 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2005Eyestrain - perhaps its different for everybody?
Judging from the wide range of response to this topic it would appear that some people accept -lens correction far more easily than others. For those patients, long term negative effects of -lenses may not materialize. But for others like myself (who had progressively worse myopia until I stopped wearing my glasses; than it improved significantly) I have never been comfortable with -lens correction. To you eye doctors out there, does that make any sense? Dear GG, Some of these Docs have suggested the better answer. They will prescribe a "plus" if you have accommodative insufficiency, i.e., eye strain. GG> But for others like myself (who had progressively worse myopia until I stopped wearing my glasses; than it improved significantly) GG> I have never been comfortable with -lens correction. Otis> Perhaps the over-minus is causing the convergence insufficiency, and that by reducing the minus (getting rid of that minus-strain) your eyes are now "clearing". Otis> If that is the case, then you can expect your eye-chart to gradually clear -- by your own monitoring of it. Best, Otis > GG> But for others like myself (who had progressively worse > myopia until I stopped wearing my glasses; than it improved [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Otis> If that is the case, then you can expect your eye-chart to > gradually clear -- by your own monitoring of it. I seriously doubt GG has "convergence insufficiency." Minus lenses typically make convergence insufficiency better. I suspect that GG's accommodative problem is the reason she cannot stand minus lenses. Without minus lenses, her myopic eyes do not have to accommodate for near work, and her eyes "feel better." When she does near work and wears minus lenses, she accommodates slowly and with difficulty, and quite probably over-convergences into esophoria. Then when she stops the near work, her accommodation relaxes slowly, and with difficulty. Her solution? Not to wear minus lenses. At 1.5 diopters of myopia, her punctum remotum is at computer distance. We also know that GG is in her forties, which means that her accommodation is declining with age, which makes wearing minus lenses even more difficult for close work. This also means that she is probably "stuck" at 1.5 diopters of myopia, regardless of how much plus she decides to use, as this represents the amount of true myopia present that is non-accommodative. DrG you stated "Otis> Perhaps the over-minus is causing the convergence insufficiency, " how wrong can you get! go back to something related to engineering. go down to the gulfcoast and spend your time actually trying to help somebody. Dear "P.clar", Subject: The second opinion for GG. Perhaps you missed it, but some ODs would suggest the use of the plus to reduce the eye-strain that GG is suffering from. Yours is the "majority opinion". I have no problem with that. But I do object to you attempting to deny the existance of the second-opinion as suggested by Steve Leung OD www.chinamyopia.org GG has every right to hear both "opinions" and select the best course of action that meets he own personal visual-acuity requirements. Since she does not drive, there are no legal constraints on her, other that she should be looking at her own eye chart. As reviewed in the military "requirements", it is seen that you can have 20/20 (-1) and be myopic by -1.5 diopters (cycloplegic). Perhaps GG is in this happy situation. She should check her own eye-chart just to make certain. Just the second opinion for GG sake. She is old enough to think for her self. Best, Otis > Perhaps you missed it, but some ODs would suggest > the use of the plus to reduce the eye-strain > that GG is suffering from. Perhaps *every* OD would recommend plus to reduce her eye strain. Perhaps you missed GG's age. Perhaps this has something to do with your "second opinion" re preventing myopia. Perhaps not. > She is old enough to think for her self. She equates clear vision with "eyestrain" while most people call it "comfortable." Do you have an explanation? Trick question: What are the chances of her getting more nearsighted without plus? -MT You don't know what kind of eyestrain GG is suffering from, therefore, you would not be in a position of knowing what to recommend, even if you were qualified to render such advice. DrG Dear Dr G. Subject: The majority opinion (DrG) and the SECOND opinion about avoiding the minus when you can. Re: DrG requests that a fully certified OPTOMETRIST provide you with his advice. Here it is Re: With this contradictory advice, you will have to make a choice about wearing that over-prescribed minus all the time -- or NOT. Re: When experts contradict each other on obvious points -- there are no experts. Therefore you are well advised to make an "educated" choice in this matter. _________________________- IS IT TRUE THAT THE EYE DOES CHANGE ITS FOCAL STATE WHEN PLACED IN A CONFINED ENVIRONMENT? The Health Profession's Response to "Problems With Poor Vision". Dr. Robert Levy: I must strongly disagree with at least one "myth" about poor vision Dr. Jay Siwek mentions [Consultation]. He says doing close work does not harm your eyes and then goes on to talk about three sight- threatening diseases. While it is true that close work does not