 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2007Problem with No-Line Bifocals
I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first set. I'm going to get new glasses and I want to avoid this problem in the future. The problem is when I'm reading the edges of my vision aren't quite in focus. It's quite annoying. For example if I view a group of words in the middle of a page they are clearly seen but the words along the margins of a page aren't quite clear. My prescripition is as follows: Spherical: OD -0.75 OS -1.00 Cylinderical: Sph Sph Add: OD +1.75 OS +1.75 My lens size is 54 mm width and 38 mm height. Nothing special about the lenses, just the usual thickness CR 39. When I first got the glasses I complained about this. I had my eyeglasses checked for accuracy against the prescription and they matched up. I had my eyes re-examined and my doctor recommended that the store re-measure my PD, which they did, and found that it was the same as they had measured the first time. What causes the problem I am encountering? How can I avoid it with my new prescription? Also, what determines the height of the near-vision portion of the lens? For example, my lens is 38 mm high, so where does the reading portion of the lens start? Is it at the halfway point? Can I specify this to be smaller or larger if I desire? Thanks for your help. > I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second > prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first > set. I'm going to get new glasses and I want to avoid this problem in > the future. I think I'm on my third pair of no-lines. > What causes the problem I am encountering? How can I avoid it with my > new prescription? I'm not a professional, but as a wearer I think you can't avoid it. It's the nature of the beast. These glasses are the typical jack of all trades, master of none. I find the reading/distance problem gets worse as my eyes ages. I had to get single vision glasses to use with my desktop computer because no-lines were utterly, totally useless for that task. I'm considering reading glasses for the times I want to do some serious reading. For the transitory every day tasks no-lines are OK. > Also, what determines the height of the near-vision portion of the > lens? For example, my lens is 38 mm high, so where does the reading > portion of the lens start? Is it at the halfway point? Can I specify > this to be smaller or larger if I desire? They had a very scientific method in my case. I wore a pair of dummy glasses and looked at a distant object in the mall. They marked the position on the lens with a black marker! I'm sure they can vary the position... but how many experiments can one afford? The only way to check is to make a pair, and as we know they're not cheap. >> I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second >> prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >reading glasses for the times I want to do some serious reading. For the >transitory every day tasks no-lines are OK. How about "executive" bifocals -- line straight across the middle. Have the top be for computer distance, and bottom for reading -- thus you work on the screen, then switch to your notes at desk level in front of you. Works for me! David > In article <15lqjxiqrcs1n.1141chl4ca3f2....@40tude.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > David David, I agree In spite of some distortions at the line The exec are much healthy for eyes. No-line (progressives) shut -off accommodation at all. Lena > David, I agree > In spite of some distortions at the line [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Lena They do? So ... can you tell me where you get your data showing that presbyopes have perfectly accurate accommodative responses? Thanks. > > David, I agree > > In spite of some distortions at the line [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Thanks. Presbyopes do not have accurate accommodative response, as you know . Moreover , this knowledge is in perfect correlation with the opinion of her majesty ,science. But what is left from accommodation progressives switch off. > > > David, I agree > > > In spite of some distortions at the line [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Presbyopes do not have accurate accommodative response, as you know . [snip] > But what is left from accommodation progressives switch off. I guess you know the meaning of a non-sequitur, huh? >From your first statement, your second statement does not follow. > > > > David, I agree > > > > In spite of some distortions at the line [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > >From your first statement, your second statement does not follow.- Her mind works in mysterious ways. > No-line (progressives) shut -off accommodation at all. lena102938 is a typical USENET troll/kook who espouses typical troll/kook conspiracy theories (i.e. all peer reviewed research on the subject is incorrect because of a conspiracy amongst university research professors to increase profits in the optometry business). Peer-reviewed research says that accomodation changes occur because of aging, not because of the type of glasses that you wear. Please ignore. - Elron lena102938 <db00qp00@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1189994698.689330.14720 @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > No-line (progressives) shut -off accommodation at all. Why would you say this? It simply isn't true.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply On Sep 17, 12:28 pm, Scott Seidman <namdiestt...@mindspring.com> wrote: > lena102938 <db00q...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1189994698.689330.14720 > @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Scott > Reverse name to reply If you make anything not to work it is not going to work. Restrict hand movement. Weak mascule will be weaker. At 55 + please -progressives. At 40 ? It is a lot of accommodation left. It is like that : who been with OD has progressives, who have not been perfectly wears Reading glasses only for Reading. Show me at lest a few who visited OD at 40 and did not got progressives ? PS: I know theory that lens grows , becomes less elastic, etc. And ciliary muscle in vitro contracts under pilocarpine, which leads to conclusion that it is in perfect shape. >On Sep 17, 12:28 pm, Scott Seidman <namdiestt...@mindspring.