Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005
Is Lenscrafters overprescribing minus lenses?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
AsianMale - 05 Jun 2005 17:35 GMT Everytime I went to Lenscrafters, they said my eyes got really bad and that I had astigmatism or my astigmatism got worse, when actually I had not noticed much change. Recently I have noticed that the left side is much stronger than the right. I once had a weak pair of glasses. Then I put on the strong glasses they gave me. Now when I put on my weak pair of glasses i notice that my left eye is much more blurry than the right eye. This leads me to believe that my left eye is being overprescribed, and that they just make our eyes different prescriptions to try to trick us that they know what they are doing by giving us different Rx's for different eyes. This conclusion sickens me. When I first went to Lenscrafters they didn't even tell me that I was getting glasses. They didn't even treat me human. I didn't have any control over myopia. They kept me in the dark. Instead they talked to my parents, and showed my parents my Rx, instead of me. Lenscrafters suck.
Rich Greenberg - 05 Jun 2005 17:53 GMT >Everytime I went to Lenscrafters, they said my eyes got really bad and >that I had astigmatism or my astigmatism got worse, when actually I had [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >talked to my parents, and showed my parents my Rx, instead of me. >Lenscrafters suck. Then why are you going back there?
 Signature Rich Greenberg Marietta, GA, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 770 321 6507 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val, Red & Shasta (RIP),Red, husky Owner:Chinook-L Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
David Johnston - 05 Jun 2005 18:21 GMT >>Everytime I went to Lenscrafters, they said my eyes got really bad and >>that I had astigmatism or my astigmatism got worse, when actually I had [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Then why are you going back there? He's just a crossposting troll.
Ubiquitous - 05 Jun 2005 18:27 GMT No, but they're featured prominantly on "Blow Out" on Bravo. Lucky for you, there's a marathon this afternoon.
RichA - 05 Jun 2005 21:38 GMT >Everytime I went to Lenscrafters, they said my eyes got really bad and >that I had astigmatism or my astigmatism got worse, when actually I had [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >talked to my parents, and showed my parents my Rx, instead of me. >Lenscrafters suck. A few years back, an optical lab did a study of places like Lenscrafters and others that did cut-rate eyeglass production. They found that 9/10 lenses produced by them were significantly out of "spec." Not good for the eyes, I'm sure. -Rich
Rod Speed - 05 Jun 2005 22:05 GMT >>Everytime I went to Lenscrafters, they said my eyes got really bad and >>that I had astigmatism or my astigmatism got worse, when actually I had [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > They found that 9/10 lenses produced by them were significantly > out of "spec." Not good for the eyes, I'm sure. Your surety is completely irrelevant.
Its unlikely to matter much with normal glasses when they are always out of spec a bit after they have been used for a while, before the next prescription.
George - 05 Jun 2005 23:40 GMT >>A few years back, an optical lab did a study of places like >>Lenscrafters and others that did cut-rate eyeglass production. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they are always out of spec a bit after they have been > used for a while, before the next prescription. There are other reasons beside power that lenses can be out of spec. A lens can also be out of spec because of optical flaws. The big box optical stores usually use the cheapest lab they can find and often suggest plastic lenses because they are cheaper to buy. Plastic lenses require very tight process temperature control or they will warp. A warped lens causes distortion and uneven correction.
And the worst part is that the stores will try to tell you that the lenses are OK if you have a problem. My buddys wife got an exam and a new pair of glasses from a big box store. She complained that her vision wasn't right and she was getting headaches. The big box place told her that the lenses were OK and she needed to "adjust" to them. I gave the glasses to a friend who could check them where he worked. He said the lenses were warped. My buddys wife called the store asking for a complete refund. They refused until she mentioned that she had the glasses checked and it was found that the lenses were flawed.
Dan Abel - 05 Jun 2005 21:41 GMT > Everytime I went to Lenscrafters, they said my eyes got really bad and > that I had astigmatism or my astigmatism got worse, when actually I had [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > talked to my parents, and showed my parents my Rx, instead of me. > Lenscrafters suck. Life *does* suck when you are 16. Trust me, I tried it, for a whole year. If you are in most states in the US (maybe all), it's what they call "the law". The law says that your parents are in charge until you turn 18 at which point you can do whatever you want, including paying for everything (which your parents are required to do "by law" until then) and getting kicked out of the house for doing whatever you want. Businesses talk to the parents because they are the ones in charge and paying. If they are smart they will keep you happy also, but mostly they have to make your parents happy to keep them as customers. If your parents are smart, they will listen to you and try their best to do what you want. After all, in two short years you will be an adult and on your own. One does not train somebody on how to be a responsible adult without gradually shifting responsibility over to them.
