Improving vision with 20/40 glasses
patrick_k
I am not the only one who still progresses with 28,
comforting to know. Thinking of getting positive glasses
to wear in addition to my full corrected contacts when doing
near work which is basically half the day.... How strong
should they be +1,+2 dptr ??? I tried to work on my compi with
my old (not fully corrected glasses, couldnt drive a car with
those) and it feels much better!!! less strain on eyes....
The elasticty theory sounds pretty reasonable, too bad
that the doctors always kept denying a link between near work
and myopia. s genetics is concerned, everybody in my family is fine...
So i guess its book+compis......
Patrick
William Stacy
Not all of us deny the link. Most of us deny that it's the sole cause.
Sounds like your old Rx is about right. I'd say for the max benefit,
the strongest add that won't blur your monitor, between +1.5 and 2.0.
Don't forget to eat your spinach and carrots.
Bill
Louis Biggie
activities such as night driving? Could it be a practical solution?
Louis
Zarin Pirouz
: In <4113bp$m...@news.jhu.edu> Patrick K writes:
: >
: >I guess EE sit in front of compis too much... :( I guess
Not just that, don't forget hours of solving equations and problems
where people tend to *avoid* looking up to keep their concentration.
Also, hours of working on circuit diagrams and electronic components
that are so small you can't even hold them with your fingers....and then
trying to solder tiny pieces and wires in a tiny space.
I think there are a few factors that make EE's more myopic than many other
professions. I don't think reading or working on computers by themselves
make as many people myopic, but when people have to concentrate hard
and *force* their eyes to remain focued on one spot for many hours of
the day I think they dramatically increase their chance of becoming myopic.
: >I am not the only one who still progresses with 28,
: >comforting to know. Thinking of getting positive glasses
: >to wear in addition to my full corrected contacts when doing
: >near work which is basically half the day.... How strong
: >should they be +1,+2 dptr ??? I tried to work on my compi with
Originally I was only joking about this, but considering that most
of us need to have 20/20 correction for getting to work, if we want
to wear contacts, this seems to be the best option. I guess the strength
depends on how comfortably you can read without your glasses. If I get
+ve lenses it has to be less than my prescription in magnitude, because
I'm so myopic by now that reading without correction is not posssible
with a comfortable posture.
: >my old (not fully corrected glasses, couldnt drive a car with
: >those) and it feels much better!!! less strain on eyes....
: >The elasticty theory sounds pretty reasonable, too bad
: >that the doctors always kept denying a link between near work
: >and myopia. s genetics is concerned, everybody in my family is fine...
: >So i guess its book+compis......
: >
: >Patrick
: >
: Not all of us deny the link. Most of us deny that it's the sole cause.
Who said it's the sole cause???
Is this why you folks are so resistant to the idea that near work might
induce/worsen myopia?
Do you think people who say near work induces myopia are not aware that:
1- Some people are born myopic
2- Some people's eyes grow too long sometime during growing up and they
become myopic
3- Some people's cornea or lens might be just too thick
4- Some people do lots of near work and don't become myopic
But if as you say only 5% of the general population is myopic and we get
such higher rates among those who study for many years or do other
close-up work, how on earth do you explain the difference?
I don't remember the exact statistics that were posted but for people with
many years of education it was getting to at least to 60%.
The EE grad pictures I mentioned had 37% glesses (say 17% were not myopic)
even then you have 5% v.s. 20%. That's a 4 fold increase!
The question is WHY?
We need the doctors to help us answer it.
Why do some of us become myopic or get worse?
Why do others don't become myopic under the same pressure?
Do we even know if it's the *same* pressure (some people look up more often,
some people practically "dive in" the book to concentrate, etc.)
At some level most things about our body could be genetic. If I am
genetically more at risk of heart attack, doctors have determined what I
can do to *reduce* my risk. By being fit I'm probably at less risk than
someone who doesn't have heart problems in their family, but is over-weight.
So, say genetically I am likely to become myopic with many hours of
close-up work (although we have very few myopes even in the extended family
and none in my immediate family or grand parents).
The question is what should I do to avoid it?
Or do you think, just because there is a genetic element somewhere I
should just ignore any trend I notice, accept my destiny and continue to
become more myopic?
Dear doctors, your guess should be better than ours, please give us
your best guess!
I think most of you are just remaining silent because you don't want
to say anything you're not sure of and I understand in your position
it is tricky to say anything that's not 100% backed up by the official
body that gave you the liscense to practice. Is this true? Does it
apply to the Internet too?
Could you just give us your insight and qualify it as a guess??
Help? Anybody?
