Experimenting with reading glasses?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

gerry.acheman - 16 Nov 2006 14:58 GMT

What are the risks of experimentation with various lenses for
reading or computer glasses?

How about correcting one eye and removing the lens from in front of
the other?

Can using a too powerful lens only for reading potentially damage
your eye? I am enjoying the clarity of vision.

All that can be viewed as generally speaking.

Thanks in advance.

Signature

I am fully responsible for my own eyesight and health, regardless of
any advice given here. I am also very much aware of how opinions
vary on Usenet, coming from many different sources.

Reply to this Message

otisbrown@pa.net - 16 Nov 2006 16:30 GMT

Dear Gerry,

The standard theory of the eye, Donders-Helmholtz
maintains that a lens has NO EFFECT on the
eyes refractive STATE -- ever.

This is the majority-opinion of the optometrists
posting on sci.med.vision.

For that reason, using a simple magnifing
glass for reading should not be a problem.

Otis

> What are the risks of experimentation with various lenses for
> reading or computer glasses?
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> any advice given here. I am also very much aware of how opinions
> vary on Usenet, coming from many different sources.

Reply to this Message

gerry.acheman - 16 Nov 2006 17:28 GMT

So I can effectively upgrade the size of my monitor for the cost of
reading glasses. Wow.

> Dear Gerry,
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Otis

Reply to this Message

Mike Tyner - 16 Nov 2006 17:29 GMT

> The standard theory of the eye, Donders-Helmholtz
> maintains that a lens has NO EFFECT on the
> eyes refractive STATE -- ever.

I don't recall that Donders or Helmholtz ever said that.

> This is the majority-opinion of the optometrists
> posting on sci.med.vision.

We're so glad you've been appointed to speak for us.

Of course, it's only the ODs. The ophthalmologists, vision researchers, and
neurophysiologists all believe that the eye changes by 63% toward the new
step-input within 100 days. Right?

> For that reason, using a simple magnifing
> glass for reading should not be a problem.

A shocking reversal on your part, Horatiotis. So you DO agree? There is a
point in human development when eyes stop responding to a "step-change in
input?"

-MT

Reply to this Message

otisbrown@pa.net - 16 Nov 2006 18:51 GMT

Dear Mike,

I believe that the NATURAL EYE, with NATURAL REFRACTIVE
STATES, will either respond to an applied -3 diopter lens -- or
it will not.

But please use the term "refractive STATE", and use
the standard OBJECTIVE measurement of retionoscope
and supporting technique.

So we place a -3 diopter lens on the natural eye, and
look for a time-constant response -- indication
that the natural eye is a sophisticated, and
dynamic system.

Or look for your verification, that no change in
refractive STATE will occur for the eye with
a -3 diopter lens on it.

That is how you determime if a population of
natural eyes are dynamic or not.

Reference:

Mike> Of course, it's only the ODs. The ophthalmologists, vision
researchers, and
neurophysiologists all believe that the eye changes by 63% toward the
new
step-input within 100 days. Right?

No, Mike, you do NOT believe or expect that the natural
eye will respond to this type of step-input. Just you
and a percentage of majority-opinion ODs refuse to
believe that the natural eye will show this type of
response.

But this issue IS NOT MEDICAL.

It is rather work to determine if the predictions
of the Donders-Helmholtz theory are accurate
in a pure-scientific sense -- or not.

Best,

Otis

> > The standard theory of the eye, Donders-Helmholtz
> > maintains that a lens has NO EFFECT on the
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> -MT

Reply to this Message

Mike Tyner - 16 Nov 2006 20:01 GMT

<otisbrown@pa.net> went before the nations and spake forth out of the
wilderness:

> I believe

Amen.

> that the NATURAL EYE,

Oops. Undefined

> with NATURAL REFRACTIVE STATES

ditto

> will either respond to an applied -3 diopter lens -- or
> it will not.

1) Does it matter if these "NATURAL" eyes have 3 diopters of myopia?
2) Does it matter if these "NATURAL" eyes are 2 days old, 2 months, 2 years,
2 decades?
3) Does it matter if these "NATURAL" eyes are human, macaca, or limulus?
4) Does all of biology, physics, and statistics boil down to "yes or no?"

> and use the standard OBJECTIVE measurement
> of retionoscope and supporting technique.

Not to mention cyclepegia.

> So we place a -3 diopter lens on the natural eye, and
> look for a time-constant response -- indication
> that the natural eye is a sophisticated, and
> dynamic system.

So if it DOESN'T respond, it's neither sophisticated or dynamic.

> Or look for your verification, that no change in
> refractive STATE will occur for the eye with
> a -3 diopter lens on it.

Oh I did look. Y'know, real studies that actually measured real humans and
published in real journals. I found Shotwell, Grosvenor, Parssinen, Ong,
Gwiazda, O'Leary and all those others we've mentioned to you. They
consistently disagree with your armchair hypothesis.

> That is how you determime if a population of
> natural eyes are dynamic or not.

So, if I never wear glasses, my eyes will not change.

-MT

Reply to this Message

Simon Dean - 16 Nov 2006 21:32 GMT

> So, if I never wear glasses, my eyes will not change.

Not unless you study religion in israel my young mike!

You have so much to learn.

:-p

Cya
Simon

Reply to this Message

Dr Judy - 16 Nov 2006 22:18 GMT

> Dear Gerry,
>
> The standard theory of the eye, Donders-Helmholtz
> maintains that a lens has NO EFFECT on the
> eyes refractive STATE -- ever.

Donders Helmholtz had a theory of accommodation, not "the eye". And it
doesn't mention refractive state. Or refractive error either.

Dr Judy

Reply to this Message

Robert Martellaro - 16 Nov 2006 17:18 GMT

>What are the risks of experimentation with various lenses for
>reading or computer glasses?

You may experience asthenopia (eye strain, blurred vision, headaches, burning,
watering eyes etc.) that goes away when you stop experimenting.

>How about correcting one eye and removing the lens from in front of
>the other?

Same as the above.

>Can using a too powerful lens only for reading potentially damage
>your eye?

No.

>I am enjoying the clarity of vision.

Most folks will see better, with superior visual comfort, if they use properly
designed Rx glasses. It depends on the Rx and frequency of use.

Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
Wauwatosa Wi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
- Niels Bohr

Reply to this Message

Dr Judy - 16 Nov 2006 22:22 GMT

> What are the risks of experimentation with various lenses for
> reading or computer glasses?

None, unless you are under the age of six. If you pick some lenses
that blur your vision or make you hold things very close you might get
a headache.

> How about correcting one eye and removing the lens from in front of
> the other?

No problem. Done quite often with contact lens wearers.

> Can using a too powerful lens only for reading potentially damage
> your eye? I am enjoying the clarity of vision.

No. But you might want to have a proper eye exam to determine what
power of lens you actually need. Be sure to tell the doctor what
distance from your eyes you use your reading materials and computer.

Dr Judy

Reply to this Message