Why? According to Hanks, "Your metabolism stops, gravity starts tearing you down, your bones start wearing off, you stand differently.''

The star added: ''I think I'm in better shape now. Do you know why? Because my kids are grown up, I'm getting decent exercise, and I can eat right. You can't do that when you're 35 – life is such a burden.''

But hold up—scientists aren’t buying it. Steve Hoffmann, a professor at Germany’s Leibniz Institute on Aging, said, ''I have no reason to doubt that Tom Hanks experienced some form of physiological impairment at 35.''

''However, epidemiological data tells us that the incidence rates of many age-associated diseases and impairments start kicking off about 10 to 15 years later. This may be the time of life when many people start realising some of the symptoms Tom described.''

Recent studies suggest our bodies experience "ageing waves"—peaks of change where everything slows down.

Dr. Michael Snyder of Stanford identified two major ones: at 44 and 60. Hanks' dreaded mid-30s slump? It might exist, but the evidence is still thin.

Meanwhile, social media is, as usual, divided. Some 35-year-olds backed Hanks: “I feel the same at 35. I could not agree more. It's an age where one is often juggling significant responsibilities like raising a family, career pressures, and financial commitments, which leave little room for personal health and self-care.''

Others clapped back, with one user writing: “I can do more pushups in my 50s than I could when I was 35.”

Biology professor Claire Smith offered some clarity: ageing isn’t one-size-fits-all.

Genetics, lifestyle, and stress all play a part. She pointed out that even childhood's rapid growth spurts could rival the exhaustion of adulthood—only we were too young to notice.

So is 35 really the worst age? For Tom Hanks, it might have been. For the rest of us? Well, it all seems very subjective.