: Sounds like your old Rx is about right. I'd say for the max benefit,
: the strongest add that won't blur your monitor, between +1.5 and 2.0.
: Don't forget to eat your spinach and carrots.
: Bill
Thanks,
Zarin
William Stacy
Biggie) writes:
>
>Does anybody round here use 20/40 contacts and correct to 20/20 for
>activities such as night driving? Could it be a practical solution?
>
I don't, but you could do that. Alternatively, you could get 20/20 cls
and wear +1.50s for near, if you do more distance viewing than near.
Bill
William Stacy
writes:
The people who push readers on *all* kids, and their followers.
>
>Is this why you folks are so resistant to the idea that near work
might
>induce/worsen myopia?
I think it's more the professional criticism we would get if we Rxed
readers for all kids.
>
>Do you think people who say near work induces myopia are not aware
that:
>1- Some people are born myopic
Not many. I've never seen one.
>2- Some people's eyes grow too long sometime during growing up and
they
>become myopic
Definitely true.
>3- Some people's cornea or lens might be just too thick
Increased corneal thickness wouldn't do it, but the lens idea is
interesting.
>4- Some people do lots of near work and don't become myopic
>
True.
>But if as you say only 5% of the general population is myopic and we
get
>such higher rates among those who study for many years or do other
>close-up work, how on earth do you explain the difference?
>I don't remember the exact statistics that were posted but for people
with
>many years of education it was getting to at least to 60%.
>The EE grad pictures I mentioned had 37% glesses (say 17% were not
myopic)
>even then you have 5% v.s. 20%. That's a 4 fold increase!
>
>The question is WHY?
Because near work DOES induce myopia in susceptible individuals. I've
said that all along.
>We need the doctors to help us answer it.
>Why do some of us become myopic or get worse?
I believe myopia to be an adaptive phenomenon inherited by certain
people.
>Why do others don't become myopic under the same pressure?
Some eyes are not susceptible. I can't get any more specific than that,
based on the literature.
>Do we even know if it's the *same* pressure (some people look up more
often,
>some people practically "dive in" the book to concentrate, etc.)
This is an interesting, plausible point.
>
>At some level most things about our body could be genetic. If I am
>genetically more at risk of heart attack, doctors have determined what
I
>can do to *reduce* my risk. By being fit I'm probably at less risk
than
>someone who doesn't have heart problems in their family, but is
over-weight.
>
>So, say genetically I am likely to become myopic with many hours of
>close-up work (although we have very few myopes even in the extended
family
>and none in my immediate family or grand parents).
>
>The question is what should I do to avoid it?
>Or do you think, just because there is a genetic element somewhere I
>should just ignore any trend I notice, accept my destiny and continue
to
>become more myopic?
It depends on how serious you take myopia. I take heart disease
seriously, but myopia, hey, it's no big deal for most patients (not
speaking for the people on this news group!).
If you want to try to fight your myopia, get some readers or rgp
contacts. No guarantees it will work, but for some it's better than
doing nothing.
>
>Dear doctors, your guess should be better than ours, please give us
>your best guess!
Yes, come on. Am I the only one??? Hello? Anyone there?
>
>I think most of you are just remaining silent because you don't want
>to say anything you're not sure of and I understand in your position
>it is tricky to say anything that's not 100% backed up by the official
>body that gave you the liscense to practice. Is this true? Does it
>apply to the Internet too?
>
Naw. It's just the colleagues who would chide us for excessive Rxing.
We're a sensitive lot.
>Could you just give us your insight and qualify it as a guess??
>
>Help? Anybody?
>
>: Sounds like your old Rx is about right. I'd say for the max
benefit,
>: the strongest add that won't blur your monitor, between +1.5 and
2.0.
>
>: Don't forget to eat your spinach and carrots.
>
>: Bill
>
>Thanks,
>Zarin
You're quite welcome.
Bill
Alex Eulenberg
summary here of what has been said on sci.med.vision on the topic of
lessening myopia by reducing the strength of one's prescription.
First, we've seen that many people can reduce their prescription, by
learning to see with ever weaker glasses, or in cases of low myopia, by
going without glasses entirely. We've had statistics from the clinic of
optometrist Robert-Michael Kaplan, and some personal accounts from various
lay people (myself, Vic, Robert Roosen, Zarin, Elena).
Second, we've seen that people's response to myopic glasses differs
greatly. Some develop several diopters of myopia without ever having worn
glasses (Jennifer). With glasses, some people's myopia stops progressing
after a few years, while others keep on going.
Now some comments.
