 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2005need info.
My current prescription is -5.25 for both eyes. Is it a very strong prescription? My eyesight keeps falling and I think that the doctor will soon tell me that my eyesight cannot be corrected. Is it possible? Thank you. Dear Friend, You are safe. Your doctor can continue increasing the power of your minus lens up to -16 to -23 diopters. Best, Otis Engineer > You are safe. Your doctor can continue > increasing the power of your minus lens > up to -16 to -23 diopters. You don't realize he's wearing -500 because he said -475 was blurry. You don't seem to know how refractions are performed. -MT Dear Mike, Again -- you make assumptions about me -- and the work I present. In semi-darkenss, you have a person read a "weak" snellen, and you will read his "night-time" vision, or "night-time" refraction. The DMV tests for a "room Snellen", and this is the legal test. People who have cleared their vision, (with very-strong motivation) have reported that the PASS the DMV-Snellen with 20/40, but under semi-darnkess conditions (deep dusk) are "prescribed" a -2 diotper lens, i.e., over-prescribed by a considerble amount. Since this man was working to clear -- with intensive use of the plus -- he ignored this excessive -2 diopter -- as absolutly not necessary and not required. He continued to work with the plus, and is now reading in the 20/25 range. I expect he will reach 20/20 -- if he is willing to persist in his effort to "protect" his distant vision through high school and college. Passing 20/20 for the DMV means that he never gets sent to an OD, and never is prescribed an un-necessary minus lens. This is of course what Dr. Stirling Colgate did (or figured out). Best, Otis > In semi-darkenss, you have a person > read a "weak" snellen, and you > will read his "night-time" vision, > or "night-time" refraction. You continually confuse refraction with acuity because it suits your purpose. A four-diopter myope is a four-diopter myope, regardless of illumination. The measurements are sloppier in bright light because of depth-of-field, and a four-diopter myope may only refract to -350 in daylight. No matter. Roadsigns at night will still be blurry with -350 and clear with -400. If you undercorrect everybody, they will all return complaining that they can't see to drive at night. > The DMV tests for a "room Snellen", > and this is the legal test. I doubt the words "room Snellen" appear in any legislated guidelines. Does the legislature know the difference between refraction and acuity? > People who have cleared their vision, > (with very-strong motivation) have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a -2 diotper lens, i.e., over-prescribed > by a considerble amount. A 2-diopter myope is a 2-diopter myope unless you confuse the issue by constricting the pupils with bright light. A young 2-diopter myope might actually be a -1.50 myope with some tonic accommodation. Use your plus all you want and he'll still measure -1.50 D. Wait until he's 45 and he'll measure -1.50 without your help. > Since this man was working to > clear -- with intensive use of the > plus -- he ignored this excessive > -2 diopter -- as absolutly not necessary > and not required. So you say. My patients say differently. Your man told the doctor that -1.75 was blurry. We consider that a sign that -2.00 is "necessary." > He continued to work with the plus, > and is now reading in the 20/25 range. In bright light. And maybe he's now -1.50. Good luck getting rid of the rest of it. Sometimes it'll work. > I expect he will reach 20/20 -- if > he is willing to persist in his > effort to "protect" his distant > vision through high school and college. Expect the best, but face the facts. > Passing 20/20 for the DMV means > that he never gets sent to an > OD, and never is prescribed > an un-necessary minus lens. I don't usually recommend glasses for people seeing 20/20. When they tell us that one quarter-diopter less is blurry, we don't consider it over-prescribed. Over-prescribed means one quarter-diopter less is NOT blurry. > This is of course what Dr. Stirling > Colgate did (or figured out). So did he publish a controlled comparison between people using plus and people who didn't? Did he know the difference between refraction and acuity? -MT I noticed the term 'overprescribed' in this discussion. How can I figured out if -5.25 is too much for me? I still wear my old glasses that are -4.25[right] and -4.50[left] and I feel that they do good job. The newer -5.25 prescribtion creats too much pressure and discomfort and pain when I read and work on computer. I asked the doctor to reduce it but he says -5.25 is good for me and I need to get used to it... thank you for help. > > In semi-darkenss, you have a person > > read a "weak" snellen, and you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The measurements are sloppier in bright light because of depth-of-field, and > a four-diopter myope may only refract to -350 in daylight. No matter. > Roadsigns at night will still be blurry with -350 and clear with -400. If > you undercorrect everybody, they will all return complaining that they can't [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > -MT >I noticed the term 'overprescribed' in this discussion. How can I > figured out if -5.25 is too much for me? I still wear my old glasses [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reduce it but he says -5.25 is good for me and I need to get used to > it... thank you for help. Many people _need_ different prescriptions for near and distance. After 45 or so, most everybody does. But even before that, it's perfectly acceptable to use a lesser prescription for near, if it's clear and comfortable for the job at hand. Under age 40, glasses are usually written with one prescription, for "best corrected visual acuity" at 20 feet and beyond. If your "correct" prescription for far vision is -5.25, that means -5.00 would be a little blurry at that distance. If your -450 is blurry far away, then your "correct" prescription is more than -450. If roadsigns aren't better with -525, then -525 is more than you need. There is a superstition that correcting nearsightedness causes it to increase, so doctors should only prescribe enough correction to give you 20/40 far away. Anything more is "overprescribed" because it gives you better vision than is "legally necessary." I can't find any textbooks or Medline results that say wearing the "correct" prescription causes any harm. In fact, lenses that are "too strong" don't clearly have any effect - they're just uncomfortable and headachey. Likewise wearing less-than-optimum correction doesn't seem to do any good, insofar as how nearsighted you eventually get. They're fine for close vision, and a little blur far off isn't intrinsically harmful. Again, if your doctor rechecked your prescription and said -5.25 was still "right" then it should mean _you_ said the Snellen chart was not as clear with -500, and it wasn't any better with -550. That's how professionals determine "over" and "under." -MT > Dear Friend, > > You are safe. <snip> > Otis > Engineer Dear themailbox, Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and not in any position to give medical advice. Thank you! Allen -5.25 is fairly high, depending on your age, but not terribly high. How old are you? I mean if you were 7 years old, you could easily go to -10.00 or higher. But if you are 18, I don't think you'll get much worse. The truth is that myopia is always self-limiting and sooner or later you "level off". Barring any unfortunate disaster, like a total retinal detachment, you will NEVER0 get to the point where it can't be corrected. The oldest I've ever seen ordinary myopia increase is about age 35, and that is for someone who stares at a computer all day long. Don't believe every thing you read on this news group. We are infested by ignorance, greed, and psychoses. w.stacy, o.d. > My current prescription is -5.25 for both eyes. Is it a very strong > prescription? My eyesight keeps falling and I think that the doctor > will soon tell me that my eyesight cannot be corrected. Is it > possible? Thank you. Virtually impossible. If you were two years old, I would be concerned. DrG
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.