Is a 30 or 60 minute massage better?

[CoffeeNow]

I'm going to be going on vacation in a few weeks, and I was thinking about getting a massage while on vacation. I found a place with 30 minute massages for $35, and 60 minute massages for $65. I've never had a massage before, so I was going to start with a swedish massage. I wasn't sure if 60 minutes sounded like too long though. What would be the main difference between a 30 and 60 minute massage besides the time. Do they work on different areas in a 60 minute massage? Are there any major side effects to massage? I don't know a lot about this, so any information would be helpful.

 

[Charlotte]

If the price is ok for you, you like the practitioner , the massage feels relaxing and secure for you, and you want a full body done, then 60 minutes is about as long as it will take. Another time maybe you might like to focus on a particular area like feet or head, in your lunch hour, in which case half hour can be a great pick me up.

Usually I find a long massage should include a recovery period, when you go home and take care of yourself with no distractions, making sure to keep well hydrated. A practitioner should tell you this. A shorter massage can be more invigorating and easier to fit into your day.

 

[MyThought]

Go for 60 minutes. You'll be amazed at how fast the time goes, and 30 minutes isn't long enough to do a full-body massage and do it well.

I offer 30 minutes in my shop, but it's a mini massage, focusing only on one area that needs attention.

 

[SmartAss]

It all depends on the masseur.

Side effects,
well if it's a bad masseur (like someone being too much in the head than in the body) you could feel nervous,
but the good thing is the chance is very small.
Another side effect could be,
if it's a very aware masseur,
you could feel much lighter, and have temporary (or even persistent) health benefits

 

[Tink]

Go for 60....a really good massage take 90