cause the kinds of blindness that glaucoma, cataracts and macular degeneration do, such fine focusing for extended periods can cause nearsightedness, a far more common occurrence. Day after day, year after year, I see patients who get more and more nearsighted from doing close work, particularly if they have been wearing a distance prescription while doing their close work. The vicious cycle is that you read and do your homework, become nearsighted, get distance [negative lens] glasses and when you go back to read and do your homework you become more nearsighted. People who take their glasses off to read (if they can) or who wear bifocals [plus lenses] to reduce the prescription for near focusing show a much slower progression into nearsightedness than those who read with distance glasses on. One study of an Eskimo village being taught to read showed that after two generations of reading, virtually none of the grandparents' generation needed distance glasses, about half of the parents' generation did and virtually all of the children's generation did. This is the best example of reading and close work causing nearsightedness. Q.E.D. Otis I know the song and verse. Francis Young, circa 1970's. The fact is that 71% of Alaskan eskimos are farsighted by the time they read 80 years of age. That study is more recent. But, if I were an eskimo and read Dr. Levy's remarks, I would definitely refrain from reading. By the way, does poor Dr. Levy know how you are abusing him? Drg > The fact is that 71% of Alaskan eskimos are farsighted by the time they > read 80 years of age. That study is more recent. I sorely need a spell checker. That should read "by the time they REACH 80 years of age." DrG Dear Dr G., The point was that (at the time of the study) most of the grandparents could not read. Since that time, the "children" were running up to 85 percent nearsighed. Very few people "snap out" of nearsighedness. And lastly, could you provide the reference for that "new study"? Thanks Otis > Very few people > "snap out" of nearsighedness. Your inexperience is showing again. -MT > > Very few people > > "snap out" of nearsighedness. > > Your inexperience is showing again. I don't agree. Once again, Otis is correct. It's sort of like the broken clock, it shows the correct time every 12 hours! (You can certainly date me on that one, back before there were digital or 24 hour clocks.) William Stacy and I "snapped out" of nearsightedness (why does Otis almost always leave the "t" out?). We are part of the very few who do. Most people "ease" out of it with increasing age. Those of us who have had cataract surgery (or LASIK) have in fact "snapped out" of it. Of course, when your total focus is on pilots in post-secondary school, things look a little different. Otis, I could provide that information just to embarrass you. But I won't. You can look it up the way I did, on PubMed. Try searching between the years 2000 and 2005. If you do, you will probably run across another study contradicting your figure of "85% nearsighted." Of course, sticking your head out of your shell once in awhile will result in you seeing things that disagree with your rather unique perspective. DrG Well nobody commented on the gist of the thread. How's that for Usenet!? :) Can we get back on track? This question was for the eyecare professionals. I was looking for your opinions on this topic. I remember hating to get my eyes measured because the corrective lens that the eye doctor would snap into place never felt good. The more the correction, the worse it felt. Sort of like a pressure on the eyes - like a headache in the temple but with no pain. Just a sort of pressure. Does that make any sense? Have any of your patients mentioned this? > Well nobody commented on the gist of the thread. How's that for > Usenet!? :) Can we get back on track? This question was for the eyecare [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pressure. Does that make any sense? Have any of your patients > mentioned this? Very unusual, although it turns out the original poster has very unsual eyes (major anisometropia), so for her, not surprising. For you, who knows? You haven't posted any details of your Rx(s). I have seen well over 15,000 patients with all kinds of refractive errors, and prescribed for most of them, and can tell you it's pretty darned uncommon, but not unheard of. w.stacy, o.d. >> Well nobody commented on the gist of the thread. How's that for >> Usenet!? :) Can we get back on track? This question was for the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Very unusual, although it turns out the original poster has very unsual > eyes (major anisometropia), so for her, not surprising. What? I've said numerous times I'm a myope with no astigmatism. Now its about -3 and -1.25. No farsightness. Normal presbyopia but that shouldn't concern that discussion. For you, who knows? You haven't posted any details of your Rx(s). > I have seen well over 15,000 patients with all kinds of refractive > errors, and prescribed for most of them, and can tell you it's pretty [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > prescription. I would often go back to my older glasses and though the > corrected image wasn't so sharp, it was more relaxing on my eyes. This attitude is a cancer in the medical field. Just yesterday I was talking to a dentist