 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2006Problem with prescription sunglasses
Hi, I got a pair of prescription sunglasses from Costco recently. This is the first time I am wearing any prescription glasses. And I am having a lot of trouble right away. I am shortsighted. I was wearing -1.25 glasses. I got a new prescription for these glasses and they recommended that I wear -1.5. Also, they said that I can keep wearing my -1.25 regular glasses and use these -1.5 sunglasses, without any problem. So, I got them made to -1.5. FYI I don't require any other correction. For the first couple of days I was wearing them for 10-15mins in sun and they were great. They cut glare and harsh sunlight. They are gray in color. These are polarised and claim UV protection. But, yesterday I wore them for couple of hours in sun and my eyes hurt like hell. I was not sure whether it was due to the sunglasses or something else. Then I wore them today for some time, but, after an hour or so of wearing them in sun, my eyes started hurting badly again. Once I reverted back to my regular glasses, I was fine within minutes. I took it back to Costco and they looked at both my glasses and told me that it could be that the new glasses are not fitting well enough and so, some light might be coming in around the edges. So, the person there tried to reshape the frame a bit and hoped that it'll be fix the problem. The other thing that he said might be the problem was that my eyes might be struggling with the change of glass power from 1.25 to 1.5. My *guess* was that probably the sunglasses are not of good quality, i.e., they don't block enough of sun ray and trick my pupil to open up too much, leading to the above problem. Sort of another hypothesis. At least they have good return policy. He said I was welcome to return them and get a refund if what he did does not solve my problems. Does anyone ever had this kind of problem? Any thought as to what could be causing problem? Thanks, N > I got a pair of prescription sunglasses from Costco recently. This is > the first time I am wearing any prescription glasses. Small typo: this is the first time I am wearing any prescription sunglasses. I have been wearing prescription glasses for 9 years. "Nachiketa Sahoo" <nsahoo@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1150577134.588919.125210@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > ... wore them for couple of hours in sun and my eyes hurt like hell ... > Does anyone ever had this kind of problem? Any thought as to what could > be causing problem? Sometimes stylish eyeglasses, particularly sunglasses, are made according to a "wrap-around" design. So your eyes looked slantedly through the lenses. There could be a question of whether the optical centers of the lenses are corrected for the tilt of the lenses. It is surprising how frequently purveyors of eyeglasses are not aware that eyeglasses perform best when they are flat to the eyes, as opposed to tilted to achieve the appearance of being "streamlined". -- Dicky >> ... wore them for couple of hours in sun and my eyes >> hurt like hell ... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > are flat to the eyes, as opposed to tilted to achieve the > appearance of being "streamlined". Not sure of your point here Dicky. Are you saying the manufacturers make tilted sunglasses and don't account for it? or that the sellers bend them and don't account for it? -Quick > Not sure of your point here Dicky. Are you saying the > manufacturers make tilted sunglasses and don't account > for it? or that the sellers bend them and don't account for > it? I dunno if they could or should be held to account. They have to make a living, and, with population exploding the way it does, there's many more than one sucker born each minute. We could oppose them on the grounds of good optical design, but the answer will obviously be that people like the swept-back lenses and one simply does one's best to supply what people want. Quite likely it can be shown that the incremental accommodative load for a 1.5D myope peering though lenses toed out by 15 degrees is substantially within the bounds of reason, with prismatic, chromatic, astigmatic, and pincushional distortion remaining entirely unaffected, essentially. Notwithstanding, the OP might continue to be affected by headaches. Well, vergence stresses could be obviated by using only one eye at a time. He could try that. -- Dicky These sunglasses are almost exactly like my glasses. No wrap around nothing. Just like a pair of glasses but gray. I am not sure why that might cause problem. N > "Nachiketa Sahoo" <nsahoo@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1150577134.588919.125210@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > Dicky "Nachiketa Sahoo" <nsahoo@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1150642777.660820.181210@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > These sunglasses are almost exactly like my glasses. No wrap