To support my view that my 5K time of 22:06 is pretty poky, here is the distribution of 5K times for LetsRun.com -- a running discussion forum -- posters. For comparison, my time is marked in red. Obviously a self-selected group, but still informative.
On the other hand, I do hear reports from good runners that they've slowed down considerably just around turning 40. It would be nice to see how times change with aging (and running burnout and accumulation of injuries).
Not that I can evaluate the methodology, but Runner's World has an age adjustment calculator that converts my 44 year old 5K time of 22:06 to a time of 20:16 for young runners. A 5K at 20:000 is age adjusted to 18:20, which does suggest I should be able to get under 20:00 even at my age. 18:00 is age adjusted to 16:30, which does suggest that getting under 18 min on 5K is going to cause me some problems and may not happen and surely won't happen fast. On the other hand, I don't have the wear and tear for running for the last 20 years, which might give me an advantage.
Finally, I think of myself as a medium distance runner and 5K is probably too short a distance now for my best performance. But we'll see.
Here, from Meta-analysis of the age-associated decline in maximal aerobic capacity in men: relation to training status (AJP 1999), is the ugly truth. Looks like I'll be hopelessly mired in VOmax 50-60 range, down from 60-70 when I was young. The high performance region of VOmax > 60 just isn't accessible to men over 40.
Comments