about an appliance prototype that essentially arrested bruxism (tooth grinding and clenching while you sleep) and she couldn't have cared less. This is a condition that has so far completely alluded all attempts at the actual prevention of the activity. Sure you can wear a guard, but your teeth are still grinding, albeit a little more protected. A very poor remedy. The previous dentist mumbled some legal implications and expressed utter disinterest as well. My medical doctor ignored my comments that when I ate a lower fat/protein diet, my hay fever virtually vanished. My mother's doctor wouldn't listen to her when she noticed her arthritus was much better on days after she ate a low fat diet. The Arthritus Society was exactly the same. But if you want a pill, no problem. When you and others get rebuffed from several different areas in the same way with the same scoffing attitudes you come to the conclusion that even if you invented the cure for all diseases they couldn't care less. You as a patient are just not cabable of inputting useful information. And that seems to be the state of the medical profession these days. Very sad. (I had written: >> Very unusual, although it turns out the original poster has very >> unsual eyes (major anisometropia), so for her, not surprising. > > What? I've said numerous times I'm a myope with no astigmatism. Now > its about -3 and -1.25. No farsightness. Normal presbyopia but that > shouldn't concern that discussion. ANISOMETROPIA. Causing aniseikonia. Who said anything about astigmatism or far sightedness? You have aniso and as I said it's WAY different from the average myope, and totally explains why you have your problems. As I said, it's different enough that your medical insurance MIGHT PAY FOR CONTACTS FOR YOU. Are you also dense? Or just too busy to think about anything constructive? w.stacy, o.d. > >> Well nobody commented on the gist of the thread. How's that for > >> Usenet!? :) Can we get back on track? This question was for the [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > information. And that seems to be the state of the medical profession > these days. Very sad. It's clear to me that your myopia is complicated by other conditions, which now makes the wearing of eyeglasses difficult. It is also apparent that you have some deeply rooted problems with the medical profession and seem to have proclivity for self-diagnosis and treatment, which inevitably led you to Otis and the idea of plus lenses. "Birds of a feather..." as they say. But hey, if the medical establishment did develop a cure for cancer, I doubt you would believe it anyway. Drg > - like a headache in the temple but with no pain. Just a sort of > pressure. Does that make any sense? Have any of your patients mentioned > this? Yes, often when they are wearing excess correction. Glasses are meant to imitate the condition enjoyed by those who are not nearsighted. That shouldn't be uncomfortable. -MT >> - like a headache in the temple but with no pain. Just a sort of >> pressure. Does that make any sense? Have any of your patients >> mentioned this? > > Yes, often when they are wearing excess correction. From my experience, significant people experience this when they are corrected to 20/20. When they are corrected to something less sharp they experience far less eyestrain from their glasses. Still nowhere as good as dumping them completely, but if you're got to drive and do stuff, you don't have much of an option. >>> - like a headache in the temple but with no pain. Just a sort of >>> pressure. Does that make any sense? Have any of your patients [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >good as dumping them completely, but if you're got to drive and do >stuff, you don't have much of an option. So ... Gertrude from Manitoba- You still haven't explained why you would continuously change your alias to defeat someone's efforts to filter your posts. Care to tell your story? Thanks. > So ... Gertrude from Manitoba- > > You still haven't explained why you would continuously change your > alias to defeat someone's efforts to filter your posts. > > Care to tell your story? Dear, dear Gertie. Having a multiple personality disorder these days? Oh...wait....it's the same personality. Gorgeous Gertrude = GG= Who Am I = aaaJoe A troll by any other name............ Geez...another lune. > So ... Gertrude from Manitoba- >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Geez...another lune. I didn't mean to have a 3rd in there. Sorry about that. That does look back. Even for a loon....lol. You guys may not share my opinions on vision but you sure can express yourself well. Must be that education. Not to mention a good sense of dry humour. Always enjoyable to read. >> So ... Gertrude from Manitoba- >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >yourself well. Must be that education. Not to mention a good sense of >dry humour. Always enjoyable to read. You're getting (actually, that should be past tense) quite tedious. Are you the myopic, anisometropic love-child of Otis and Rishi?? Bye again. I can play this game all day.... >>>> - like a headache in the temple but with no pain. Just a sort of >>>> pressure. Does that make any sense? Have any of your patients [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Care to tell your story? > Thanks. Strange you mentioned this. In