← All metrics

What your resting heart rate says about your health

Each row is one study of death risk from resting heart rate. The bright line is what that study found. The band around it is the range the data still supports — it fades where the evidence thins. Left of the centre line is lower risk.

what the study foundstill plausibleno change
Two groups compared
the whole gap between a high and a low
highest vs lowest quartile (adults 60 and older)
He et al. 2022
25% higher
range 17–33% higher
One step at a time
what each single increase is worth
each 10 bpm higher resting heart rate
Zhang et al. 2016
9% higher
range 7–12% higher
each 10 bpm higher resting heart rate
Aune et al. 2017
17% higher
range 14–19% higher

What it is

Resting heart rate is your beats per minute at complete rest — a window into cardiovascular fitness and autonomic tone.

Why it matters for longevity

The engine is a constructed PCHIP (70 bpm = 1.0; 40–50 floor 0.85; ≤60 target = 0.90). Near 60–80 bpm it tracks Zhang 2016’s general-population ACM RR 1.09 (1.07–1.12) per 10 bpm (46 studies; 1.25 million people; I² 92.3%) — that is a relative risk, not a hazard ratio, and it is an association, not a treatment effect. Zhang’s trim-and-fill for publication bias is RR 1.04 (1.02–1.06). ACM versus 45 bpm is linear (p nonlinearity = 0.1); the 90 bpm mark is cardiovascular mortality, not an all-cause cliff. Above 80 the engine steepens past Zhang’s linear slope (1.25 at 90 vs ~1.19). Overlay: Zhang. Under: Aune 2017 (meta — larger ACM pool RR 1.17 per 10 bpm, mixed prospective) / Raisi-Estabragh 2020 (competing — UKB per 10 bpm ACM 1.22 men / 1.19 women) / Custodis 2016 (action — ≥70 vs <70 ACM 1.68, coronary events NS; marker, not a rate-lowering trial). Engine not moved.

How to improve it

  • Build aerobic fitness (it lowers resting HR over time)
  • Prioritize sleep and keep caffeine earlier in the day
  • Practice breathing or meditation for recovery

Evidence, by endpoint

EndpointGradeFinding
—METHOD
PCHIP is constructed (70 bpm = 1.0)
Knots 40/50 = 0.85, 60 = 0.90, 70 = 1.0, 80 = 1.10, 90 = 1.25, 100 = 1.40, 120 = 1.60. Near 60–80 this is ~Zhang’s +9%/10 bpm. Steeper than Zhang above 80. Engine not moved.
All-cause mortalityB
Zhang 2016 is RR 1.09, not an HR
General-population ACM RR 1.09 (1.07–1.12) per 10 bpm. Trim-and-fill 1.04. 90 bpm is the CV spline vs 45 bpm — ACM is linear. Aune 2017 ACM RR 1.17 is the larger pool. Custodis: ≥70 bpm predicts ACM, not coronary events.
All-cause mortalityB
1.22 / 1.19 in UK Biobank (Raisi-Estabragh 2020)
Single cohort, 502,534 UK Biobank adults, seated Omron pulse (mean of two readings) — closer to a home reading than Zhang’s mixed ECG pool. Fully adjusted ACM HR per 10 bpm: 1.22 (1.20–1.24) in men, 1.19 (1.16–1.22) in women, both higher than Zhang’s pooled 1.09.
All-cause mortalityB
1.17 Per 10 bpm, a Larger Pool (Aune 2017)
Larger dose-response meta than Zhang: 48 studies pooled ACM RR 1.17 (1.14–1.19) per 10 bpm, I² 94.0%. The high-vs-low contrast in the same paper was RR 1.69 (1.52–1.87) — both higher than Zhang’s pooled 1.09, from a broader prospective mix than Zhang’s general-population-only pool.
All-cause mortality, middle-aged men onlyC
Significant Only in Middle-Aged Men (Okamura 2004)
Japanese general-population cohort of 8,800 adults followed 16.5 years: middle-aged men (30–59) in the highest resting-heart-rate quartile had 45% higher all-cause mortality (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.06–2.00) than lower quartiles, but the association was not significant in adults 60 and older.
All-cause mortalityB
Predicts Death, Not Coronary Events (Custodis 2016)
Heinz Nixdorf RECALL cohort, 4,091 adults free of known CAD and off rate-lowering medication, median 10.5 years, 398 deaths: RHR ≥70 vs <70 bpm carried ACM HR 1.68 (1.30–2.18), and per 5 bpm ACM HR 1.13 (1.07–1.20) — but the same slices showed no significant association with coronary events (HR 1.20 and 1.02, both NS).

What argues against this

Raisi-Estabragh et al. 2020 (slot: competing), a single UK Biobank cohort of 502,534 adults using seated Omron pulse readings — closer to a home reading than Zhang's mixed ECG pool — found a steeper all-cause mortality slope per 10 bpm than the engine's Zhang-anchored baseline: HR 1.22 (1.20–1.24) in men and 1.19 (1.16–1.22) in women versus Zhang's pooled 1.09. This argues the engine's near-baseline slope may understate resting-heart-rate risk rather than overstate it — a magnitude disagreement, not a directional one.

Last reviewed 2 September 2026

Evidence

  1. Zhang et al. (2016) — CMAJ
    Resting heart rate and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the general population: a meta-analysis
    View source
  2. Aune et al. (2017) — Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases
    Resting heart rate and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer, and all-cause mortality – A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies
    View source
  3. Raisi-Estabragh et al. (2020) — PLoS ONE
    Age, sex and disease-specific associations between resting heart rate and cardiovascular mortality in the UK BIOBANK
    View source
  4. He et al. (2022) — Public Health
    Relationship of resting heart rate and blood pressure with all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality
    View source
  5. Okamura et al. (2004) — American Heart Journal
    Resting heart rate and cause-specific death in a 16.5-year cohort study of the Japanese general population
    View source
  6. Custodis et al. (2016) — Clinical Research in Cardiology
    Resting heart rate is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in the middle aged general population
    View source
See how resting heart rate fits your full score
See how it fits the 8-metric index in the calculator.
Open calculator

Educational content only — not medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Not a medical device; not FDA evaluated. Consult a qualified healthcare professional about your own health, and call emergency services for urgent symptoms. Full medical disclaimer →