 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2006Is eyesight getting worse?
Am I right in thinking that there are more people who wear glasses now than ever before? Why is it - are the challenges of new technology and office jobs making it worse or is it just that it's more acceptable now? I hear stories of people who were wearing glasses in the days of the NHS (in the UK), those glasses were so famous for being very undesirable. Presumably there might be fewer people with glasses if that was still the only choice. > Am I right in thinking that there are more people who wear glasses now than > ever before? Why is it - are the challenges of new technology and office > jobs making it worse or is it just that it's more acceptable now? I hear > stories of people who were wearing glasses in the days of the NHS (in the UK), > those glasses were so famous for being very undesirable. Presumably there > might be fewer people with glasses if that was still the only choice. I don't know what the stats are on the percentage of people who wear glasses, but there probably are more people wearing glasses, and I'm sure it's a combination of the two points you made - increased demand due to computers etc, and higher acceptance of glasses as a fashion item... also, the ageing of the population and increased awareness of the need for regular preventative health checks in general has probably flowed over into eye testing/specs. Only my opinions rather than research I've read. Dom all the near work people in modern society has caused them to go into a minus refractive state as children and worsen about half to one diopter thru the years. acema...@yahoo.com wrote: > all the near work people in modern society has caused them to go into a > minus refractive state as children and worsen about half to one diopter > thru the years. Interesting. Would you kindly cite your source for that information? Dear Ace and Michael, Subject: The scientific facts on the natural eye's response to a more-confined visual environment. Hear are the facts. You can argue about whether 85 percent of school childern becomming myopic means that our eye are getting "worse". The majority opinion maintains this is all a "myth". The second-opnion suggests we should seriously consider doing somthing along preventive lines. What do you think? Best, Otis ==================== MYOPIA PREVALENCE IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 90 PERCENT FOR TAIWAN MEDICAL STUDENTS Re: Changes in ocular refraction and its components among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom. Vis. Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345 National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%! over the five year period. ****************** 1) In Singapore, the vision of 421,116 males between the ages of 15 and 25 was examined. In 1974-84, 26.3% were myopic; in 1987-91, 43.3% were myopic. Both the prevalence and severity of myopia were higher as the level of education increased. The prevalence rate was 15.4% in males with no formal education and increased steadily through the education levels to reach 65.1% among the university graduates in 1987-91. The authors state that their findings confirm indications from other sources that the association between the prevalence and severity of myopia and education attainment is real (M.T. Tay, K.G. Au Eong, C.Y. Ng and M.K. Lim, "Myopia and Educational Attainment in 421,116 Young Singaporean Males," Ann Acad Med Singapore, 1992, Nov;21(6):785-91). 2) Regarding the prevalence of myopia in Asian countries, Lam and Goh (Lam, C.S. and Goh, W.S., "The incidence of refractive errors among schoolchildren in Hong Kong in relationship with the optical components", Clin. Exp. Optom., 74:97-103, 1991) found that in 383 school children from ages 6 to 17 years, the prevalence of myopia increased from 30% at ages 6-7 years, to 70% at ages 16-17 years. 3) Lam and Yap (Lam, C.S. and Yap, M. "Ocular dimensions and refraction in Chinese Orientals", Proc. Int. Soc. Eye Res., 6:121, 1990) found that in a group of optometry students at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the prevalence of myopia was 75% in females and 69% in males. 4) Goh and Lam (Goh, W.S. and Lam, C.S., "Changes in refractive trends and optical components of Hong Kong Chinese aged 19-39 years," Ophthal. Physiol. Opt., 14:378-382, 1994) found that in 2000 first-year students at the University of Hong Kong, the prevalence of myopia was 87.5%. 5) Lin et al (Lin, L.-K, Chen, C.J., Hung, P.T., and Ko, L.S., "National- wide survey of myopia among schoolchildren in Taiwan, Acta Ophthalmol.", 185:29-33, 1988) found that in a national survey of children in Taiwan, the prevalence of myopia was over 70%. > Hear are the facts. You can argue about whether 85 percent > of school childern becomming myopic means that > our eye are getting "worse". I would argue about that "facts". 85% of ASIAN's are myopic. While about 35% of Caucasians of European descent are myopic. This relationship holds true for Asians that live in the US, and for Americans who live in Asia. The incidence of myopia appears to be related to race. Hence the most likely explanation is a genetic influence. But you would know all about that if you followed current issues in myopia research. But you haven't read anything for the last 25 years. What would Raphaelson say (WWRS)? Here are some theories on this topic, summarized from previous posts in this group. Theory 1 - Genetics This states myopia was a severe impediment to survival 400 years ago. Today, it's increasing at epidemic levels around the industrialized world. Since the commoditization of eyeglasses, myopia no longer disqualifies you from living long enough to reproduce in the current environment. Hence, myopes now can reproduce freely and pass on their tainted myopic prone genes. Theory 2 - Environment Close work increases/accelerates myopia. This conincides with studies that link intellegence with myopia (i.e. children spending more time reading/using computer, etc. Negative lenses change focal point so objects in the enviroment require the eye to focues as though the objects are closer, hence increasing myopia. This has been proven in animial sudies involving chickens and apes, but not proven in humans. Theroy 3 - Both Genetics & Environment Theory 1 does not contradict theory 2. Myopic genes are more readily passed, combine with society that emphasizes education, reading, and increasing computer use. Evolution is providing a base of more myopic prone gene pools which is exemplified by near work. Theory 4 - Nothing has changed Several generations is not long enough of a period of time to change the physical adaption rate of the eye. Improved health care in developing countries has simply increased the reported rate of myopia. From what I read in this group for a week and an hour with google, my answer is 3. Although it seems to be a topic of much debate in this group.. > > Hear are the facts. You can argue about whether 85 percent > > of school childern becomming myopic means that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What would Raphaelson say (WWRS)? > From what I read in this group for a week and an hour with google, my > answer is 3. Although it seems to be a topic of much debate in this > group.. No, it's not. The debate is over whether wearing a minus lens produces staircase myopia, and whether wearing a plus lens can prevent myopia.