1. A little context. The Edwards and Reed book has an informative list (page 42) describing what Maximum Heart Rate (MHR) is and is not. One of the list's items is MHR "does not predict athletic performance". As an "owner" of an MHR in the low part of the range I find that statement counter-intuitive. It seems to me that a high MHR (and the athletic ability to get "up there") translates directly to higher blood volume available for exertion and therefore better athletic potential. Can it be right that a low MHR does not condemn its "owner" to low performance?
2. A little more context. There are prescriptions out there one may use to determine individual MHR. Those seem to me redundant for folks who regularly get into "painful" anaerobic zones during sprint intervals, hard hill climbs, etc. Could a valid individual MHR be determined by glancing down and noting the heart rates at these times? Certainly, after several dozen times in the anaerobic range one gets a good estimate of ones MHR. I'll add that try as I might, there are numbers above which I simply cannot achieve.