info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What are possible adjustments for 'computer glasses' at high myopia levels?
230 views
Skip to first unread message
jollyroger
May 31, 2012, 4:34:52 AM5/31/12
to
I've spotted a comment on unrelated site, something about optometrist
taking adjustments to focal range for 'computer glasses'.
What can and should be applied in the case of -9D (both eyes) to
really adopt the (monofocal) lens to such close range vision as
required for 'computer glasses'? (excluding the simple tinkering with
+1/-1 diopters to give the different feeling)
taking adjustments to focal range for 'computer glasses'.
What can and should be applied in the case of -9D (both eyes) to
really adopt the (monofocal) lens to such close range vision as
required for 'computer glasses'? (excluding the simple tinkering with
+1/-1 diopters to give the different feeling)
Mike Tyner
May 31, 2012, 7:08:37 AM5/31/12
to
You didn't mention your age and that affects the answer more than your
myopia. People 35 and younger are usually comfortable using the same
prescription for computers as for driving.
After you're 40, the optometrist always "adjusts the focal range" but
without knowing your age and your working distance, all you can expect is a
guess.
-MT
"jollyroger" <bombsite...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec51d37d-c37b-42d8...@b1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
myopia. People 35 and younger are usually comfortable using the same
prescription for computers as for driving.
After you're 40, the optometrist always "adjusts the focal range" but
without knowing your age and your working distance, all you can expect is a
guess.
-MT
"jollyroger" <bombsite...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec51d37d-c37b-42d8...@b1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Robert Redelmeier
May 31, 2012, 3:23:48 PM5/31/12
to
Mike Tyner <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in part [reformatted]:
with any prescription, they need +2D either as accommodation or lens
add to focus at 0.5m (20in) or +3D to focus at 0.33m (13in).
Since most people have some remaining accommodation and are
habituated to accommodate for close range, somewhat less than
these adds is usually the most comfortable.
For the OP at -9D (if true) , I would expect -8D to -7D to be best.
You can experiment with generic +1 or +2 readers, but please be
very careful to align the optical centers (may need to remove
lenses from frame). With a prescription as strong as -9D, correct
positioning of the optical centers is vital lest unwanted power
and prism creep in.
-- Robert
> "jollyroger" <bombsite...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> I've spotted a comment on unrelated site, something about optometrist
>> taking adjustments to focal range for 'computer glasses'.
>>
>> What can and should be applied in the case of -9D (both eyes)
>> to really adopt the (monofocal) lens to such close range vision
>> as required for 'computer glasses'? (excluding the simple
>> tinkering with +1/-1 diopters to give the different feeling)
>
>
>> taking adjustments to focal range for 'computer glasses'.
>>
>> What can and should be applied in the case of -9D (both eyes)
>> to really adopt the (monofocal) lens to such close range vision
>> as required for 'computer glasses'? (excluding the simple
>> tinkering with +1/-1 diopters to give the different feeling)
>
>
> You didn't mention your age and that affects the answer more
> than your myopia. People 35 and younger are usually comfortable
> using the same prescription for computers as for driving.
>
> After you're 40, the optometrist always "adjusts the focal range"
> but without knowing your age and your working distance, all you
> can expect is a guess.
Said guess is not long in coming: For a person corrected for infinity
> than your myopia. People 35 and younger are usually comfortable
> using the same prescription for computers as for driving.
>
> After you're 40, the optometrist always "adjusts the focal range"
> but without knowing your age and your working distance, all you
> can expect is a guess.
with any prescription, they need +2D either as accommodation or lens
add to focus at 0.5m (20in) or +3D to focus at 0.33m (13in).
Since most people have some remaining accommodation and are
habituated to accommodate for close range, somewhat less than
these adds is usually the most comfortable.
For the OP at -9D (if true) , I would expect -8D to -7D to be best.
You can experiment with generic +1 or +2 readers, but please be
very careful to align the optical centers (may need to remove
lenses from frame). With a prescription as strong as -9D, correct
positioning of the optical centers is vital lest unwanted power
and prism creep in.
-- Robert
dumbstruck
May 31, 2012, 4:47:28 PM5/31/12
to
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:08:37 AM UTC-10, Mike Tyner wrote:
> People 35 and younger are usually comfortable using the same
> prescription for computers as for driving.
HORRORS! Comfortable?!? Jollyroger, is this the kind of advice that led you spiraling down the drain to such nearsightedness? Maybe it's different if you had this most of your life, but believe me the more plus correction you can tolerate at the computer will likely give you tremendous more comfort.
> People 35 and younger are usually comfortable using the same
> prescription for computers as for driving.
Dr. Big Blue Nation
May 31, 2012, 7:24:41 PM5/31/12
to
poster, most people under 35 are usually comfortable using their
distance Rx on a computer. Perhaps latent hyperopes who wear no
distance Rx (until their accommodation starts to diminish as they get
older) might experience subjective relief with "the plus" before age
35. Also, ocular motility/binocular fusion issues are another non-
refractive explanation for a non-presbyope to have near point problems
on a computer. Regardless, in real life these patients are the
minority so to generalize most all people need plus correction for
computer use is not true in my patient experience.