One thing we should remember is that one's glasses prescription does not
equal one's visual experience. If you wear 20/40 glasses and refuse to
confront that blur in the distance, you will not improve. In fact avoiding
looking into the distance because of the blur will make things worse.
This, I believe is why undercorrection as a passive way to slow the
progress of myopia has been a failure. Conversely, we often hear of
people who insist on the best acuity possible, and whose vision stays
stable. Exactly because they so relish their distant vision do they
maintain it -- but the glasses still keep them from improving.
In sum, an undercorrection will allow you to stretch your eyes, to
adapt to focusing farther -- but only if you choose to take advantage of
that opportunity.
Now another theory worth considering: adjusting your reading distance by a
few inches or cutting down the time spent reading will not alone stop
myopia. Increasing the amount of time spent attending to the small details
of distant objects will (if you look at large distant objects, this won't
necessarily help either, since you can identify them sufficiently well
without perfect focus). In other words, it's not the amount of near work,
it's the lack of detailed distant viewing that causes myopia to progress.
This an important distinction, often ignored.
--Alex
David B. Granet
(Alex Eulenberg) wrote:
> First, we've seen that many people can reduce their prescription, by
> learning to see with ever weaker glasses, or in cases of low myopia, by
> going without glasses entirely.
Or perhaps they were in too strong an Rx to start with. Cycloplegia anyone ?
.
> This, I believe is why undercorrection as a passive way to slow the
> progress of myopia has been a failure. Conversely, we often hear of
> people who insist on the best acuity possible, and whose vision stays
> stable. Exactly because they so relish their distant vision do they
> maintain it -- but the glasses still keep them from improving.
An unexpert opinion from the Ur unexpert.
>
> In sum, an undercorrection will allow you to stretch your eyes, to
> adapt to focusing farther -- but only if you choose to take advantage of
> that opportunity.
Says who ? Alex is not a vision expert and please take his comments as such.
> Increasing the amount of time spent attending to the small details
> of distant objects will (if you look at large distant objects, this won't
> necessarily help either, since you can identify them sufficiently well
> without perfect focus). In other words, it's not the amount of near work,
> it's the lack of detailed distant viewing that causes myopia to progress.
> This an important distinction, often ignored.
Does it have to be said. Please don't take advice from a non-expert.
Please seek out expert opinions before you "play" with your eyes. Your
local OD or MD can help.
David
--
==================================================
David B. Granet, M.D.
Director
Pediatric Ophthalmology & Ocular Motility Services
University of California, San Diego
*Keeping an Eye on our future ;-) *
Varun Verma
This is my first post to this newsgroup though I have been
reading it for last one month. Meanwhile I had started trying
vision improvement by natural methods. I have been able to
devise a programme for myself (based on Huxley's, Price's books
,FAQ and my own understanding) that has resulted in tremendous
vision improvement (by 0.5D in both eyes) for me.
I am posting this post to this thread because I completely agree
with what Alex wrote about improving vision with weaker glasses.
That is what worked for me and I am now -3.0D and -3.5D reduced
from -3.5D and -4.0D (and that too in one month). Therefore I am
excited about this and since I can see result for myself I do not
need any optometrist to tell me whether natural vsion improvement
is possible or not.
I am saying this because respected Dr. Granet has not been
constructive at all in his arguments here. He just straight away rejects
whatever is written about natural vision. Seeing is believing,
Varun
Alex Eulenberg
>> First, we've seen that many people can reduce their prescription, by
>> learning to see with ever weaker glasses, or in cases of low myopia, by
>> going without glasses entirely.
Dr. Granet:
>Or perhaps they were in too strong an Rx to start with. Cycloplegia anyone ?
Good point, Dr. Granet. Lots of myopes are getting glasses that reflect an
underestimation of their far-focusing potential. But cycloplegia is no
guarantee against such overprescriptions, as my personal experience has
shown (my ophthalmologist always put drops in my eyes before measuring
how far they could see).
I'm still waiting for the references to the experiments that proved that
cycloplegic drops bring every myope's far-seeing ability to its maximum in
a matter of minutes.
--Alex
William Stacy
comes from following lots of patient over lots of years, and, at least
for me, *never* having ever seen a myopia reduction from wearing weak
glasses, and I've seen lots of patients who have weak glasses.
Having said that, I have reduced many a myopic Rx because the patient
got over-minused by someone else. The patient might perceive a
reduction, and the numbers would support it, but the facts do not.
However, I'm still open minded. The problem is, if you 'can see the
result' yourself and don't need any scientific analysis of your case,
you'll just be another testimonial which will be discounted by the
mainstream.