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >And ciliary muscle in vitro contracts under pilocarpine, which leads >to conclusion that it is in perfect shape. With all the "respect" to you Lena, not all people or all eyes are exactly the same. I am sure you know that. 40 is the age that a beginning of presbyopia is anticipated, then it progresses further. In some rare occasions it may happen earlier, but at 50 almost all people are somewhere into presbyopia. Like any other aging symptom, you don't jump from full accommodation to no accommodation in one day. It's a gradual process. Nobody ever forced me to use any glasses or any kind of glasses. I have had over the years a couple of occasions in which I was not satisfied with my prescription. I went back to the optician/OD and got it corrected in one case, and got a full refund in the other. The function of eyeglasses (with some exceptions) is not to cure you, but to correct your vision. They need to be comfortable, if they are not something is wrong. I don't know where you find those ODs who give you specs that don't fit you and force you to wear them. Back to age -- I have met children who are sharp and bright at age 4, and people who are dumb and slow at age 40. People are not all the same. SignatureMsBrainy > >On Sep 17, 12:28 pm, Scott Seidman <namdiestt...@mindspring.com> > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > I don't know where you find those ODs who give you specs that don't fit you > and force you to wear them. They do not force They give time to use. It is not me. Forget progressives, it is OK. (sorry, still do not think so ) It is bad to fit person which reads perfectly in +3.25 It is bad to push that person to read in +6, never ever checking again. And it is even OK, if we think, that the person is 45 But if pseudo-doctor can do it one time it means that it is the system. It means that she does the same with children. On Sep 17, 3:23 pm, Troll-In-Residence, Lena wrote: > They do not force > They give time to use. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to fit person which reads perfectly in +3.25 > It is bad to push that person to read in +6, Now who are you talking about? You're changing the subject and making up a new hypothetical case that LACKS any substantive information. > never ever checking again. Uh, it's recommended to have annual eye exams. Just because YOU hate eye doctors doesn't mean that others don't get evaluated annually, if not more frequently. > And it is even OK, if we think, that the person is 45 If a person is 45, then it probably IS okay .... that they're 45. I'm 43. I think THAT's okay, too. Even if I didn't think so, there's really nothing to be done about it ... unless you're Otis ... and then you'd just lie. Google Translate did NOT help me get anything usable out of your last sentence. > But if pseudo-doctor can do it one time it means that it is the > system. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about ... but ... that works out just fine because ... neither do you. > It means that she does the same with children. So ... because an eye doctor puts a high plus prescription on ME ... I should assume that the same eye doctor puts a high plus prescription on ALL his/her patients? Is your "MS Physics" from a mail-order college, by any chance, or from Capitol College, like our demented troll, Uncle Otie?? > X-No-Archive: yes > On Sep 17, 3:23 pm, Troll-In-Residence, Lena wrote: > > Is your "MS Physics" from a mail-order college, by any chance, or from > Capitol College, like our demented troll, Uncle Otie?? No, My University is the One of the best on the Globe. MS CS is from regular University here. >I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second >prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the middle of a page they are clearly seen but the words along the >margins of a page aren't quite clear. The best you can hope for is about two newspaper columns wide of clear vision. >My prescripition is as follows: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >What causes the problem I am encountering? How can I avoid it with my >new prescription? As Father Mike says, you really can't avoid it in a progressive power lens (aka no-line multifocal). However, your awareness of the near zone boundaries will diminish with time, given a few weeks. To be sure, some of the problem with the new glasses (I assume) is the increase in the Add power, the situation can be substantially aggravated by poor lens positioning and improper lens design. FYI, your lenses can be ground exactly to the prescribed Rx and still experience blurred and/or uncomfortable vision. The same is true for the PD. >Also, what determines the height of the near-vision portion of the >lens? For example, my lens is 38 mm high, so where does the reading >portion of the lens start? Is it at the halfway point? Can I specify >this to be smaller or larger if I desire? It's primarily dependant on lens design. Some types change quickly into the near zone, sometimes with a linear change, although most change in a non-linear fashion. There are visual consequences with each type. Consult with your optician to determine the best lens for your Rx and vision requirements. >Thanks for your help. Your welcome. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman > >I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second > >prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > fashion. There are visual consequences with each type. Consult with your > optician to determine the best lens for your Rx and vision requirements. All designs is bad, they are is full of astigmatic distortion For optician the best to sell no-line The cost of production of no-lines maximum 50 $ sell prise 400$ Cost of singles almost the same sell price 140$ Regards > All designs is bad, this is your personal opinion. you can either choose a progressive or a lined bifocal so simply choose the one that you prefer and quit stating your personal opinions to everyone else as if they are facts. they are not! > they are full of astigmatic distortion this is true if you look off-center. it is not true if you look straight ahead. once again your knowledge and understanding is limited yet you act as though you are an expert on the subject. > For optician the best to sell no-line > The cost of production of no-lines maximum 50 $ sell prise 400$ > Cost