 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2005Advantages of Myopia?
Well as far as career and lifestyle concerned, disadvantages of myopia (mild or moderate) can be eliminated by using corrective lenses, contacts etc. But is there an advantage being a myope? Thanks... If you like to read. In order to counteract the negative social connotations of wearing eyeglasses, I used to tell children...and still do, that being myopic was a sign of intelligence. DrG >If you like to read. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >DrG > I think it is Doc, you got a point there. I think it makes you look distinguished, especially I check out aviators with glasses, they look more distinguished than their normal sight colleagues. I loved to read when I was a kid, I read all the time, I then got addicted to PCs when I was 14. I got my first signs of refractive problem when I was 17, and now 28 it is progressing, after all I am aging too and it is totally normal, I learnt to live with it. > If you like to read. > > In order to counteract the negative social connotations of wearing > eyeglasses, I used to tell children...and still do, that being myopic > was a sign of intelligence. So is lefthandedness. Since your parents didn't try to turn you into a rightie they're smarter than average. If they're smarter than average, you are likely to be smarter than average. My husband, the certified genius, is a leftie. I think he's a mutant, though, but in a good way.  SignatureCheers, Bev ------------------------------------------------------------- "We've got some stupid people out there. This morning, I woke up in a bathtub filled with ice and I had an extra kidney." > Well as far as career and lifestyle concerned, disadvantages of myopia > (mild or moderate) can be eliminated by using corrective lenses, > contacts etc. But is there an advantage being a myope? > > Thanks... If you're wearing glasses, you probably have a decreased risk of eye trauma. I know an ophth who would routine prescribe a blank lens for uniocular patients. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply >If you're wearing glasses, you probably have a decreased risk of eye >trauma. I know an ophth who would routine prescribe a blank lens for >uniocular patients. > > Ok, a few terms I don't know, eye trauma and uniocular.... >>If you're wearing glasses, you probably have a decreased risk of eye >>trauma. I know an ophth who would routine prescribe a blank lens for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Ok, a few terms I don't know, eye trauma and uniocular.... http://dictionary.reference.com SignatureScott Reverse name to reply The main advantage of myopia is the reason we have myopia at all. It's to allow us to do near work into old age without the need for glasses. Handy for lots of people (artisans, jewelers, optometrists, surgeons, computer geeks, you name it). This was more important before the advent of glasses. Not too handy for pilots and crane operators... w.stacy, o.d. > Not too handy for pilots and crane operators... A pair of glasses, voila! A KC-10 pilot gave me some advice on glasses; after I asked a few aviators how they are affected during flight.. Don't sweat the glasses man. I lasted until 31 before I needed glasses. Squinted through physicals for years... Headaches and all... If you are borderline you will need them to fly but not for much else. Over time you will want them to drive at night or if you care about whats on all those powerpoint slides you may carry a pair... In addition, if you are borderline good to go- why go through all the crazy hassle of contacts or surgery? Touch your finger to your eyeball and blink and wince in front of a mirror for a while like a circus clown- If you think you can look cool doing doing that in public then get contacts. Complain to strangers about how much you hate dry contacts. Heck, you wont wear them to do anything but fly... As for the surgery? Risk your vision or career so you can correct a few points? Lasers and razors in your eyeballs when you are 20/25???Lenscrafters here I come!!! I felt dorky wearing them for a while until I started seeing all the stuff I was missing, like street signs and air traffic. 8 years later I read line 10 on a physical and poof no more glasses required for flight. I still wear them anyway. Have fun with it since you have a choice. Get some cool glasses and some dorky ones to amuse others. Glasses are no big deal, and after a short time you will forget you bothered to post this message. Another figher pilot who trains to fly the F-15 Eagles; I've worn glasses since I was in the 7th grade. Mostly I've worn contacts since I was in high school. I wore contacts all through UPT and was fine. (T-37/T-38) You'd be surprised...a lot of dudes wear glasses. I don't like them because like someone mentioned, it screws up your peripheral vision. If you're gonna get on the contact lens program, make sure that you've been wearing contacts for several