It seems to me I heard somewhere that outrider wrote in article
<1115937300.484921.305840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

I'm wondering how Jeff, Jim Chinnis, and others respond to this study.
Relying on the Scott Gottlieb report (since I'm not registered for the
NEJM), I'm curious how the risk levels coordinate with widely-used
measures of physical fitness, as well as about the significance of the
specific measures they've chosen..

Quotes are from the Gottlieb news report on the same page Zee cited.

"The risk of sudden death from myocardial infarction was higher in men
with a resting heart rate >75 beats per minute than in men with a
resting heart rate <60 beats per minute (relative risk 3.92 (95%
confidence interval 1.91 to 8.00);"

This may not correlate closely with fitness, but in general one would
expect lower resting heart beats with a higher level of fitness.  Highly
trained athletes may have resting heart rates down into the 40 bpm
range.

"higher in men with an increase in heart rate during exercise of <89
beats per minute than in men with an increase of >113 beats per minute
(relative risk 6.18 (2.37 to 16.11);"

Assuming for illustration a heart rate of 68 bpm, an increase of 89 bpm
equates to 157 bpm and an increase of 113 bpm to 181 bpm.  ISTM those
are high rates for a mixed population included members with lower
fitness levels.  (My own maximum heart rate, measured on treadmills and
bicycles, never exceeded 165 bpm over about a fifteen year period during
which I was running twenty to thirty miles a week.  For the first time
in months I reached 158 bpm during my morning run today.)

"and higher in men with a decrease in heart rate of <25 beats per minute
at one minute after the end of exercise than in men with a decrease of

Among runners and others the quickness and depth of recovery from hard
exercise is taken to be directly related to fitness level.

Gottlieb says the "5713 asymptomatic men employed by the Paris civil
service [. . .] had undergone standardised graded exercise testing
between 1967 and 1972. The men were between the ages of 42 and 53 years
at the time of testing, and none had clinically detectable
cardiovascular disease." but has no indication of exercise regimes or
fitness levels.

By the follow up in 1994 the cohort would have been between 64 and 80
years old*, an age range obviously more at risk than the original 42 to
53 years, and the range of physical ability is much wider because of the
advanced age.  

*  This assumes the "standardised graded exercise testing" was at a
point in time for each subject; if all were tested throughout the period
between 1967 and 1972 the range would be the same twelve years, and the
range could fall between 64 - 75 and 69 - 80.

The NJME obviously considered these findings significant, but is it
perhaps a case of the beneficial effects of exercise being overlooked or
underappreciated in studying cardiac risk?