a post yesterday or the day before I said I was GG. Not trying to hide. Just rearranging my newgroups/servers on new software on a new operating system on a new computer. Things aren't exactly 100% organized. >>>>> - like a headache in the temple but with no pain. Just a sort of >>>>> pressure. Does that make any sense? Have any of your patients [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Not trying to hide. Just rearranging my newgroups/servers on new software on a >new operating system on a new computer. Things aren't exactly 100% organized. Sorry. I think you're just flat-out lying. Bye-bye. > From my experience, significant people experience this when they are > corrected to 20/20. When they are corrected to something less sharp they > experience far less eyestrain from their glasses. If you mean young myopes, my experience is quite different. Young myopes _like_ a little excess in their glasses. The older they get, the more they like glasses that are slightly undercorrected. Which only makes sense if you consider they don't accommodate as well and they spend lots of time up close. You can't generalize that everybody "experiences far less eyestrain" because myopes will have different symptoms than presbyopes or hyperopes or astigmats, and different at different ages and working distances. Those variables are crucial because "everybody" may only be myopes who are in their 50's and work at a desk. Of _course_ they have problems reading with their distance prescription. They have no accommodation. Young people over-accommodate. Hyperopes do it all the time. And they are _distinctly_ more comfortable up close with their glasses on. One common fallacy is assuming there's a measurable parameter called "eyestrain." I don't know what that is, in any measurable sense. -MT >> From my experience, significant people experience this when they are >> corrected to 20/20. When they are corrected to something less sharp >> they experience far less eyestrain from their glasses. > > If you mean young myopes, my experience is quite different. Young > myopes _like_ a little excess in their glasses. You mean younger glasses wearers want the utmost sharpness? > The older they get, the more they like glasses that are slightly > undercorrected. Which only makes sense if you consider they don't > accommodate as well and they spend lots of time up close. You think the close part is the only reason? That does make sense though. I guess if they were just starting to need reading magnification, a slight difference in their distance vision might make the difference between being able to read and not. You can't generalize that everybody "experiences far less eyestrain" because myopes will have different symptoms than presbyopes or hyperopes or astigmats, and different at different ages and working distances. Those variables are crucial because "everybody" may only be myopes who are in their 50's and work at a desk. Of _course_ they have problems reading with their distance prescription. They have no accommodation. Young people over-accommodate. Hyperopes do it all the time. And they are _distinctly_ more comfortable up close with their glasses on. > Yes - that makes sense. One common fallacy is assuming there's a measurable parameter called "eyestrain." I don't know what that is, in any measurable sense. > Well if I and others really feel eyestrain it should be able to be > measured as a decrease in acuity on an eyechart. And if it can't be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > my eye test. Thereby completely controlling the lighting of the > eyechart. Is this always done or recommended for consistancy? > You mean younger glasses wearers want the utmost sharpness? No. Excess correction does NOT produce more "sharpness." It stimulates accommodation, and many young people are comfortable having to accommodate a little for distance vision. As they get older, they "give it up" and the average human refraction becomes less nearsighted (more farsighted) between ages 30 and 50. Not because the eye gets shorter, but because accommodation becomes more difficult. >> Well if I and others really feel eyestrain it should be able to be >> measured as a decrease in acuity on an eyechart. And if it can't be >> measured that way, it probably doesn't matter. Asthenopia (eye discomfort) can't be measured as Snellen acuity. And you can't have it both ways. You said you experience less "eyestrain" when you remove your glasses. So decreased acuity can't correspond to "eyestrain" unless you're using correction inappropriately - i.e. trying to read with your distance correction. >> I've got to set up an eyechart so I can document it. Since lighting >> changes, would it be wise to install a bright light over the chart to >> maintain consistant brightness, no matter the ambient light? Consistency is crucial when you compare acuity measurements over time, but brighter light artificially improves acuity because of increased depth-of-field. -MT aaJoe, GG, or whoever you are: You do not represent the typical myope. You have alluded to having anisometropic myopia, as well as some accommodation issues. You may very well have convergence issues as well. The fact that your distance vision blurs after prolonged close work is the primary symptom of that. It sounds like you have functioned with natural monovision, which means