months before you go to UPT. When I went through the rule was you had to have been wearing contacts for at least 6 months or you were forced to wear glasses. Don't sweat the small vision problem...its no big deal! > The main advantage of myopia is the reason we have myopia at all. It's to > allow us to do near work into old age without the need for glasses. Handy > for lots of people (artisans, jewelers, optometrists, surgeons, computer > geeks, you name it). This was more important before the advent of glasses. In ancient times, once you approached middle age, your reading days were over unless you were myopic. Not only were your reading days over, but you were over. DrG > > Well as far as career and lifestyle concerned, disadvantages of myopia > > (mild or moderate) can be eliminated by using corrective lenses, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > trauma. I know an ophth who would routine prescribe a blank lens for > uniocular patients. Hyperopes need to wear glasses all the time, but myopes need them only part of the time. Accordingly, hyperopes' eyes are safer. OTOH, you hardly ever encounter dangerous things at reading distance. Myopes are clearly luckier, SOMETIMES their noses don't hurt. SignatureCheers, Bev ------------------------------------------------------------- "We've got some stupid people out there. This morning, I woke up in a bathtub filled with ice and I had an extra kidney." >Well as far as career and lifestyle concerned, disadvantages of myopia >(mild or moderate) can be eliminated by using corrective lenses, >contacts etc. But is there an advantage being a myope? The advantage is that even at the age of 50 I can still take my glasses off and see close up tiny things perfectly. I wouldn't give that up for the world. >Well as far as career and lifestyle concerned, disadvantages of myopia >(mild or moderate) can be eliminated by using corrective lenses, >contacts etc. But is there an advantage being a myope? > >Thanks... My Rx is -4.50 add +2.25 and it drives people crazy when I take off my glasses to see close objects. "They" have to put on their reading glasses AND use a magnifier to match my near vision, if they can find either one at any given time. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical robopt@execpc.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr > Well as far as career and lifestyle concerned, disadvantages of myopia > (mild or moderate) can be eliminated by using corrective lenses, > contacts etc. But is there an advantage being a myope? > > Thanks... i don't see any. i have -7.5 on both eyes, wear thinned glasses, and ocasionally day lenses (focus dailies); but i'd rather do without them. andy > > Well as far as career and lifestyle concerned, disadvantages of myopia > > (mild or moderate) can be eliminated by using corrective lenses, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > i don't see any. i have -7.5 on both eyes, wear thinned glasses, and > ocasionally day lenses (focus dailies); but i'd rather do without them. It's not 100% clear to me what the above means, but I thought it was referring to mild or moderate myopia. At -7.5, I would call your myopia "severe". The old-time watchmakers might have found some advantage to your myopia, but not many other people. The real risks of "high myopia" is the probability of developing a detached retina. If you can avoid getting into even mild nearsighedness you should do so -- as intimated by the Oakley-Young study. Best, Otis > The real risks of "high myopia" is the probability > of developing a detached retina. > > If you can avoid getting into even mild > nearsighedness you should do so -- as > intimated by the Oakley-Young study. EXCEPT that the patients in the Oakley-Young study would never become high axial myopes as Otis would scare you into believing. DrG > The real risks of "high myopia" is the probability > of developing a detached retina. > > If you can avoid getting into even mild > nearsighedness you should do so -- as > intimated by the Oakley-Young study. Or is it: The real risk of a detached retina is that you might develop severe myopia? >> Well as far as career and lifestyle concerned, disadvantages of myopia >> (mild or moderate) can be eliminated by using corrective lenses, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > i don't see any. i have -7.5 on both eyes, wear thinned glasses, and > ocasionally day lenses (focus dailies); but i'd rather do without them. Andy, at -7.5 your would be almost blind. Not being able to recognize people just a few yards in front of you. Check your numbers. Perhaps you mean -.75? >> Andy, at -7.5 your would be almost blind. Not being able to recognize > people just a few yards in front of you. Check your numbers. Perhaps > you mean -.75? Gert, you are exhibiting your ignorance in the vision field. -7.5 is a fairly common amount of myopia, and by far most of the 7 diopter myopes would resent the implications of that comment. Most of them