around > nothing. Just like a pair of glasses but gray. I am not sure why that > might cause problem. Then I dunno. I am only an amateur optometrist, and, though I have several merit badges in opthamology, I am not actually medically qualified. Perhaps you are overcorrected by the additional -0.25D. Maybe the centers do not fit the distance between your pupils. Maybe the gray lets through some distress-causing UV or infra-red. Me, I always wear a baseball cap with sunglasses. Even then, the sun finds its way around the tinted plastic in many mysterious ways. The sun is bad for your skin anyway. Maybe you should just stay out of it? -- Dicky > The sun is bad for your skin anyway. Maybe you should just stay > out of it? You just don't say that to someone in pittsburgh, where, sun is so rare. I guess I'll keep using my normal glasses in sun and let my pupil do the adjustment to protect my eyes from to sun. N > Then I dunno. I am only an amateur optometrist, and, > though I have several merit badges in opthamology, I > am not actually medically qualified. What does this mean? Are you a certified optometrist and just not practicing professionally? What are "merit badges in opthamology"? Someone might easily construe this to mean that you do, in fact, have some medical qualifications. Is that the case? -Quick >> Then I dunno. I am only an amateur optometrist, and, >> though I have several merit badges in opthamology, I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >do, in fact, have some medical qualifications. Is that >the case? You should always assume on here that nobody has anything. They might say they do when they don't anyway. Just read what they say and take the advice if you like depending on what it is, and/or do more research. Ann > Someone might easily construe ... that you > do, in fact, have some medical qualifications. Is that > the case? I have no qualification to practice any kind of medicine. The Boy Scout organization is not authorized to issue merit badges in opthomology. Optometry is not a field of medicine, so amateur optometrists do not so frequently go to jail. I hope this helps. -- Dicky [snip] >I have no qualification to practice any kind of medicine. Then why do you attempt to be an "amateur Optometrist"? >Optometry is not a field of medicine Yes, Optometrists are not MDs. However, Optometrists like many other allied health care professionals, can render medical care in accordance with state law. And Optometrists should be, and in many cases are, held to the same standard of care as OMDs for the care they do deliver. In fact, Optometrists should be held to a greater standard of care than non OMD MDs when it comes to the eye. >so amateur optometrists do not so frequently go to jail. Neither do amateur medical doctors. > ... why do you attempt to be an "amateur Optometrist"? ... Does the anonymous poster feel I may be unqualified for that? > ... And Optometrists should be, and in many cases are, held to the same > standard of care as OMDs for the care they do deliver ... In all cases should be. But who has time to check up on 'em all? (I have pointed out that the opthamologists very frequently rely upon in-house trained phoropter jockeys. Theoretically, one might expect that photopter operators who have received institutional training would do better refractions.) > ... In fact, Optometrists should be held to a greater standard of care > than non OMD MDs when it comes to the eye ... For instance, one can hope that they are proficient in the use of the basic tools of their trade, like the phoropter, for instance, and are competent to write scripts for eyeglasses. > > ... so amateur optometrists do not so frequently go to jail. > Neither do amateur medical doctors ... "Amateur medical doctor" is undefined. Quack doctors frequently get busted. Several examples of amateur optometrist are seen here at sci.med.vision. Even the most notorious of them has never done a day of jail time. It is my hope to set a shining example for the amateur optometrists of sci.med.vision. I will start with good posting style and use of the spell checker. Maybe one day I will work up to an eBay phoropter and lens checker so I can help people figure out why their eyeglasses are not working out. -- Dicky >> ... why do you attempt to be an "amateur Optometrist"? ... > >Does the anonymous poster feel I may be unqualified for that? No. >"Amateur medical doctor" is undefined. Then so is "amateur Optometrist" necessarily according to you. If "amateur Optometrist" is in fact definable, then just replace the definition of "Optometrist" with the defintion of "medical doctor" and you have the definition for "amateur medical doctor". > If "amateur Optometrist" is in fact definable, then just replace the > definition of "Optometrist" with the defintion of "medical doctor" and > you have the definition for "amateur medical doctor". For one thing, "optometrist", like "doctor", is a generic category, and does not take capitalization unless it is a title, like