#AthleteCare

Many athletes in Thailand rely on massage after workouts, hoping it speeds recovery and flushes lactic acid. New analyses, grounded in recent reporting and scientific studies, show massage clearly eases discomfort but not for the reasons many believe. The strongest effect tends to be psychological—what Thai readers might call the mental boost from feeling cared for and relaxed.

Research indicates massage provides tangible comfort after intense exercise, but the supposed physiological boons—rapid toxin removal or accelerated muscle recovery—are not strongly supported by evidence. A scholar from an Australian Catholic University highlights that athletes favor massage because it feels good, even though the robust physiological benefits remain unproven. In other words, massage is a popular aid for mood and perception, not a guaranteed engine of physical recovery.

Many athletes and fitness enthusiasts turn to massage as their primary recovery strategy after a hard workout, convinced it aids muscle recovery and removes lactic acid from their bodies. However, recent research reveals that while massages do offer real relief, the underlying reasons might differ from what most people—both in Thailand and around the world—have long believed.

The new insights, featured in a recent article by The New York Times and supported by emerging scientific literature, highlight that massage can make you feel noticeably better following strenuous physical activity. Its main benefit, however, appears to be more psychological than physiological. Despite the prevalence of massage stations at running events and the booming sales of massage guns from popular companies, robust scientific evidence supporting claims of accelerated muscle recovery or lactic acid ‘flushing’ is weak at best. As shared by a professor of exercise science at Australian Catholic University, “If you talk to athletes, massage is one of their favorite recovery strategies…because it feels good…[but] most of the purported physiological benefits of massage aren’t backed by strong evidence” (The New York Times).