IMHO:
Biggest considerations for computer vision-- patients age, distance to
computer screen, length of time for computer use, current Rx.
Most common clinical presentation of patients using computers
frequently - no complaints, or perhaps difficulty maintaining focus
at near due to age-dependent presbyopia (see above discussion). Also,
dry eyes are probably the most common implication of prolonged
computer use.
dumbstruck
May 31, 2012, 10:28:18 PM5/31/12
to
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:24:41 PM UTC-10, Dr. Big Blue Nation wrote:
> I disagree that your experience is typical. As stated by a previous
> poster, most people under 35 are usually comfortable using their
> distance Rx on a computer. Perhaps latent hyperopes who wear no
OK, percentages are unknown to me. But for one thing, lack of complaint or perceived comfort is no proof that distance corrective lenses are appropriate for computer. It can numb your eyes (spasm your accomodation?)... point is it is harmless to try plus correction and very possibly helpful.
> I disagree that your experience is typical. As stated by a previous
> poster, most people under 35 are usually comfortable using their
> distance Rx on a computer. Perhaps latent hyperopes who wear no
In my case there was no discomfort due to nearsighted correction. In fact I eagerly got new, more minus ones very very frequently. I probably did not need the ever increasing corrections (when involved with intensive computer work) and maybe was locked into close accomodation all day.
An eye doctor finally recognized this and prescribed to use more plus lenses not just for computer work but for any distance task where blur isn't dangerous. I reluctantly went along, and found an outpouring of relief pain from using them... that is a good feeling like when numbness goes away. It made reading truely rather than numbly comfortable, and in distance tasks the blur eventually went away and I could pass distant vision checks perfectly with the "reading" lenses.
Since then on my own, I often undercorrect the minus except for driving, If you go too far it doesn't help as much as if you just tease a little blur that your eye can reach out and overcome when you aren't thinking about it. I think there are SOME shortsighted folks in the same boat: maybe jollyroger (would be nice if JR gave his prescription history). I now have a source of $7 glasses and have one for almost every quarter diopter going down to zero - always stretch myself for any given (safe) task. It just feels great; wish it would work for astig.
Science_Research
Jun 1, 2012, 7:26:24 AM6/1/12
to
Hi DumbStruck,
You are correct about the need for a plus - under the wise control of
the person himself. The person should know that OD are never set up
to help anyone with prevention. (They don't get paid for that
service.)
When a person, "figures this out", (before his Snellen goes below
20/40, and -3/4 diopters) he can slowly get his refractive status to
change in a postive direction (i.e., clear the 20/20 line.)
Wise people do it - and always passing the 20/40 line (or better - as
the should) never ever "start" with an excessive minus - that only
makes matters worse.
But since this is science, and NOT MEDICINE, the successful results
are not reported.
You are correct about the need for a plus - under the wise control of
the person himself. The person should know that OD are never set up
to help anyone with prevention. (They don't get paid for that
service.)
When a person, "figures this out", (before his Snellen goes below
20/40, and -3/4 diopters) he can slowly get his refractive status to
change in a postive direction (i.e., clear the 20/20 line.)
Wise people do it - and always passing the 20/40 line (or better - as
the should) never ever "start" with an excessive minus - that only
makes matters worse.
But since this is science, and NOT MEDICINE, the successful results
are not reported.
Mike Tyner
Jun 1, 2012, 9:31:43 AM6/1/12
to
The muscle involved in accommodation is a semivoluntary smooth muscle under
parasympathetic control. You have similar muscles in several places in your
body and the most them stay CONTRACTED 99% of the time, with no fatique or
"stress" whatsoever.
It is possible to over-work accommodation (eg latent hyperopes) but normally
accommodation is effortless, and even necessary, a part of maintaining
convergence for binocular alignment.
The "ever increasing correction" necessary to make your distance vision
clear only brings your eyes up to standard, to the same accommodative demand
that "normal" eyes experience at the computer.
I think it's hilarious that we hear so much about "accommodative fatigue"
yet "asshole fatique" is an unknown entity. Probably because you can't sell
an appliance for it.
-MT
"dumbstruck" <dumb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b3f0080-6dea-45ed...@googlegroups.com...
parasympathetic control. You have similar muscles in several places in your
body and the most them stay CONTRACTED 99% of the time, with no fatique or
"stress" whatsoever.
It is possible to over-work accommodation (eg latent hyperopes) but normally
accommodation is effortless, and even necessary, a part of maintaining
convergence for binocular alignment.
The "ever increasing correction" necessary to make your distance vision
clear only brings your eyes up to standard, to the same accommodative demand
that "normal" eyes experience at the computer.