correct nicely to 20/20 or better (with the proper glasses or contact lenses). Moreover, they can easily read the finest type on the smallest medicine label in dim light without the help of glasses or contacts, even at your age. You can't. Whose "almost blind"???? w.stacy, o.d. er, "Who's almost blind???" w.stacy, o.d. >>> Andy, at -7.5 your would be almost blind. Not being able to recognize >> people just a few yards in front of you. Check your numbers. Perhaps [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would resent the implications of that comment. Most of them correct > nicely to 20/20 or better (with the proper glasses or contact lenses). I was -3.75 in one eye once and that was so blurred that I could never function properly outside. Unless the eye measuring standards have changed recently I can't imagine how a person with -7.5 would function. At -3.75 I could not recognize people across the street unless they were wearing distinguishing clothes. Maybe some people function better with their vision than I do. I have never known anybody who doesn't wear their glasses most of the time and has a correction higher than about -2. I was talking about how they function WITHOUT correction. Who cares what correction does when it ruins the eyes? And please don't chop relevant parts of a post off. Its inconsideratet of new viewers who can't see the beginning of a thread. (At least you bottom post like most in here - that is a welcome relief.) You "experts" just won't get it. That correction is a road to acuity ruin. It must be hard to read that since it goes against everything you've been taught in your training. My sympathies. I'd hate to be in a field for decades then learn most everything I did for my patients was wrong. >You "experts" just won't >get it. That correction is a road to acuity ruin. It must be hard >to read that since it goes against everything you've been taught in >your training. My sympathies. I'd hate to be in a field for decades >then learn most everything I did for my patients was wrong. How can I put this delicately: you have your head up your a.s. If you'd unzip your pants, we could probably understand you better. Your anecdote -- totally misunderstood -- should be weighted more heavily than /all/ of the current scientific evidence? Aren't we a self-important douchebag. [plonk] > That correction is a road to acuity ruin. It must be hard > to read that since it goes against everything you've been taught in > your training. My sympathies. I'd hate to be in a field for decades > then learn most everything I did for my patients was wrong. Perhaps you can point us to some publication that documents a difference between people wearing glasses and people who don't. Because until you can find some objective support for your argument, doctors will continue to prescribe for clear vision. -MT Dear Mike, Georgeous probably does not have it at hand but the Oakley-Young study proved that the natural eye's with a strong minus lens on them went "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year, while the "plus" (bi-focal) group when "down" at a rate of approximately zero-diopters per year over several years of the study. Oh, I forgot -- you don't read scientifc studies WHERE YOU DON'T LIKE THE SCIENTIFIC TRUTH OF THE STUDY. Georgeous -- Mike is playing "head games" with you. Other ODs accept the necessity of the plus FOR PREVENTION. Don't believe me, then read: www.chinamyopia.org The "majority opinion" ODs are blind to scientific studies. But just remember that prevention-with-plus is SUPPORTED by other ODs. Just keep an open mind -- and don't let these turkeys get you down. Best, Otis > Georgeous -- Mike is playing "head games" with > you. Other ODs accept the necessity of > the plus FOR PREVENTION. Yes, at least three or four of them still do. Wonder why the rest quit trying? -MT Another Otis white lie. The Oakley-Young study was done on patient who had accommodative/convergence disorder as well as myopia. The test group who used bifocals did indeed "go down" at a substantially reduced rate, but they did indeed "go down." In other words, the rate of progression was NOT zero as Otis claims. Fulk, Cyert, and Parker reported on 45 children who completed a randomized controlled study of bifocal treatment on myopic children with nearpoint esophoria. The bifocal group showed a decrease in the rate of progression for the first 2 years, and same rate of regression during the subsequent 3 years as the control group. Both groups progressed. The COMET Group found similar results using bifocals for children with "large lags of accommodation and nearpoint esophoria." Overall, out of more than 400 myopic children, the 3 year progresion of myopia was 1.28 diopters in the bifocal group, vs. 1.48 in the single vision group. Hardly enough difference to justify the use of bifocals. The conclusion of the Young-Oakley study was that the use of bifocal lenses is warranted on myopic children with nearpoint esophoria. The