Sorry. Guy bias. Woman’s sizes … those are really worthless!
But WC for this is just above upper edge of the hip bone which usually is somewhere near in line with the belly button, not tightly pulled at end of a normal exhalation. Official technique:
Not good, not bad. -.7
Average. Just like me.
-1.9. But I don’t think the charts of mortality apply to me based on the complicating factors of my alphabet soup DNA.
Why would you think that Una? Part of the attraction of this metric is that it seems to apply across the board. Of course it does not override other health information specific to an individual; it merely informs as to statistical risk based off of body shape and composition.
Again, the value of it probably is greatest within the group with BMI of 22 to 35. Higher mortality rates for those under 22 (and even moreso under 18.5, officially “underweight”) and over 35 is pretty clear. (Sure some over 35 may be at lesser risk than others.) Individuals in those groups should be followed closely and we already know that. But those 22 to 35 are a very mixed bag. Roughly 1 in 4 of those 22 to 25, “normal” BMI, are metabolically obese. And of those “overweight” at 25 to 30, and those with Grade 1 obesity (30 to 35) many are not only not at significant risk but are at lower than average risk because of the relatively low amounts of central obesity and relatively higher muscle mass (and that does not just mean body builders and serious athletes).
It would be nice to have an objective metric to identify those who have normal BMI but who are at risk for having metabolic abnormalities and higher rate of mortality, and to identify those who are overweight and grade 1 obese by BMI who actually are at low risk.
I am most interested in hearing from those whose BMIs are fine (and let’s use 22 to 25 or even 27 for that) whose score on ABSI is 0.5 or greater. My suspicion is that those are likely to be people with low fitness and who will admit to a bit of a paunch. If I am guessing right some of these people may already be identified as having as being prediabetic or have hypertension or elevated cholesterol or more than one of them.
Obviously this is less than a scientific approach to see … but still.
Just that I’m so different that its hard to apply even general stats to someone like me. I have no quarrel with the metric.
OK, I was using the measurement of what I would call my actual waist, which is 27". I have an hourglass figure. With the top of hip bones measurement my score is -1.8. My BMI is 25, right on the cusp of “overweight” but I’m very fit and unusually strong for a woman.
Una, I am aware of the ways in which you are different but still, no offense, you still aint that special. 
Seriously, it is accurate for males and females and there is no reason that it would not be as true for someone who initially was intersex classified as male and is now fully female. In your case the result seems likely accurate given your athleticism. You may not be at your past levels and I am sure have a higher percent body fat than you did when you were a competitive male fencer but you are still likely pretty dang fit.
Renee, now that I believe. And consistent that many studies show the lowest mortality rates for those in the high normal to low overweight BMI categories and your stated fitness and strength.
I also have awesome genes, women in my family live forever. I expect to hit 120.
-2.7
It seems impossible for me to get a positive score, even if I go back to when I was nearly 100 pounds heavier. In fact, the score is about the same, as it seems to be correlated to a waist/weight ratio, and mine so far has stayed pretty much the same, around 6-7 pounds per inch.
Granted, I am young, so my mortality rate is already pretty low. But that isn’t included in the metric, is it?
This seems kind of wrong; I’m a big fat tall guy with a BMI of 39 (6’1", 302 lbs, 48 waist), and yet this ABSI metric says that I have a 0.076, which is not very high above zero, and the ABSIz is -1.3.
How does that work? It’s implying that I’m somehow better off by this metric than by BMI. Is it somehow recognizing that while I’m 6’1" and 302 lbs, that I’m probably significantly more muscular than the average 300 lb person?
BigT, you have an accurate WC from 100 pounds ago? Impressive.
In any case the response is the same also to bump, yes, it reflects body composition and captures the relative risk of where the fat is and how much is muscle mass.