 Signature Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net
AsianMale - 07 Jun 2005 00:38 GMT >Life *does* suck when you are 16. Trust me, I tried it, for a whole >year. My life sucks more. I just got a dislocated shoulder, which will cause permanent unstability for my whole life.
doctor_my_eye@msn.com - 08 Jun 2005 02:33 GMT There have been studies that have shown that patients are routinely "over-minused" in a short room. The theory is that even when the letters are compensated for in size, the patient involuntarily accomodates to respond to the closeness of the wall on the other end of the short room. Hence, it isn't just lenscrafters that tends to overminus a patient, but instead any refraction done in a short room tends to be overcorrected. Since Lenscrafters tend to be in big, high rent malls where space is very expensive to rent, short exam rooms are more common in that environment.
Dr. Leukoma - 08 Jun 2005 02:36 GMT Yes, and one of those studies was done at the Illinois College of Optometry when they first adopted short refracting lanes. The difference was found to be 0.12 diopters, as I recall.
DrG
doctor_my_eye@msn.com - 08 Jun 2005 02:42 GMT An optometry resident takes 45 minutes to perfect a subjective refraction. A Lenscrafters rushing O.D. might take 4 minutes for that subjective. To quote an ICO study is superfluous here, they are much better at checking and balancing than the typical short-room rushing retail refractionist.
William Stacy - 08 Jun 2005 03:22 GMT No, modern refractive techniques result in a slight UNDER correction of minus in short refracting rooms. Extra minus is routinely given (about .25 in most cases) to take the clarity out to optical infinity by a very simple and well understood formula. This is what most people want and get. But sure, if you want undercorrection, ask for it and it shall be given (after you sign the waiver that says you will pay for the stronger lens redo after you come to your senses).
w.stacy, o.d.
> There have been studies that have shown that patients are routinely > "over-minused" in a short room. The theory is that even when the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > rent malls where space is very expensive to rent, short exam rooms are > more common in that environment. Dr. Leukoma - 08 Jun 2005 04:10 GMT I think we're losing sight of the fact that the precision of a refraction is on the order of 0.25 to 0.50 diopters. At least that is what I've been told. I am obviously not that sloppy.
Also, add to that the tolerances in spectacle and contact lens powers...
DrG
doctor_my_eye@msn.com - 08 Jun 2005 19:01 GMT AAhh, that clarifier.."modern techniques" ;)
In simplest terms: If you neutralize the patients accomodation with cycloplegia or good "techniques" the patient will be under corrected if the room is too short, as you have not truly used optical infinity. But, if accomodation is not neutralized, the patient's sense of the wall being close to him causes him to accomodate to the plane of the wall, adding plus to the eye, which artificially causes him to be over minused to neutralise his true myopia and that residual "black box" myopia. (Remember the old black box studies? They would put cardboard boxes over the head of college students, and measured the fact that the eyes wanted to accomodate when they were in the dark. Hence the fact that all low myopes hate to drive at night without their glasses, when they are fine all day without them. The night sky causes enough pupil dilation and dark accomodation that they need their minus correction more at night.)
> No, modern refractive techniques result in a slight UNDER correction of > minus in short refracting rooms. Extra minus is routinely given (about [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > rent malls where space is very expensive to rent, short exam rooms are > > more common in that environment. William Stacy - 08 Jun 2005 19:25 GMT Oops, excuse me doc; your computer name reminded me more of a song lyric than an optometrist's nickname... OK I remember it as "instrument myopia" and am well aware of it in younger patients, and always use proper techniques and Rx adjustments to assure that my myopes won't be unhappy at night...
