45 for sure.

"de-ages" I assume means genetically? You don't get to go back in time.

Today then.

I had a stroke at 21 that ruined (ended, really) my life. So anytime in late 30s, then get the fuck on blood pressure meds. And bitch-slap all the 'healthcare providers' that either didn't believe me or didn't actually treat the problem, only the symptoms (blinding, debilitating migraines). Fucking lining their pockets with visits and medication that they knew wasn't treating the cause.

I'll go for another angle, since the 'about 40' has been done to death.

If this is a pill that de-ages but does not de-mature you, go for it at 20. On the way to 20 you are maturing, but also aging. Who knows what mature, but with newborn level 'age' health might look like. Imagine the boost from a 40 year old to a 20 year old, but starting from a baseline of a 20 year old.

38-41ish. It'd be awkward to de-age below the appropriate local age of alcohol/consent/whatever, but that aside you wanna do it as early as possible. It's 20 more years of having a functional body, no reason to delay when you might randomly get hit by the bus tomorrow.

24 seems a decent time. Returning to the brain plasticity of a 4 year old with all of the memories and knowledge of a 24 year old would produce a horrific intellect and potential. Society would leap forward in any task you decide to advance. The indescribable isolation may well be the only issue, but piles of money heal many forms of hurt. See: Magic Johnson

I’ll take it but only if the manufacturer brands it NuGame+

Realistically, 40 - 50.

But I am also tempted to say 20. I could be the most talented baby ever.

Lots of people are treating this like you would go back in time and get a do over, rather than being de-aged.

I'm assuming that de-aging would roll back any age related aches and pains, but not affect my memory, other than possibly making it better. It would give me more energy, so I'd be overweight and young instead of overweight and old :D

I'd take it at around my late 30s to early 40s to get back to my late teens to early 20s. My body was fully developed, so I wouldn't have to go through puberty or have too many teenage hormones, and I'd have enough energy to get in shape again.

If it de-aged me by putting me back into my body from the time, then it would be when I was 42. 22 was when I was in the best shape of my life, and before I picked up a few long lasting injuries. I found out in my early 30s that I've got a chronic illness too, and it hit me hard.

I'd get the doctors and dentist to work on the health issues that I didn't know about when I was young, and stop them from becoming serious, and generally get healthier.

Most importantly, I'd take my kid out and do all the things that we haven't been able to do together :)

I'd have to have taken it back at 37 to go back to a point where my body wasn't broken, and I'm trying to decide if the prospect of being able to stand without pain is worth being a teenager again...

It depends whether I can somehow go back to the body of a 20 year old but keep my current 40 year old brain. I'm not going to pretend the majority of my improvements in patience, empathy, humility, work ethic and dgaf-ness are me consciously maturing instead of improvements in brain chemistry.

Anywhere from 20 - 45 to repeat the best years for physical activity. Assumes that it goes back to the physical shape I was in at the time.

I would even hope to make better long term choices, but probably wouldn't.

There are a surprising number of people here under the impression that they knew anything by the age of 20.

Take it when I'm 18 and I will have never been born

Why the hell would I want to do the last 20 years all over again?

They were shit the first time, aint gonna be anything but worse the second time around.

Can I sell the pill?

The day I turn 40 probably

1. That way you can go back with your current knowledge and do it better the next time around.