Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Trend for glasses

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Mireille - 17 Mar 2007 23:48 GMT
Living in London now I notice that there are so many people with glasses with
a low prescription. It is surprising to me although I understand the fashion
is now for glasses. As professionals how do you like the trend - do you think
it is nice but unusual, or good for the optical business, or better that
people with small prescriptions are now wearing them and so seeing a little
better? I am interested to know what you might think.
otisbrown@pa.net - 18 Mar 2007 04:18 GMT
Dear Mireille,

The trend is good for the optical business.

Otis

> Living in London now I notice that there are so many people with glasses with
> a low prescription. It is surprising to me although I understand the fashion
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> --
> Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200703/1
Neil Brooks - 18 Mar 2007 06:25 GMT
On Mar 17, 7:18 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> The trend is good for the optical business.

Just as your incessant posting throughout the internet has aided you
in selling your book ... for $24.95 ... I would guess?

Uh, yeah.
Dr Judy - 18 Mar 2007 17:26 GMT
> Living in London now I notice that there are so many people with glasses with
> a low prescription. It is surprising to me although I understand the fashion
> is now for glasses. As professionals how do you like the trend - do you think
> it is nice but unusual, or good for the optical business, or better that
> people with small prescriptions are now wearing them and so seeing a little
> better? I am interested to know what you might think.

So how do you know the glasses have low prescription?

If people just like the look of glasses but have no vision problem
they can get no power glasses. If they like to see clearly, they can
get prescription glasses.  If they don't care about blurred vision,
they can choose not to get glasses.  I think it is the individual's
choice and my opinion doesn't really matter.

I would feel safer driving knowing that the other drivers see clearly.

Dr Judy

> --
> Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200703/1
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 18 Mar 2007 22:00 GMT
> Living in London now I notice that there are so many people with glasses with
> a low prescription. It is surprising to me although I understand the fashion
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> --
> Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200703/1

i haven't noticed such a trend.  things seem to me to be just as
before-- some people who have little if any prescriptions seem to want
glasses and some people who definitely need glasses do not wear them.
i believe, overall, the market for eyeglasses is slightly declining at
least in the US.
michael toulch - 21 Mar 2007 21:46 GMT
> Living in London now I notice that there are so many people with glasses with
> a low prescription. It is surprising to me although I understand the fashion
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> --
> Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200703/

glasses are a fashion item as well as optical aids.
if they hold are "low prescriptions" in them or "big prescriptions" in
them is somewhat immaterial really.
Mireille - 25 Mar 2007 15:34 GMT
I know that they are a low prescription because it is lower than mine, -2, I
can see that.  Don't you find it strange that something for better vision is
also a 'fashion item'?
Neil Brooks - 25 Mar 2007 17:13 GMT
> I know that they are a low prescription because it is lower than mine, -2, I
> can see that.  Don't you find it strange that something for better vision is
> also a 'fashion item'?

I actually think the opposite:

If you need glasses to improve your vision, and ... you can improve
your appearance at the same time ... then why not?

Glasses shouldn't have to--and no longer do--look frightfully
utilitarian.  They also need not be something where you choose one
pair and live with that look until you die.

If you have to wear them ... then why not look good?
Mac - 25 Mar 2007 18:46 GMT
Interesting comments – do you think they improve the appearance of some
people?

Or are you just of the opinion that “if you HAVE to wear them” it IS still
possible to look good?
Ms.Brainy - 25 Mar 2007 19:59 GMT
This thread is really silly.  The original message is based on a
subjective superficial observasion of one person, not on any factual
data or statistics.  Sometimes people may "discover" new phenomena
just because they pay attention to someting that they haven't before.
This doesn't mean that it didn't exist before.
justpassing - 25 Mar 2007 22:27 GMT
>This doesn't mean that it didn't exist before.

What is 'it'?
Ms.Brainy - 26 Mar 2007 00:53 GMT
> >This doesn't mean that it didn't exist before.
>
> What is 'it'?
>
> --

The supposedly "newly discovered" phenomenon.
otisbrown@pa.net - 26 Mar 2007 02:11 GMT
Dear Ms. Brainy,

Subject:  The original poster simply observed that
the refractive STATE goes DOWN in our
modern "environment" as a natural process.

Here is the data to confirm her initial observations
about the eye's dynamic behavior.

============================================

REPORT ON THE REFRACTIVE STATES OF THE EYE.

A recent study in Hong Kong showed what other studies have
shown - wearing less than a full correction will slow the
progress of the myopia. Children selected for the study were
between the ages of 9 and 12. All were nearsighted, with 1.00
to 5.00 D of myopia. The children were separated into three
groups. Each group was given a different type of eyeglasses
to wear for the two-year period of the study. The first group
wore single vision lenses with a full correction; the second
group wore progressive lenses with a +1.50 add; the third
group wore progressive lenses with a +2.00 add. All children
were examined at 6-month intervals to check the progression of
their myopia. Sixty-eight children completed the study. As
expected, more undercorrection meant slower myopia
progression.