of singles almost the same sell price 140$ where ever you are buying your glasses, I would look elsewhere. sometimes there is a slightly higher price for no-lines versus lines but not at all like what you are saying. do you think you exaggerate sometimes? > I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second > prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > What causes the problem I am encountering? How can I avoid it with my > new prescription? Hello, problem is no-line. Lena Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu) and Otis Brown are long-time trolls who haunt s.m.v. Lena102938 aspires to troll status based primarily upon her constant use of anti-eye doctor rhetoric as a substitute for any actual information. You'd do well to ignore them and wait for responses from the caring, compassionate eye doctors who DO also participate in this site. > I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second > prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The problem is when I'm reading the edges of my vision aren't quite in > focus. It's quite annoying. For example if I view a group of words in As others have noted, by and large this is the nature of the beast. Unfortunately many dispensing optometrists are not aware of the limitations of what they're selling their customers and do not provide proper warning. Progressives are good for tasks that require focusing upon a single point, such as working on an automobile or sewing a garment, but are not good for tasks that require a field of vision such as working on a computer, and some people simply can't tolerate them because of the blur at the edges of vision causing nausea and/or headaches. The other option is the lined type of bifocal, which has a slight blur at the transition but otherwise provides a clear field of vision in the top part or bottom part of the lens. If your optometrist and optician cannot find a progressive lens that will work for you, that is the most likely solution that you'll end up with. -Elron On Sep 17, 12:35 pm, "L. Ron Waddle" <penguincathed...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second > > prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > -Elron The off-axis blur is common to all of the progressives, but some designs are able to minimize it. I use mine for the computer and have no issues. The field of view is adequate for all except the most demanding of occupations involving a wide field at near. To look back and forth from left to right, I prefer turning my eyeballs and keeping head straight forward to having to keep twisting my head back and forth just to see something. Therefore, for me, bifocals and trifocals, not progressives. Also, prefer "executive" (straight line across, halfway up) style to curved-line types. YMMV, of course. David >To look back and forth from left to right, I prefer >turning my eyeballs and keeping head straight forward to >having to keep twisting my head back and forth just to >see something. This will result in bad strain of the eyemind, and further your imperfect sight. If you wish to feel well again, you should keep your head moving as you move your eyes left and right, in the same direction. Anyway what kind of laziness is that; keeping your head still all the time. It is not like it takes energy much at all just to move your head. Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu), Lena102938, and Otis Brown are trolls who haunt s.m.v. Rishi has published, and is trying to sell worthless books. Otis is pathologically dishonest and actually hurts people. Following his advice can induce double vision in those not working closely with an eye doctor. Lena102938 uses anti-eye doctor rhetoric as a substitute for ANY actual information. It seems she now has to wear glasses and has developed a pathological (and ILLOGICAL) resentment toward the industry that "foisted these glasses upon her." You'd do well to ignore them and wait for responses from the caring, compassionate eye doctors who DO also participate in this site. > garment, but are not good for tasks that require a field of vision such as > working on a computer, and some people simply can't tolerate them because > of the blur at the edges of vision causing nausea and/or headaches. I love mine, but I made them with +0.50 of the add applied to the _distance_ portion. Progressives are great when the add is only +100 or +150. The peripheral astigmatism is pretty negligible. -MT > Progressives are great when the add is only +100 or +150. The peripheral > astigmatism is pretty negligible. I meant to add - So the trick for us 50+ wearers is to use them for limited ranges, like one pair for indoors, and one pair for outdoors, with low adds, fine-tuned for two different environments. It's true that my driving glasses really suck at the computer. -MT > > Progressives are great when the add is only +100 or +150. The peripheral > > astigmatism is pretty negligible. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -MT Mike,accommodation , close to 0, am i right ? But if at least 2D left, why not make the eyes to perform some job, just a little ? Hi, >It's true that my driving glasses really suck at the computer. Actually, that is not the only truth. The truth is, all glasses 'suck', anywhere you are at the time. How can you be so stupid as to continue wearing them, when you know of their uselessness? Begin the rest methods and see what you have been missing for all these years. > But if at least 2D left, why not make the eyes to perform some job, > just a little ? Because the ciliary muscle is an autonomic sphincter. Like other autonomic sphincters, it doesn't benefit from "exercising" and it gets "tired" when forced to overwork. In presbyopia, the lens won't flex. But the muscle continues, working harder to try to make up the difference. It's like pushing a brick wall. What good is pushing if the wall won't move? It's just good exercise? -MT >> But if at least 2D left, why not make the eyes to perform some job, >> just a little ? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >-MT Thank you so much Mike, you have just explained to me the pain I feel in my IOL eye when I am tired, and probably the double vision after extensive computer use. SignatureMsBrainy > > But if at least 2D left, why not make the eyes to perform some job, > > just a little ? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -MT if even 2D left and add +1 it is not a brick wall autonomic sphincter.does not make it any better. It only means that it shuts off accommodation on neurological level . Is it any other examples of mass disfunction of any other autonomic sphincters at 40 ? > Is it any other examples of mass disfunction of any other autonomic > sphincters at 40 ? You didn't read what I wrote. The dysfunction isn't in the sphincter muscle. Work it as hard as you like, if you think that's good for you. -MT > > Is it any other examples of mass disfunction of any other autonomic > > sphincters at 40 ? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -MT Do not really belive in lens flex at 40. > Do not really belive in lens flex at 40. I'm not sure what you mean, or what you imagine presbyopia to be. Measured accomodation isn't the same as visual acuity or visual complaints. Accommodation declines over time and the pattern is very predictable, compared to other physiological changes that come with age. Your symptoms are predictable if you tell your age and your distance prescription. Both must be accurate. :) -MT > > Do not really belive in lens flex at 40. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -MT I know, You gave +3.5 your error is 0.00 > > Do not really belive in lens flex at 40. > > I'm not sure what you mean, or what you imagine presbyopia to be. Mike, lens theory it is 1970 th, still at age of 61 not 40 Now it is little different: http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/3/569 http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/6/1162 Their always be fricks making uncomfortable "research" Their always will be fricks like the one who took culture of bacteria in 1984 to prove his point. it is a enough research about Myopia by now too. It is a play with data to push sales Again i do not mean ODs, they are themselves "victims" Simply show goes on. It is possible Only in medicine. If bridge not in agreement with nature it will fall. But Nature is not subject to be changed by managers. > lens theory it is 1970 th, still at age of 61 not 40 No matter the theory, accommodation still decreases at a predictable rate. It's usually gone by 50 or 55. If I don't consider that, people complain that their glasses don't work. I've measured it eleven times already this week. All eleven people measured as expected. How many have you measured? -MT > > lens theory it is 1970 th, still at age of 61 not 40 > > No matter the theory, accommodation still decreases at a predictable rate. > It's usually gone by 50 or 55. 61 from article. Probably women instead go to job and pretend that she is very important manager should sit at home, take care of kids and cook dinner instead of stuffing men with TV dinner, cereal , fat- free dressing ,sugar free candies and the others products where list of ingridients the one should read 1/2 hour each. Why they need progressives? They still not read ingredients . > 61 from article. I guess my measurements are all wrong, my textbooks are all wrong, my own presbyopia is just an illusion and nobody's ever measured accommodation accurately until that article. I'll start telling my patients they're wrong. They CAN see up close. All they need is to get rid of those evil bifocals. Would that satisfy you? -MT > I guess my measurements are all wrong, my textbooks are all wrong, my own > presbyopia is just an illusion and nobody's ever measured accommodation > accurately until that article. > > I'll start telling my patients they're wrong. They CAN see up close. All > they need is to get rid of those evil bifocals. I think this is both interesting and informative, Lena. I think we ought to linger on it for just a moment or two. It seems to me that Mike Tyner is taking a novel approach to this -- measuring, reading, studying, and using clinical experience to inform HIS opinions. What do YOU use as the basis for yours?? TIA, Neil > Mike, > lens theory it is 1970 th, still at age of 61 not 40 I think we have a language problem. I can't imagine you are saying that presbyopia doesn't start until 61. > Their always be fricks making uncomfortable "research" > Their always will be fricks like the one who took culture of bacteria > in 1984 > to prove his point. I don't know what a frick is. Please take the time to look at this plot. There are literally millions of data points that confirm it. http://www.practicalphysics.org/imageLibrary/jpeg378/1644.jpg Remember this graph is based on maximum effort to accommodate. Maximum effort is not comfortable. -MT > > Mike, > > lens theory it is 1970 th, still at age of 61 not 40 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > -MT You did not read my ref http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/3/569 > http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/6/1162 Presbiopia it is reading glassest ill like 70 Progressives all time wearing I agree with accommodation Again who have not been with OD has his/her own presbiopia sutisfied through glasses in grossery stories. Most of people at 40-50 do that. now they educate population very intensly about miracle of computer glasses sorry for spelling > > > Mike, > > > lens theory it is 1970 th, still at age of 61 not 40 [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > glasses > sorry for spelling Though bad, your spelling is the least of your issues. > Most of people at 40-50 do that. > now they educate population very intensly about miracle of computer > glasses Lots of doctors recommend drugstore glasses when they're likely to work. I could manage with three or four different pairs of drugstore glasses, sure. I want one pair with four or five different powers. How do you do that without progressives?. So, what do YOU sell to make a living? -MT > You did not read my ref > > http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/3/569 Oh I read your link. Nothing indicated the age of onset for presbyopia was 61 years old. > Presbiopia it is reading glassest ill like 70 I can't understand you. Presbyopia is loss of accommodation. It starts quite young. Symptoms start around 40. > Progressives all time wearing I can't understand you. > I agree with accommodation I'm glad you still have some accommodation. Be happy. It will disappear over the next few years, no matter what you do. When it does, progressives become more appealing. -MT Mike, >presbyopia is just an illusion Not just an illusion; but wrong illusions in the mind is a factor in the imperfect sight. When the illusions is corrected so is the eyesight. >> Progressives are great when the add is only +100 or +150. The peripheral >> astigmatism is pretty negligible. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >It's true that my driving glasses really suck at the computer. I never had any problem with progressives. Like Mike, I love them. The new PAL pair I got (Zeiss) is even more outstanding. Although designed and intended as "computer glasses", I use them for just about everything. My driving glasses (also progressives but -1D stronger at distance and mid-range) are useless at the computer and uncomfortable around the house. To my surprise I feel equally comfortable even driving with my PAL, and hardly ever use my new driving specs. Perhaps I learned very quickly to slightly move my head/neck instead of only my eyes, I am not sure. I just do it naturally, and I do not experience any peripheral distortion even when I move my eyes only. The transition between the gradual different zones is very smooth and feels like accommodation. I don't really feel the switching between zones, and certainly don't have any line sticking in the middle of my vision field. I am puzzled by the numerous complaints about progressives. SignatureMsBrainy > >> Progressives are great when the add is only +100 or +150. The peripheral > >> astigmatism is pretty negligible. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > PAL pair I got (Zeiss) is even more outstanding. Although designed and > intended as "computer glasses", Mrs Brainy, Without respect to you, "computer glasses" is just new marketing twist to cell more glasses for population at 30-40. Lena > "computer glasses" is just new marketing twist > to cell more glasses for population at 30-40. I don't sell glasses and I don't make any commissions.. I recommend second pairs to make people more comfortable and more productive. They tell me it works, but maybe they're just lying to make me feel better about wasting their money. -MT >> "computer glasses" is just new marketing twist >> to cell more glasses for population at 30-40. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >-MT Mike, Perhaps you can help me. Do you have any clue as to where she gets these ideas from? After all, she is not an eyecare professional and has no broad or deep knowledge of any of the issues she writes and argues about, yet she has very strong opinions, set in stone and based on... on what? Maybe you know the answer? And since we are at it, can you help me define her writing style? Did they teach students in the Eastern Bloc to write this way, or is it specific for the physics department? Honestly, when you respond to her messages or inquiries, do you really understand what she is saying? I mean, can you follow her line of thought and reasoning? IS there any reasoning there? In summary, do you think it's nature or nurture? SignatureMsBrainy > > "computer glasses" is just new marketing twist > > to cell more glasses for population at 30-40. > > I don't sell glasses and I don't make any commissions.. I did not mean that. I did not mean ODs. > I recommend second pairs to make people more comfortable and more > productive. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -MT if it is progressives it is better second pair. Down glaze on computer with chin up not really excited. . Regular reading glasses work sometimes not worse. computer-papers-computer Even after progressives. How to explain that ? > if it is progressives it is better second pair. > Down glaze on computer with chin up not really excited. Those progressives aren't made for the computer. Those are "driving glasses." I hate my driving glasses at the computer. I wear another pair most of the time. "Computer" progressives are a little blurry far away. Most doctors will not prescribe this unless you ask. Mathematically, the distortion increases as the difference top-to-bottom increases (eg the "add".) So, take some power out of the bottom and put it in the top. Driving and TV are a little blurry but the difference top-to-bottom is smaller and the distortion is less. The "channel" is wider and peripheral astigmatism decreases. _And you don't get strain from tilting back._ > Regular reading glasses work sometimes not worse. Certainly they can, but I really need more than one power where I work. My progressives give me an assortment, from +0.75 to +2.25. I'm using a +150 add. When I was younger, I used +1.00. Even the cheapest progressives are pretty good when the add is only +1.00. > computer-papers-computer > Even after progressives. > How to explain that ? If you really want an explanation for your individual symptoms, it's fair to ask for your most recent prescription. -MT, OD > > if it is progressives it is better second pair. > > Down glaze on computer with chin up not really excited. > > Those progressives aren't made for the computer. Those are "driving > glasses." I hate my driving glasses at the computer. I know , i wrote better 2nd pair > I wear another pair most of the time. "Computer" progressives are a little > blurry far away. Most doctors will not prescribe this unless you ask. What is your distance ? (if you would like to answer) > Mathematically, the distortion increases as the difference top-to-bottom > increases (eg the "add".) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Certainly they can, but I really need more than one power where I work. Are you OD ? > If you really want an explanation for your individual symptoms, it's fair to > ask for your most recent prescription. > > -MT, OD It is not my symptoms refractometer avr. +2.5 some astigmatizm depends from axis like sph var. from +2.75 to 2.25 cyl. from -1 to -0.25 It was like 0 5 years ago ( do not know astigm.) L > What is your distance ? (if you would like to answer) My distance refraction? It's about +075-125x090. Spherical equivalent about zero. > Are you OD ? Yes. > It is not my symptoms > refractometer avr. +2.5 > some astigmatizm depends from axis > like sph var. from +2.75 to 2.25 cyl. from -1 to -0.25 > > It was like 0 5 years ago ( do not know astigm.) Does refractometer = autorefractor? In western physics, a refractometer measures refractive index. At our age, autorefractors often measure more plus than subjective refraction. So