I think it's hilarious that we hear so much about "accommodative fatigue"
yet "asshole fatique" is an unknown entity. Probably because you can't sell
an appliance for it.
-MT
"dumbstruck" <dumb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b3f0080-6dea-45ed...@googlegroups.com...
Robert Martellaro
Jun 1, 2012, 12:55:03 PM6/1/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 06:08:37 -0500, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>You didn't mention your age and that affects the answer more than your
>myopia. People 35 and younger are usually comfortable using the same
>prescription for computers as for driving.
>
>After you're 40, the optometrist always "adjusts the focal range" but
>without knowing your age and your working distance, all you can expect is a
>guess.
>
>-MT
I don't start thinking seriously about computer eyeglasses, for healthy eyes,
>You didn't mention your age and that affects the answer more than your
>myopia. People 35 and younger are usually comfortable using the same
>prescription for computers as for driving.
>
>After you're 40, the optometrist always "adjusts the focal range" but
>without knowing your age and your working distance, all you can expect is a
>guess.
>
>-MT
until the Add power is +1.75 @ 40cm, typically age 45 to 50. Even then it's
usually a matter of frequency of use, work distance, and client sensitivity.
Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roberts Optical Ltd.
Wauwatosa Wi.
www.roberts-optical.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
- Richard Feynman
dumbstruck
Jun 1, 2012, 3:12:53 PM6/1/12
to
On Friday, June 1, 2012 3:31:43 AM UTC-10, Mike Tyner wrote:
> The "ever increasing correction" necessary to make your distance vision
> clear only brings your eyes up to standard, to the same accommodative demand
> that "normal" eyes experience at the computer.
>
> I think it's hilarious that we hear so much about "accommodative fatigue"
> yet "asshole fatique" is an unknown entity. Probably because you can't sell
> an appliance for it.
You really reached a new low of vulgarity. I have nothing to sell and nothing to gain from this except altruistic returns. Your "profession" is for the most part almost certainly blind to damage you are doing to short sighted people in a death spiral. And this has nothing to do with the natural variation thru age, but exact correlation with intensive school and work. Minus overcorrection is death to the eyes (for some of us) and hugely reversable. Plus adjustment for close or even medium work is certainly harmless (so stop fighting it) and helps for some.
> The "ever increasing correction" necessary to make your distance vision
> clear only brings your eyes up to standard, to the same accommodative demand
> that "normal" eyes experience at the computer.
>
> I think it's hilarious that we hear so much about "accommodative fatigue"
> yet "asshole fatique" is an unknown entity. Probably because you can't sell
> an appliance for it.
I earlier told you about our experience in an office complex of intensive computer users that by itself would comprise the second largest city in the state. Do you understand the gravity of this, when that population can monitor each other's death spiral, and the local eye doc's can also do so? And when the eye therapy (plus lense) program instituted by those eye docs help tons of people with continuing thinning of their coke bottle minus lenses? BTW these were ultra intense squinters into the screen, under fierce pressure and eternally long hours... maybe your experience were with more ordinary workers.
Science_Research
Jun 1, 2012, 9:07:21 PM6/1/12
to
Hi Dumbstruck,
You are correct about this issue.
Prevention is possible, IF the person understands what you have said,
and will 1) Monitor his own Snellen, and ALWAYS 2) Start wearing the
preventive plus - correctly, and under his own control, before his
Snellen goes below 20/40. Just NEVER ASK OR EXPECT ANY OD TO HELP YOU
WITH THIS PROCESS.
They are totally disconnected from the word "prevention" in so many
ways. It is not easy to conduct prevention, under YOUR control, but
some people have done it.
You are correct about this issue.
Prevention is possible, IF the person understands what you have said,
and will 1) Monitor his own Snellen, and ALWAYS 2) Start wearing the
preventive plus - correctly, and under his own control, before his
Snellen goes below 20/40. Just NEVER ASK OR EXPECT ANY OD TO HELP YOU
WITH THIS PROCESS.
They are totally disconnected from the word "prevention" in so many
ways. It is not easy to conduct prevention, under YOUR control, but
some people have done it.
Dr. Big Blue Nation
Jun 1, 2012, 9:22:33 PM6/1/12
to
On Jun 1, 3:12 pm, dumbstruck <dumbst...@gmail.com> wrote:
computer vision (comfort I believe). I will have to dig for the exact
reference. I recall the results were predictable. Plus is helpful in
presbyopes but otherwise of little value. Dry eyes and avoiding glare
I recall were other issues.
Perhaps you misunderstand MT's use of the word "asshole". He is
referring to the type of muscle it contains- not anyone's personality
in this forum (I think).
Dr. Big Blue Nation
Jun 1, 2012, 9:29:51 PM6/1/12
to
On Jun 1, 9:07 pm, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dumbstruck,
>
> You are correct about this issue.
