 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2006Lenses For Athletes
I am an aging athlete but still ski and cycle hard as well as kayak and run. My bifocals make me nuts with the rapidly changing scenes going by. And my bifocals no longer work for intermediate sight. I can see 20" and from 10' to infinity but the mid-range is blurry. My doctor wants to put me into progressives but I am concerned about the lack of peripheral vision and my easy of getting dizzy. What have other active people found with progressives or trying to find a glass that provides for all three ranges. Konnie Have you considered some of the soft multifocal contact lenses out there? DrG WTF??? You totally confuse me. First, why bifocals? The only people I put into bifocals these days are those who can't/won't wear multifocals. Most of the newer designs have minimal distortion and don't affect peripheral vision. What sort of athlete are you? The reason I ask, is that I would have had you in contacts years ago for sport if you were at all serious. Contacts give much more freedom for sport, better peripheral and dynamid vision, no fogging, allow you to wear sunglases and don't bounce around. You don't have to hold your head at funny angles when cycling and don't get splashes of water all over them when kayaking. My recommendations are multifocals for general wear and contacts for sport. You can look at daily lenses for starters, or 2 weekly lenses. dr grant why not wear contacts for distance since you use your eyes for distance? When reading, either put reading glasses over them or remove your contacts. I have extremely dry eyes so my doc wont prescribe contacts anymore -by multi-focal do you mean progressives. > WTF??? You totally confuse me. First, why bifocals? The only people I > put into bifocals these days are those who can't/won't wear [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > dr grant "I have extremely dry eyes so my doc wont prescribe contacts anymore" That is really dumb, to be blunt. There are several materials you can use these days to allow you to perform with CL's. Focus night & day, purevision, O2 Optix, Acuvue advance and OaSys, proclear, ciba dailies are all designed to be worn for longer with fewer dry eye problems. You don't have to wear them asa a full-time lens, but to put in for an hour or so when you run, ride or paddle is only a little common sense. The aim with sports vision is to allow you to compete and train to your maximum capacity. Sports doctors send injured players back onto the field to compete, we do no different. In your position, it may be that an hour or 2 is all you may wear the lenses comfortably, but at least you can go without glasses. Give some of the newer lenses a try. "by multi-focal do you mean progressives. " Progressives are multifocals. They are much better for most people, and after a little adaptation, you should find the same too. dr grant "CatmanX" <drgrant@ozemail.com.au> wrote in news:1144814611.964085.78490 @g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > Progressives are multifocals. They are much better for most people, and > after a little adaptation, you should find the same too. > > dr grant For my outdoor sports, I enjoy a full field view for distance, but there is a good deal of close up work (like tying on flies and such), for which I now use a flip down magnifier. Action Optics is a company that makes sunglasses for outdoor sports, and they find that when people want a bifocal for near, they prefer it lower on the eye than the "normal" bifocal add. When I move to a bifocal, I plan to take their word for it, and try their's for outdoor sports.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Good observation. Golfers in particular hate bifocals, and so we place the bifocal very low and rather small. But, as a serious recreational athlete myself, I rather hated wearing glasses because of the sweat factor. DrG "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in news:1144846343.121079.183020 @g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > Good observation. Golfers in particular hate bifocals, and so we place > the bifocal very low and rather small. But, as a serious recreational > athlete myself, I rather hated wearing glasses because of the sweat > factor. > > DrG As a flyfisherman, I consider glasses mandatory for safety reasons. When I teach new flyfishermen, I always tell them to wear glasses, and to carry a whistle. Of course, when flyfishing, if you're working so hard you're sweating, you're doing it wrong ;) SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in news:1144846343.121079.183020 > @g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Of course, when flyfishing, if you're working so hard you're sweating, > you're doing it wrong ;) As an interesting aside, I was fishing with one of our Institute of Optics members and his son. At the time, they were both fairly novice at flyfishing. The father is one of the big guys in wavefront corrective optics as applied to the eye. For me, presbyopia was just starting to kick in, and I was having some trouble tying on flies. This guy suggested I take off my glasses to tie on the flies. I then told him how a few years before I lost a pair of glasses in a stream changing from sunglasses to clear lenses at dusk, and that in or near the water, the glasses stay on my face now. Soon after that, I arrived at the flip-down magnifier option, and I've been pretty happy with that. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > Good observation. Golfers in particular hate bifocals, > and so we place the bifocal very low and rather small. Spot on. I'm wearing translating trifocals. I can deal with the blur using woods and irons (heh, once you're setup you should be able to swing with your eyes closed...). It's putting where I suffer. I'm working on my doc to think about an inverted translating bifocal. The trick would be to have to look up to engage the near segment while having it out of the way when looking straight ahead. I'm not sure I've convinced him that I'm serious... -Quick I go one step further. One bifocal in front of the dominant hand side, e.g. right eye for a right handed golfer, and decentre temporally. This mens there is no bifocal in front of the eye nearest to the pin, the bifocal is out of the way and set low with a reduced add. Usually the golfer wants enough to fill out a score card and inspect clubs and balls. Sports vision can be quite challenging to customise the best option for a given > "by multi-focal do you mean progressives. " > > Progressives are multifocals. They are much better for > most people, and after a little adaptation, you should > find the same too. Ummm, this may not be a good description to give a layman. Progressives change focus depending on which part of the lens you look through. Many of the multifocal contacts work by presenting the eye/brain with multiple images (each in it's own focus? -- how would you word that?). Your brain then picks the image(s) in best focus and ignores the others. I guess this effect can/is accomplished by some designs that are "progressive" but the whole range is within the optical zone of the pupil? ...painfully obvious that I'm not a doc or even a well informed patient... but I thought he would get the impression that the contacts would be/work like progressive spectacles. -Quick |
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.