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Actually Jack it should read: Theory 1: Genetics Theory 2: Genetics Theory 3: Combination of theory 1 & 2 dr grant Dear Jack, Grant states his majority-opinion theory quite well: Theory 1: Genetics Theory 2: Genetics Theory 3: Combination of theory 1 & 2 Theory 4: Trust me -- everyone else is WRONG about the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye. dr grant > Theory 4: Trust me -- everyone else > is WRONG about the dynamic nature > of the fundamental eye. Just so we're clear, Cletis ... is that the right eye or the left. Thanks. >> Theory 4: Trust me -- everyone else >> is WRONG about the dynamic nature >> of the fundamental eye. > > Just so we're clear, Cletis ... is that the right eye or > the left. No. It's the right eye or the wrong eye. The part you missed is that he slipped in a fundamental eye instead of his worn out natural eye. chicken eye - wrong eye. monkey eye - wrong eye. primate eye - wrong eye fundamental eye - haven't seen one of those up close yet. right eye - missing. -Quick >>> Theory 4: Trust me -- everyone else >>> is WRONG about the dynamic nature [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >fundamental eye - haven't seen one of those up close yet. >right eye - missing. Hm. I think I get it now. Left eye, then, would be the musician who died in a 2002 car crash, no? http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Music/04/26/obit.lopes/ My favorite "fundamental" TLC song was "Waterfalls." >> Theory 4: Trust me -- everyone else >> is WRONG about the dynamic nature >> of the fundamental eye. > > Just so we're clear, Cletis ... is that the right eye or > the left. No. It's the right eye or the wrong eye. The part you missed is that he slipped in a fundamental eye instead of his worn out natural eye. chicken eye - wrong eye. monkey eye - wrong eye. primate eye - wrong eye fundamental eye - haven't seen one of those up close yet. right eye - missing. -Quick >Dear Ace and Michael, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >of school childern becomming myopic means that >our eye are getting "worse". Not so long ago I worked in schools and I can assure you that 85% of children do not wear glasses. The number of under eleven year olds who wear glasses is very small. Over that it is larger but still not huge. Ann I agree but there are so many young people with myopia now. The aging population we'd expect. Is it just that people used to put off wearing full time and now because they're fashionable young folks are happier to wear them? Or is there something that means we're going in the same direction as the asians, in 50 years time will we have the same stats i wonder? >> Am I right in thinking that there are more people who wear glasses now than >> ever before? Why is it - are the challenges of new technology and office [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Dom > I agree but there are so many young people with myopia now. The aging > population we'd expect. Is it just that people used to put off wearing full > time and now because they're fashionable young folks are happier to wear them? Yes I think that's a part of it. > Or is there something that means we're going in the same direction as the > asians, in 50 years time will we have the same stats i wonder? Not sure who you mean by "we" as distinct from "the asians", but I think any post-industrial culture that places a high value on education is heading down the road of increasing myopia prevalence. Think higher school rentention rates, more pressure to get good grades from a younger age, more people gaining tertiary qualifications, etc. Different races do have different genetic predispositions. Dom >> I agree but there are so many young people with myopia now. The aging >> population we'd expect. Is it just that people used to put off wearing full >> time and now because they're fashionable young folks are happier to wear them? > >Yes I think that's a part of it. Does that mean that there ae more people with poor eyesight - ie myopia - or just that there are more people wearing them with lower prescriptions? That's alot different to a myopia explosion. >>>I agree but there are so many young people with myopia now. The aging >>>population we'd expect. Is it just that people used to put off wearing full [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > just that there are more people wearing them with lower prescriptions? That's > alot different to a myopia explosion. Probably a little bit of the latter and a lot of the former. There is a myopia explosion or a little bit more correctly an epidemic in westernised societies. Dom >Am I right in thinking that there are more people who wear glasses now than >ever before? Why is it - are the challenges of new technology and office >jobs making it worse or is it just that it's more acceptable now? I hear >stories of people who were wearing glasses in the days of the NHS (in the UK), >those glasses were so famous for being very undesirable. Presumably there >might be fewer people with glasses if that was still the only choice. LOL.. I loved my NHS glasses. They came in all sorts of colours and I went from blue to black and back again. My sister had pink and clear I seem to remember. Now, as an adult, I still wear children's frames because I'm small and adult frames are too large. The style is fine and the price for children's frames is low. Children still get free glasses paid for by the NHS so that much has not changed. Ann |
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.