> AAhh, that clarifier.."modern techniques" ;) > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>>rent malls where space is very expensive to rent, short exam rooms are >>>more common in that environment. doctor_my_eye@msn.com - 08 Jun 2005 20:32 GMT Yes, I am a Jackson Browne fan and an optometrist as well. I think we are on the same page here. I never suggested that a short room refraction is always wrong. In the hands of a skilled clinician such as yourself, the length of the room doesn't matter. When an error is going to be made from sloppy work I am suggesting that it is most easily made in a short room. Fill in your favorite guffaws here about size doesn't matter. ;)
lucy - 05 Jun 2005 21:42 GMT This group is getting as nasty as some of the others of late. The OP referred to his parents in his post. He looks like a typical teenager just wanting to vent about a bad experience that he probably had no control over. Don't any of you remember what it was like when your parents made decisions for you, even if you disagreed? Cross posting is "wrong" and does get people treated like sh.t when they do it. So I'm sure to some this justifies their treatment of people. AsianMale, I've been to Lens Crafters a couple of times too, and they have said my left eye is weaker as well. Your post made me wonder.. and now I'm going to go to another optometrist, and find out what the deal is. Thanks for sharing, lucy
> Everytime I went to Lenscrafters, they said my eyes got really bad and > that I had astigmatism or my astigmatism got worse, when actually I had [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > talked to my parents, and showed my parents my Rx, instead of me. > Lenscrafters suck. Robert Morien - 05 Jun 2005 21:50 GMT > This group is getting as nasty as some of the others of late. The OP > referred to his parents in his post. He looks like a typical teenager just [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > talked to my parents, and showed my parents my Rx, instead of me. > > Lenscrafters suck. Interesting how you can defend someone who cross-posts to so many UNRELATED newsgroups...which should have been the CLUE that AsianMale was a troll.
To the best of my knowledge, Lenscrafters doesn't even do eye exams.
AsianMale - 07 Jun 2005 00:19 GMT >Interesting how you can defend someone who cross-posts to so many >UNRELATED newsgroups...which should have been the CLUE that AsianMale >was a troll. What's a troll? From the context I assume it's someone who is bored and just wants to argue so posts to as many people as possible just to cause trouble.
bicycle - 05 Jun 2005 21:52 GMT > This group is getting as nasty as some of the others of late. The OP > referred to his parents in his post. He looks like a typical teenager just [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it. So I'm sure to some this justifies their treatment of people. > AsianMale, <snip> It's not just the cross-posting Lucy, it's crap like this that "AsianMale" has posted, or rather trolled:
"i saw this hot latina girl and i was getting boners in class. I squeezed one off in the public bathroom. It took long and I was standing up, and couldn't really relax because people kept using the bathroom. When I was done my thumb muscle in my palm felt like it had ran 5 miles and hadn't taken a break. It felt oxygen deprived for like 30 minutes. This is not a joke. Now there is a giant bulging vein and it will never go away. It does not look like the other hand. When I do handstands 5 minutes later there is a pulsating pain that is in my hand when I squeeze the thumb and index fingers together...
Please note that I masturbated NONSTOP without REST of my hand, only when I was done did I notice the pain and bulging vein on my palm. Masturbation is DANGEROUS!"
No wonder he has vision problems!
> > Everytime I went to Lenscrafters, they said my eyes got really bad and > > that I had astigmatism or my astigmatism got worse, when actually I had [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > talked to my parents, and showed my parents my Rx, instead of me. > > Lenscrafters suck. Beeblebrox - 05 Jun 2005 22:23 GMT > Please note that I masturbated NONSTOP without REST of my hand, only > when I was done did I notice the pain and bulging vein on my palm. > Masturbation is DANGEROUS!" > > No wonder he has vision problems! hehe
Wooly - 05 Jun 2005 22:22 GMT >I've been to Lens Crafters a couple of times too, and they have >said my left eye is weaker as well. Funny. I've never been to Lenscrafters in my life, yet my left eye is weaker than my right eye.
I wonder, could it be that most right-handed individuals (I'm a righty) are right-eye dominant, hence the scads of people found by Lenscrafters specifically and eyecare professionals generally to be weaker on the left than the right?
Wooly "Three spheres of difference? Better get high-index this time!" Grrl
+++++++++++++
Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET. This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%. Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account...
qiuser@yahoo.com - 05 Jun 2005 22:53 GMT > Funny. I've never been to Lenscrafters in my life, yet my left eye is > weaker than my right eye. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Lenscrafters specifically and eyecare professionals generally to be > weaker on the left than the right? Naw. I've never been to Lenscrafters either and though I'm right handed, my left eye is dominant, the right is slightly weaker (or astigmatic and it's usually been corrected by a slightly stronger prescription for that eye).
sue
Meifumado - 05 Jun 2005 23:28 GMT Why is this posted in alt.suicide.holiday?
It has no place there.
Please put it back where it belongs.
