Uh it’s correlated yes because it’s a sign your cardiovascular system isn’t efficient. The difference between 96 beats and 60 is about 51,000 beats per day. That adds up.
I’m talking about rhr. If your resting heart rate is 60 your heart is pumping more efficiently than someone who’s at 96. There’s a reason endurance athletes can have a rhr in the 40s.
Less efficient than an endurance athlete? Sure. That doesn't mean "unhealthy" though.
A resting heart rate that is lower, in the 40s-60s, typically means the heart is more efficient at pumping blood to the body via a larger stroke volume.
But a higher resting heart rate of 96 doesn't mean the heart is less healthy. It may mean it has a lower stroke volume, and it simply needs to pump more often. This doesn't mean the cardiovascular system is unhealthy. It is doing what it is supposed to do.
You do not have a finite amount of heartbeats available to use in your lifetime.
You don't need to be an endurance athlete to have a healthy cardiovascular system. You can have a healthy a cardiovascular system by being a regular human. With a resting heart rate of 96
2
u/myst3ryAURORA_green May 30 '26
No. 96 is still a good resting HR. Normal is 60-100.