Medium run = more hungry than usual; long run = less hungry than usual

I’m asking this because I’m curious, not because I think this is a problem. Anyway, I find that when I run my longest runs, i.e., 12 miles or so, I have very little appetite for a few hours after my run. On the other hand, after runs of about 7 miles or so, I find that myself quite hungry---not uncontrollably hungry, but I feel like eating a lot for the next meal.

Just FYI, I’m a 34 year old guy who is 5’11” and about 175-180 pounds (which is 15 pounds lighter since the beginning of the year). I tend to eat a pretty low carb diet and avoid refined sugar. (I usually have a spoonful of honey at the end of long runs to release insulin and prevent post-workout breakdown on muscle tissue.) I eat a lot of veggies, eggs, meat, and dairy. I don’t follow any regimented diet closely but I think carbs are easily much less than 50% of my calories. (My wife is a type 1 diabetic which makes it more natural for me to also avoid high-carb foods.) Besides being lighter, I feel a lot better than I used to and am finding running further and faster more enjoyable than I used to, and I think I may very well beat my college half-marathon time this year.

Anyway, my theory is that my longest runs might be increasing my ketone body concentration whereas the shorter runs don’t reach that point. It’s my understanding that ketosis decreases hunger. I’m more than likely wrong. In any case, does anyone else experience increased hunger on medium-long runs (or similar aerobic activity) and decreased hunger after your longest runs? Does anyone know what causes these contrasting effects?
 
Back
Top