I am 40 a still run under 20 for a 5k Any good?

Sub 20 is a very good time. I haven't looked it up, but a 19:59 would probably be in the top 10% of most 5Ks in the US with the exception of Carlsbad and the USATF Masters 5k Championships. It's probably not going to place in the top 3 in M40 in every single local 5k, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a very good time.

OP, I'd see another cardiologist and get a second opinion on running hard. You can't ignore potential heart problems, but OTOH, many doctors who don't work with athletes tend to have a knee-jerk "don't run" response to any illness. It sounds like you've found a happy medium between fanatical running and not running at all, but I'd want an opinion from a cardiologist who works with athletes or a very highly ranked cardiologist. My cardiologist has an entire floor of the hospital named after him AND he supports supplementation to maintain heart health. I see him twice a year.

At your age it's more motivation and what is interfering with your training/racing.

Does your job limit training? Do you have a family- my kids came first, obviously. Once they got to the age where they were in activities I raced less and less.

I agree that you can be a lot faster if there are no limiting factors.

Ya, it's pretty clear he stopped training a lot at age 32 and is now full on hobby jogger, just maintaining fitness with some somewhat regular easy run mileage. People who actually keep training hard the whole time wouldn't be much different at age 40 as they are at age 17 or 18. Sub 16 5k at age 40 isn't outrageous for someone who ran low 14's in their 20's. We've had olympic marathoners from the US who were 40, they could still run a 14 flat road 5k after 40.

Amazing how you kept track of 5k times for every single year for 3 decades straight. I'm impressed.

Even most college and elite runners don't run 5ks every single year for 3 decades uninterrupted.

Umm, I'm 34. Are you telling me that in 6 years time I should be happy to run sub 20? IMO that is a mediocre time, especially since you ran much faster before.

Ah, yes...letsrun dot com, where every 40 year old can still run sub 15. Of course, they also make at least 250K per year, drive a Lambo, have multiple Ivy League degrees, and are married to super models.

Of course not, because most college runners quit the day they graduate, and most elites quit when they retire. It's us hobby joggers that run 5ks for decades.

Get some perspective. Sub 20 is mediocre.

This is a very important caveat!

Here's some perspective for you...

livestrong.com

The Average 5K Time — and How to Improve Yours | Livestrong.com

Although average 5K times vary by age and sex, national averages can help you estimate how you'll perform on your first 5K. Check our 5K time and pacing chart.

Open link

Given that 18:24 places you in the top 1% in the U.S., I'd say that 20:00 at age 40 is a bit better than mediocre.

You're speaking from the letsrun bubble, where of course everyone will claim they can break 20 while on crutches with two broken legs.

And that's at least embellishment and probably outright BS. Much more likely to be barely sub-20 with a single broken ankle in a walking (or hobbyjogging) boot (although not, of course, the kind specially engineered with a carbon plate and ZoomX foam).

Heart issues are not an excuse. I don't know what bad would be, but to me, 20 mins with his stats is commendable. Anyway, don't let it bother you so much. I don't know how old you are, but after 35, it gets harder and harder to run thanks to physical issues, demands on our time, etc. I'd be freaking thrilled to run a 20 min. 5k, and I'm 38. Too many injuries, but I still get out there and I'm grateful.

Wise advice. Take heed, OP, and be well.

Depends on a person's background, history of injuries and illnesses, genetics, lifestyle (including diet and exercise), etc.

I don’t get this thread. The dude isn’t asking at a population level whether sub 20 at 40 is good. He posted his PRs by age and is asking about whether it is a commendable time for him. The answer to that question is no. A 14 mid runner who runs 20 minutes at an, all things considered, not that old age is performing very far below their potential. So far below that, as I said, I would expect this to be a roll off the couch type of time.

Sub 20 is good for a woman.

Similar pb's but I retired or rather didn't run from the age of 29-39. At the age of 39 started running and 6 months later ran 15:51. At 41 ran 15:52.

19:59 is being easy on yourself. I still ran 18:13 at 53 and the wheels have fallen off.

Good luck remember get out the door and don't forget to strength train.

I never broke 17 at my peak, and I’m running 18 at 43.