conclusions of the COMET study were similar, which is that children with large accommodative lag and nearpoint esophoria show a slower rate of progression only for the first two years. Thereafter it is the same. NO STUDY published to date supports any position of Otis Brown, engineer, smoke-blower extraordinaire. DrG Another Otis white lie. Another DrG white lie DrG< The Oakley-Young study was done on patient who had accommodative/convergence disorder as well as myopia. Otis> To the best of my knowledge, Francis Young did not state that these kids "has accommodative/convergence disorders. Otis> Almost all natural eyes will exhibit eye-turn when doing a "cover" test. DrG interperts this natural "eye-turn" as a terrible "accommodation/convergence" disorder. Best, Otis Otis shows his ignorance of eye matters once again. What's the matter, Otis? Do you think that your minions will believe every word that emanates from your keyboard? The term esophoria refers to a specific type of "eye turn." Esophoria refers to eyes that have a tendency to turn-in. Most myopes are either orthophoric (show no eye turn) or exophoric (slight turn outwards). The exophoria tends to increase as the myopia increases. Every citations and discussion of the Young-Oakley study indicates that the children had esophoria. If Dr. Young didn't know this, then perhaps Dr. Oakley does. DrG I put this reply back into the OTIS WARNING thread because that's where it belongs. This is a perfect example of how he lies, twists and obfuscates that which the rest of the world understands as valid truth. > Another Otis white lie. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > did not state that these kids "has accommodative/convergence > disorders. No need to rehash this again. Otis simply ignores that which doesn't fit his needs. > Otis> Almost all natural eyes will exhibit eye-turn when > doing a "cover" test. DrG interperts this natural > "eye-turn" as a terrible "accommodation/convergence" > disorder. Neither DrG nor anyone else in the profession ever said anything like that. Human eyes converge and diverge and we observe that with the cover/uncover test. It's natural, normal, expected, necessary. Sometimes the system doesn't work correctly and then it can be referred to as a disorder. It's not terrible and sometimes, not always related to optical/refractive errors and often correctable. Otis is finally running scared, owing to the continual onslaught of facts overwhelming his ridiculous, disproved concepts. So sad, Otis, Why not just give it up, seeing as your foolishness is now looking more like demented, crazy and sick. --LB, O.D. Dear Georgeous, Subject: You are absolutly right! You don't know me personally, but I respected the ODs -- i.e., the ones who developed the "preventive" second opinion with the plus. (i.e., Dr. Jacob Raphaelson.) I learned from his that it was essential that the person be informed of his CHOICE before the situation got "out of hand". This is the reason for my "advocacy". You have understood these issues with accuracy. While we probably don't agree on our "language" to describe our "preventive" goal, I judge that the "second opinion" of value. Keep posting your honest judgment. Your are far more accurate that the "majority opinion" is. Just remember there ARE OD WHO AGREE WITH YOU, POINT BY POINT. www.chinamyopia.org Best, Otis Yes, there are ODs who agree with you point-by-point. They are Jacob Raphaelson and Steven Leung. DrG Good, DrG, Now Georgeous knows that she has an honest choice in this matter, and that SOME ODs agree that the preventive plus is an excellent idea -- if the person concerned with his distant vision is willing to do the "consistent" work with the plus to keep his (or her) distant vision clear (i.e., passing all legal visual acuity standards required of her.) You also forgot to include Professor Theodore Grosvenor, Professor of Ophthalmology, who suggested that it would be wise to START with the use of the plus BEFORE the person becomse seriously nearsighed, i.e., before the preson's visual acuity goes below 20/40 or 20/50. And lastly, we have the recommendations of Professor Francis Young, who suggested prevention also for the person who had the essential motivation to do it correctly, and therefore successfully. Best, Otis Then there is nobel laureate Linus Pauling who suggested that 20 grams of ascorbic acid daily might be the correct amount of vitamin C. DrG > You also forgot to include Professor > Theodore Grosvenor, Professor of Ophthalmology, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > i.e., before the preson's visual acuity goes > below 20/40 or 20/50. OK. Show us the quote, Otis. Did Dr. Grosvenor actually endorse this method, or did he suggest that it should be studied? There's a distinct difference, and we know that we can always rely upon you to make that magical "leap of meaning." DrG > You also forgot to include Professor > Theodore Grosvenor, Professor of