that you probably suffer also from accommodative insufficiency from disuse. The fact that your myopia has declined is evidence of a condition called accommodative myopia or pseudomyopia, and not axial or true myopia. This topic has been more than amply covered in this NG over the past several years. Some of your myopia is axial, and will not regress further, no matter how little you wear your minus lenses. But, the fact is that we don't really know what you are because you seem unwilling to put all of the information on the table for discussion. Eyestrain is a subjective complaint, which may indeed mean different things to different people. It may mean over-accommodation resulting in ciliary muscle spasm from too much close work, etc., or it may refer to fronto-occipital headaches from squinting, or it may result from a convergence issue such as convergence insufficiency, or it may result in fusion difficulties from anisometropia. It is not necessarily measurable on an eyechart. Furthermore, in scientific studies, subjects don't gather their own data. You will need to present objective findings if you are to be taken seriously at all. DrG Dear Who are you, Subject: What professionals recommend. The vast majority of professionals will tell you to "... just get used to it". That is the advice you will receive on sci.vis.med There are a small group of professionals (second opinion) will understand your statement and attempt to help you with prevention -- starting with Steve Leung OD at www.chinamyopia.org Each man is honest about this. They do what they believe is right. But by the same token -- they simply do not agree. That is why you should keep an open mind -- even if you do not understand the advocacy for prevention at the threshold. Best, Otis > There are a small group of professionals (second opinion) > will understand your statement and attempt to > help you with prevention There used to be many more than a "small group". Why did they quit? > That is why you should keep an open mind -- even > if you do not understand the advocacy for > prevention at the threshold. Please define "threshold" in diopters. -MT Dear Mike, Subject: Earning a living. There is no doubt that you are doing what you believe is right. As the "majority opinion" I will let you statements stand. In fact, I state that you do not have control over what a child does with his eyes. (i.e., reading at -10 diopters or 4 inches). (When you do this to young primate eyes, the eyes that are in this "position" change their refractive state in the direction and approximate magnitude of the "changed" visual envirionment. This is RELATIVE to the control group.) (You think of endless reason to TOTALLY ignore this proven scientific fact.) I think the parents should be informed of some of the verifiction of the natural eye's proven behavior. You think you do not have any obligation to discuss this issue. The "second opinion" ODs honor this obligation to at least DISCUSS these issues BEFORE that first minus lens is applied. But again, I apprecation the fact that you WANT to believe that a minus lens has no effect on the refractive state of the natural eye -- and will use a strong minus of youself an your children -- and grand children. (And honestly if I were in YOUR position -- with the general public -- I would almost be forced to do the same thing. But the issue is what the person himself MIGHT learn about PREVENTING himself from getting "in to it". That is indeed difficult for the person at 20/30 or 20/40 -- but at least he should have "preventive" information based on scientific research, and make his choice accordingly. There used to be many more than a "small group". Why did they quit? Otis> Please read "The Printer's Son" -- about the general public's reaction to true-prevention with a plus lens. The public as a "preception" that you should supply very-sharp vision (20/10 if possible -- thank you) and that if you don't you are "conning" them. With due respect. Prevetion is an issue or choice of the person -- and will depend on the motivation of that person. With due respect, you can't supply that kind of motivation. (I wish you could.) > That is why you should keep an open mind -- even > if you do not understand the advocacy for > prevention at the threshold. THRESHOLD BUT PASS THE FAA TEST Otis> The FAA definition of vision to legally fly a plane is passing the 20/40 line under room illumination conditions. (FAA 3rd class, or "Private Pilot".) It is my thesis that a person who wishes to work on "prevention" at that point should be aware of your "habit" of prescribing for "Best Visual Acuity". (You don't believe that a minus has any effect on the eye, so you believe that this "over-prescription" policy will create any problem for the person -- or child.) Otis> From reports of people who were at 20/40 (and went for an exam in a darkened room) they wound up with a -2 diopter prescription! By that "prescription" that means that the person's sharpest vision was at 20 inches. An this "implication" after passing the FAA equivalent test. Tyner> Please define "threshold" in diopters. Therefore I would describe "threshold" nearsighedness as PASSING the FAA test, but receiving a -2.0 diopter prescription. PLEASE REMEMBER -- in no sense do I suggest that the person involved should STAY at 20/40, but I suggest that systematic work BY HIM