My suggestion? Get a baseline refraction this week. Tell the doctor to
write out the least minus that will give you 20/20 in each eye
separately, broadcast those numbers here, then in another month or two
of doing your program, go back to that same doc, same request, and post
the results here. That will either wake us up, or put us to sleep,
depending on the results.
If you want to be really valid, don't read or wear your glasses the
days of these measurements, and have them done first thing in the
morning (a loose alternative to full cycloplegia on both visits).
Try it. You could be famous.
Bill
(My prediction? You won't do it. The scientific method is a real pain.
But it's the only thing some of us in these parts trust.)
John Warren, OD
>>Good point, Dr. Granet. Lots of myopes are getting glasses that reflect an
>>underestimation of their far-focusing potential. But cycloplegia is no
>>guarantee against such overprescriptions, as my personal experience has
>>shown (my ophthalmologist always put drops in my eyes before measuring
>>how far they could see).
>>I'm still waiting for the references to the experiments that proved that
>>cycloplegic drops bring every myope's far-seeing ability to its maximum in
>>a matter of minutes.
>>--Alex
Alex,
Full cycloplegia in a person with good accomodative ability takes a
minimum of 30 minutes to be achieved. During the course of a routine
eye exam the drops instilled in a patients eyes are usually used to
acieive a good dilation of the pupils, with cycloplegia being an
annoying side-effect. Occasionally a patient requires a cylcloplegic
refraction (most of Dr. Granet's due to the nature of his practice,
Pediatric Ophthalmology) and these patients are almost always given
different drops than the "standard" dilating drops. Hence the lack of
"complete" cycloplegia during a routine eye exam. Why is it done that
way, simple: Cycloplegia is not necessary for 95% of eye exams
performed. End of story. It would be very easy for a non-believer in
cycloplegia (you) to design a study utilizing cycloplegia and
retinoscopy to test your theory that cycloplegia does not block the
eye's ability to accomodate. My advice, learn retinoscopy (damn, now
you will have to learn something, not just read it and spew about it!)
or pay someone with good retinoscopy technique (ask an AI at the IU
opt school, they are always looking for a way to earn a couple of
meals) and do a study, and let us know how it comes out. Remember to
design a study with controls.
_____________________________
John Warren, OD
war...@execpc.com
Racine, WI
http://www.execpc.com/~warren
_____________________________
Larry Bickford, OD
>This is my first post to this newsgroup though I have been
>reading it for last one month. Meanwhile I had started trying
>vision improvement by natural methods. I have been able to
>devise a programme for myself (based on Huxley's, Price's books
>,FAQ and my own understanding) that has resulted in tremendous
>vision improvement (by 0.5D in both eyes) for me.
>
>I am posting this post to this thread because I completely agree
>with what Alex wrote about improving vision with weaker glasses.
>That is what worked for me and I am now -3.0D and -3.5D reduced
>from -3.5D and -4.0D (and that too in one month). Therefore I am
>excited about this and since I can see result for myself I do not
>need any optometrist to tell me whether natural vsion improvement
>is possible or not.
There's one thing about optics I love: optics is math and "numbers
don't lie".
Congrats on the .50 reduction. I guess I must have seen this happen
in my practice a thousand times. I bet half the population of planet
Earth could measure a .25 change from one exam to the next and
probably a few million or so might see .50 change from morning 'till
evening. Hey---refract someone who's just spent 8 hours in front of
a computer and get one number and repeat the test the next morning
before work and guess what? Different results! Or try downing a pot
of caffeine before a refraction. Not to mention the possibility that
your current RX miight be overcorrected by .5 because of any one of
number of possibilites. And listen: people's refractive errors do
change, one way or the other, just a little or sometimes a little
more, or less, over the years. That's one of the reasons I have a job!
Sorry, friend, you are not in the slightest bit unusual.
Regarding the responses to t his thread:
The posts by John Warren, David Granet, and Bill Stacy on this thread
are superb. I support them completely, so I wont add much---except
this note to Alex: take the challenge, Alex. For once in your on-line
life do something first hand, scientific and show your stuff! Your
hyperbole and unsubstantiated words of empty pseudo science are
boring, if not downright wrong. It's unfortunate that some less
informed innocent people might buy your shtick and end up missing
out on proper vision care. It was certainly approriate to intitiate the
discussion on this issue, but how many times and how many people
have to show you how uninformed and unscientific your blabber is
before you give it up?
As said before: Bates was wrong (is wrong and always will be
wrong), Huxley was blind and on psycedelic drugs, Alex means well
but he's just a little short on RAM.