we don't know your accurate distance prescription. If we knew that, and your age, we could predict how much add you need for different distances. -MT > > What is your distance ? (if you would like to answer) > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > At our age, autorefractors often measure more plus than subjective > refraction. What do you mean ? Please, Why? > So we don't know your accurate distance prescription. > > If we knew that, and your age, we could predict how much add you need for > different distances. Distance + 2 +1.25 also comfortable. age 45 not my age my is 40. Lena. > > > What is your distance ? (if you would like to answer) > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > So we don't know your accurate distance prescription. What do you mean accurate distance prescription ? Can it be checked with IVAC ? Rule is 0.5 less then refractometer , what she-OD did. > What do you mean accurate distance prescription ? > Can it be checked with IVAC ? Of course. "Accurate" means IVAC at 6 meters is clear with +1.25. It is clear at +1.50. It is clear at +1.75. It is clear at +2.00. It is a LITTLE blurry at +2.25. Therefore the subjective refraction (distance prescription) is +2.00. To be accurate, it must include astigmatism and the two eyes must be equalized and both eyes must be open when testing. Only then do you get "accurate" results and good glasses. > Rule is 0.5 less then refractometer , what she-OD did. Rules do not give "accurate" prescriptions. Rules may be close, but sometimes autorefractors are way off. "Accurate" means +0.25 more becomes blurry at 6M. Only you can say. Not machine. -MT > > What do you mean accurate distance prescription ? > > Can it be checked with IVAC ? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Therefore the subjective refraction (distance prescription) is +2.00. if it is clear at 1.25 why distance should be +2 ? why not +1.25 I understand that it will not be the accurate from the point that you asking. > To be accurate, it must include astigmatism and the two eyes must be > equalized and both eyes must be open when testing. Only then do you get > "accurate" results and good glasses. Right. I ' ll go to OD and tell all that. > > Rule is 0.5 less then refractometer , what she-OD did. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Accurate" means +0.25 more becomes blurry at 6M. Only you can say. Not > machine. Why not the firs when it is not blurry? 1.25 > -MT > > > What do you mean accurate distance prescription ? > > > Can it be checked with IVAC ? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It is clear at +2.00. > > It is a LITTLE blurry at +2.25. I was thinking how that mmmmm-she push him into all the time wearing. You explained me that now. +2 it is not accurate I 'll be not precise now by memory: the name of that " how much eye can take" it covers not only real hyperopia but also latent or facultative (some of it under cycloplegia) she push him into "how much eye can take " All of you say that glasses not spoil vision They do spoil She did it perfectly. Congrats. > > > > What do you mean accurate distance prescription ? > > > > Can it be checked with IVAC ? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > It is clear at +2.00. > > > It is a LITTLE blurry at +2.25. I did not expect that it is that way Way is perfect. It is no going to give failure. Scientific. Did you watch "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Whatever he did they were one step upfront. > All of you say that glasses not spoil vision And you say different. That's OK if you've measured enough eyes to know what really happens. You can't tell until you measure lots and lots of eyes, some wearing, some not wearing. They both progress the same. How many have you measured? -MT > > All of you say that glasses not spoil vision > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -MT I respect you , your knowledge your job and what you doing. Mike, you and people at this site not another crap.(I do not have any other word to use) It is not the same. It is the same when "science" start working. Everybody around have not been cought by OD They just use reading glasses for reading. Smart statements "headaches becauce of not wearing all the time" from the person with surrogate knowledge,(instead of go to neurologist ) just sank vision and push into glasses, which not really comfy. did not solve headaches problem or prevented from getting into emergency room. > if it is clear at 1.25 why distance should be +2 ? > > why not +1.25 Because +125 is blurry at 1-2 meters. +2.00 is clear. Exercising the muscle does not make the lens stay flexible. -MT > > if it is clear at 1.25 why distance should be +2 ? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -MT It is not - accommodation works. I just did not understand How to push 20/20 into all time wearing. It is explanation. > > What do you mean accurate distance prescription ? > > Can it be checked with IVAC ? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It is clear at +2.00. > It is a LITTLE blurry at +2.25. I am no angry, just surprised. just surprised with that kind of science. just writing brief. it is to push How Much Eye Can Take and the person is still comfortable. and in one year when adaptation make the job Push again. eye will can take now More D same with Myopia 1 year pushing cycle adaptation- pushing-adaptation-pushing and person is comfortable >> > What do you mean accurate distance prescription ? >> > Can it be checked with IVAC ? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >and person is comfortable I am glad you are not angry, because you win. No matter what, you win. Like you Lena, I am not an OD, but unlike you I do not purport to understand and know everything. But let me try. It's clear that the eye is progressing (slowly) in the "+" direction. Next year it wil NEED more plus. If the Rx given was +1.25, a new Rx will be needed next year, and you'll be angry. The +2.00 will take you a few more years to the future without a new Rx. Adaptation? What adaptation? How did you determine that there is an adaptation, i.e. that the eye is adapting to your Rx and progresses into the + more rapidly? Any evidence that this happens? I don't know if my explanation is correct or accurate, but you win whether you get the +2 (they push as much as the eye can take), or the +1.25 (they force you to came back for new Rx every year.) Congratulations, you win! I am fascinated with this discussion and particularly Mike's ability to understand you. SignatureMsBrainy > It's clear that the eye is progressing (slowly) in the "+" direction. Next > year it wil NEED more plus. If the Rx given was +1.25, a new Rx will be > needed next year, and you'll be angry. The +2.00 will take you a few more > years to the future without a new Rx. this is correct. if all you want is minimal plus power then you will have problems reading again very quickly. hyperopia proceeds quickly after age 40. > Adaptation? What adaptation? How did you determine that there is an > adaptation, i.e. that the eye is adapting to your Rx and progresses into the > + more rapidly? Any evidence that this happens? so now i understand. you are becoming more hyperopic so quickly that you are thinking that it is unnatural and that the doctor has done something to you to make it happen. no, nature and aging are responsible. in the beginning, I think what you are saying is indeed correct for hyperopia only (not for myopia). if you are given more plus, then your eye will take it and love it (the ciliary muscle is tired and wants the help). but after a few years it will quit anyway and whether the doctor gave you lots of plus in the beginning or only a little plus in the beginning, you will end up in the same place. certainly you don't think the eye is changing its size or shape because of the lenses that are put on it do you? the only difference will be that if the doctor gives you minimal plus then you will need to get new glasses every year. but regardless, in the end your prescription ends up in the same place. > >> > What do you mean accurate distance prescription ? > >> > Can it be checked with IVAC ? [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200709/1 Lena believes that if that VERY FIRST BARBER had never cut your hair, your hair would NOT have begun to grow. Lena believes that if they NEVER put you in SHOES, your FEET would not have begun to grow. Lena believes a lot of things.... > >> > What do you mean accurate distance prescription ? > >> > Can it be checked with IVAC ? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > It's clear that the eye is progressing (slowly) in the "+" direction. Not every eyes. Why it is clear? They did not measure people who never have came. Next > year it wil NEED more plus. If the Rx given was +1.25, a new Rx will be > needed next year, and you'll be angry. The +2.00 will take you a few more > years to the future without a new Rx. Then at 60 everybody should be at least +10 where are they ? > Adaptation? What adaptation? How did you determine that there is an > adaptation, i.e. that the eye is adapting to your Rx and progresses into the > + more rapidly? Any evidence that this happens? Just adaptation Miopic Eye adopts to glasses, they give more -0.5D everything will be very clear Very crisp. Everybody will chose -0.5D bigger 10 years ago I tryied to wear -3 for 2-3 hours having 20/20 I can take it , if PD is correct. I even like it it is fun everything was very very crisp. It was 20/20 with -3 D overcorrection. > I don't know if my explanation is correct or accurate, but you win whether > you get the +2 (they push as much as the eye can take), or the +1.25 (they > force you to came back for new Rx every year.) > > Congratulations, you win! I lost 4 years ago. Been like Zestu and saying like her. I induced only the opposite reaction Now I know how to make it (not from that site From exspierence). Too late. Person in glasses not going to give them up so easily. if the doctor sad. If it is 600$ it should be Hi tech and the best by definition. > I am fascinated with this discussion and particularly Mike's ability to > understand you. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200709/1 > > > What do you mean accurate distance prescription ? > > > Can it be checked with IVAC ? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > and person is comfortable Nothing that MIKE said supports what YOU say. Nothing in the EVIDENCE supports what you say. Just like Otis, you are starting with a belief, and then making up data to support it. You must be a lousy physicist, huh? > > What do you mean accurate distance prescription ? > > Can it be checked with IVAC ? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > -MT I did not mean to be unpolite with you. You just described how to make the add less what from you point of view is good. probably. but better not push glasses for all time use onto person. > I did not mean to be unpolite with you. > You just described how to make the add less > what from you point of view is good. > probably. > but better not push glasses for all time use onto person. its going to happen anyway. aging causes the ciliary muscle to relax and when it is entirely relaxed you will end up with the same prescription whether or not the doctor pushed the plus on you early or whether they held it to minimal changes. the only difference is that you will buy lots of pairs of glasses if you prefer only minimal increases in plus. On Sep 18, 4:19 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > its going to happen anyway. aging causes the ciliary muscle to relax > and when it is entirely relaxed you will end up with the same > prescription whether or not the doctor pushed the plus on you early or > whether they held it to minimal changes. the only difference is that > you will buy lots of pairs of glasses if you prefer only minimal > increases in plus. I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. If my laptop were working, I'd send the cite/article, but ... cadaver testing showed that -- even THROUGH presbyopia -- the ciliary force exerted continues to rise. It seems to be PRIMARILY the lenticular elasticity that gives rise to presbyopia. Actually, I found the header info: THE FORCE OF CONTRACTION OF THE HUMAN CILIARY MUSCLE DURING ACCOMMODATION BY R. F. FISHER >From the Department of Visual Science, Institute of Ophthalmology, Judd Street, London WC1H 9QS (Received 16 July 1976) [fascinating stuff!] This also explains how accommodation can be readily restored with accommodating IOL's. I have little doubt that -- when the designs of AIOL's can offer a 70 year old person 15d of accommodation -- the functional accommodative system will comply. > On