Yes—100 beats per minute or more at rest was linked to about 3.6 times the risk of death during follow-up. The study looked at Resting Heart Rate in 7,326 adults without heart or blood vessel disease. Their average age was 59. Researchers also checked recordings of the heart’s electrical signals. They looked for unusual patterns in the heart’s upper chambers. These patterns can point to problems in those chambers. One in four people had these electrical signs. Each 10-beat increase per minute was linked to 25% higher odds of having them. The link remained after researchers accounted for other factors. Over a follow-up with a midpoint of 13.8 years, 2,415 people died. That was 33% of the people in the study. The highest risk appeared when both findings were present: a rate of at least 100 and unusual upper-chamber signals. Together, they were linked to about 4.1 times the risk of death. The links varied by age and race. These results show a link, not proof that a faster pulse causes death. They also do not show that lowering the number alone reduces risk. A pulse reading cannot reveal the electrical patterns measured in this study. For BioSocial members, this adds context to a familiar number. Tracking your usual range over time gives you something concrete to compare. Community notes can include when and how readings were taken, alongside changes in routines. The goal is shared context, not turning a group-level result into a personal forecast. What has your usual range looked like over time, and what changes have you noticed alongside it?