Larry Bickford, OD
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The EyeCare Connection
http://www.pacrain.com/~eyecare
Patrick K
>
>If you want to be really valid, don't read or wear your glasses the
>days of these measurements, and have them done first thing in the
>morning (a loose alternative to full cycloplegia on both visits).
>
>Try it. You could be famous.
>
>Bill
>
>(My prediction? You won't do it. The scientific method is a real pain.
> But it's the only thing some of us in these parts trust.)
does that mean that if you do a lot of near work the day before or the
same day you are going to get 0.5 overcorrected ???? Is that
overcorrection then influencing the progression of myopia or just
causing headaches while doing near work ????
How high is the SD in those measurements ??? +- 0.5 D ? My perscription
seems to increase by -.25 D/year and I mostly came straight from
compi work or reading......
very interesting....
Patrick
William Stacy
Eulenberg) writes:
>
>It seems every time I try to set things straight, things get out of
hand
>again. Well, here goes nothing...
>
>On cycloplegia:
>
>These are the drops your eye doctor puts in your eyes to paralyze your
>focusing muscle. Some doctors do, some doctors don't. David Granet
says
>that as long as your doctor puts these drops in your eyes before
testing
>them for myopia, your glasses won't be too strong, because the drops
make
>your eyes focus as far as they possibly can. I don't doubt for one
moment
>that these drops can sometimes enhance your ability to see farther.
But do
>they bring your eyes all the way to the state at which they are seeing
>their best for distance?
Of course not. They also drastically reduce the depth of focus due to
the increase in pupil size. Nobody has ever claimed better distance
vision when under cycloplegia than when not. It's ALWAYS worse.
No one's ever been able to prove that. In fact,
>research on the resting state of accommodation (or "tonic of
>accommodation") would suggest otherwise.
Whatever 'tonic of accommodation' is.
Alex: you may have to define some of these terms for the
traditionalists among us. They're definitely not in general use.
Cycloplegia or no cycloplegia, if
>the fact is that people's glasses are often too strong for them, the
>optometrists have some explaining to do.
>
Agreed.
>
>On the idea that "weaker glasses" make vision better:
>
>I never said that. (In fact, I didn't even start this thread, it was
>Dennis Yelle). Those optometrists who would hang me for saying so had
>better learn to read. In fact, I firmly oppose the practice of
>"undercorrection" for first-time glasses wearers as a passive way to
stop
>the progression of myopia. It does more harm than good, since it
>discourages people from looking at distant objects, while their near
>viewing is intensified.
NOT TRUE. Take a previously uncorrected -3.00 myope. A -2.50
correction would definitely cause him/her to check out the distance
objects (such as leafs on trees) that he/she hadn't see for, perhaps,
years.
Leave him/her UNCORRECTED, as you apparently recommend, and there is NO
encouragement to look at those leafs. They are INVISIBLE.
Better to teach them how to overcome the
>functional component of their myopia. It may ALL of their myopia. I
>believe therapy should always be attempted first, while the problem is
>minor enough that glasses are not necessary. It need not cost a penny
on
>top of what is normally paid for an eye exam.
Assuming you want the 'teacher' to work for free.
However, if someone has
>ALREADY worked their way up to wearing strong glasses, and WANTS to go
>back, and going completely without glasses is impossible, a lowered
>prescription can give that person the opportunity to adapt to seeing
>farther IF THAT PERSON TAKES THE INITIATIVE.
>
>
>On the idea that I'm trying to keep people from going to eye doctors:
>
>I'm really talking about a no-lose proposition here. Optometrists
would
>gain a lot by offering the option of simple home eye exercises in
addition
>to a "last-resort" lens prescription. More people would come to them
if
>they knew they have a chance at curing their vision problem without
>glasses. The only ones who might lose anything are those who sell
glasses
>to children, who, according to all the books I've read on the subject,
are
>the most "curable" by behavioral methods.
>
Not if I have to do it for 'free' as you mention above. It would take
much longer than an eye exam to go thru all that stuff. And if I'm not
convinced it works, it's clearly a rip-off.
>Larry Bickford sums it up:
>>And listen: people's refractive errors do
>>change, one way or the other, just a little or sometimes a little
>>more, or less, over the years.
>
>You said it! The point of vision therapy is to TAKE CONTROL of the
>factors that influence one's refractive state!
>
>--Alex
Go for it, but don't expect it to be 'free'. And don't expect it to
'work'.
Bill
Alex Eulenberg
>Or try downing a pot of caffeine before a refraction.
Please elaborate! What is the effect of caffeine on vision?
--Alex
Alex Eulenberg
again. Well, here goes nothing...
