are typing comments at indoor temperatures of 8°C :-)

Joseph: wool and cotton will also do the trick. I admit that petrol clothes are not the most ideal solution, but I am being pragmatical here.



@Alex Hallatt Actually it is more a problem when you have bigger temperature differences. In winters I often start from apartment of +21C, go on street and wait a bus in -15C, ride a bus on +16C, walk again on -15C and finally get indoors on +20C. Dressing appropriately is a real challenge and lowering interior temperature would actually make my day easier and more comfortable.



I keep our house at 55 F. during the day, 45 F. at night. Have done so for the last 8 years. What works is layering with polar fleece and nylon. You need the nylon to trap water vapor; the fleece for insulation.

The nylon is your typical track warm up suit. Wear over polar fleece when it's warmer, under polar fleece when colder.

You need a hat (berets are great), high collar for neck, shoes with thick rubber soles to keep your feet off the floor.

Everything you need to know is revealed in medieval paintings.

Look at the quilted clothes, capes, the high collars, the beret style hats. These people lived in cold buildings. Their clothes reflected it.



New to the site. I really enjoyed this article. I'd like to second the request for info about how to stay cool in the summer. Most of our energy costs go to cooling our home when it climbs above 40 C.

Kris De Decker


@28: the easiest thing you could do to stay cool is to wear wet clothes, which largely improves heat transfer from the body to the environment. This is why sweating can be so dangerous in a cold climate once you stop being active.



Thanks for the suggestion though it seems ... a bit impractical. I doubt my family would appreciate me leaving a wet spot on the couch. :)

I realize that clothing probably isn't the answer for cooling down. There's only so many clothes you can take off. But I wonder if there are other low-tech solutions that we might have forgotten since the invention of air conditioners.

Roddy Pfeiffer


None of this is necessary. In 1978 the University of Saskatchewan was building houses that were heated with electric baseboard heat for $50 a year. They were using fiberglass insulation. Now we have high-R foams that are even better. We worry about wasting heat, but we live in thermal sieves.
Nobody has to wear outdoor clothes indoors. That is just an admission that your house is an ecological failure.

Kris De Decker


Roddy: this might be true, but the reality is that most of us live in houses that are ecological failures. And fixing that is much more costly and time-consuming than insulating your body.

Jonathan: there are indeed many forgotten technologies to cool your house without air-conditioning. I hope I can find the time to publish an article about them before the summer ends. However, most of these come down to architecture and it's hard to apply them to the existing housing stock.

Israel Walker


I've been thinking about this for about 2 weeks now and I have a LOT to say.

One of the first is the declining use of radiant heat, such as hot water radiators and flame. In house with an average temperature of 55 degrees, you will get cold. It's not bad when you go cozy up a 200 degree radiator or 450 degree fireplace. An old, cold house, rarely had the homogeneous temperature of a modern, forced air heated home. It makes a huge difference. Having a single space where you can warm up makes it possible to tolerate a much lower over all temperature overall.

Another is the increasing use of single story homes, and full rather than half storied attics. In an older home, the areas one was active like the kitchen were downstairs, and bedrooms were upstairs. In the absence of forced air, hot air stratifies to the top of the room. When the trapdoor is opened, the hot air rushes into the much smaller volume upstairs, warming it before bed.

Another is plasterwork being replaced with sheetrock in modern homes. This lowers the thermal mass of the house, and the heater has to cycle more frequently.

Yet another is the increasing volume (not size, thats's next) of houses. It costs more to keep a basement at 55 then a crawlspace at 15. Though a temperature controlled basement might not increase the listed square footage of a house, it increases the heated volume. Higher ceiling have also become the norm, which further increases volume.

Also, square footage has ballooned enormously. In the quest for higher efficiency a lot of people seem to have forgotten that it takes more energy to heat 2000 square foot super insulated home than an totally uninsulated 8x12 cabin.

Yet another is the replacement of organic surfaces with inorganic surfaces. Unmentioned in your article was RELATIVE temperature. If oil finished wood floor and a tile floor are at exactly the same temperature the tile floor will feel far colder, because tile conducts heat from the body better. (Wood floors also breath, whereas tile or vinyl floors do not, building up a thin, and very thermally conductive layer of perspiration. A cold floor covered with good, old fashioned wool felt carpet or true linoleum (which is largely cork based) will feel much warmer than an identical floor covered with plastic based carpet or vinyl floor covering. Since we set our thermostats by the "feels like" temperature, this makes a large difference.

Another interesting point is the very modern expectation of daily bathing in winter. Our grandparents would have NEVER gotten their skin totally soaked in a 55 deg house. Baths were taken in the evening, when the house had it's full thermal mass heated the hottest, not in the morning when the house was the coldest. If you are going to be naked and wet for a few minutes everyday, and the whole house has to be the same temperature, then need your whole house to be shower bathroom warm. (It was easier to keep some rooms boiling hot and some just under freezing with big old radiators than with forced air heat).