Sep 18, 4:19 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > AIOL's can offer a 70 year old person 15d of accommodation -- the > functional accommodative system will comply. you are right. actually the mechanism of accommodation and presbyopia is still not entirely understood. i use the phrase "ciliary muscle relaxing" as a way to explain the situation to novices (like lena) but it might be that the crystalline lens gets less pliable. but I really think that its due to the crystalline growing in size. embryologically the lens is derived from surface ectoderm that also gives rise to hair, fingernails, and skin, all of which continue to grow throughout our life. as we age the lens continues to grow so that, around age 40, the lens gets to such a size that the zonule fibers begin to get slack and muscle contraction cannot put tension on the lens the sufficient to change its shape and focus at near like when it was smaller. there are mixed research results on whether dissected cadaver lenses really are less pliable. and while it is clear that the ciliary muscle does indeed atrophy (from electron micrographic studies), it is not clear whether that is the cause of presbyopia or an effect of not achieving tension on the muscle which secondarily causes muscle fiber atrophy. regardless, the observation that pushing the plus on a hyperope versus holding minimal plus in the end results in the same prescription outcome at approximately age 60. >> At our age, autorefractors often measure more plus than subjective >> refraction. > > What do you mean ? Objective refraction (autorefractor) is what the machine chooses for you. Subjective refraction is what _you_ choose. "Subjective refraction" means _you_ say that +0.25 more makes 6 meters just blurry. > Please, Why? Why does the machine measure different? Who cares, it just does. Retinoscopy measures different too. Both are useful but neither makes good glasses. > Distance + 2 So that means +225 is just a little blurry at 6 meters, right? > not my age my is 40. On average, subjective refractions become more plus at your age, and it continues for a few more years. That's just what other people do. You could be an exception. But wearing progressives or flat-tops or reading glasses, or reading with naked eyes, doesn't change the pattern of presbyopia significantly. -MT > > if it is progressives it is better second pair. > > Down glaze on computer with chin up not really excited. > > Those progressives aren't made for the computer. Those are "driving > glasses." I hate my driving glasses at the computer. It drives me crazy to watch my wife at the computer. Her head is pointed up in the air. She could just wear OTC reading glasses, but prefers not to, even though she uses the computer for work purposes several hours a day. > > "computer glasses" is just new marketing twist > > to cell more glasses for population at 30-40. They aren't new, at least not here in the US. The insurance companies pay for these glasses. Insurance companies don't throw money away. They increase employee productivity. People who can't see the computer can't do their work as well. Employers are willing to pay for this. > I don't sell glasses and I don't make any commissions.. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -MT > In article <88ydnUz1c4KDkXLbnZ2dnUVZ_hadn...@giganews.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > -MT Congrats. probably because of that 61% in glasses. glasses are cheaper than good monitor I do not mean that 21" LCD > glasses are cheaper than good monitor Not where I work. > I do not mean that 21" LCD Do you mean that special monitor with the focusing knob for clearing up presbyopia? -MT > >> Progressives are great when the add is only +100 or +150. The peripheral > >> astigmatism is pretty negligible. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200709/1 Ms Brainy, I am sorry, I wrote: Without respect to you, It might probably, sounds like I do not respect you. At least it sounds not polite. I meant that I do not mean your computer glasses. Lena. >> >> Progressives are great when the add is only +100 or +150. The peripheral >> >> astigmatism is pretty negligible. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Lena. Not to worry. This was one of the rare occassions that I DID figure out what you meant. >I am puzzled by the numerous complaints about progressives. PALs require a significant amount of time and skill to fit accurately. In my shop, I find that only about one in twenty new clients have PALs that are accurately fit and manufactured- level on the 180 line, reference cross +/- 1mm on the horizontal and 0 to no more than -2mm below on the vertical, fit close to the eyes, sufficient depth at the near PD for the Add power and lens design etc., with grievous errors in about one out of three! The fact that anyone can barely tolerate PALs under these conditions speaks well of how much improvement there as been with PAL designs in the last ten or fifteen years, and to how well our brains process visual information under less than ideal conditions. On the other hand, segmented multifocals have much more tolerance in segment position due to the larger optical zones, typically 15mm tall by 28mm wide, with the full Add power occurring at an ideal position of 5 to 9mm below the pupil (our most natural and typical reading depth is about 10 to 12mm). PALs are at best 2 to 3mm wide at the corridor and 4 to 5mm at the full Add, with the full Add power residing at a point between 13mm to as much as 20mm below the pupil, and then truncated by the bevel and frame. Don't fit a +2.75 Add in a PAL with a long corridor if there are frequent and extended close tasks- unless they have "task specific" glasses to supplement their primary pair. Both designs have advantages and disadvantages. IMO, PALs emulate the pre-presbyopic vision better than lines, offer some intermediate capability without changing designs (adding additional lines), with a cosmetic benefit that seems significant to the eyeglass wearing population, and if fit properly, provides more than adequate vision for general purpose use. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman > >I am puzzled by the numerous complaints about progressives. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." > - Richard Feynman Plastic feast |
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.