>
> Prevention is possible, IF the person understands what you have said,
> and will 1) Monitor his own Snellen, and ALWAYS 2) Start wearing the
> preventive plus - correctly, and under his own control, before his
> Snellen goes below 20/40. Just NEVER ASK OR EXPECT ANY OD TO HELP YOU
> WITH THIS PROCESS.
If a patient insisted on doing this I would certainly help them with
> Hi Dumbstruck,
>
> You are correct about this issue.
>
> Prevention is possible, IF the person understands what you have said,
> and will 1) Monitor his own Snellen, and ALWAYS 2) Start wearing the
> preventive plus - correctly, and under his own control, before his
> Snellen goes below 20/40. Just NEVER ASK OR EXPECT ANY OD TO HELP YOU
> WITH THIS PROCESS.
it, but the human data shows that plus lenses are ineffective in the
prevention of myopia. I would never propose it because there is no
evidence for it. It's 1960's behavioral optometry lore that has been
disproven and I won't be a party to misleading anyone or selling snake
oil. Somehow Otis holds the 60's as a spiritually important time of
pure science (not medicine) and he still clings to the plus prevention
concept along with a few other loony birds.
Here we go round and round again!
Here we go round and round again!
Time for another Aricept Otis.
Science_Research
Jun 1, 2012, 9:37:32 PM6/1/12
to
Hi Mike,
You keep on using the word "PATIENT" - when I am not your patient.
I never suggested that YOU could be of any help to a person with the
goal of PREVENTION OF A NEGATIVE STATUS OF -3/4 DIOPTERS WITH 20/40
ONE THE PERSON'S SNELLEN.
As you know, I go to an ophthalmologist for medical issues.
A negative status for the natural eye is an issue, but not a problem,
unless the person rejects the wise wearing of a plus 2 at that point.
The people who realize this, use the plus, and clear their Snellen
(and confirm their refractive status) never get 'deeper" than -3/4
diopters, and 20/40.
Since they do this (with great wisdom and persistence) YOU ARE NOT
INVOLVED.
Thanks for your commentary!
You keep on using the word "PATIENT" - when I am not your patient.
I never suggested that YOU could be of any help to a person with the
goal of PREVENTION OF A NEGATIVE STATUS OF -3/4 DIOPTERS WITH 20/40
ONE THE PERSON'S SNELLEN.
As you know, I go to an ophthalmologist for medical issues.
A negative status for the natural eye is an issue, but not a problem,
unless the person rejects the wise wearing of a plus 2 at that point.
The people who realize this, use the plus, and clear their Snellen
(and confirm their refractive status) never get 'deeper" than -3/4
diopters, and 20/40.
Since they do this (with great wisdom and persistence) YOU ARE NOT
INVOLVED.
Thanks for your commentary!
Science_Research
Jun 1, 2012, 9:48:20 PM6/1/12
to
Hi Struck,
The OD is "set up" to impress you or your child with a very strong
minus (when you are at 20/40 and could - at that point - SLOWLY get
out of it. But attempting to ARGUE about prevention ( to get them to
be honest about science and fact ) is a waste of your time. Here is a
short video about this issue - for your interest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlrrc2Zq8Hs
You are talking to an intellectual "brick wall" in Mike Tyner. I am
certain he his a nice guy - but don't try to argue the science of the
natural eye with him.
He can't think "outside the box" - where the box is his "office
walls". The truly blind him to objective science, and the concept
that prevention is possible.
Enjoy,
Science_Research
Jun 1, 2012, 10:20:14 PM6/1/12
to
Hi Mike,
Yes, you would "help a patient", EACH TIME HE COMES IN YOUR OFFICE.
Yes, I know you must "make money", and I have no objection to your
doing so. But the last visit to an OD cost a friend about $350, so
you are correct, you can't CHARGE a person for prevention.
This is why a person, with wisdom, who FIGURES THIS OUT, will realize
WHY YOU ARE NO HELP, and he might as well be smart, and do it himself
- before he goes below -3/4 diopters.
The real issue is that it is "cost prohibitive" for you to even
SUGGEST PREVENTION - when success depends, not on you, but on the
person himself. Yes, wearing a "plus 2" might be a "objection", but
you understand this issue of your intellectual blindness towards the
PROVEN EFFECT OF A MINUS ON THE NATURAL EYE, and you relize WHY AN OD
IS NO HELP.
As always, I enjoy your commentary. But our disgreement is about
respect for science - and what it tells us, and nothing more than
that.
If a patient insisted on doing this I would certainly help them with
it, but the human data shows that plus lenses are ineffective in the
prevention of myopia. I would never propose it because there is no
evidence for it. It's 1960's behavioral optometry lore that has been
disproven and I won't be a party to misleading anyone or selling
snake
oil. Somehow Otis holds the 60's as a spiritually important time of
pure science (not medicine) and he still clings to the plus
prevention
concept along with a few other loony birds.
Yes, you would "help a patient", EACH TIME HE COMES IN YOUR OFFICE.
