What Does Deep Tissue Massage Actually Mean? A Neuroscience Perspective
"I want deep tissue." It's one of the most common requests massage therapists hear, delivered with the certainty that comes from knowing exactly what you want. But when we start examining what “deep tissue” really refers to, the concept quickly becomes slippery. Is it about how far into the body we press? The amount of force applied? A particular technique or strategy? How it feels to the client? All of the above?
Is It About Depth?
Let's start with the most literal interpretation: depth. Many reasonably assume that "deep tissue" refers to how far the therapist pushes into the body, and further assume that greater depth equates to greater effectiveness.
But depth depends on multiple factors, including tissue density, client size, and body region. In some areas deep structures are millimeters below the surface while other areas are composed of many centimeters of surface structures. Therefore, deep tissue can't be referring to absolute depth.
Is It About Pressure or Tools?
If it's not about depth, the next reasonable assumption is that it's about the amount of pressure being applied by the practitioner. But this, too, is unreliable. The "perfect" amount of pressure for one client may feel too little or too much to another. Similarly, some clients will say they don't want deep tissue but will request a lot of pressure, while others will say they want deep tissue but wince at moderate pressure.
In addition, some clients that request "a lot of pressure" are delighted with heavy compression applied broadly with forearms, while others with the same request aren't happy with this, preferring instead only moderate pressure with thumbs rather than "a lot of pressure" with forearms. Even if we fine-tuned the definition to “force per area”, we still find that there’s no objective value that works across people and body regions.
Pressure, like depth, doesn't seem to be the defining quality.
Perhaps instead it’s about specificity—hitting particular “spots” with precision. Or maybe it's about using particular tools or techniques: knuckles, elbows, forearms, cross-fiber friction, or pin-and-stretch. But these also don’t hold up, because clearly one can use any of these tools or techniques in ways that would not be "deep enough" for some clients, even when applied with specificity, and plenty of clients clearly want specificity while at the same time declining “deep tissue”.
So if it's not depth, pressure, tools, techniques, or specificity, what are people talking about?
Discover how the intricate relationship between the brain, pain, and body shapes our experience of posture. This on-demand course unpacks neuroscientific insights and connects it to practical bodywork techniques, empowering professionals and individuals to approach pain and posture with confidence and clarity.
What Clients Actually Mean: “Good Pain”
In my experience, the common denominator in most "deep tissue" sessions is not an objective quantity like depth, pressure, or technique but rather the eliciting of the subjective experience that we often call "good pain."
We could just leave it at that by saying deep tissue is just pointing to good pain, but I think we can dive a bit deeper into what good pain is all about. To do this, we need to discuss the neuroscience of nociception.
Nociceptive pain, the kind of pain that results from the activation of nociceptors, can be divided into two broad categories relevant to manual therapy: C-fiber nociception and A-delta nociception. C-fibers are primarily chemically responsive and produce sensations that are diffuse and achey, while A-delta fibers respond to significant mechanical inputs and produce sensations that are sharp and specific (Mense, 1993; Treede et al., 1995). When clients are seeking pain relief, they are mostly seeking relief from the pain emerging from C-fiber activation. Pain from A-delta fibers is what we get from daily bumps and scrapes.
So where does "good pain" pain fit into this? The answer is A-delta, but what makes it good? Why are A-delta activation experiences sometimes good and sometimes bad? A large part of this answer has to do with ascending inhibition, wherein the activation of A-delta fibers has an inhibitory effect on the C-fiber neurons in the spinal cord (Bouhassira & Chitour, 2022). So, if we activate A-delta fibers we create pain but because we reduce the achey sensation arising from the C-fiber activity, our overall experience is one of “good pain”.
Contrary to what many think about "deep tissue", doing what it takes to activate A-delta fibers does not change or fix the chemical situation in the tissue that was creating the C-fiber activity in the first place. We are simply inhibiting it temporarily. The C-fibers are still responding to the mostly unchanged chemical environment they were before, and the A-delta fibers are still signaling what may be a damaging level of mechanical input. Thus, the relief experienced from the “deep tissue” treatment may be occurring alongside damage that might lead to more C-fiber activity after the session.
It's worth noting at this point that while C-fibers emerge from every type of tissue, A-delta fibers emerge only from connective tissue in skin, fascia, and nerves, not muscle (Mense, 1993; Taguchi & Mense, 2011; Bove & Light, 1995; García-Pérez et al., 2022; Stecco et al., 2021). So the C-fiber pain that clients complain about may arise from muscle or connective tissue (including the tissue sheath around nerves), but the "good pain" that almost everyone equates with "getting into muscle" has nothing to do with muscle. It's always about connective tissue of one form or another. To say it another way, skin, nerves, and fascia feel pressure while muscles do not.
To summarize, the phrase "deep tissue" misses the point twice: it's not about depth and it's not about tissue. It's about mild A-delta activation that's intended to inhibit C-fiber activity. Once we understand this, we can understand why depth, pressure, and technique seem relevant to the topic while also not being defining. We can also have a better grasp on why "deeper" doesn't mean better and might actually be creating additional C-fiber activity that potentially leads to a vicious cycle of wanting more deep tissue to override the pain caused by deep tissue. This is especially a concern with clients who have learned to tolerate the experience or dissociate from it, often because they errantly believe that deep tissue IS actually about both depth and tissue.