Ophthalmology, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > i.e., before the preson's visual acuity goes > below 20/40 or 20/50. "Although Ted recently passed the vision test for a Washington drivers licence, he finds that fewer people will ride with him these days." J Graham Strong OD MSc Professor of Optometry and Director, Centre for Sight Enhancement, School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada http://www.optometrists.asn.au/gui/files/ceo865346.pdf > >>> Andy, at -7.5 your would be almost blind. Not being able to recognize > >> people just a few yards in front of you. Check your numbers. Perhaps [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > function properly outside. Unless the eye measuring standards have > changed recently I can't imagine how a person with -7.5 would function. With glasses? Or contacts? > At -3.75 I could not recognize people across the street unless they > were wearing distinguishing clothes. Maybe some people function better > with their vision than I do. I have never known anybody who doesn't > wear their glasses most of the time and has a correction higher than > about -2. I was talking about how they function WITHOUT correction. Why would someone who needs -7.5D go around without glasses? > Who > cares what correction does when it ruins the eyes? And please don't > chop relevant parts of a post off. Nobody chopped anything off that I can see. Perhaps we are all a little deficient in mind-reading. > your training. My sympathies. I'd hate to be in a field for decades > then learn most everything I did for my patients was wrong. So would I. Fortunately we have experts like yourself who have learned the truth without any study, knowledge or training whatsoever. Must be nice. >> >>> Andy, at -7.5 your would be almost blind. Not being able to >> recognize [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > With glasses? Or contacts? All those figures mentioned (-3.75, -7.5) are for uncorrected vision. Corrected vision would always be close to 20/20 wouldn't it? I'm not understanding your query. >> At -3.75 I could not recognize people across the street unless they >> were wearing distinguishing clothes. Maybe some people function better [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why would someone who needs -7.5D go around without glasses? Well that's my point! It would be very very difficult. >> Who >> cares what correction does when it ruins the eyes? And please don't >> chop relevant parts of a post off. > > Nobody chopped anything off that I can see. Perhaps we are all a little > deficient in mind-reading. :)....ok. >> your training. My sympathies. I'd hate to be in a field for decades >> then learn most everything I did for my patients was wrong. > > So would I. Fortunately we have experts like yourself who have learned > the truth without any study, knowledge or training whatsoever. Must be > nice. Yeah, yeay...I was a little worked up there. Didn't mean to be quite so sharp. I just think that personal experience replicated hundreds of times should not be ignored. > >> >>> Andy, at -7.5 your would be almost blind. Not being able to [snip] > >> function properly outside. Unless the eye measuring standards have > >> changed recently I can't imagine how a person with -7.5 would function. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Corrected vision would always be close to 20/20 wouldn't it? I'm not > understanding your query. People with myopia are fond of saying that, "I'm nearly blind". The truth is that most of them are in fact correctable to 20/20. They see almost as well as anybody else. Talking about being "unable to function" is silly, since they function just fine, as long as they don't lose their glasses or something similar. Other people are not so lucky, and *cannot* function because their vision is *not* correctable to 20/20. > >> about -2. I was talking about how they function WITHOUT correction. > > > > Why would someone who needs -7.5D go around without glasses? > > Well that's my point! It would be very very difficult. So why are you bringing it up? That's *my* point. > Yeah, yeay...I was a little worked up there. Didn't mean to be quite so > sharp. I just think that personal experience replicated hundreds of times > should not be ignored. Do you mean your personal experience replicated 100s of times, or the experience of hundreds of subject? I think there is a not-so-subtle difference. I won't argue the former, but would ask you to quote your source for the latter. DrG OK I'll bite. What is the other eye? You are quite right that most myopes over -2.00 need their glasses full time (except for near work). I've been about -3.00 most of my life and never had a problem with wearing glasses. They certainly didn't ruin my eyes. I've enjoyed a long life of very clear vision. Now that I've had cataract surgery, I don't "need" glasses for much of anything, but guess what, I still wear them pretty much full time! I like the protection they give and