Yes, I know you must "make money", and I have no objection to your
doing so. But the last visit to an OD cost a friend about $350, so
you are correct, you can't CHARGE a person for prevention.
This is why a person, with wisdom, who FIGURES THIS OUT, will realize
WHY YOU ARE NO HELP, and he might as well be smart, and do it himself
- before he goes below -3/4 diopters.
The real issue is that it is "cost prohibitive" for you to even
SUGGEST PREVENTION - when success depends, not on you, but on the
person himself. Yes, wearing a "plus 2" might be a "objection", but
you understand this issue of your intellectual blindness towards the
PROVEN EFFECT OF A MINUS ON THE NATURAL EYE, and you relize WHY AN OD
IS NO HELP.
As always, I enjoy your commentary. But our disgreement is about
respect for science - and what it tells us, and nothing more than
that.
If a patient insisted on doing this I would certainly help them with
it, but the human data shows that plus lenses are ineffective in the
prevention of myopia. I would never propose it because there is no
evidence for it. It's 1960's behavioral optometry lore that has been
disproven and I won't be a party to misleading anyone or selling
snake
oil. Somehow Otis holds the 60's as a spiritually important time of
pure science (not medicine) and he still clings to the plus
prevention
concept along with a few other loony birds.
On Jun 1, 9:29 pm, "Dr. Big Blue Nation" <p.clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Tyner
Jun 2, 2012, 12:49:29 AM6/2/12
to
"dumbstruck" <dumb...@gmail.com> wrote
> You really reached a new low of vulgarity.
stay contracted all the time and nobody complains about them.
> Minus overcorrection is death to the eyes (for some of us) and hugely
> reversable.
> Plus adjustment for close or even medium work is certainly harmless
> (so stop fighting it) and helps for some.
> And when the eye therapy (plus lense) program instituted by those
> eye docs help tons of people with continuing thinning of their coke
> bottle minus lenses?
to make it work.
Because I would really like to have a method of treating myopia that
actually works.
-MT
Ray
Jun 2, 2012, 9:08:35 AM6/2/12
to
Due to age and cataract surgery I have little accommodation. I am
thinking about getting computer glasses with variable focus for
reading at the computer. So for 31 inch computer use my prescription
should be OD +2 -.25x129 OS +.25 -.5x035? If I want to read at 14
inches that should be add +1.5?
I have worn variable focus lenses in the past and found the narrow
viewing area annoying (add 2.5). Will the smaller add make the
viewing angle on the reading portion larger? Would it be wise to go
for a smaller add value and sacrifice some of the close reading? Or
would standard bifocals be a better idea?
Science_Research
Jun 2, 2012, 10:15:17 AM6/2/12
to
Hi Mike,
I always enjoy these conversations about science and the objective
study of the dynamic natural eye (having measured refractive STATES).
Tyner OD > So when will your eye docs publish these results? Nobody
else has been able to make it work.
Otis> You are simply WRONG. If you stated that YOU in YOUR OFFICE
could make PREVENTION (at 20/40, and -3/4 diopters) you would be
correct. Because prevention at -3/4 diopter takes strong personal
widsom and force-of-character to, (in your words - make it work). But
that is the LIMIT of the person himself. But let me clarify your
point (restrict to -3/4 diopters). Yes SOME OD's have been able to
"make prevention work" - from -3 diopters. Don't believe me (which
you will not) here is the example:
http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/od-success/
I personally llimit my statement to ONLY PREVENTION at -3/4 diopters -
because AT THAT POINT THE CHOICE IS "EITHER - OR". But, yes, some
wise people start with prevention (under THEIR control) before they
start wearing the minus.
Thanks for your thoughtful review of this difficult scientific
subject.
On Jun 2, 12:49 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "dumbstruck" <dumbst...@gmail.com> wrote
Science_Research
Jun 2, 2012, 10:22:08 AM6/2/12
to
Hi Ray,
You have with is commonly called, "Mono Vision". If you checked, I
think you would find that you pass the DMV requirement (at 20/40) for
driving a car.
A slight negative status (of -1 doper) would allow you to read at
normal distances.
I had cataract surgery, and after the operation, verified my
refractive status at +3/4 diopters for both eyes. It is CLAIMED (but
not proven) that the eye can not change its power after this surgery.
This is false.
I have a limited range of about 1.5 diopters.
This means, that I can read with no lens at 29 inches.
Had my refractive state - after surgery - been zero diopters - I would
have been able to read at 22 inches (my habitual reading distance.
But I don't complain. I am very happy with these results.
You have with is commonly called, "Mono Vision". If you checked, I
think you would find that you pass the DMV requirement (at 20/40) for
driving a car.
A slight negative status (of -1 doper) would allow you to read at
normal distances.
I had cataract surgery, and after the operation, verified my
refractive status at +3/4 diopters for both eyes. It is CLAIMED (but
not proven) that the eye can not change its power after this surgery.
