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

I don't get the hate here. I would be thrilled to run sub-20 at 40, and I bet a majority of people here would be, too. What's with the people on this site always overestimating performances and abilities?

Ten years older than you, with very similar PRs to yours (14:19 at 22), came back to running in my late 30s after taking the majority of the time between college and then off from truly dedicated running (3 months on, a year off, 6 months on, 3 months off, etc.).

Based on my experience (low-to-mid 15 minute range in my early 40s), if your heart were perfect, there's no question that sub 20 would be selling yourself short. You've stayed consistent in your running and aren't all that far removed from times in the low 15 minute range.

But with heart issues, pushing yourself at all without clearance from your cardiologist, is ill-advised.

Based on your PR, I'd say you're running under 20 minutes on minimal training. You could train and certainly hit 16:00 or better.

My PR is 16:10, I ran 17:47 at age 45 (last time under 17 was 16:54, age 38.) These on about 20-25 mpw with one tempo thrown in. I was not a "star."

Why ask the question? 19:59 at 40 for a guy who ran 14 low isn't very good.

I'm of a similar age and I can do that without training.

Nobody is being insulting, it's just a fact based on the information that was given.

OP didn't say what kind of running he's been doing in 2022, but reading between the lines it sounds like a few easy miles every day. He didn't mention any workouts. Sure, 19:59 at age 40 may seem well below what some perceive as his potential given his 14:17 at 22, but it's worth noting he ran 18:38 at 38 (2 years ago) when he was presumably training differently. I bet he could run sub-18 at 41 if he wanted to. But if his goal is just to run a sub-20 for as many years as he can I think that's a pretty cool goal.

troll

for times shown 20 sucks at 40

I was at a very small 5k race and a 60 year old guy ran 19:00

he came over to pat our choc lab . he was not impressed with himself at all.

I ran a sub 18 every year of my 40s . Sub 20 was a workout.

My lifetime PR is 16:59 from High School which probably should have been better.

As a 37 y/o male (I did not run from age 18 to 33), I should be much faster than I am.

Most guys my age (35-40, Columbus, at least in the main run clubs) are the following:

16:50-18:40 5k

34-38 10k

1:15-1:26 13.1

2:40-3:05 26.2

However, most have been running since their 20s, so they have more lifetime miles.

Although I know you are exaggerating a lot of LRCers are upper-middle class types with education and great jobs, so their $ is in-line (maybe not 250k) with societal expectations. Plus, being Type-A runners, it drives them to perform on the track and in the office.

LRC is a great place but it is a bubble of survivorship bias and runners taking performances for granted. Even if it's not deliberate or for the wrong reasons.

If you're a 14-15 5k guy in college, even as you age, your identity still may be tied to that even if your times get slower.

Average or below-average runners would kill to break 20. I'm just grateful I was able to break 19 several times in my life.

People also forget LRC is at the very tail of the distribution, even compared to guys and girls in the reddit/r/advancedrunning group.

I don't see any hate here. People are only pointing out that it's a relatively slow time compared to OP's lifetime best.

I'm 44. Ran lots of sub20s in my youth but started picking it up again in my 30s. I've got a 9 year streak going, with my most recent being 18:49.

This is cool as hell. Great work, and thanks for sharing it!

Posters are focusing on 19:59 5K at age 40. O.P. buried the purpose of this thread. O.P. wants to brag about running a 14:17.xx 5000m as a young man.

I'd say 18:30 5k, 1:25 half marathon, sub 3 marathon are top 1 percentish for masters runners. If you run those times, you're going to contend to win your age group at most races and, with exceptions at some of the bigger races, you're nearly guaranteed to be top 3 in your age group.

Good, but not "Great".

Age-graded, you've dropped from >88% to ~65%.

You're under-performing based on your talent.

With better training and prep, you could still be clocking sub 15.

yeah, I think still can get the time in the 16s if you want to depending on if the heart issues as the talent was obviously there at one point in your life. I definitely don't have a 30 year streak like you as only started running at age 35 but my PR 17:13 is from this year (age 42) so don't think you are on the only downhill swing of your times yet.

I'm not anywhere close to being as fast as you. My best 5k was 17:13 back in '83 as a 23 yo. I broke 20:00 last year at 61 and hope to do it again this year at 62. Its a number I always shoot for, but I don't get it every race. I look at the legendary Ed Whitlock who was running in the 18-19 range in his 70's!

I don't understand the notion that anything other than effusive praise is "hate." It isn't hateful to tell someone that sub 20 at 40 YO isn't great for someone with a PR in the low 14s.