On cycloplegia:
These are the drops your eye doctor puts in your eyes to paralyze your
focusing muscle. Some doctors do, some doctors don't. David Granet says
that as long as your doctor puts these drops in your eyes before testing
them for myopia, your glasses won't be too strong, because the drops make
your eyes focus as far as they possibly can. I don't doubt for one moment
that these drops can sometimes enhance your ability to see farther. But do
they bring your eyes all the way to the state at which they are seeing
their best for distance? No one's ever been able to prove that. In fact,
research on the resting state of accommodation (or "tonic of
accommodation") would suggest otherwise. Cycloplegia or no cycloplegia, if
the fact is that people's glasses are often too strong for them, the
optometrists have some explaining to do.
On the idea that "weaker glasses" make vision better:
I never said that. (In fact, I didn't even start this thread, it was
Dennis Yelle). Those optometrists who would hang me for saying so had
better learn to read. In fact, I firmly oppose the practice of
"undercorrection" for first-time glasses wearers as a passive way to stop
the progression of myopia. It does more harm than good, since it
discourages people from looking at distant objects, while their near
viewing is intensified. Better to teach them how to overcome the
functional component of their myopia. It may ALL of their myopia. I
believe therapy should always be attempted first, while the problem is
minor enough that glasses are not necessary. It need not cost a penny on
top of what is normally paid for an eye exam. However, if someone has
ALREADY worked their way up to wearing strong glasses, and WANTS to go
back, and going completely without glasses is impossible, a lowered
prescription can give that person the opportunity to adapt to seeing
farther IF THAT PERSON TAKES THE INITIATIVE.
On the idea that I'm trying to keep people from going to eye doctors:
I'm really talking about a no-lose proposition here. Optometrists would
gain a lot by offering the option of simple home eye exercises in addition
to a "last-resort" lens prescription. More people would come to them if
they knew they have a chance at curing their vision problem without
glasses. The only ones who might lose anything are those who sell glasses
to children, who, according to all the books I've read on the subject, are
the most "curable" by behavioral methods.
Larry Bickford sums it up:
Zarin Pirouz
: This thread has generated a lot of good discussion. I'd like to attempt a
: lessening myopia by reducing the strength of one's prescription.
Dear Alex,
I am not sure how to handel this "negative option marketing" of your summary
here. In a formal setting, when people have a meeting the "chair" might do
a summary and pass it around to make sure everybody agrees and then they
might decide to publish any results.
Here, there are a few differences:
- It's informal.
- You're not the chair.
- You didn't check with the people involved in the discussion.
- You already posted it.
So I am not sure if I am supposed to post to explicitly mention that I
don't agree with your conclusion, or your summary of what was said or
not.
I know you mean very well, but by being too eager sometimes I think
you adapt the facts to your model and not the other way around. I don't
think you are alone in this. You seem to be in the company of the
general orthodox doctors, some of whom are the very people who flame you!
: First, we've seen that many people can reduce their prescription, by
: learning to see with ever weaker glasses, or in cases of low myopia, by
: going without glasses entirely. We've had statistics from the clinic of
: optometrist Robert-Michael Kaplan, and some personal accounts from various
: lay people (myself, Vic, Robert Roosen, Zarin, Elena).
I would like to clarify that I did not say I reduced my prescription. I
am sorry if I wasn't clear about it. Soon after I experimented with not
wearing glasses I noticed about 0.5D of real improvement. That I suspect
is a recovery from short term loss of elasticity of the lens.
Later, I said that I have learned to see incredibly well (for a -4 myope)
without my glasses. But I also qualified that I didn't think it was a
"real" improvement and I suspected that what I have learned was neural image
processing of the blurry picture. By that I meant that my prescription hasn't
changed.
If I were to draw a conclusion about this whole discussion, it would be:
- We need to analyze all the known facts.
- We need to look at the anecdotal accounts.
- We need to form a few hypothesis(plural--es?).
- We need more experiments to test them.
- We need more data.
- We need open minds, logic, common sense and scientific rigor.
- We don't know too much.
Zarin
: Second, we've seen that people's response to myopic glasses differs
: greatly. Some develop several diopters of myopia without ever having worn
: glasses (Jennifer). With glasses, some people's myopia stops progressing
: after a few years, while others keep on going.
: Now some comments.
: One thing we should remember is that one's glasses prescription does not
: equal one's visual experience. If you wear 20/40 glasses and refuse to
: confront that blur in the distance, you will not improve. In fact avoiding
: looking into the distance because of the blur will make things worse.