This is false.
I have a limited range of about 1.5 diopters.
This means, that I can read with no lens at 29 inches.
Had my refractive state - after surgery - been zero diopters - I would
have been able to read at 22 inches (my habitual reading distance.
But I don't complain. I am very happy with these results.
Dr. Big Blue Nation
Jun 2, 2012, 4:13:57 PM6/2/12
to
On Jun 1, 10:20 pm, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> As always, I enjoy your commentary. But our disgreement is about
> respect for science - and what it tells us, and nothing more than
> that.
There is no "science" that proves plus lenses prevent myopia in humans
>
> As always, I enjoy your commentary. But our disgreement is about
> respect for science - and what it tells us, and nothing more than
> that.
Otis. There is PLENTY of science that proves that plus lenses have no
effect. You like to weave together different information from monkey
eye development, chicken eye development studies, and some theories
that were being discussed 40-50 years ago to come up with a universal
"fundamental natural eye" theory that you think applies to all humans
and mammals. Well sorry to say there is no science to support that
assumption either.
So I guess when you say that our disagreement is about respect for
science, I suppose you are right. I personally believe the results of
replicated controlled studies on myopia development in humans while
you choose to DISbelieve it instead cling to your simple "plus lens/
minus lens" model which is refuted by most of the data.
Science_Research
Jun 2, 2012, 4:42:40 PM6/2/12
to
Hi Blue OD,
Thanks for your commentary. I TAKE SCIENCE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL EYE
VERY SERIOUSLY.
You ignore it.
Suggesting that you are blind to objective science - or will not
rationally discuss it.
Well, sorry - you are blind to objective science.
Thanks for your commentary. I TAKE SCIENCE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL EYE
VERY SERIOUSLY.
You ignore it.
Suggesting that you are blind to objective science - or will not
rationally discuss it.
Well, sorry - you are blind to objective science.
Dr. Big Blue Nation
Jun 2, 2012, 5:24:10 PM6/2/12
to
Here we go again.
You are many things, but two of those things are wrong, and relentless.
Salmon Egg
Jun 3, 2012, 1:10:41 AM6/3/12
to
In article <jq8gg4$9jb$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
It is not that complicated. MEASURE the distance from your eye (where
the compensating lens will be) to the computer screen is using a metric
measuring tape. Take the reciprocal of this distance in meters and add
that number of diopters algebraically to the prescription for correction
to infinity. Realize that the correction for infinity may be off. Also,
as your eyes converge, the interpupillary distance diminishes a bit.
This approach allows custom adjustment to YOUR working distance.
Realize that I am not a vision professional, and my advice can be wrong.
--
Sam
Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
the compensating lens will be) to the computer screen is using a metric
measuring tape. Take the reciprocal of this distance in meters and add
that number of diopters algebraically to the prescription for correction
to infinity. Realize that the correction for infinity may be off. Also,
as your eyes converge, the interpupillary distance diminishes a bit.
This approach allows custom adjustment to YOUR working distance.
Realize that I am not a vision professional, and my advice can be wrong.
--
Sam
Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
Science_Research
Jun 3, 2012, 8:04:30 AM6/3/12
to
Hi Blue,
One thing we WILL agree on - is if there is to be prevention (up to
20/40 and -3/4 diopters) you will NOT be the person to do it.
I will be the wisdom of the person himself to do the preventive work
correctly. As pure science, the primate data is convincing to me that
the fundamental eye is dynamic. I have presented it many times before
- and you TOTALLY IGNORE IT.
You can't conduct a truly PREVENTIVE sttudy (at 20/40) unless the
person himself understands the primate data - and has a PERSONAL NEED
to clear his Snellen back-to 20/20 (change of refractive STATE).
But, provided the above conditions are met (and the person understands
the need for it) I have little doubt that the person, understanding
and MAKING THE MEASUREMENTS HIMSELF - could succeed.
But that is a science-based effort. He must just understand it that
way.
But it truly does take great wisdom and long-term persistence.
Since that is the case - it is understandable why you will never
conduct that type of study (that would succeed).
Thanks for your commentary.
One thing we WILL agree on - is if there is to be prevention (up to
20/40 and -3/4 diopters) you will NOT be the person to do it.
I will be the wisdom of the person himself to do the preventive work
correctly. As pure science, the primate data is convincing to me that
the fundamental eye is dynamic. I have presented it many times before
- and you TOTALLY IGNORE IT.
You can't conduct a truly PREVENTIVE sttudy (at 20/40) unless the
person himself understands the primate data - and has a PERSONAL NEED
to clear his Snellen back-to 20/20 (change of refractive STATE).
But, provided the above conditions are met (and the person understands
the need for it) I have little doubt that the person, understanding
and MAKING THE MEASUREMENTS HIMSELF - could succeed.
But that is a science-based effort. He must just understand it that
way.
But it truly does take great wisdom and long-term persistence.