Experience vs. Tissue: What Really Matters
This distinction between experience and tissue reflects a critical tension between two ways of understanding bodywork. One is mechanical: we push, knead, or stretch tissue to supposedly correct something physical. The other is sensory-neurological: we provide input that changes how the nervous system feels, interprets, and regulates itself. The mechanical narrative persists because it's intuitive and visual—"breaking up knots," "melting muscle," "releasing fascia." But research shows that tissue deformation during massage is minimal and short-lived, and that most therapeutic effects arise from the nervous system (Bialosky et al., 2009; Schleip, et al., 2012; Wilke, et al., 2018).
A simple thought experiment may help clarify further what deep tissue is and what it isn't: imagine a brain-stimulation device that could create the exact same pleasurable, relieving feeling as your favorite deep tissue massage, without any physical touch. Would you opt for this experience? If you're devoted to the outdated idea that the value of deep tissue actually has to do with manipulation of tissue, you might not use the device because it might seem it wasn't getting to the "real problem". But if we understand the pain issue from a neural perspective and realize that what we're really after is the experience of having less pain, then such a device becomes appealing. Fortunately, deep tissue (and other forms of bodywork that don't engage A-delta fibers) can inhibit those pesky C-fibers, without needing this fancy brain device. We can modulate the brain’s activity via touch instead.
Seeing "deep tissue" as a perceptual experience changes how we practice. We don't need enormous force to create meaningful stimulation—a small but specific input can feel profoundly relieving. This understanding shifts our emphasis from technique to interpretation—from applying pressure to shaping experience.
That also means the words "deep tissue" are highly misleading and don't actually describe what makes the work effective. Contrary to its name, “deep tissue” actually points toward a sensory window in the nervous system—perhaps better named “deep sensation”—a place where strong but safe intensity feels productive rather than threatening.
Final Thoughts
This reframing doesn’t invalidate the practice of deep tissue—it clarifies it. What matters most isn’t how far or hard we press, but whether we engage the client’s nervous system in a way that feels safe, responsive, and effective (as is true for all forms of bodywork).
This awareness can make us better therapists and better communicators. When we stop trying to “go deep” and start trying to “feel right,” we reduce injury risk, improve outcomes, and honor how profoundly the nervous system shapes experience. What feels deep isn’t a matter of depth or pressure—it’s about how the brain interprets and responds to what it receives. In the end, it’s not muscles we’re working with—it’s perception itself.
References
Bialosky, J. E., Bishop, M. D., & George, S. Z. (2009). Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain: A physiological perspective. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 17(2), 86–93.
Bouhassira, D., & Chitour, D. (2022). “Diffuse noxious inhibitory controls in humans: a psychophysical approach.” PAIN Reports, 7(1), e986.
Bove, G. M., & Light, A. R. (1995). The nervi nervorum: A review of the role of the nerve sheath in pain. Pain, 61(3), 283–293.
García-Pérez, M. Á., et al. (2022). Innervation and sensitivity of the nervi nervorum. Journal of Anatomy, 241(2), 314–328.
Koltyn, K. F. (2002). Analgesia following exercise: A review. Sports Medicine, 32(2), 85–98.
Koltyn, K. F. (2002). Mechanisms of exercise-induced hypoalgesia. Pain, 98(1–2), 129–134.
Liljencrantz, J., & Olausson, H. (2014). Tactile C fibers and their contributions to pleasant touch. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 137–145.
Lund, I., & Lundeberg, T. (2006). Is it all about sex? Acupuncture for the treatment of pain from a biological and gender perspective. Acupuncture in Medicine, 24(Suppl), S7–S14.
Mense, S. (1993). Nociception from skeletal muscle in relation to clinical muscle pain. Pain, 54(3), 241–289.
Mense, S. (2003). The pathogenesis of muscle pain. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 7, 419–425.
Ochoa, J., & Mair, W. (1969). The normal sural nerve in man. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 32(4), 302–314.
Schleip, R., et al. (2012). “Fascial plasticity – a new neurobiological explanation.” Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 16(1), 104–116.
Stecco, C., et al. (2021). The fascial system and its innervation. Pain Reports, 6(1), e911.
Taguchi, T., & Mense, S. (2011). Morphological and functional properties of muscle nociceptors. Pain, 152(2), 234–243.
Treede, R. D., et al. (1995). Pain and temperature sensations. Progress in Brain Research, 110, 195–207.
Wilke, J., et al. (2018). “Fascial manipulation and pain: a systematic review.” Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 22(3), 514–521.
Author
Dr. Mark Olson holds an M.A. in Education and a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from the University of Illinois, specializing in cognitive and behavioral neuropsychology and neuroanatomy. His research examined memory, attention, eye movements, and aesthetic preferences. He is a NARM® practitioner, aquatic therapist, former director of the Pacific Center for Awareness and Bodywork, and a published author on chronic pain and trauma-informed care. He teaches courses at Dr-Olson.com that bring neuroscience and relational skill-building together to help people understand themselves—and each other—with more clarity and compassion.
