Home › Resting heart rate and longevity
Does resting heart rate predict how long you live? A link, not a cause.
Reviewed
In a meta-analysis of 1.2 million adults, each extra 10 BPM of resting heart rate went with 9% higher all-cause mortality. That is a link across whole populations. It doesn’t show that your pulse caused anything, and it cannot predict one person’s future. The full table is below, free to cite and download.
The pooled results
Relative risk with 95% confidence interval. A value of 1.09 means a 9% higher rate than the comparison. Above 1 means higher risk, and an interval that includes 1 is not a clear result.
| Study | Outcome | Comparison | Relative risk | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhang 2016 (CMAJ) | All-cause death | per 10 BPM higher | 1.09 | 1.07–1.12 |
| Zhang 2016 (CMAJ) | Cardiovascular death | per 10 BPM higher | 1.08 | 1.06–1.10 |
| Zhang 2016 (CMAJ) | All-cause death, adjusted for publication bias | per 10 BPM higher | 1.04 | 1.02–1.06 |
| Zhang 2016 (CMAJ) | Cardiovascular death, adjusted for publication bias | per 10 BPM higher | 1.03 | 1.01–1.06 |
| Zhang 2016 (CMAJ) | All-cause death | above 80 BPM vs lowest group | 1.45 | 1.34–1.57 |
| Zhang 2016 (CMAJ) | Cardiovascular death | above 80 BPM vs lowest group | 1.33 | 1.19–1.47 |
| Aune 2017 (NMCD) | All-cause death | per 10 BPM higher | 1.17 | 1.14–1.19 |
| Aune 2017 (NMCD) | Cardiovascular disease | per 10 BPM higher | 1.15 | 1.11–1.18 |
| Aune 2017 (NMCD) | Coronary heart disease | per 10 BPM higher | 1.07 | 1.05–1.10 |
| Aune 2017 (NMCD) | Heart failure | per 10 BPM higher | 1.18 | 1.10–1.27 |
| Aune 2017 (NMCD) | Stroke | per 10 BPM higher | 1.06 | 1.02–1.10 |
| Aune 2017 (NMCD) | Sudden cardiac death | per 10 BPM higher | 1.09 | 1.00–1.18 |
| Aune 2017 (NMCD) | Cancer (total) | per 10 BPM higher | 1.14 | 1.06–1.23 |
| Aune 2017 (NMCD) | Atrial fibrillation | per 10 BPM higher | 0.97 | 0.92–1.02 |
Zhang 2016 pooled 40 studies for all-cause death (1,246,203 people, 78,349 deaths). Aune 2017 pooled 87 studies across all outcomes. Cite as: CheckMyBPM (2026), from the papers listed below. Checked against the originals on October 30, 2026.
Why the two papers differ
Zhang found 9% per 10 BPM and Aune found 17%. They selected different studies and handled them differently. After correcting for publication bias, Zhang’s figure fell to 4%, because studies with small effects are less likely to be published. So the size of the effect is uncertain. The direction is what both agree on.
Results held up when studies of people with heart disease at the start were left out (1.09 for all-cause death).
What this doesn’t show
- It doesn’t show cause. Fitness, illness, smoking and stress all affect both pulse and health. The authors call for trials to find out whether heart rate itself is a cause.
- It doesn’t predict one person. These are averages across very large groups.
- It isn’t a target. Nobody has shown that lowering your pulse by itself adds years.
- Atrial fibrillation went the other way. Aune found no clear link (0.97, 0.92–1.02).
What you can do with this
The useful part is smaller than the headline. Your resting pulse is free to check, it is steady from day to day, and a lasting change is worth mentioning to your clinician. To do that you need a real baseline, which one reading can’t give you.
Start with the 7-morning heart rate check. To see where a number sits for your age, use resting heart rate by age.
The bigger picture
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. Age, sex and country all change the numbers more than most people expect: see heart disease statistics.
If you have symptoms, this page is not the right place to be. See what heart rate is dangerous.
Questions people ask
Does a lower resting heart rate mean you live longer?
Population studies link lower resting rates with lower death rates, but that does not show cause. No trial has shown that lowering your pulse by itself adds years of life.
What resting heart rate is best for longevity?
There is no proven best number. In the 2016 meta-analysis, rates above 80 BPM were linked with higher mortality than the lowest group, and the link rose steadily with rate.
What does a relative risk of 1.09 mean?
That the group’s rate of death was 9% higher than the comparison group’s over the study period, after adjustments. It is a relative figure, so it says nothing about any one person’s chance.
General information, not medical advice — medical disclaimer. Reviewed : sources and reference dates are listed below.
Sources · numbers checked · how we calculate · report an error
- Zhang D, Shen X, Qi X. Resting heart rate and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the general population: a meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2016;188(3):E53–E63.
- Aune D, Sen A, ó’Hartaigh B, et al. Resting heart rate and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer, and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2017;27(6):504–517.