There is somewhat conflicting information on what the "normal" resting heart rate should be. Some sites cite rates **between 60 and 100** as being normal, with rates below 60 being defined as [bradycardia](http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bradycardia/basics/definition/con-20028373), i.e. a "condition". However, most sites also mention that it's normal for athletic people to have heart rates as low as 40, and that people should try to [keep it below 70](http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/features/5-heart-rate-myths-debunked):

> 
> **Myth:** A normal heart rate is 60-100 beats per minute?
> 
> 
> That's the old standard. Many doctors think it should be lower. About **50-70 beats per minute** is ideal, says Suzanne Steinbaum, MD, director of women's heart health at Lenox Hill Hospital.
> 
> 
> Recent studies suggest a heart rate **higher than 76 beats per minute** when you're resting may be linked to a higher risk of heart attack.
> 
> 
> 

This is rather conflicting, since 76 is at around 40% of the 60-100 range, implying it even gravitates to the "fitter" range? Is the **"new standard"** correct?

Furthermore, regarding RHR calculation, my fitness tracker calculates the RHR as the first heart rate after waking up, while still lying in bed (it tends to be slightly below 60 on average). But this is really my lowest rate during the day (sleeping excluded), and while sitting at my desk during the day (I am a programmer), it will stick around 70 bpm - I am obviously not as fit as I would want to be. Is the **in-bed resting heart rate** really the "correct" indicator of fitness?