Since that is the case - it is understandable why you will never
conduct that type of study (that would succeed).
Thanks for your commentary.
Mike Tyner
Jun 3, 2012, 11:47:35 AM6/3/12
to
"Ray" <R...@ray.com> wrote in message
news:q23ks7dokhgga5o0q...@4ax.com...
> I am 71 with prescription OD +.75 -.25x129 OS -1 -.5x035
> Due to age and cataract surgery I have little accommodation. I am
> thinking about getting computer glasses with variable focus for
> reading at the computer. So for 31 inch computer use my prescription
> should be OD +2 -.25x129 OS +.25 -.5x035? If I want to read at 14
> inches that should be add +1.5?
Added to your distance Rx, +1.25 will make things clearest about 32" through
the top of your progressives. Adding another +1.50 in the bottom yields a
total plus of +2.75, ie 14".
I write these prescriptions a lot, and my only caution would be that it's
easy to over-do. If you back off a notch and use +1.00 in the top, the TV
will be clearer and the glasses will be less swimmy and disorienting, while
the slightest tilt back restores the missing 0.25. I would also leave the
nominal add at +150, for a total plus at near of +2.50 or 16". It's harder
to walk or see your feet with +2.75 total plus and I don't find many people
actually work at 14", or if they do they're using bright light and a 16" Rx
covers 14" adequately.
> I have worn variable focus lenses in the past and found the narrow
> viewing area annoying (add 2.5). Will the smaller add make the
> viewing angle on the reading portion larger?
progressives with +150 adds seldom complain about the width of the
intermediate or near.
> Would it be wise to go
> for a smaller add value and sacrifice some of the close reading?
issue than the reading angle.
> Or would standard bifocals be a better idea?
-MT
Dr. Big Blue Nation
Jun 3, 2012, 5:02:24 PM6/3/12
to
On Jun 3, 8:04 am, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Blue,
studies in humans, no "prevention" scheme has been identified. Plus
lenses and undercorrection have been studied intensively and found to
be ineffective. You can find the references to the scientific
literature in previous posts.
>
> you will NOT be the person to do it.
As a licensed health care professional I will be among the first to
embrace a prevention technique, once one is identified and proven.
You, however, as an enthusiast and layperson, could care less about
following the law or following medical ethics codes. You just
recommend unfounded treatments to people on the internet that could
possibly even do harm (recall DIPLOPIA Otis?). Are you practicing
medicine without a license?
> As pure science, the primate data is convincing to me that
> the fundamental eye is dynamic.
What does the HUMAN data say Otis? What does the term fundamental eye
mean to anyone else (but you) Otis? Do you believe human eyes and
other animal eyes (including other primates) all function the same?
Isn't there a lot of scientific data that says they don't?
Do you really care about "fact" or "truth" or "science" Otis? Don't
pretend like you do when you have no arguments to explain the volumes
of published studies that show your notions are wrong. Its a matter
of faith for you, and science or proof apparently has no role.
A-R-I-C-E-P-T
> Hi Blue,
>
> if there is to be prevention
Yes. This is the key question. So far in all modern scientific
> if there is to be prevention
studies in humans, no "prevention" scheme has been identified. Plus
lenses and undercorrection have been studied intensively and found to
be ineffective. You can find the references to the scientific
literature in previous posts.
>
> you will NOT be the person to do it.
embrace a prevention technique, once one is identified and proven.
You, however, as an enthusiast and layperson, could care less about
following the law or following medical ethics codes. You just
recommend unfounded treatments to people on the internet that could
possibly even do harm (recall DIPLOPIA Otis?). Are you practicing
medicine without a license?
> As pure science, the primate data is convincing to me that
> the fundamental eye is dynamic.
mean to anyone else (but you) Otis? Do you believe human eyes and
other animal eyes (including other primates) all function the same?
Isn't there a lot of scientific data that says they don't?
Do you really care about "fact" or "truth" or "science" Otis? Don't
pretend like you do when you have no arguments to explain the volumes
of published studies that show your notions are wrong. Its a matter
of faith for you, and science or proof apparently has no role.
A-R-I-C-E-P-T
Science_Research
Jun 4, 2012, 11:18:02 AM6/4/12
to
Hi Blue OD,
It is now easy to demonstrate that if you place the fundamental eye in
a long-term NEAR situation - it will change its refractive STATE from
a positive to a negative value.
Please note that I talk about an OBJECTIVELY MEASURED VALUE,
refractive state - NOT PRESUMED FAILURE.
That is science.
Until we are willing to adress that issue IN AN HONEST MANNER - you
will always remain in your office, proclaiming that objective science
- is NOT OBJECTIVE SCIENCE.
But this depends on certain "warped" words you use to describe the
refractive states of the fundamental eye. Words and the definition
are very important in science.
In deed the correct use of a descriptive word – make all the
difference. If you accept that the eye is dynamic, having refractive
STATES – not failures, then the presumptive word "error" – is indeed
profoundly presumptive and biased.