: This, I believe is why undercorrection as a passive way to slow the
: progress of myopia has been a failure. Conversely, we often hear of
: people who insist on the best acuity possible, and whose vision stays
: stable. Exactly because they so relish their distant vision do they
: maintain it -- but the glasses still keep them from improving.
: In sum, an undercorrection will allow you to stretch your eyes, to
: adapt to focusing farther -- but only if you choose to take advantage of
: that opportunity.
: Now another theory worth considering: adjusting your reading distance by a
: few inches or cutting down the time spent reading will not alone stop
: myopia. Increasing the amount of time spent attending to the small details
: of distant objects will (if you look at large distant objects, this won't
: necessarily help either, since you can identify them sufficiently well
: without perfect focus). In other words, it's not the amount of near work,
: it's the lack of detailed distant viewing that causes myopia to progress.
: This an important distinction, often ignored.
: --Alex
Zarin Pirouz
: In <4137ob$n...@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca> zpi...@unixg.ubc.ca (Zarin Pirouz)
: writes:
: >
: >William Stacy (w...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: In <4113bp$m...@news.jhu.edu> Patrick K writes:
: >: >
: >: >I guess EE sit in front of compis too much... :( I guess
: >
: >Not just that, don't forget hours of solving equations and problems
: >where people tend to *avoid* looking up to keep their concentration.
: >Also, hours of working on circuit diagrams and electronic components
: >that are so small you can't even hold them with your fingers....and
: >: >So i guess its book+compis......
: >: >
: >: >Patrick
: >: >
: >
: >: Not all of us deny the link. Most of us deny that it's the sole
: cause.
: >
: >Who said it's the sole cause???
: The people who push readers on *all* kids, and their followers.
I am sorry I didn't realize they were saying that. But *if* reading glasses
don't do other harm and the child does read a lot, and *if* we can prove that
reading glasses reduces the incidence of near-work induced myopia, the child
and his/her family might want to think about it.
It seems like both the extremes (closed minded "orthodox" doctors and the
Bates followers) oversimplify myopia.
One camp finds a remedy that more or less corrects the symptom and insists
that it is only the length of the eyeball and ignores that the eye is a
whole complex mechanism in which many things might change to produce
the same problem and the other camp thinks of the whole problem as a
mental disorder that could be fixed by relaxation.
There is the length of the eye-ball, the muscles, the lens size and
elasticity, and other physical dimensions.....then there is a growing
living adaptive person.
....so we have a system with at least 3 degrees of freedom with an
adaptive controller and people think by offsetting one externally measured
variable (focal point) they can just fix the problem??
It's like noticing that your heart is not beating correctly (too slow or too
fast)...there could be sooo many reasons. The change in the rate is only
a symptom, but the source of problem could be so varied. I know heart
problems are serious and I am stretching the analogy here, but just to
demonstrate my point, it seems like the options these two camps would give
to the heart patient is: First group insists that the patient should
have a pace-maker and the second group insists that the patient should
just do some exercise and relax......and neither group understands the
reasons for the heart problem in the first place.
....both groups' solution could be good for some patients and stupid or
deadly for others.
[...]
: >But if as you say only 5% of the general population is myopic and we
: get
: >such higher rates among those who study for many years or do other
: >close-up work, how on earth do you explain the difference?
: >I don't remember the exact statistics that were posted but for people
: with
: >many years of education it was getting to at least to 60%.
: >The EE grad pictures I mentioned had 37% glesses (say 17% were not
: myopic)
: >even then you have 5% v.s. 20%. That's a 4 fold increase!
: >
: >The question is WHY?
: Because near work DOES induce myopia in susceptible individuals. I've
: said that all along.
I meant WHY as what is the exact reason. What does it change to "induce"
myopia? Which parameter in the eye?
: >We need the doctors to help us answer it.
: >Why do some of us become myopic or get worse?
: I believe myopia to be an adaptive phenomenon inherited by certain
: people.
: >Why do others don't become myopic under the same pressure?
: Some eyes are not susceptible. I can't get any more specific than that,
: based on the literature.
Have you seen the articles about the elastic properties of the lens?
: >Do we even know if it's the *same* pressure (some people look up more
: often,
: >some people practically "dive in" the book to concentrate, etc.)
: This is an interesting, plausible point.
: >
: >At some level most things about our body could be genetic. If I am
: >genetically more at risk of heart attack, doctors have determined what
: I
: >can do to *reduce* my risk. By being fit I'm probably at less risk
: than
: >someone who doesn't have heart problems in their family, but is
: over-weight.
: >
: >So, say genetically I am likely to become myopic with many hours of
: >close-up work (although we have very few myopes even in the extended
: family
: >and none in my immediate family or grand parents).