Nick Sturkenboom


What people often forget is that with the excellent insulation and double glass windows house in N-Europe are often too warm to live in during the summer, showing dramatic increases in the sales of air conditioning. Talking about irony...

Baksa Péter


"What people often forget is that with the excellent insulation and double glass windows house in N-Europe are often too warm to live in during the summer, showing dramatic increases in the sales of air conditioning. Talking about irony..." Posted by: Nick Sturkenboom | November 09, 2011 at 08:29 PM

This has nothing to do with double glass windows, maybe that they ventilate less when you don't open them.
And no, that is not primarily because of the insulation. You have to build a house with lot of mass as a shield against heat. This shifts the time when the peak of the heat arrives at the inside of the walls. If that is at night, you can easily ventilate the room.

With more insulation however you don't need as massive walls for winter - but you still need them for summer. You can build massive walls plus good insulation, that will still be good for summer.



I worked outside in Alaska for years. I had to find a solution IMMEDIATELY to eliminate rapid overheating when I went from -20F to an engineering meeting in a 70F (or uncontrolled) field trailer. I put a cotton turtle neck UNDER the wool union suit. The minute I walked into the office, the artic gear and wool shirt came off and the top of the union suit was unbottoned and taken off - arms tied around my waist. They all made fun of me because I had clothes on under my long underwear. That's good. When the hollering started and everybody started overheating I was not that hot for about 20 minutes or so. Then when things got out of hand, it all went back on in about 10 seconds so I could get out of there. I still do that here in northern New Mexico. Stills works great.



Two years ago in Milan at an architecture expostition I found a company from Sardegna selling sheepswool insulation panels for the home.

I don't think is was a bad idea, but I find the fact that wool is worth so little to us for clothing applications just sad.

Risa Bear


"I have my bearskin," said the frontier dentist to Rooster Cogburn.

Louisa Kendricks


I can't wear wool next to the skin either, but have found that wearing double-knit silk longjohn's under my clothes, night and day makes all the difference. I haven't bothered with heating or cooling for the last couple of years, not from choice but because due to ill-health I was no longer in a position to afford it. I live comfortably now when the temperature gets to 3-4 degrees centigrade overnight, often not rising above 10 degrees during the day. Curtains are closed when the sun goes down, but otherwise... Yes, I wear a beanie, and a couple or more layers, but it is entirely doable. I have to stress that it is the double-knit silk I use because it doesn't ladder in the way that the single knit can do, (FYI, nail polish stops the ladders), and because after three years I haven't had to make any repairs. That is good going.



Thanks for that interesting piece of text! To add something from my personal approach (still experimental, however): how about fluid heated clothing.

I'm gonna live in a well-insulated 4x4 truck soon, but to further save on heating costs I have obtained a "fluid heated overall" from ThermoFlash ( http://www.thermoflash.com/ ). Now electrically heated clothing is quite common for motorbiking, but so far only ThermoFlash produces fluid-heated clothing, which is way more powerful (up to 3 kW per suit) and does not waste electricity on heat.

When living within the truck I can connect the fluid tubes to the independent vehicle heating, using the overall suit as a radiator. Not too practical in large homes however, as you the loooong tubes would obstruct your movement. However, ThermoFlash also has a mobile gas heating device that you can wear in a bag (approx. 2 kg).

I roughly calculated energy use for this idea, and it showed that it's on par with a high-grade, modern "passive home" (the "controlled air exchange type", plus heavy insulation). Just that heated clothing makes this possible not only in a limited-size home, but everywhere at once ...



Nice piece.

I've long been a believer...but recently [for many reasons, some hurricane related] converted from forced air & baseboard convectors to ceiling-mounted radiant heat. My home is considerably more comfortable [blowing air to stay warm makes even less sense than heating space instead of people], & the fact that radiant warms objects instead of air means the heat energy re-radiates & has a more lasting effect, meaning greater efficiency & better temperature control.

The specific point here, however, is that people are objects, too, & can absorb radiant heat...provided they're not too heavily insulated. My anecdotal experience clearly suggests that occupants can--in some circumstances--be more comfortable at lower temperatures by shedding clothes than by adding layers.

This is especially true when the radiant system is ceiling-mounted, rather than a heated floor. I won't address here the endless debate about which system is better; they simply have different characteristics. For this discussion, it's only necessary to imagine sitting on a sofa: with a radiant floor, direct exposure is blocked; with a radiant ceiling, occupants enjoy direct radiant heat absorption...provided they're not clad in caps & heavy sweaters.

Radiant won't be feasible or right for everyone, but its impact on the CLO concept must be considered.



Great article (imo)

Because of a skin/neurological condition that my wife has suffered from for the last 4 yrs, we set the thermostat in the Winter at 56-57F.