Respectfully,
Pete
JonL@myway.com - 05 Jun 2005 23:28 GMT > >I've been to Lens Crafters a couple of times too, and they have > >said my left eye is weaker as well. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Lenscrafters specifically and eyecare professionals generally to be > weaker on the left than the right? Interesting.....I'm lefthanded & my right eye is weaker.
Think I'll stay away from CraftyLens. They don't hire craftsmen to do the actual grinding. They use unskilled minimum wage labor.
Meifumado - 05 Jun 2005 23:46 GMT Do gay people or Nazis have worse eyesight?
Dan Abel - 06 Jun 2005 20:25 GMT > Funny. I've never been to Lenscrafters in my life, yet my left eye is > weaker than my right eye. Be honest with us, Wooly. I think you're trying to pull a fast one over on this group. You know the truth is that you just need to walk by one of these places and *BOOM* your left eye is weaker than your right. Isn't that really what happened, Wooly?
:-)
 Signature Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net
AsianMale - 07 Jun 2005 00:41 GMT >Be honest with us, Wooly. I think you're trying to pull a fast one over >on this group. You know the truth is that you just need to walk by one of >these places and *BOOM* your left eye is weaker than your right. Isn't >that really what happened, Wooly?
>:-) Yeah Wooly why don't you just admit the truth?
 Signature Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS d...@sonic.net
Michael B. - 05 Jun 2005 22:34 GMT Is there some reason why you guys are cross posting this off topic crap to unrelated newsgroups?
PaPaPeng - 05 Jun 2005 23:52 GMT >This leads me to believe that my left eye is being >overprescribed, and that they just make our eyes different >prescriptions to try to trick us that they know what they are doing by >giving us different Rx's for different eyes. I can see quite well with glasses which I need only for driving and seeing movies, although not to the sharp detail claimed by some eagle eyes. I can read or thread a needle without glasses. Thus I had always refused to let them increase my prescription for more than 25 years. I am till using my glasses from that period. My son complains my glasses really date me and I finally relented to get a pair of more modern ones. Got my eyes tested at the same time. Know what? My distance vison (I'm moderately shortsighted) had improved (reduced) by a degree and my near vision is normal. I believe if I had let them increase my prescription everytime I saw them I would be wearing coke bottle bottoms for glasses now.
Mike Tyner - 06 Jun 2005 00:04 GMT > what? My distance vison (I'm moderately shortsighted) had improved > (reduced) by a degree and my near vision is normal. I believe if I > had let them increase my prescription everytime I saw them I would be > wearing coke bottle bottoms for glasses now. The problem with relying on belief is that real life may or may not match what you believe.
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=2667638&query_hl=1"
-MT
Rod Speed - 06 Jun 2005 01:31 GMT >> what? My distance vison (I'm moderately shortsighted) had improved >> (reduced) by a degree and my near vision is normal. I believe if I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=2667638&query_hl=1" Doesnt prove a lot about what happens over say 40 years.
Rod Speed - 06 Jun 2005 01:27 GMT >>This leads me to believe that my left eye is being >>overprescribed, and that they just make our eyes different [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > had let them increase my prescription everytime I saw them I would be > wearing coke bottle bottoms for glasses now. More fool you.
otisbrown@pa.net - 06 Jun 2005 03:12 GMT Dear PaPaPing,
You made the RIGHT decision -- which is supported by both scientists and optometrists (second opinion).
This is exactly the recommendation I made to my sister's children when they were 13 years old. Like most children they were "reluctant" until they woke up to the consequences of NOT wearing the plus agressively.
See my future posts by the scientist Stirling Colgate and his "correct use" of the plus -- and his support for the optometrist Steve Leung OD -- for prevention with plus.
Best,
Otis
Dr. Leukoma - 06 Jun 2005 04:06 GMT > >This leads me to believe that my left eye is being > >overprescribed, and that they just make our eyes different [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > had let them increase my prescription everytime I saw them I would be > wearing coke bottle bottoms for glasses now. I haven't had to increase my prescription for 25 years, either. In fact, I have had to reduce it, from about -4.50 to -3.25, and I haven't had to sacrifice the sharpness of my vision...ever. I can still read 20/15.