when I want to see fine detail (like when I'm doing something critical, like examining somebody's eyes), I appreciate what they do for me. I wouldn't want to miss a speck of anything, for sure. Glasses are great. Get over it. Now where was I? Oh yeah, what is your other eye? w.stacy, o.d. > I was -3.75 in one eye once and that was so blurred that I could never > function properly outside. Unless the eye measuring standards have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > your training. My sympathies. I'd hate to be in a field for decades > then learn most everything I did for my patients was wrong. > OK I'll bite. What is the other eye? You are quite right that most > myopes over -2.00 need their glasses full time (except for near work). > I've been about -3.00 most of my life and never had a problem with > wearing glasses. They certainly didn't ruin my eyes. I've been much more myopic for most of my life, and I had some problems wearing glasses. They get dirty and they get fogged up (and sometimes wet). They also made my face look funny (they shrink the apparent size of the eyes). Of course, with -10D and -12D at the worst, that's a lot different than -3D. I couldn't read without my glasses, as the farthest away I could focus without them was about an inch. Maybe a few times a month I had need to see that close, and I could take off my glasses and it was kind of neat. Not enough to compensate, though. I wore contacts for about ten years, and pretty much lost that option anyway. It's not very practical to remove a contact for a few seconds and then put it back in. I was presbyopic by then anyway, so I had a collection of reading glasses for seeing close. Of course, these "problems" are incredibly minor compared to the good the glasses did. I dare say that I wouldn't have had much of a life without them. > long life of very clear vision. Now that I've had cataract surgery, I > don't "need" glasses for much of anything, but guess what, I still wear [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > want to miss a speck of anything, for sure. Glasses are great. Get over > it. I have also had cataract surgery in both eyes. I was really looking forward to being able to see without glasses. I have basically not worn correction for distance for the last three years. Both my OD and my OMD have advised me to wear glasses for eye protection, as I had a retinal detachment in my right eye and never got all of my vision back. I did in fact lose the vision in my left eye a couple of months back, and was not quite crippled for a couple of weeks. I was not able to drive, read or use the computer. I probably could have driven, but chose not to, and I could read or use the computer for about 15 minutes. I ordered distance glasses last week (single vision), and we'll see how that goes. I was seeing the OD about my right eye, which has 1.75D of astigmatism. I was pretty much convinced that I'm not using my right eye for central vision, but the OD "accidentally" forgot to set my left eye correction to zero while I was comparing, and it seemed to me that there was significant improvement in my vision with .5D correction of astigmatism in the left eye. I am plano in both eyes. >> I was -3.75 in one eye once and that was so blurred that I could never >> function properly outside. Unless the eye measuring standards have [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > want to miss a speck of anything, for sure. Glasses are great. Get over > it. We don't agree on it - though see my query wondering if people have differing reactions to -lenses in general. > Now where was I? Oh yeah, what is your other eye? Sorry - should have mentioned that.....about -1.5, no astigimatism. I've been able to do lots of sports (obviously not something like archery!) and haven't worn any correction for about 10 years. I'm in my late 40's. > We don't agree on it - though see my query wondering if people have > differing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > been able to do lots of sports (obviously not something like archery!) > and haven't worn any correction for about 10 years. I'm in my late 40's. Well, there you have it. People have different reactions to close work, especially people who have not worn their myopic corrections in a long, long time. Those people develop accommodative insufficiency because they have not used their accommodative systems in a long time. Use it or lose it. This has nothing to do with myopia or minus lenses. DrG OK now that we've established your REAL problem, and why you've had so much trouble. You have ANISOMETROPIA, over 2.00 difference between your two eyes. This is sufficient for most insurance plans to pay for MEDICALLY INDICATED CONTACT LENSES, because glasses are difficult to wear, due to unequal image sizes the brain has trouble putting together (aniseikonia). Your problem is not as common as you might think, or the insurance companies would by buying a lot more contact lenses than they