This has made me become very accustomed to the "layering" clothing effect and it's benefits ;)

I normally wear a short-sleeve cotton t-shirt with a long-sleeve v-neck pull over and a sweat-shirt...along with 2 pairs of sweat pants lol

My feet would get cold at times even with 2 pair of socks...till I discovered "SmartWool" products. I ordered a pair of their heavy socks and they are the best feeling sock (like walking on a massaging cushion) and very warm. Much better than 2 pairs of cotton socks!

Our heating bill is quite low ;)

But I do have a full set of Airblaster microfleese in case of an emergency. heh

Warm Regards


Bruce Weir


Maybe you can solve a problem I've thought about but can't resolve. I live in SW France and during the summer when the temperature outdoors rises to 30 - 35°C the temperature indoors is always 20°C when I can laze about in shorts and T-shirt. However, during the winter when the outdoor temperature may be 5°-10°C the indoor temperature is still 20°C but I cannot - noway - laze about in shorts and T-shirt. I need to be fully clothed. During winter and summer the indoor temperature is always a steady 20°C but my clothing is less in summer and much more in winter. Is there a radiation factor involved here?



Bruce Weir: I believe this is due to the difference in the temperature of the walls. In the summer, the walls of your house are often warmer than the air, so your body will lose less heat to them via infrared radiation. In the winter, they are colder than the room air, allowing them to absorb more, and your body to loose much more radiant heat. Here in the 'states, I've noticed that the buildings that are most comfortable in the summer and least comfortable in the winter are those with solid masonry walls (which are probably much more common in France); the worst one I recall was a motel with a separate heater in each room that remained off when the room was unoccupied. After a night with the heat on, the walls still felt like blocks of ice and I felt cold no matter how hot the air got. Buildings with dry-lined, insulated masonry or wood-framed walls tend to feel more comfortable in the cold.



Daniel > The norwegian company Slackline have created a garment called the "hyggepiece" […], a thicker hooded overall, meant to be used for example in the TV sofa

In case someone else is curious to see what it looks like: www.houseofhygge.no/onepiece

Markus Padourek


One of the problems with wool is, its sustainability and ethicalness can really vary, but as far as I could figure out, if produced locally and done the right way (e.g. sheep can foster carbon sequestration and restore nature) it is amongst the most sustainable materials as well as ethical. Unfortunately however it seems to be very difficult to even find clothes from sheep in central / northern europe still. Hemp and linen also are very interesting materials that are far too difficult to find these days in clothing.

The only "european" woolen clothes that I could find so far are: https://nordwolle.com/newFront/NordwolleShop/public_html/shop.php as well as https://www.albmerino.de/ but they do not provide underwear.

I did however manage to find "european" long underwear/leggings made from hemp: https://www.etsy.com/dk-en/listing/549047569/hemp-leggings-men-organic-fashion

Also what I have noticed now starting to slowly switch from cotton/polyester clothes to wool, linen & hemp that it is much easier for me to wear those items inside (e.g. woolen socks, hemp t-shirts), then get on my bike and when I get into the office not having to worry so much about my odores anymore as I do not stink anymore. I have not fully figured out if it is just due to their antibacterial effects or if I also sweat a bit less (it does overall feel like it). And for most of my new clothing, if it does happen to break I can just throw it into our compost and within a few months it can be used as nutrition for new plants.

Markus Padourek


Also on the topic, what I forgot, instead of keeping the body warm through insulation there are other low to zero energy ways to keep the body warm:

One is just to be active once in a while, or as it is also called do a "micro-workout", i.e. do a few minutes of body-weight exercises whenever you feel cold. For example push-ups, burpees, jumping jacks, planks, etc. or if you sit on a chair/sofa just put both of your hands beside you and push yourself up. I do that sometimes straight after getting up as that is when I often feel the coldest.
Another way along these lines is of course to create some of the energy yourself that you need for what you are doing, if possible e.g. by using hand or pedal powered tools.

Another thing one can do is to accustomise oneself more to cold temperatures. I was surprised to learn some years ago how much influence we have on this and what our body can get used to. Read e.g. Wim Hof's "Becoming the Iceman". In short, the biggest direct change I have taken from this is taking almost only cold showers and partially as a result of that I wear less clothing in colder temperatures. This discovery really had an influence on my life.

And lastly, at university I would often drink butter tea (buying only the highest quality butter I could find) as my breakfast in the winter and it would usually keep me warm and energised until the later afternoon, when I suddenly would start to feel a very noticable drop in percieved temperature (I often skipped lunch back then as I did not like the food we had at university). It may sound very questionworthy when you hear it the first time but you can read more about its benefits, history as well as the modern take on it here: https://www.eater.com/2016/8/25/12624068/butter-coffee-tea-tibet-yak

I am aware that most of these practices are not really for the masses, but maybe some people here find it interesting.



There is one problem - cold walls will get black mold in few years, because water from the air condensing on them and making them wet.

The comments to this entry are closed.