DrG
Neil Brooks - 06 Jun 2005 04:11 GMT >I haven't had to increase my prescription for 25 years, either. In >fact, I have had to reduce it, from about -4.50 to -3.25, and I haven't >had to sacrifice the sharpness of my vision...ever. I can still read >20/15. Couple possibles here:
1) "Staircase myopia" has a strong genetic component (this could blow gaping holes in the theories so vigorously espoused by some s.m.v. contributors)
2) You work aboard a tiny ship amid the vastness of the ocean. Nothing that you have to see is ever any closer than infinity
Am I close? ;-)
Dr. Leukoma - 06 Jun 2005 12:58 GMT Yes, indeed. Right out of optometry school I applied for a position aboard a cruise ship. It turned out to be a dinghy, without a cabin, and I've been lost at sea for all these years. But, I'm not going to quit now, I've only got 3.25 diopters left to go. It's difficult work, but I'm taking charge of my own vision.
DrG
Dr. Leukoma - 06 Jun 2005 15:35 GMT Actually, I have found that "staircase myopia" goes in both directions: "up," and "down." I need to publish this finding.
DrG
Dr. Leukoma - 06 Jun 2005 15:45 GMT There is also another kind of myopia I wish to call "elevator myopia," not to be confused with "escalator myopia" which has an "X" component. Another difference is that "escalator myopia" tends to be mild, one or two diopters, whereas "elevator myopia" can exceed 100 diopters or more. Elevator myopia is definitely a product of modern society, in particular its architectural style.
DrG
Mark A - 05 Jun 2005 23:58 GMT > Everytime I went to Lenscrafters, they said my eyes got really bad and > that I had astigmatism or my astigmatism got worse, when actually I had [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > talked to my parents, and showed my parents my Rx, instead of me. > Lenscrafters suck. The optometrist that is next door to a Lenscrafters (appears to be inside Lenscrafters, but they must also have a separate outside door) is not technically part of Lenscrafters. They are an independent optometrist that rents space from Lenscrafters. You can go to that optometrist and get lenses some place else, or go to a different optometrist for the Rx and get your lenses at Lenscrafters.
marks542004@yahoo.com - 06 Jun 2005 01:35 GMT It is fairly normal for the prescription to be slightly different for each eye.
If your new prescription is much different than your old one you should ask the optometrist for a recheck. Thay go primarily from what you tell them when they use the test lenses.
If your new lenses seem much stronger than the old ones , despite a similar prescription you should get them checked. Most optometrists will test the lenses at no charge. (at least in my area)
It is also fairly normal for the Doctor, optometrist etc to talk to the parent if the patient is underage.
If you have acute vision problems you should be consulting an opthemologist (medically trained eye specialist) rather than a simple optometrist.
In my experiance Lenscrafters was very good about retesting my vision (at no charge) and correcting the lenses when I had problems with the new glasses.
AsianMale - 07 Jun 2005 00:33 GMT >In my experiance Lenscrafters was very good about retesting my vision >(at no charge) and correcting the lenses when I had problems with the >new glasses. Well they should do whatever you say, afterall they're ruining your eyes and making you pay for it.
>It is also fairly normal for the Doctor, optometrist etc to talk to the >parent if the patient is underage. That is sick, optometry should be illegal. They should make the kid sign something that says the FDA + glasses company assumes no responsibility for any damage caused by glasses.
RichA - 07 Jun 2005 00:52 GMT >>In my experiance Lenscrafters was very good about retesting my vision >>(at no charge) and correcting the lenses when I had problems with the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >sign something that says the FDA + glasses company assumes no >responsibility for any damage caused by glasses. Should they also outlaw vaccines because of the few dozen out of a million people who might react poorly to them? Why don't you go grind up and consume some tiger bones to make your penis grow longer? -Rich
Rod Speed - 07 Jun 2005 01:14 GMT >>>In my experiance Lenscrafters was very good about retesting my vision >>>(at no charge) and correcting the lenses when I had problems with the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Should they also outlaw vaccines because of the few dozen out of > a million people who might react poorly to them?
> Why don't you go grind up and consume some tiger bones to make > your penis grow longer? He cant, he snapped it off quite a while ago.
He was warned, he wouldnt listen.
In spades with his eyesight.
Neil Brooks - 07 Jun 2005 00:54 GMT >>In my experiance Lenscrafters was very good about retesting my vision >>(at no charge) and correcting the lenses when I had problems with the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >sign something that says the FDA + glasses company assumes no >responsibility for any damage caused by glasses. Welcome to my killfile. Enjoy your stay....
AsianMale - 07 Jun 2005 06:50 GMT > >>In my experiance Lenscrafters was very good about retesting my vision > >>(at no charge) and correcting the lenses when I had problems with the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Welcome to my killfile. Enjoy your stay.... What's a "killfile"?
|
|
|