will result in further "clearing" to 20/30, 20/25 range. This is a resul of intensive work on his part. Given that fact, I would not call "perevention" of this nature to be "medical". I would suggest it is common sense that reflects an accurate understanding of the implications of the Oakley-Young study. Otis> But that is why I suggest that prevention is the "second opinion". It is difficult by wise -- under the circumstances. Otis> As you would also understand, my sister's grand children will in due course begin getting "in to it". I hope they wake up to the necessity of prevention, and do not receive an over-prescribed minus from the "majority opinion" ODs. But they have gone through these issues, and ultimately their decision will be an "informed choice". But I will forward this to them for their thoughtful review. Success favors the prepared mind. Best, Otis -MT Otis, why waste your time on someone who has a closed mind? Focus on people that are willing to try something that is relatively easy and certainly cheap. And has no side effects. Dear Mike, > Subject: Earning a living. > [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > > -MT > Otis, why waste your time on someone who has a closed mind? > Focus on people that are willing to try something that is relatively easy > and certainly cheap. And has no side effects. That is the purpose of alt.med.vision.improve. You're welcome to post there. -MT >> Otis, why waste your time on someone who has a closed mind? >> Focus on people that are willing to try something that is relatively >> easy and certainly cheap. And has no side effects. > > That is the purpose of alt.med.vision.improve. You're welcome to post there. Only if there is a correspondingly high percentage of loons. Otherwise I might be out of my element! So I just checked it out. There wasn't a single posting. Quel drag. Dear Joe (aka GG) Subject: You figured it out. Some time ago you reported your refractive state (most probably improve -- since you quit "cold turkey") Clearing is a VERY SLOW PROCESS. But the "easy" way it to continue doing what you are doing. I am only supporting the decision you have already made -- as the "second opinion". There have been a small group of MDs who consistently: 1. Avoided "prescribing" for children if there eye-chart was 20/40. 2. Recommended removing the minus -- unless it was absolutly necessary. 3. In fact, recommended the plus as a "preventive" method. I used to wonder about the reasons for this second-opinion behavior. Now I know why. There is strong scientific reasons supporting it -- even if these "prevention minded" MDs had a hard time "making their case". YOUR VISION AND "PRESBYOPIA" You are about 40. Your refractive status is different by about 1 or 2 diopters. Some people will tell you this is "terrible". There are ODs who PRESCRIBE to create this difference. It is called "mono-vision". The intention of "mono-vision" is that an eye with "presbyopia" have one eye for "distance" and the other eye for "near". In this situation accommodation (which means restractive change of lens) is effectively elliminated, since you see well both at distance and near. Thus you have a good situation, in that you will not see the effects of "presbyopia" because of your "natural" monovision. You ask why "bother" with this. Because I enjoy solving technical problems, and developing new (preventive) ideas. Because I truly support PREVENTION MINDED ODs on this subject. And because I think you are doing the "right thing" and going in the right direciton. Best, Otis > You ask why "bother" with this. Because I enjoy > solving technical problems, and developing new > (preventive) ideas. Because I truly support Can anybody keep a straight face? DrG >> The fact is that 71% of Alaskan eskimos are farsighted >> by the time they read 80 years of age. That study is >> more recent. > > I sorely need a spell checker. That should read "by the > time they REACH 80 years of age." A spell checker wouldn't catch that. A grammer checker wouldn't catch that. You would need a live proof reader to catch that. A little more obscure or technical and it would probably have to be you. -;) -Quick Dear DrG, Dr. Levy's remarks were published in the Washington Post -- free for all to read. The real issue is up for GG to decide -- and I think she has. Clearly NONE of us will know: 1. What she will do in the future. 2. If she will continue wearing the plus. 3. If she will read her eye chart. She has already indicated that she prefers to read while reading with a plus on. Do you have any objection to her doing that. Since she does not drive, do you think she should wear her minus lenses all the time? And if so, why? Further, do you think she should be wearing her minus lenses while reading? If so, why? I am certian GG would be interested in your answers. Best, Otis > She has already indicated that she prefers to > read while reading with a plus on. Do you > have any objection to her doing that. Why should we? We recommend plus all the time for people her age. > Since she does not drive, do you think she > should wear her minus lenses all the time? > And if so, why? How on earth would she read with minus on? We'd expect it to cause "eyestrain". > Further, do you think she should be wearing > her minus lenses while reading? If > so, why? Can you read with your full minus correction? > I