To be surprised that 65+ is deemed ‘elderly’

[Helfs]

Off the back of another thread I wanted to see what the actual definition or classification of ‘elderly’ was and I was very surprised to see it defined as 65+

I always thought 80+ as being elderly so this has really surprised me. Especially looking at those I know around the 65-70 mark, they’re fit, healthy, living their best life and do not scream ‘elderly’ if you looked at them.

Personally I’ve always seen it as;
0-1 baby
1-3 toddler
3-13 child
13-19 - teenager
19-25 young adult
25-40 - adult
40-55 - Middle Aged

55-80 - old
80+ - elderly

So do you think this definition is fair on those who are 65, should the definition not evolve as life expectancies rise?

You sound absolutely marvellous but you're chronologically old.

You're probably what I like to refer to as 'old, but gold'

I think definitions have not kept up with the times.... but at the same time I sometimes feel that 'elderly' is a state of being/mind rather than a specific age. People age so differently now that people are living longer.

You can get a 68 year old who has poor health, isn't very mobile, is losing their hearing but doesn't want to wear hearing aids so is isolated and unhappy, doesn't leave the house much - they would seem 'elderly'.

You can get an 82-year-old who has good health, is physically active, has a social life - they might not seem 'elderly'

I'm 57, and I considered myself to be middle aged rather than old.
I work full time in a physically demanding job, play 2 sports, and have an energetic breed dog. I don't act old.
and refuse to grow up 😅

At my previous work place I sometimes had to describe the customers to the service providers. I introduced terms pre-middle aged, post-middle aged and pre-elderly. My colleagues were not thrilled. It was really hard to distinguish between working aged adult and old when you're 22 😅

She was surprised that so many were still working. To not be aware of this is out of touch, in my view. The percentages are by the by - governments of most countries view people as a whole of being capable of holding down full time jobs at an age when historically they were automatically given state pensions.

Do you think you’ll make it to 114?!

Oh let me think, maybe because society hates older people? You only have to read the threads on here, It’s used as a derogatory descriptor all the time, old bat, old cow, stupid old woman. Do you ever compliment a person and say Sandra, you look so old and fabulous? I doubt it.

You can get an 82-year-old who has good health, is physically active, has a social life - they might not seem 'elderly'

So you're old/elderly if you're unwell? Age is irrelevant?

I meant, just adults. As in not young adults and not middle aged adults.
As teenagers we thought anyone over 25 was old, 45 was considered ancient. I remember being shocked to find out that my niece (16 years younger than me) was taught by the same science teacher in year 7 that I had during GCSEs as everyone thought he was ancient, so I looked him up and worked out that he was late 40s when teaching us - oops. In our defence, he talked about his grandchildren in class and anyone old enough to have grandchildren seemed ancient to us at 15/16.

Nope, it's where you lose the protective effect of relative youth, from a medical standpoint.

Middle age is where morbidity starts to creep in, its never been a median of the lifespan.

All the way through this thread, with all the factual explanations given, and you still don't seem to have grasped the meaning of the term middle-aged.

But surely you’d lose that well before 65?!

In your opinion.

This entire thread is about people’s perceptions and opinions on these terms.

Society might hate old people.

That's doesn't mean you have to internalise that bollocks and start hating your age or being in denial of it.

I can remember when I started work at 16 thinking the people that were in their late 40s were old, probably because they were older than my parents

Life expectancy is 80, isnt it? So at 40 you're middleaged and at 65 ie 25 years past middle age then yes, that's elderly. If we had a lifespan of 150 years Id say differently. But, we don't. So its about reality. If youre lucky enough to have great health and fitness at 65 then you're an elderly person in good health that's all.

And that's why middle age is 45-65.

You don't just lose the benefits that youth confers on your Forty fifth birthday. It's a gradual process for most of us and there are of course individual variations. Its medical terminology in any case, so perhaps ask your GP to run through it with you the next time you need to pay them a visit?

Because your retired why would a non elderly person be retired unless very rich. Its because you seen as needing the rest and harshly not much use to the working population rightly or wrongly.

I'm retired and I'm 64. I most certainly am not very rich, I don't even own a home and never will, but I do have a little money to tide me over (where I live you get superannuation from 65). I didn't retire because I needed a rest, but because I think there is more to life to working. I started full time work three weeks after my 16th birthday, I've had enough. Lots of people here continue to work after they reach 65, so they obviously don't need a rest either. I'm retired because I don't want to work, and because I can, not because I'm "old" - simple as that.

It's not my opinion, it's a generally accepted medical age range:

Middle age | definition of middle age by Medical dictionary (thefreedictionary.com)

I get this a lot at the moment in work, when colleagues are looking for someone they've not met due do mostly wfh. Nobody has called me out for describing people in their 50s as "old".
Regular conversations in the office:
"Do you know who XYZ is and where their office is?"
"yes, old lady with a grey bob, she's in room 123" or "old gentleman with a beard, always wearing a suit, in room 123"

Just humour me! 😂

It would take an incredibly strong character to not be affected on how society views them, there is nothing worse than being ‘old’ in our society no wonder people rally against it.

@silvergarden I didn’t express surprise anywhere.

I initially admitted that I didn’t know the statistics, but my guess would be that fewer than half were working at 65. Someone has come back to say this is correct. Now, I haven’t verified that, but I’m not surprised at the statistic given.

I would vehemently refute being out of touch on this subject, not least because I specialise in dealing with clients over the age of 60 and take an intense interest in aging.

As for coming back in a few years to find out why old is offensive, well sure I could. But in the meantime I asked the question to those who might know - and I’m interested in the answers!

I am 58 and suddenly starting to feel older - have more aches etc and some hip pain, and definitely more tired. I still work full-time and go on long walks etc but cannot imagine working full-time until I am 67. My dad died at 57, and both my mother and then my brother got cancer at 60 with their health deteriorating from that point. My DH is 62 and works shifts (including nights) in a physical job - I cannot see him being able to do this for much longer.

Well thanks for the compliment because it doesn't bother me at all.

I'm not looking forward to any infirmity heading my way but having said that; I'm getting old and I'm bloody beautiful and marvellous and embracing the shit out of the privilege of not having died yet.