Sure.hjs wrote:Dr. Fritz Hagerman, an exercise physiologist at Ohio University, said he had learned from more than three decades of studying world class rowers that the whole idea of a formula to predict an individual's maximum heart rate was ludicrous. Even sillier, he said, is the common notion that the heart rate is an indication of fitness.
Some people get blood to their muscles by pushing out large amounts every time their hearts contract, he said. Others accomplish the same thing by contracting their hearts at fast rates. As a result, Dr. Hagerman said, he has seen Olympic rowers in their 20's with maximum heart rates of 220. And he has seen others on the same team and with the same ability, but who get blood to their tissues by pumping hard, with maximum rates of just 160.
But I am talking about 60-year-olds, not 20-year-olds, and I am talking about someone with a resting HR of 40 bpm, not 70 bpm.
On the average, with age, your maxHR falls about a beat per minute per year.
So, a rower with a maxHR of 200 bpm at 20 years old tends to have a max HR of 160 bpm at 60 spm, even though that rower's resting HR is the same.
This loss of aerobic capacity is devastating, and translates into a loss of a second or so over 2K per year.
So, a lightweight who can pull 6:00 for 2K at 20 can only pull 6:40 for 2K at 60.
My maxHR is still 190 bpm, with a resting HR of 40 bpm.
That is, I have the aerobic capacity of a 30-year-old.
Your citing of Hagerman is irrelevant.
He has no study that bears on the issue.
Has he studied a population of 60-year-olds with resting HRs of 40 bpm and maxHR's of 190 bpm?
No.
Why?
Because they are disappearingly rare.
ranger
.........
need to update my signature.. 
In my never ending quest to see something under 200 