am certian GG would be interested in your > answers. And we're certain you have no clue what GG needs. Why are you involved? Do you have much success preventing myopia at age 47? -MT If she is presbyopic or has some other form of accommodation insufficiency, she should absolutely wear the plus. However, if she is wearing plus in the mistaken belief that it will reverse her myopia, then I would not advise her to do so. DrG > If she is presbyopic or has some other form of accommodation > insufficiency, she should absolutely wear the plus. I don't need the plus to see close. My myopia takes care of that. > However, if she is wearing plus in the mistaken belief that it will > reverse her myopia, then I would not advise her to do so. > DrG Well it sure works for me. Maybe you should try it with some patients. Please give us more details about how using plus lenses made your myopia disappear. Maybe I did try it with some of my patients 20 years ago and found that it didn't work. Maybe I've been studying this a lot longer than you. Then Ted Grosvenor and others finally shed some light on why it didn't work and researchers continue to shed light on why it doesn't. You will excuse me then if I take your comments with less than a grain of salt, especially if you are that same woman with accommodation/convergence disorder along with anisometropia. DrG This is what happens when people strip threads. I will correct the errors below. Please give us more details about how using plus lenses made your > myopia disappear. > > I never said anything of the kind. Plus lenses allow me to see better after doing hours of close work than if I didn't use them. I have said this several times. My myopia was MEASURED about 30% better after dumping all correction for several months. This was several years ago before I had ever heard of + lenses. And I should mention I wasn't doing lots of close work. So obviously the glasses were the culprit. There were no other mitigating factors. Maybe I did try it with some of my patients 20 years > ago and found that it didn't work. > > What is "it"? Reversal of myopia? That would be a tall order. The only people that CLAIM to have made real strides in their myopia seem to be the ones that: never use any corrective lenses, use + lenses whenever they do close work, invest significant time in eye exercises or palming or other stuff. But these are just their claims. Even eye practitioners (using these vision exercises/palming stuff admit real strides in acuity are rare. They are more concerned with helping the patient get more out the existing vision and to not let it get worse. And this is really only useful if the myope is mild. If you are less than -2 you can do lots of things without your glasses. -1 people seem to not even miss them. But if you're worse, you're going to be using your glasses/contacts all the time so if your vision gets a little worse or a little better, who cares? You're still stuck with those glasses/contacts. You will excuse me then if I take your comments with less than a grain > of salt, especially if you are that same woman with > accommodation/convergence disorder along with anisometropia. > > I don't think we're the same. I'm a simple, mild myope. Simple as in vision not..........:) (I hope.) > This is what happens when people strip threads. I will correct the > errors below. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I wasn't doing lots of close work. So obviously the glasses were the > culprit. There were no other mitigating factors. Oh, but there must have been mitigating factors because your experience is atypical, very atypical. > Maybe I did try it with some of my patients 20 years > > ago and found that it didn't work. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > your glasses/contacts all the time so if your vision gets a little worse > or a little better, who cares? You're still stuck with those glasses/contacts. Indeed, all we have are CLAIMS, such as yours. Also, people with similar experiences will usually find each other on the internet. On the other hand, some people have actually put together DATA with statistical power, using control groups, and controlling for extraneous variables. Guess what they show? They show that plus lenses only have applications for accommodative myopia. Current research also shows that excess accommodation appears NOT to be the cause of axial myopia. The real culprit seems to be a blurred image on the retina. In my experience, patients become less myopic all the time. Some have lost all of their myopia, and they do this without resort to any special treatments. As we have pointed out countless times, myopia may be due either to accommodation, axial elongation, or a combination of the two. Accommodative myopia will typically go away when the stimulus is removed. Therefore, purely accommodative myopia will probably revert to zero at some point. But, it is indeed rare for accommodative myopia to exceed 1.00 to 1.50 diopters. Anything beyond that is likely to be axial. Only axial myopia has ramifications for all of the degenerative changes in the retina. This is why we perform cycloplegic refractions, so that we can determine how much myopia is accommodative, and how much is axial. In my experience, the accommodative myopes are a distinct minority. 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.