 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2005will myopia always progress or does it stop at around age 25?
will myopia always progress or does it stop at around age 25? someone in another usenet group told me this: "A recent study in Hong Kong showed what other studies have shown - wearing less than a full correction will slow the progress of the myopia." This is a quote from Otis. I also see stuff like that in my vision improvement book. My vision slowed down its decline around age 18 but this is normal for most people. I also remember not updating my pescription for 3 years, from 18 to 21 so while I didnt know I was doing a good thing, my eyes only got -.25 diopters worse then I got new glasses at 21 and it got another -.25 diopters worse. Now that ive learned, im never getting overminused glasses. almost a year ago I was tested at -5.5(left) and -5(right) now after all those months of exercising my eyes and undercorrecting me I see pretty much fine with -4.25 glasses(both eyes) and I see my BCVA with -5(left) -4.75(right) glasses which I got when I was 21. My -4.25s are only a tiny bit weak but they wont be as I resolve more pseudomyopia. If your 25 your eyes arent going to get worse quicky, maybe 1/4 diopter worse every 2 years if you go about the way you are. My moms eyes only got 1/2 diopter worse in the last several years. Otis is an expert on this and he can probably elaborate on this. The first thing you should start is DONT use glasses to read, you are nearsighted, why would you need glasses to read if you can see clearly from near without them? How far away do you sit from the computer? acemanvx@yahoo.com wrote in news:1135414129.789529.197280 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > If your 25 your eyes arent going to get worse quicky, maybe 1/4 diopter > worse every 2 years if you go about the way you are. My moms eyes only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > need glasses to read if you can see clearly from near without them? How > far away do you sit from the computer? This is the same person who i quoted. Your eyes will not get any worse from age 25 until age 60+ except about .25. Your reading talking thing is something about supersition. People with 20/20 do not use reading glasses. My moms eyes got more nearsighted in her 50s so its true your eyes can get worse at any age. I know of people who gained a few diopters more myopia in middle age. I did not say you need reading glasses, just take your glasses off to read if you dont want worse eyes so fast. Like I said, if you cant read without your minus glasses you either are a high myope or have astigmastim. I am a -4.5 and reading is much easier without glasses than with it because im nearsighed!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In addition, it is not normal for myopia to get worse .25 or .5 ever two years past age 28 or so. What kind of eye stress is that person going through? Either way, your comments and fear of getting worse myopia are superstituous. Its not normal, but then their vision habits werent normal either. Hey its your eyes to do what you want. Otis has warned everyone that overusing the minus lense, especially reading with a minus lense leds to stair-case myopia. I dont use the minus lense for reading because theres no need to. > People with 20/20 do not use reading glasses. Thanks for telling me that. I guess I can stop reading or using a computer now, because I won't be able to see them anymore.  SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > will myopia always progress or does it stop at around age 25? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > glasses which I got when I was 21. My -4.25s are only a tiny bit weak > but they wont be as I resolve more pseudomyopia. Hello Ace > someone in another usenet group told me this: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This is a quote from Otis. Well if you listen to Otis Brown then you are a gullible fool. Otis Brown knows nothing about myopia progression except old wives tales and hearsay. > Now that ive > learned, im never getting overminused glasses. Why would you get overminused glasses anyway? Eye doctors don't prescribe them. They don't cause anything bad to happen (of course your hero Otis will tell you they cause "staircase myopia"). They may give you a headache. I think you are Ace. Thought you would get a new e-mail identity so you could talk to yourself? Dear Ace, Subject: If you ask intelligent questions about the eye's natural behavior -- you are called nasty names. No one asks "perfect" questions. But it does pay to keep on pushing your knowledge. Eventually your questions get more "focused" (no pun intended) and you understand more than most. >From long experience, there is a (second-opinion) expectation that a negative refractive state could be prevented -- IF -- the person will begin agressive use of the plus before their eye-chart gets "deeper" than about 20/50 or 20/60. There is considerable amount of primate data (scientific) that supports THAT second opinion. But, I acknowledge that most people do not "like" the kind of "agressive" use of the plus that true-prevention takes. Since I sense "hostility" here, I suspect that the grinding tradition (minus lens) of the last 400 years will continue. Some additional commentary: > "A recent study in Hong Kong showed what other studies have > shown - wearing less than a full correction will slow the > progress of the