: >
: >The question is what should I do to avoid it?
: >Or do you think, just because there is a genetic element somewhere I
: >should just ignore any trend I notice, accept my destiny and continue
: to
: >become more myopic?
: It depends on how serious you take myopia. I take heart disease
: seriously, but myopia, hey, it's no big deal for most patients (not
: speaking for the people on this news group!).
So probably if the heart problem weren't so deadly, nobody would have
researched it to understand all the reasons involved and the doctors who
would be too busy doing more important things would have issued a
pace-maker to everybody that seemed to have an abnormal heart-beat, just
to be on the safe side?
: If you want to try to fight your myopia, get some readers or rgp
: contacts. No guarantees it will work, but for some it's better than
: doing nothing.
I am thinking of getting readers, but what does RGP do? Does it reshape
the cornea? If so, it's just producing an external effect to offset the
symptoms of another effect (what ever is making me more myopic) and is
not stopping the real problem.
: >
: >Dear doctors, your guess should be better than ours, please give us
: >your best guess!
: Yes, come on. Am I the only one??? Hello? Anyone there?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Seems like it :(
Well, I thank you for your time. We may not agree all the time, but at least
we're talking about the issue.
: >
: >I think most of you are just remaining silent because you don't want
: >to say anything you're not sure of and I understand in your position
: >it is tricky to say anything that's not 100% backed up by the official
: >body that gave you the license to practice. Is this true? Does it
: >apply to the Internet too?
: >
: Naw. It's just the colleagues who would chide us for excessive Rxing.
: We're a sensitive lot.
: >Could you just give us your insight and qualify it as a guess??
: >
: >Help? Anybody?
: >
[...]
: >
: >: Bill
: >
: >Thanks,
: >Zarin
: You're quite welcome.
: Bill
Zarin
David B. Granet
(Alex Eulenberg) wrote:
> It seems every time I try to set things straight, things get out of hand
> again. Well, here goes nothing...
>
> On cycloplegia:
>
> These are the drops your eye doctor puts in your eyes to paralyze your
> focusing muscle. Some doctors do, some doctors don't. David Granet says
> that as long as your doctor puts these drops in your eyes before testing
> them for myopia, your glasses won't be too strong, because the drops make
> your eyes focus as far as they possibly can. I don't doubt for one moment
> that these drops can sometimes enhance your ability to see farther. But do
> they bring your eyes all the way to the state at which they are seeing
> their best for distance? No one's ever been able to prove that. In fact,
> research on the resting state of accommodation (or "tonic of
> accommodation") would suggest otherwise. Cycloplegia or no cycloplegia, if
> the fact is that people's glasses are often too strong for them, the
> optometrists have some explaining to do.
No drops "make your eyes focus as far as possible". What they do is
paralyze accomodation. I am glad Alex doesn't "doubt" this information.
All of the vision science professionals across the country are breathing a
sigh of relief.
Alex again, is not an eye professional and is misleading to read. Please
consult your eyecare specialist.
David
==========================
David B. Granet, M.D.
Director
Pediatric Ophthalmology & Ocular Motility Services
University of California, San Diego
*Keeping an Eye on Our Future ;-) *
Dennis Yelle
>
>I'd guess the standard deviation would be around + - .25, maybe .37.
>
>You could be getting a little over minused.
>Make sure your refractionist pushes you as far as you can go toward +.
>
>My technique is to push + binocularly until the patient can no longer
>make out 20/20, then back off .5 in most cases for the final Rx.
>
>Bill
Bill:
Somehow, I got the impression from other posts that you usually do
a retinoscopy, but you don't mention it here.
Please clear up my misunderstanding.
Thanks.
--
den...@netcom.com (Dennis Yelle)
"You must do the thing you think you cannot do." -- Eleanor Roosevelt
Phillip Virdi-Smith
In article <417rmt$u...@saba.info.ucla.edu>, Varun Verma (varun) writes:
>Hi Everyone:
[ SNIPPED]
>I am saying this because respected Dr. Granet has not been
>constructive at all in his arguments here. He just straight away rejects
>whatever is written about natural vision. Seeing is believing,
>
>Varun
Unfortunately Varun you have not been reading this long enough to have
read Dr Granet (and company) argue reasonably and sensibly with Alex (and
company) about the bates method. I continue to be angry at Alex for
constantly and repeatedly dragging up the same thread and persisting with
an entirely unproven idea. And, as Gr Granet keeps reminding us, he is
not a trained authority on this subject and is not ( as he has shown many
times) able to write any ideas based on sound optical and visual
knowledge.
P Virdi-Smith
FBDO AMRSH