Dr. as in Dr. Smith, for instance. This seems to me to be a political rather than a semantical consideration. It is a fact of life that medical doctors have very strong unions and can, with magnificent adeptitude, destroy any person, corporate body, or governmental entity which threatens to usurp the smallest fragment of their thunder. On the other hand, optometrists are advanced technicians who have recently risen from the mundane task of measuring refractive error and prescribing eyeglasses. Now that they have left all that behind, business is quite good with contact lenses, referrals to eye surgeons, and the management of the aftermaths and complications of such things, not to mention cosmetic counseling and the elevation of eyeglasses to aristocratic accoutrements and beauty aides. The eyeglass customer who, years ago, with a competent refraction, might not return for a decade or more, is now a "patient" who will probably be back within three weeks, and has need of a steady supply of after-market necessities, accessories, and replacement items. An amateur optometrist, on the other hand, has nothing to sell, and is just trying to figure out what is going on. He may wonder, from time to time, if he could get some eyeglasses which would provide sharper vision. Some have wondered if there is any way to improve bad vision other than eyeglasses and similar stuff, and if there is any hope for the prevention of ruining one's eyes before it is too late. -- Dicky [snip] You "answered" the question here with another question: | > ... why do you attempt to be an "amateur Optometrist"? ... | | Does the anonymous poster feel I may be unqualified for that? I defined "amateur Optometrist" and you didn't follow-up with anything relevant: | > If "amateur Optometrist" is in fact definable, then just replace the | > definition of "Optometrist" with the defintion of "medical doctor" and | > you have the definition for "amateur medical doctor". "Amateur optometrist", by definition, is a non-professional optometrist -- ergo, one who practices optometry without a O.D. I don't think that is what you are doing, as I don't see you performing eye exams, prescribing glasses, etc. Perhaps you are merely interested in optometry and are just making guesses here rather than trying to be an "amateur optometrist". > You "answered" the question here with another question: > > | > ... why do you attempt to be an "amateur Optometrist"? ... Yes, I did. I learned that ploy from attempting to converse with Professional People. > I defined "amateur Optometrist" and you didn't follow-up with anything > relevant: Well, try this, then: I am one; Otis is one; Ace is one; Bev is a rather good one; Then there are the sci.med.vision watchdogs who are deciding what is appropriate for folks to post -- why not include them? Obviously, there are considerable ranges of proficiency and competence. > "Amateur optometrist", by definition, is a non-professional > optometrist -- ergo, one who practices optometry without a O.D. Yes, to varying degrees. Sometimes quite benignly, even usefully on occasion. > I don't think that is what you are doing, as I don't see you > performing eye exams, prescribing glasses, etc. I do a lot of work on myself. With wall charts and diagrams, and particularly with signs and neon displays at night, I can figure out what is wrong with my prescription. Check my work with a pair of Zennis. It is an incremental thing. Last time I got it right by the third pair. Also I have some uncut lenses -.25D and -.50D, but they are no longer useful since I am no longer progressively myopic due to recent IOL installation. Also I can give some good advice to my wife but she cannot take me seriously because she knows I am unprofessional. I am a pretty good plumber, too, but we just paid $300 to a professional plumber to fix a faucet, on account of lack of trust. We pay a lot for eyeglasses, for the same reason. > Perhaps you are merely interested in optometry and are just making > guesses here rather than trying to be an "amateur optometrist". Another thing us amateur optometrists do is to check out the phoropter operators. Ophthalmologists are the worst. Optometrists can be quite good, but they frequently have agendas, particularly if they have fancy eyeglasses and contact lenses to sell (and little time if they are busy managing the trials and complications of contact lenses) or if they have relatives or in-laws who are eye surgeons. Among 6 or 7 phoroptrists who have done me in the last several decades, the best two were ladies who's training was on-the-job. -- Dicky > Another thing us amateur optometrists do is to check out the phoropter > operators. Ophthalmologists are the worst. Optometrists can be quite good, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > done me in the last several decades, the best two were ladies who's training > was on-the-job. That kills me. I think that proctologists could also use your "expertise" to check out the procto operators. Maybe