myopia." Otis> This is correct. The Oakley-Young study demonstrated that children "under-prescribed" (20/40) who also wore a +1.5 diopters STOPPED further negative movement. (over 4 years -0.025 -- virtually zero) while the full minus went "down" at a steady -1/2 diopter per year over the four years -- thus gaining -2.;0 diotpers. These are population-averages. Some when down much faster, while some remained the same. But the average is what is important. > This is a quote from Otis. Well if you listen to Otis Brown then you are a gullible fool. Otis Brown knows nothing about myopia progression except old wives tales and hearsay. Otis> If you start wearing an over-prescrived minus (with no discussion of the preventive second-opinion) you have become a victim of excessive arrogance and ignorance of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye. But that is indeed why a true "second-opinion" must be developed. Ace, just keep on asking the questions -- and running the experiments to verify the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye. Best, Otis > Otis> This is correct. The Oakley-Young study demonstrated > that children "under-prescribed" (20/40) who also wore a +1.5 diopters > STOPPED further negative movement. (over 4 years -0.025 -- virtually for children this may work. nevertheless, vision and myopia settles at around age 25 and there is not much change for the rest of a person's life. ace gave an individual case about his mom's myopia increasing at age 50 by -.5 I am not sure about the circumstances or about her previous perscription or how long it took for it to get -.5 worse. Nevertheless, he is basing individual experiment on a whole population, which is bad generalatization. Otis is generalizing his study of CHILDREN in certain probably rural countries on whole population as well. Both those studies are not generalizable to all population. If myopia was a diease maybe it would get worse every two years, but it is not a diease. People with myopia are like everyone else and their eye SHAPE settles down at around age 25. Thanks Otis! I have another question, how dynamic is the adult eye at age 25, 30, 40, 50? Can they still develop a large amount of more axial myopia? Spockie has me worried! His eyes have gotten worse in the last 3 years and from what ive learned from you and others, his eyes will keep getting worse because he uses his eyes incorrectly! He uses the minus lense for reading when he should be removing the minus lense or better yet use the plus lense to clear some myopia. I am a -4.5 and I take my minus lense off when reading, making sure to hold the book far enough so its just into the blur threshold and ive noticed my eyes improving! In one of your studies, Otis you said the rate of improvement is 1/4 diopter every 4 months! I have been exercising for close to a year now and have improved 1/2 to 3/4 diopters so far :) I will keep up the good vision habits forever. I hope to get my myopia down to -2.5 which is what Spockie's pescription is. By then Spockie's pescription will have gone up so I could have my myopia less than Spockie's myopia! I will try to help Spockie clear his vision but he has to care about his eyes and make the effort! > By then Spockie's pescription will have gone up so I could have my > myopia less than Spockie's myopia! I will try to help Spockie clear > his vision but he has to care about his eyes and make the effort! LOL. I don't know if it a an Otis sock puppet but Ace is a Kook spelled with a capital K....... SignatureCharles Dear Ace, While the ODs "react" to my statements about the natural eye's behavior -- that is a mistake. I wish they would just DISCUSS the possibility of YOUR using the plus wisely BEFORE they put you into a minus lens. If you had good vision at age 5 (a refractive state of zero to +2 diopters) then I believe you could have kept it through diciplined use of the plus. But it must be at that point. And given the profound hostility to the concept by these majority-opinion ODs, it must be by your own personal decision. Tragically, once you begin wearing that minus lens all the time, your eye's adapt to them (and the original reason) is not stopped. You might well have rejected the "plus" at 20/50. But we will never know. But had you been offered it -- and turned it down, the stair-case myopia that develops from the minus would be your responsibility. That is the type of "open" discussion we should be having. But it is obviously not going to develop under the "closed minds" we have about the proven behavior of the natural eye. I obviously can not "fight" this "system". Best, Otis > If you had good vision at age 5 (a refractive state > of zero to +2 diopters) then I believe you > could have kept it through diciplined use > of the plus. Dear Ace, It sure appears the above is medical advice. Please disregard Otis's postings as he is not in the medical profession and not in any position to give medical advice. Thank you! Allen >If you had good vision at age 5 (a refractive state >of zero to +2 diopters) then I believe you >could have kept it through diciplined use >of the plus. Will your "belief" stand up to rigorous testing, in accordance with the commonly accepted scientific method? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Uncle Otie. Put down the eggnog and back away from the computer.... SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live |
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.