Clarifying quotes (if you understand them.)
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.
- Albert Einstein
The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best – and
therefore never
scrutinize or question.
-Stephen Jay Gould
John Locke
The ill and unfit choice of words wonderfully obstructs the
understanding.
- Francis Bacon
Many errors, of a truth, consist merely in the application of the
wrong names of
things.
- Spinoza
One day, in the light of fundamental science, we might have a
preventive effort THAT WOULD WORK. But as long as you 'posture'
yourself, defending a crude practice put in place 400 years ago - I
doubt that there can be any progress at all.
Thanks for your commentary.
Dr. Big Blue Nation
Jun 4, 2012, 8:25:12 PM6/4/12
to
Science_Research
Jun 4, 2012, 9:03:30 PM6/4/12
to
Hi Blue,
Obviously you prefer the minus "quick fix" and the progressive myopia
IT CREATES - to reason, logic and science.
But there are, today, ODs who recognize this disaster you inflict on
the public. See this reference:
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html
The person on the threshold (i.e., wise pilots) who can make the
commitment to wear the plus - slowly get out of it - no thanks to you.
In fact, to avoid ENTRY, it is necessary to avoid your anti-scientific
"attitude".
Robert Redelmeier
Jun 5, 2012, 7:22:47 PM6/5/12
to
Salmon Egg <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in part:
1st paragraph above. It implies +2.5D for the common 16" reading
distance, which is too much for most people. Only some of the very
elderly and the elusive (uncorrected) hyperopes need the full load.
> Realize that I am not a vision professional, and my advice can be wrong.
Theory is fine, but more than one is simultaneously important
in most practical situations.
-- Robert
> Robert Redelmeier <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
>> Mike Tyner <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in part [reformatted]:
>> Mike Tyner <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in part [reformatted]:
>> > You didn't mention your age and that affects the answer more
>> > than your myopia. People 35 and younger are usually comfortable
>> > using the same prescription for computers as for driving.
>> >
>> > After you're 40, the optometrist always "adjusts the focal range"
>> > but without knowing your age and your working distance, all you
>> > can expect is a guess.
>>
>> Said guess is not long in coming: For a person corrected for infinity
>> with any prescription, they need +2D either as accommodation or lens
>> add to focus at 0.5m (20in) or +3D to focus at 0.33m (13in).
>>
>> Since most people have some remaining accommodation and are
>> habituated to accommodate for close range, somewhat less than
>> these adds is usually the most comfortable.
>>
>> For the OP at -9D (if true) , I would expect -8D to -7D to be best.
>> You can experiment with generic +1 or +2 readers, but please be
>> very careful to align the optical centers (may need to remove
>> lenses from frame). With a prescription as strong as -9D, correct
>> positioning of the optical centers is vital lest unwanted power
>> and prism creep in.
>
>> > than your myopia. People 35 and younger are usually comfortable
>> > using the same prescription for computers as for driving.
>> >
>> > After you're 40, the optometrist always "adjusts the focal range"
>> > but without knowing your age and your working distance, all you
>> > can expect is a guess.
>>
>> Said guess is not long in coming: For a person corrected for infinity
>> with any prescription, they need +2D either as accommodation or lens
>> add to focus at 0.5m (20in) or +3D to focus at 0.33m (13in).
>>
>> Since most people have some remaining accommodation and are
>> habituated to accommodate for close range, somewhat less than
>> these adds is usually the most comfortable.
>>
>> For the OP at -9D (if true) , I would expect -8D to -7D to be best.
>> You can experiment with generic +1 or +2 readers, but please be
>> very careful to align the optical centers (may need to remove
>> lenses from frame). With a prescription as strong as -9D, correct
>> positioning of the optical centers is vital lest unwanted power
>> and prism creep in.
>
> It is not that complicated. MEASURE the distance from your eye (where
> the compensating lens will be) to the computer screen is using a metric
> measuring tape. Take the reciprocal of this distance in meters and add
> that number of diopters algebraically to the prescription for correction
> to infinity. Realize that the correction for infinity may be off. Also,
> as your eyes converge, the interpupillary distance diminishes a bit.
> This approach allows custom adjustment to YOUR working distance.
This is the full theoretical-optics correction I described in my
> the compensating lens will be) to the computer screen is using a metric
> measuring tape. Take the reciprocal of this distance in meters and add
> that number of diopters algebraically to the prescription for correction
> to infinity. Realize that the correction for infinity may be off. Also,
> as your eyes converge, the interpupillary distance diminishes a bit.
> This approach allows custom adjustment to YOUR working distance.
1st paragraph above. It implies +2.5D for the common 16" reading
distance, which is too much for most people. Only some of the very
elderly and the elusive (uncorrected) hyperopes need the full load.
> Realize that I am not a vision professional, and my advice can be wrong.
in most practical situations.
-- Robert
0 new messages