Minus vision lenses: - 1.23 D increase (2 years)
-0.625 per year

Progressive lenses with +1.50 add: - 0.76 D increase (2 years)
- 0.38 per year

Progressive lenses with +2.00 add: - 0.66 D increase (2 years)
-0.33 per year

Source: Leung JT, Brown B. Progression of myopia in Hong Kong
Chinese schoolchildren is slowed by wearing progressive
lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76:346, 354. Published 10/07/00.

==================

The results of the natural eye "adapting" to
12 to 16 years in a "school" environment:

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%.

6) Lin et al (Lin, L.K., Shih, Y.F., Lee, Y.C., Hung, P.T., and
Hou, P.K., " 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.

> This thread is really silly.  The original message is based on a
> subjective superficial observasion of one person, not on any factual
> data or statistics.  Sometimes people may "discover" new phenomena
> just because they pay attention to someting that they haven't before.
> This doesn't mean that it didn't exist before.
Neil Brooks - 26 Mar 2007 03:21 GMT
On Mar 25, 5:11 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> Subject:  The original poster simply observed that
> the refractive STATE goes DOWN in our
> modern "environment" as a natural process.

That's really not what she said at all.

Nope.  Not at all....
Ms.Brainy - 26 Mar 2007 03:52 GMT
> On Mar 25, 5:11 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Nope.  Not at all....

Correct.  She actually said that SHE had noticed so many people in
London with low prescription eyeglasses.  Did she count them?  Did she
count them in the past and has data to compare?  Did she have a sample
of the London population (which she counted, of course) and determined
the percentage of the low Rx people in the general population?  Did
she count them in other places?  Did she check their Rx?  How?  Any
statistical data or analysis?

She only said SHE had NOTICED the phenomenon and the trend.  I, on the
other hand, have noticed that less people now wear glasses (except in
Korea, where it SEEMS to ME that about 90% of the population wears
glasses, but I may be mistaken, maybe it's only 46.5%, or perhaps
62.83%, or something like this, I am not sure :-).  I believe that
more people now use contact lenses or had refractive surgery,
therefore less people on the street are visible with specacles...  As
I said, this thread is silly
callimico66@yahoo.com - 26 Mar 2007 07:07 GMT
> I said, this thread is silly

'Tis true. Mireille, in a reply, thought it "strange" that people with
low Rx's would wear glasses--but hey, they want to recognize their
friends from across the street, too.

Perhaps the sheer availability of good-looking frames and thinner
lenses, plus an overall acceptance of glasses-wearing these days, has
helped people feel good about wearing glasses, instead of feeling
"ugly" in them. There are some terrific glasses designs--very sleek,
modern, colorful, unusual, and unique. There is the mystique of "who
is behind the glasses"--something a bit "brainy," or mysterious, or
alluring.

C66
Mike Tyner - 26 Mar 2007 08:32 GMT
> Source: Leung JT, Brown B. Progression of myopia in Hong Kong
> Chinese schoolchildren is slowed by wearing progressive
> lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76:346, 354. Published 10/07/00.

Ah.. you finally found that one. I wish there were more like it.

Do you wonder why other bifocal studies contradict it?

> MYOPIA PREVALENCE IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 90 PERCENT
> FOR TAIWAN MEDICAL STUDENTS

Prevalence statistics tell how important this research is but they say
nothing about cause or prevention or remediation.

-MT
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 26 Mar 2007 11:39 GMT
On Mar 25, 9:11 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Ms. Brainy,
>
> Subject:  The original poster simply observed that
> the refractive STATE goes DOWN in our
> modern "environment" as a natural process.

thats not what the original poster said.  you are a stupid idiot.
you just can't resist an opportunity to jump up on you soapbox
can you Otis?  well lets just look at it that way then-- if everyone
is
getting so nearsighted as you claim then why is the market
for eyeglasses and contacts essentially flat?

now go drink your warm milk you old fool.
Dr Judy - 25 Mar 2007 17:49 GMT
> I know that they are a low prescription because it is lower than mine, -2, I
> can see that.  Don't you find it strange that something for better vision is
> also a 'fashion item'?

Many useful items are also fashion items.  Think winter coats,
rainboots, hats, gloves.  Think bedding.  Think furniture.  And how
about all the trendy foods.  And designer beers .

Dr Judy
SKIL-Online.com - 26 Mar 2007 12:16 GMT
Glasses are great for eye safety!
 
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



©2009 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.