For those with activity trackers.....

Mine doesn't have heart rate, but it's normal to not get a low reading with a chest strap unless you are actually using it at rest. The act of standing up and putting it on increases heart rate so you get an inflated number. If you want to test your resting heart rate with the strap wear it and forget it while resting, then check the reading later.

My AW has me at 50. My BP cuff often has me at 53.

Both have been coming down slightly in the last 60 days. I was routinely 55-57 on both.

My resting heart rate (RHR) varies a lot, because my exercise levels vary seasonally, and (absent health problems of certain specific types) a dropping heart rate implies improving cardiovascular fitness. It can be down in the upper 40s/low 50s in Summer (my more active season), and get up into the mid/upper 50s in Winter. It will go up from there for an individual day if I eat above maintenance, or drink alcohol (also normal). I've literally set off the bradycardia (low heart rate) alarm when in prep for out-patient surgery, even before any sedation, because my HR kept dropping below 50. (My surgeon was excited in a good way, saying this was "fitness induced bradycardia" and a positive thing.)

I'm age 64, and active, in case that matters.

Before I had a tracker, I used to do first thing in the morning checks of RHR on days when I woke up without an alarm clock. (This is the type/time of measurements that folks used to use for fitness-related benchmarking.)

That way of measuring usually produced a slightly lower number than my tracker does. I'm not sure exactly what the tracker is doing to calculate resting rate, but I can literally look at my tracker-related app when it has just updated from my watch, and see an in-the-moment heart rate that's several BPM lower than the resting rate estimate that's displayed right next to it.

I do think that my tracker measures my heart rate reasonably accurately, under most conditions. I've compared its in-the-moment reading to the readings from doctors-office devices. I have a long (decade plus) history of using a chest-belt Polar HRM for exercise tracking, and my exercise values at very well-metered power output (Concept 2 rowing machine) are very consistent between tracker and Polar for near-identical workouts.

There's one caveat to that: For certain exercise activities that involve lots of arm flexing (rowing is one), I've found that the wrist-based HRM will lose connection sometimes, and produce inaccurate results. This is very obvious from looking at the HR graphs afterward: There's an obvious giant drop in HR that doesn't track with exercise intensity, or RPE (rate of perceived exertion, i.e., the way I feel at a particular intensity, a thing I have pretty long experience with). So, I make it a point to wear a linked chest belt for types of exercise that involve a lot of arm flexing. (What I said above about comparing workouts is from wrist-based readings where I forgot the chest belt, but lucked out and didn't get any obvious disconnects.)

I do have about the most favorable situation possible for a wrist-based HRM reading to be reasonable: I'm pale-skinned, not huge amounts of arm hair or moles/freckles in the relevant spot, don't have unusual heart conditions, etc.

The highness or lowness of resting rate is not really a clear indicator of your "metabolism". Statistically, fitter people tend to have lower RHR, but higher BMR/RMR (basal metabolic rate/resting metabolic rate) primarily because their body weight has a higher fraction of muscle (more metabolically active, by about 2 calories per pound per day) than fat, at any given body weight. Beyond that sort of thing that may be relevant in population averages, a lot of RHR is just genetics, and still may or may not say anything about "metabolism" (RMR/BMR).

I’m sitting at my desk at work and have been for about 2.5 hours and my FitBit Versa says HR is 68 right now. The 30 day trend says imminent averages around 70? That’s high compared to some of you!

Average over the past month has been 60

Average over time is 49 according to a couple of years of Apple Watch tracking.

I'm not sure how accurate it is but I'd like to think that it's accurate in terms of trend. If it says I'm at 60 and then over the period of 2 months it goes to slowly to 55 for example, while that may not be my exact resting heart rate I want to think that it's heading in the right direction.

40-50 range. If Im eating healthier it will be 40 If I overeat for several days it will be around 50. I check my HR manually and its pretty accurate