To not see 70 as elderly

[Ibeliveinyou]

I don’t know if if it’s because my parents are now that age but I just don’t see a 70 as old.

I love @Flashmaggie, aka Margaret Nelson. And she is spot on.

It is an interesting point though about societies tendency to accept unquestioningly people’s views/ beliefs as truths even though they are biologically or chronologically incorrect - people can change sex if they believe it, elderly people can claim they’re not elderly if they don’t feel it. It’s like we’re expected to accept something is true even though the physiologically it’s not.

Not proposing to go down the rabbit hole of trans rights on this though.

My parents are both in their early seventies. My mum has been elderly for years (15 or so), whereas my dad is still not, as far as I'm concerned.

@SurvivalIsInsufficient

I’m not conflating anything. If you don’t know about other ways of measuring age than chronology there’s frankly no hope for you and shouting doesn’t make nonsense any more credible

Honestly, you're being ridiculous. Chronology is literally how you measure age. That's what age is. IT's a number that says how long you have been alive.
You do not measure age by fitness levels. You do not measure age by health or conditions. You measure it by taking the day you were born and working out how long ago that was from today!

My IL's are 77+ and definitely not elderly!

They definitely and definitively are elderly.

Here you go. Not so ridiculous then.

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/age-biology-health-chronological-science-study-a8841766.html

Vinyl - no one is stating that certain life choices/ genetic factors can’t have positive or negative impacts which can impact on the body’s against the ageing process terms like young, old and elderly are chronological. You wouldn’t say a teenager who had serious health problems was elderly even though they may have the same life expectancy as a fit 80 year old.

AV life expectancy is 81.4 so yes, 70 is elderly.

Whether elderly to you means frail and decrepit is a different matter

That article agrees with me, dear, not you. You have yet again missed the point.

A very healthy 80 year old is still 80 years old. They are still elderly.

Whoops. There should have been a full stop and capital letter in there.

Vinyl - no one is stating that certain life choices/ genetic factors can’t have positive or negative impacts which can impact on the body’s against the ageing process. Terms like young, old and elderly are chronological. You wouldn’t say a teenager who had serious health problems was elderly even though they may have the same life expectancy as a fit 80 year old.

@SurvivalIsInsufficient

That article agrees with me, dear, not you. You have yet again missed the point.

A very healthy 80 year old is still 80 years old. They are still elderly.

The headline literally says “Chronological age doesn’t mean much”. I can’t go through enough mental gymnastics to make that support your view. 🤷‍♀️

It does when we’re discussing terminology about age which is what this whole thread is about.

If you want to keep persisting with the “age is just a number, you’re only as old you feel, 70, 80, etc is not elderly ” mantra then that’s your call but all the kale smoothies and sit ups in the world won’t beat the inevitable ticking of time.

My DM is 85, but wearing well. My DMIL is 91, and isn't. Both nurses, married to pilots in the services. DH and I are the same age, but I am biologically younger than him. My four GPs all came from families that enjoyed very long healthy lives; his parents rather less so, but though they all earned similar amounts and lived similar lives, their constitutions were never as robust.

We should make a distinction between “old” and “frail”.

70 year olds are old in the same way that 20 year olds are young. Most are not frail, these days - some will be, but I have met frail 50 year olds and hale and hearty 80 year olds.

I met one 78 year old who still did 100 mile cycle races - old yes, fitter than most 30 year olds and looked like Bradley Wiggins from the neck down.

Yes @HopeForTheBestExpectTheWorst, just that. We're eight months apart in age, but his medical file is a foot thick; mine is a single sheet, mainly vaccinations!

Don’t know why vinyldetective is getting such patronising replies - chronological age is a thing, yes, but so is biological age.

This discussion reminds me of threads I’ve read in the past about what ‘wealthy’ or ‘rich’ is. There aren’t legal definitions, so it’s not surprising people have different views about when we stop being young or start being old and what that means.

My family are very short lived and age badly.

65 is frail and most never made it to 70.

I'm expected to work to 67 and I'm dreading it.

70 is elderly and how 'spry' you are depends on genetics.