 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007Is reading without glasses bad???
I am quite nearsighted. I had my eyes checked at a Sears Optical department. I mentioned to the eye doctor that I generally read without my glasses and was surprised by the vehemence of his response. "NEVER NEVER NEVER read without glasses." I asked about why it was so bad. He said it causes a lot of problems including eyestrain. In fact, I thought that reading without my glasses felt like it strained my eyes less than with the glasses and that is why I do it. That gives me some reason to be skeptical. I searched sci.med.vision for the string "reading without glasses" and am not finding anybody saying a bad word about the practice. Is the doctor right about reading without glasses being a problem? Thanks. --Mark > Is the doctor right about reading without glasses being a problem? Absolutely not. I'm guessing you got a freshman, or a fringe lunatic. Nature made you nearsighted so you could read all your life. Enjoy that part of it. -MT, OD Hello, Reading without glasses is not bad, but instead a benefit to the sight. It may take a short period to accustom yourself to the new more natural condition, but the accustoming will definitely take place. You will automatically learn to see without strain, just keep the glasses off and stop staring. >In fact, I thought that reading without my glasses felt >like it strained my eyes less than with the glasses and that is why I It is a truth that the mind enjoys the natural condition, as opposed to the evil and bad glasses being placed over the eyes, confusing the eyemind. Of course, reading without glasses would strain your eyes less. So you have observed fact, and demonstrated truths to yourself. Well done, you have shown good intelligence. I keep telling the people here to demonstrate the facts to themselves, but they ignore me and ask for 'controlled testing blah blah blah'. The doctor is an idiot, tell him to shut up. And never go back to him. In fact, even he should not be saying this: 'NEVER EVER take off the glasses', as a professional. It is against the scientific data, anyway. Neil Brooks and the others here would say, take the glasses off if you are a simple myope for near work. So your doctor is even going against the people here, let alone going against what I advocate. Begin the real treatment, which is the rest methods of cure. Go to the central-fixation.com website, go to the library and read a book called 'Better Eyesight Magazine', you will find all the information needed to learn how to cure yourself via the rest methods is inside there. You must have run into a majority-opinion OD. The second-opinion is that you should avoid using the minus lens -- unless you have no choice. See: www.chinamyopia.org About what a second-opinion OD thinks about that minus. Best, Otis > I am quite nearsighted. I had my eyes checked at a Sears Optical > department. I mentioned to the eye doctor that I generally read [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > --Mark Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu), Lena102938, and Otis Brown are trolls who haunt s.m.v. Otis is pathologically dishonest and actually hurts people. Following his advice can induce double vision in those not working 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. > I am quite nearsighted. I'm not an eye doc but I do know that being "nearsighted" means you can see "near" really well. Glasses for nearsighted people are to help them see "far." Reading is a "near" activity and seeing "near" is something you excel at because you are "nearsighted." Some people will tell you that it will make your eyes worse if you don't wear your glasses all the time. Others will tell you it will make your eyes worse if you do wear your glasses all the time. Many feel (and it appears most scientific studies support) that it makes no difference either way.  Signature~RT Even if you are nearsighted, your near vision will never be as crystal as the person with perfect sight, for all distances. But certainly with no doubt, being near-sighted does NOT mean you can ever see BETTER than a person with normal vision, at near point. > But certainly > with no doubt, being near-sighted does NOT mean you can ever see > BETTER than a person with normal vision, at near point. Au contraire, petit. They absolutely do, after 40. Myopia is an evolutionary advantage for those who use their hands and live past 40. -MT Hi, >They absolutely do, after 40. Age does not matter. Person with imperfect sight at far can never see perfectly at near. That is real. > Person with imperfect sight at far can never see perfectly at near. > That is real. That's your world, as you imagine it. In this other world we measure. Measurement is better than imagination. Broadcasting imaginary facts makes you sound foolish. When you measure, you find out that myopes see better up close than everybody else. Natural selection happens. One way in Europe, another way in Asia. Why do I bother? This isn't fun anymore. -MT Hi, >When you measure, you find out that myopes see better up close than How do you measure? Snellen acuity? Autorefractor? Or what? How can measurements know what the person is actually seeing, anyway? > How can measurements know what the person is actually seeing, anyway? When they have to hold the newspaper with their feet, it's pretty obvious they don't see up close like they used to. There's a way to measure that accurately. It changes at a predictable pace, if you measure. But you don't use measurements. You use imagination, so this will make no sense to you. -MT Imagination is a higher level of intelligence; than objective measurement. > Imagination is a higher level of intelligence; than objective > measurement. If you ever get into college, they will try teach you otherwise. Of course, the teachers are all idiots. Education is bad for you. -MT Hi, >They absolutely do, after 40. Then you are referring to presbyopia? I am referring to perfect sight, silly. Can't you read what I said, please? Perfect sight is not 'old age sight', now is it? Perfect sight, meaning perfect sight, and not imperfect sight. I said: Person with imperfect sight at any distance can never see as well as person with perfect sight for all distance at the near point. That is truth. > > How can measurements know what the person is actually seeing, anyway? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But you don't use measurements. You use imagination, so this will make no > sense to you. I worked with a woman many years ago. She knew everything, just ask her. She held everything far away, because she couldn't see it otherwise. I suggested that she visit an eye doctor. No, she already had, many years ago. She wore glasses, but they didn't work. She was about 50. End of conversation. If you are nearsighted, it does not mean you can ever see any better than a normal sighted person (who can see normally at any distance), at the near point. You will see better, but never perfect. Imperfect sight at one distance always means imperfect sight at any distance. The person with normal sight will see more crystal clear than the near sighted person, at the near point. >Many feel (and it appears most scientific >studies support) that it makes no difference either way. It might not make any difference to your refractive error, or so the scientific studies seem to show, but I think it will be harmful to your sight in general. The eyes do not enjoy being under such a pressure, surely. By which I mean to say that; refractive error and refractive state only plays a very small part in the recording and measuring of what makes up real, end result vision. There are many other factors involved, which visual scientists are ignorant of, or not taking into account. Do you know what I mean? > I am quite nearsighted. I had my eyes checked at a Sears Optical > department. I mentioned to the eye doctor that I generally read [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > --Mark if you feel less eyestrain without the glasses and see well enough for your needs, I wonder what the problem is. Hi all, rereading the original post I remembered something I'd forgotten to mention in my first post; >I am quite nearsighted. I had my eyes checked at a Sears Optical >department. I mentioned to the eye doctor that I generally read >without my glasses and was surprised by the vehemence of his >response. "NEVER NEVER NEVER read without glasses." I asked about >why it was so bad. He said it causes a lot of problems including >eyestrain The explanation to the doctor's idiocy here is as follows: Reading without glasses itself, it is doubtful to cause eyestrain. More likely what has happened is, that since you have taken off the glasses, you suddenly become AWARE of all that strain which you had ALREADY been holding chronically, and because you become aware of some of that strain, it feels like additional strain. The strain was already there, but since the glasses palliated the original symptom (the imperfect sight) this makes the eye-mind become very confused, and it think: "Well since the imperfect sight has gone, there is no need to send out the signal that tells my consciousness that there is any strain". You see; the feeling of strain itself is a protective message to the person telling them 'You need to rest'. It's when you put the glasses on, that the message is becomes silenced that and the system is thrown out of normality. It's like pain; pain itself is not primarily intended to harm you but is intended to protect you from damage. Likewise with 'strain'. That makes sense to you, I hope. Although having said that, when a person begins the rest methods as described in The book, I mean when they first discard the glasses, sometimes the strain IS increased. But this can always be overcome, with further practice and rest. Either way, the strain that you feel as a result of removing the glasses, is actually a REASSURING message that your eye-mind system is beginning to re function correctly, after they had been sentenced to imprisonment behind the stupid and evil glasses, for the long cavalry which had resulted in the eye care profession's incompetence. So it is not something to worry about, but a good sign. When the strain is felt, you should have no excuses to begin the rest methods after that, because your body is virtually COMMANDING you to rest your mind. At that stage, you should end the state of ignorance and wake up, if you wish to really be cured from both the strain and the imperfect sight. 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. > Hi all, rereading the original post I remembered something I'd > forgotten to mention in my first post; [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > That makes sense to you, I hope. here you are spreading misinformation to any novices that read this newsgroup. for any person who is past their mid-40s, reading at their nearpoint is DEFINITELY more straining without glasses than with glasses. and for the person who chooses to wear glasses to improve a slight refractive error, or to help with reading, or for whatever reason, they are doing NO HARM to their vision whatsoever. nor do glasses help reverse any vision problems and make your vision better. they simply help you see better when you have them on. Hello pclar, I never said glasses harm the vision. I said it palliates the message of strain sent by the mind. You are right, glasses do not ever help reverse any vision problems.But they are indeed stupid little things developed to begin calvary for the gullable and poor people. And are you unable to read English? My words described a person WITH PERFECT SIGHT. Are you stupid and can't understand that? I am not spreading misinformation, just the easily demonstratable truths of sight which you do not like to hear because it goes against your many year of so called 'experience' and because you have never seen it you are certain it never happens, when the truth can be shown otherwise with small amount of intelligence. And you do not like the things you are unfamiliar with, your unfamiliarity causes fear, fear causes hostility, hostility causes further spite, spite causes anger, spite turns into deep hatred. You should wake up from your chain of ignorance, now! > Hello pclar, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You should wake up from your chain of ignorance, now! Rishi, I realize that you are not a native english speaker so I'll cut you a break. In my posting to about your message, the first two paragraphs were a direct response to your previous misstatement. However the last paragraph was a general message that I was posting to any reader who didn't understand the truth about the value of spectacle corrections. I find myself in my optometry practice having to explain this to people all the time so I thought it was worth saying in this forum since people like you spread misinformation about glasses and what they do to your vision. The last paragraph was not relating to you whatsoever nor did I say it did. Why did you think that it did? This is the second time I have posted something and you have gone freako thinking that I was talking about you. Believe me, I have lots more important things to do than be concerned about you-- like watching TV commercials, or belching, or passing gas. Perhaps you think that everything people write about somehow relates to you. Perhaps you have these feelings like people are looking at you all the time. Really Rishi-- don't flatter yourself. its not about you. Now go back outside and look at the sun and relax. > commercials, or belching, or passing gas. I was at church camp this summer. A young teen claimed that they could fart and sh.t at the same time. Of course, everybody was suitably impressed. The teen advisor (who was an older women, who spoke very formally), had a hard stare, and gave a lecture on farting. The average person farts 14 times a day. The average person farts 1.5 liters per day. The teen advisor recited a story written by Chaucer, all about farting. The teen got very quiet. Hello pclar, What is the misstatement please? Can you tell me what I did misstated? Also you quoted me, so it seemed that you were talking to me. Stupid, if you don't want me to think you are talking to me, then don't quote me. > On Sep 17, 2:31 pm,MarkLeeper<mlee...@optonline.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > if you feel less eyestrain without the glasses and see well enough for > your needs, I wonder what the problem is. I didn't think it could do damage, but I am unsure. For other reasons I was not keen on this doctor anyway. I was jsut wondering if it was likely he was correct about this. --Mark |
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.