VinceInMT has touched on a significant aspect of the ageism discussion, namely that there are in fact two forms of it.
The first, and the one that probably immediately comes to mind, is the assumption on the part of some that, simply because we are older, our mental faculties have declined to the degree that we must now be treated as large children. If this happens to us we must resist it utterly, and make it clear to those who believe this that they are utterly mistaken.
But there is a second form of ageism, one that is arguably more common as well as more devious. It is more devious because it is well-intentioned, but also intrusive. It takes the form of someone saying to us "you really shouldn't be doing that because it's dangerous at your age."
What's dangerous? Marathon running (even for a charity)? Mountain climbing? Skydiving?
But that word "intrusive" is still there. To which can be added the phrase "whose life is it, anyway?" That is, if we choose to take on physical activities that may raise concerns about
what they may do to our older bones or older muscles, etc., is that not our business?
Or how about
, as an example of this issue, something as seemingly innocuous as amusement park rides? Or are they innocuous? Some of them turn people upside down, shake them around, and put them into totally unnatural physical situations.
Should something like that be automatically out of bounds for us, assuming we even want to do it, simply because we are older?
We have all heard of amusement parks requiring children to be of a certain height before being allowed to go on certain rides. Should they also require that riders
be below a certain age before being allowed to go on rides?
Here is an article that discusses that very question, the bottom line of it being that individual health, not age, is the important thing:
"Are You Too Old To Ride Roller Coasters?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/health/roller-coaster-age-limit/index.htmlbtut (Can't get it to link, but my quotes from it below pretty much summarize it)
From it:
“Riding a roller coaster is far safer than riding in a car to the park, but only if you don’t have any heart, neck or back conditions that might be exacerbated by the speed and stress of a coaster.”
"In recent years, rides have been designed to be faster, taller and ever more intense, such as the Kingda Ka ride at Six Flags Great Adventure in New Jersey. It’s heralded as the tallest and fastest roller coaster in North America, claiming to accelerate from 0 to 128 miles per hour in only 3½ seconds." (Wouldn't that be too dangerous for anybody???)
"The major concern as people get older is blood pressure changes and changes in heart conduction ... exposure to sudden accelerations from roller coasters can pose physiological challenges to people with these problems."
"Other health conditions can make going on high-speed rides unsafe, including pregnancy, recent surgery, heart problems, high blood pressure and aneurysms ... Parks now address this by putting up warning signs at ride entrances, asking people with these conditions to refrain from riding."As for motion sickness resulting from such rides?
" ... people do not necessarily become more susceptible to motion sickness when they get older. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the feeling is most common among children 2 to 12 ... (and) ... sensitivity to motion tends to decline with age."From the above, and from other articles I read, the conclusion seems to be that it really depends on the individual's situation, that, as noted, individual health, not one's age, is the determining factor.
And the factor that should govern one's decision on how to spend one's physical activity time in general.
So maybe that time won't include bungee jumping, but things like race-running or hill-climbing should be in the picture, if one's health is up to it.