do. This situation has allowed you to be sucked into the idea that all myopes see like you and have the same problems. Otis is fond of extending his theories to everyone. It is wrong. Your aniso explains a lot. And now that you are presbyopic as well, it presents even more problems for you. I'd suggest that you'd be a great candidate for monovision CLs either a single lens on the 3.75 eye, and no lens on the -1.50 eye, or two lenses with the 1.50 eye being fully corrected and the other being undercorrected by about 1.50. Or wander around with distance blur forever... w.stacy, o.d. >>> I was -3.75 in one eye once and that was so blurred that I could never >>> function properly outside. Unless the eye measuring standards have [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > been able to do lots of sports (obviously not something like archery!) > and haven't worn any correction for about 10 years. I'm in my late 40's. I can't imagine how a person with -7.5 would function. > At -3.75 I could not recognize people across the street unless they > were wearing distinguishing clothes. Actually, the far acuity of a -7.5 is pretty much the same as that of a -3.75, on the order of 20/400. Both need "the minus" to see distant objects at all clearly, to drive legally, and to have any kind of a life. BTW it's considered perfectly reasonable netiquette to cut someone's post to just that portion one is referring to, to save bandwidth and for clarity. In fact reposting the entire composition is considered bad. Anyone who want's to see the entire post just has to scroll up the thread to the original post. w.stacy, o.d. > I can't imagine how a person with -7.5 would function. >> At -3.75 I could not recognize people across the street unless they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a -3.75, on the order of 20/400. Both need "the minus" to see distant > objects at all clearly, to drive legally, and to have any kind of a life. So long as the myopia is correctable with lenses (as it may not be, if the myopia is accompanied by such things as posterior staphyloma), the only thing to worry about is the increased risk of retinal detachment. Either it happens or it doesn't.. > I can't imagine how a person with -7.5 would function. >> At -3.75 I could not recognize people across the street unless they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -3.75, on the order of 20/400. Both need "the minus" to see distant > objects at all clearly, to drive legally, and to have any kind of a life. I should have mentioned that my other eye was about -1.5. We agree on this. It would be very difficult to have much of an outdoor life or any kind of life with that much blur facing you without correction. Well, myopes are smarter than non-myopes!!! ;-) (just kidding) Actually though, if it's true that children who read a lot tend more to develop myopia (I don't know if that's true, have heard it before though), then there could be a correlation between myopia and intelligence. Also, I believe I have heard (from an optometrist) that myopes develop presbyopia later than non-myopes. It certainly still comes though. I am both very myopic and presbyopic. But perhaps the presbyopia would have come earlier, be worse now, etc., if I wasn't myopic. > Well as far as career and lifestyle concerned, disadvantages of myopia > (mild or moderate) can be eliminated by using corrective lenses, > contacts etc. But is there an advantage being a myope? > > Thanks... "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote in message > Well, myopes are smarter than non-myopes!!! ;-) (just kidding) NOT kidding. Myopia is well known to correlate with IQ, income, and length of education. It also correlates with time spent in close work, and working distance. It's also well known that using plus lenses to mimic distant vision doesn't alter those relationships. > Actually though, if it's true that children who read a lot tend more to > develop myopia (I don't know if that's true, have heard it before though), > then there could be a correlation between myopia and intelligence. It's well known. > Also, I believe I have heard (from an optometrist) that myopes develop > presbyopia later than non-myopes. NOT so. They develop it the same, if you measure it, but myopes can see up close without glasses. It's such an advantage that many of them never have complaints. Those folks might never "need" bifocals except that they work with both hands and can't be fiddling with glasses off and on. -MT > > Also, I believe I have heard (from an optometrist) that myopes develop > > presbyopia later than non-myopes. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -MT High myopes need less accomodation to view an object at near through their correction when compared to an emmetrope viewing the object at the same distance. They may also pull the glasses down their nose to reduce the effectivity of the lens. Roland Izaac |
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.