 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2006Any experience with vision programs that use eye exercises?
Hi all, Just wondering if anyone has had any experience with any of the vision programs that use eye exercises. I have recently ordered one on the internet, and I'm a week and a half in to the program. I'm following the instructions, wearing the glasses as little as possible, using reduced prescription glasses, etc., and I'm curious to see if anyone has gone through the same thing, and what results they might have had. If there is interest, I can report back once I've completed a month or two of the program. I don't have my prescription handy, but I'm starting with roughly -3.50 in my right eye, and -2.00 in my left eye. Thanks and regards, Jim. Dear Jim, Subject: Various "preventive" methods -- and "attitudes" towards them. The majority-opinion on sci.med.vision is profoundly hostile towards the preventive methods. I would suggest going to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/ For a more "balanced" review of your questions. In short order you will find a series of "posters" who will "blast" you and your questions. Good luck, Otis > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > see if anyone has gone through the same thing, and what results they might > have had. Sorry you wasted your money. How much are you out? These "vision programs" are simply scams. There are legitimate vision therapy exer- cises but not the ones that magically reduce or eliminate refractive errors (myopia, astig, presbyopia). The only good thing is that these programs cannot hurt your eyes or vision (unless the program tells you to stare at the sun or something as lame-brained). > If there is interest, I can report back once I've completed a month or two > of the program. > > I don't have my prescription handy, but I'm starting with roughly -3.50 in > my right eye, and -2.00 in my left eye. I'd suggest getting an eye exam right now to get the most accurate prescription (without telling the O.D. the purpose of your visit) and then repeat in a few months (again, without telling the O.D.) and actually get independent verification to see if you actually reduced your myopia. My guess is that you'd find very little, if any, change. Let us know. frank I verified an improvement of a diopter of my myopia. My old script was: left eye -5.5 sphere -.5 cylindar(160 axis) correctable to 20/30 right eye: -4.5 sphere, -1.0 cylindar(45 axis) correctable to 20/40 Now my new script is: left eye: -4.5 sphere, -.75 cylindar(140 axis) correctable to 20/30 right eye: -3.5 sphere, -1.5 cylindar(55 axis) correctable to 20/40 The optometrist slightly undercorrected my cylindar the first time or maybe it changed a little. However my sphere decreased by a diopter in each eye! I didnt buy any "programs" I just read online how people improved their vision, including this lady: http://members.aol.com/myopiaprev/improvin.htm she improved her vision and so did I! I undercorrect myself with weaker glasses to strengthen my eyes and clear my vision. I also do focusing exercises at near(without glasses!) and got my near point from 18cm and now im up to 22cm! Who performed these refractions and were they done under the same conditions? What did your OD say after he verified your 1 diopter improvement? What does he think about your NVI?  Signature~RT > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Jim. I'm concluding a four month course of vision therapy right now. Mine was through a normal optometrist's office for the purpose of improving a convergence problem - not for the purpose of reducing or eliminating my prescription. I wish it were otherwise, but mainstream vision therapy folks do not claim that the exercises will be effective in directly fixing myopia or astigmatism. The only thing I was told is that sometimes astigmatism results from eye teaming issues, and if therapy fixes the eye teaming problem, the astigmatism may go away as well. No guarantee though. I'd be very interested to hear how it works out for you though. I really want something to be possible. "The only thing I was told is that sometimes astigmatism results from eye teaming issues, and if therapy fixes the eye teaming problem, the astigmatism may go away as well." do tell me how! I just got new glasses today and now things are even worse it appears! I was seeing better quality by not correcting my cylindar! Ill make a thread on this > "The only thing I was told is > that sometimes astigmatism results from eye teaming issues, and if [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > worse it appears! I was seeing better quality by not correcting my > cylindar! Ill make a thread on this I told you everything I know. You could go to a VT doctor and see if they think you have any convergence type issues. I'm afraid that anyone who claims they can work directly on your astigmatism is probably a quack, although I wish it were otherwise. After reading all I could find on the net, I am really starting to think that astigmatism is caused, in some fashion, by how people use their eyes. If you tend to use your eyes in the same way for long periods of time, and if you do it in an unusual way, I believe astigmatism is more likely to develop. In my case, I have a tendency to look sideways at things, and I suspect that may be part of my problem. The "therapy" I'm going to try is to spend less time on computer. It can't be helping. > After reading all I could find on the net, I am really starting to > think that astigmatism is caused, in some fashion, by how people use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to look sideways at things, and I suspect that may be part of my > problem. Sorry, it's not. Having said that, there could be a possible correlation with eye "rubbing", especially excessive, due to allergic and/or dry eye conditions. Regardless, most astigmatism (not counting the very high astigmats, irregular astig) is not a big deal in any sense of the word. It's just not a problem. frank > > After reading all I could find on the net, I am really starting to > > think that astigmatism is caused, in some fashion, by how people use [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > frank I'm not sure what you mean. All I have is approximately -1 astigmatism in each eye. It's a problem to me because it's the entire reason I need glasses. I find my uncorrected vision unacceptable most of the time. As to the cause of astigmatism, how can you be so sure? I'm certainly only speculating as to causes, but I find it hard to believe that I'm developing progressively worse astigmatism for "no reason". I think that it must be related in some fashion to how I use my eyes: prolonged computer use, sleeping on my face, eye rubbing, looking sideways, whatever. I've posted links before to published studies showing that the axis of astigmatism is predictable in some cases based on the scanning pattern of the eyes. The same study also supported the theory that if you look sideways at things (a lot) that the eye looking across your face will develop more astigmatism. > As to the cause of astigmatism, how can you be so sure? I'm certainly > only speculating as to causes, but I find it hard to believe that I'm > developing progressively worse astigmatism for "no reason". If it's only 1.00 now, it can't have increased dramatically. Gradual increase is normal for some adults. > I've posted links before to published studies showing that the axis of > astigmatism is predictable in some cases based on the scanning pattern > of the eyes. The same study also supported the theory that if you look > sideways at things (a lot) that the eye looking across your face will > develop more astigmatism. In my not-so-humble opinion this is bunk. The majority of people with major astigmatism were born with it. -MT > > As to the cause of astigmatism, how can you be so sure? I'm > > certainly only speculating as to causes, but I find it hard to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If it's only 1.00 now, it can't have increased dramatically. Gradual > increase is normal for some adults. I didn't pay attention, but in 2003 I was -0.75, now my lastest is up to -1.5, although I think I'd be perfectly happy at -1.25 if not -1. In 1994 I was 20/20, which probably means -0.5 or less, but I'm not sure. > In my not-so-humble opinion this is bunk. The majority of people with > major astigmatism were born with it. What's major? Like I keep saying, I had perfect vision (or at least good enough that it never bothered me, and the FAA gave me an unrestricted medical) in 1994. Something happened since then that has made me reliant on glasses. Anyway, why is it bunk? If I was born with it, that's one thing, but I wasn't. And the articles I read have real data behind them, not mere speculation. > Anyway, why is it bunk? If I was born with it, that's one thing, but I > wasn't. And the articles I read have real data behind them, not mere > speculation. Regardless of the data, the conclusions don't explain why astigmatism nearly always occurs with mirror-image symmetry. They predict an identical axis in each eye, and that is a rare exception. -MT > > Anyway, why is it bunk? If I was born with it, that's one thing, > > but I wasn't. And the articles I read have real data behind them, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -MT Apparently, you didn't read the article. The do not predict identical axis, they precict the symmetry you describe. Furthermore, they accurately predicted the specific angles in the cases studied. > What's major? Like I keep saying, I had perfect vision (or at least > good enough that it never bothered me, and the FAA gave me an > unrestricted medical) in 1994. Something happened since then that has > made me reliant on glasses. Moderate to severe astigmatism is at least 3 d and up. What happened to cause this change?? My guess, you got OLDER. frank > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Jim. First, use your correct prescriptions when you need them, they will prevent strain. Seccond, there are useless excersises. Third, I have a little experience with Bates' metod, I have improved my eyesight (I had presbiopia - farsightedness) and I have a friend who improved -1.25 dioptres in a year. I can tell you that it might help, but as fast as you get the point of the exersises, think if they are usefull for you. presbyopia is not the same as farsightedness. but some of the rip-off eye exercise programs don't seem to appreciate the difference. OK, I meant hyperbiopia or somth. like that, I forgot the term and it was the first to show up in my mind. I do understand the differenses.
|
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.