you could report back and let us know who performed the best procto exams, who gave you the "best finger" so to speak. Because you sure do seem to be multi- talented. frank > That kills me. I think that proctologists could also use your > "expertise" to check out the procto operators. Maybe you > could report back and let us know who performed the best > procto exams, who gave you the "best finger" so to speak. > Because you sure do seem to be multi-talented. Actually, Doctor, the urologist is the more usual finger tester. (They call it a "digital" test, but it is a very low-tech procedure.) After you pass 50 (years of age), you can start checking 'em out. Or you can avoid them altogether. Sooner or later they will/would start sticking needles up your a.s and recommending unmentionable procedures. -- Dicky > > That kills me. I think that proctologists could also use your > > "expertise" to check out the procto operators. Maybe you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > Dicky See. You're already an expert! Now go play amateur proctologist along with Otis (you're both good at bull sh.tting). I'm sure they are in need of some groupies. frank >> That kills me. I think that proctologists could also use >> your "expertise" to check out the procto operators. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sooner or later they will/would start sticking needles up > your a.s and recommending unmentionable procedures. Aren't they just ripping you off? Can't you get much less expensive fingers on the internet? -Quick > > Actually, Doctor, the urologist is the more usual finger > > tester. (Said by me to a person claiming to be a doctor.) > Aren't they just ripping you off? Can't you get much less > expensive fingers on the internet? (Quipped by "Quick") I am sorry to have confused you. It was not about fingers, but a kind of a test performed with a finger. And nothing that can be done over IP, so far, at least. After a while, if you are attentive, you may get to know what the various kinds of doctors are up to. A urologist, for instance, can bill a 15-min. visit simply for sticking his finger up a person's a.s. It does not get much better than that. -- Dicky (And then there was the one about the patient who suddenly realized that the doctor held him by the right shoulder, as well as the left, for the DRE.) (And the one that ends "What's this thermometer doing behind my ear? -- where's my pencil?) >> I defined "amateur Optometrist" and you didn't follow-up with anything >> relevant: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ace is one; > Bev is a rather good one; I still haven't figured out exactly how this is a compliment...  SignatureCheers, Bev --------------------------------------------- "The primary purpose of any government entity is to employ the unemployable." >It is surprising how frequently purveyors of eyeglasses are not aware that >eyeglasses perform best when they are flat to the eyes, as opposed to >tilted to achieve the appearance of being "streamlined". So would flat lenses work better than curved lenses? Seems to me wraparound lenses would be better at approximating Tscherning's ellipse in extreme gaze. -MT > >It is surprising how frequently purveyors of eyeglasses are not aware that > >eyeglasses perform best when they are flat to the eyes, as opposed to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Seems to me wraparound lenses would be better at approximating Tscherning's > ellipse in extreme gaze. Certainly you should know that extreme gazing is what makes people bug-eyed. -- Dicky > -MT Nachiketa Sahoo wrote: > For the first couple of days I was wearing them for 10-15mins in sun > and they were great. They cut glare and harsh sunlight. They are gray > in color. These are polarised and claim UV protection. But, yesterday I > wore them for couple of hours in sun and my eyes hurt like hell. I was > not sure whether it was due to the sunglasses or something else. Does the polarising work? My test is to look out to sea, (or at a shiny road). The water should look darkish. If you keep your head still and rotate the lens 10 degrees either way you start to see shine. Or in the office look at the light reflected off a piece of white paper and rotate another correctly polarised lens in front of your lens. The paper should go very dark when the other lens is at 90 degrees. I have had a case of one lens being OK and the other eye being off by 20 degrees, giving a weird affect when looking at road reflections. However the manufacturer just dismissed this as manufacturing tolerances. > Does the polarising work? > My test is to look out to sea, (or at a shiny road). Or at a VW bug rear window -- a lovely pattern will emerge if the glasses are polarized. SignatureCheers, Bev ========================================================= "I believe that forgiving [terrorists] is God's function. Our job is to arrange the meeting." - Norman Schwartzkopf |
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.