 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007Progressive Lenses
I could use a little input on progressive lenses ... My Rx is -1.25, add 2.5 (both eyes) and I have post-surgical IOLs since 1999 .. I assume this is basically a very "minimal" prescription and I'm wondering how it affects my choice of a progressive lens The local chain suggested the Essilor Ovation lenses; with their 50% Off sale they'd run about $125; they also suggested anti-glare coating for $80. I inquired about the Varilux lenses and they gave me a price of $305 (no discounts) on an unspecified lens "model" and $365 for the Panamic lens. My question: is it worth the extra $$$ for the Varilux lenses? how about the extra $$$ for the anti-glare? Some of the material I've read seemed to suggest that the high end, pricier lenses were more indicated in cases of "severe" or "difficult" Rx's ... but I'm in the dark (no pun intended) on all of this Anyone have any suggestions? I'd like to save a few bucks, but perhaps not if it means a perceptible difference in visual acuity and/or comfort Thanks in advance, BW > The local chain suggested the Essilor Ovation lenses; with their 50% Off > sale they'd run about $125; they also suggested anti-glare coating for > $80. $125 is pretty good for a pair of progressive lenses. Anti-glare coating isn't anti-glare; it's usually anti-reflective coating. AR coat does reduce internal reflections (street lights) and they look prettier. Trading those two benefits against the difficulty keeping it clean and the chances it will peel, well, save your money. Scotchgard or Cristal Alize are worth $80, but you aren't after high-performance options when you shop on a budget. > I inquired about the Varilux lenses and they gave me a price of $305 (no > discounts) on an unspecified lens "model" and $365 for the Panamic lens. Since they're allowing no discounts, ask if they'll let you "buy up" if you don't like the Ovation. > Anyone have any suggestions? I'd like to save a few bucks, but perhaps > not if it means a perceptible difference in visual acuity and/or comfort AR coating doesn't increase measured VA significantly. The choice of progressive is mostly important if you use them for lots of close work, and I suspect you've discovered low-power drugstore glasses for that. -MT, OD > Anti-glare coating isn't anti-glare; it's usually anti-reflective coating. > AR coat does reduce internal reflections (street lights) and they look > prettier. Trading those two benefits against the difficulty keeping it > clean and the chances it will peel, well, save your money. Scotchgard or > Cristal Alize are worth $80, but you aren't after high-performance options > when you shop on a budget. well, it's not a super-strict budget; and good vision counts for a lot .. but please tell me this: will a tint help with some of the same things as the AR coating? I've used a low percentage tint in the past (perhaps 10%?) and it seemed to help cut down on the glare, which I am a little bit sensitive to > The choice of progressive is mostly important if you use them for lots of > close work, and I suspect you've discovered low-power drugstore glasses > for that. yeah ... this is the real dilemma; I read a *lot* but I don't really know for sure how well time-isolated my reading is; if you only read from 2-5 daily and that's all you do obviously SV reading glasses make sense ... I'm not really entirely sure what my day looks like from that perspective ;) thanks for your input ... BW > well, it's not a super-strict budget; and good vision counts for a lot .. > but please tell me this: will a tint help with some of the same things as > the AR coating? To a small degree. AR coatings are great for reducing the "echoes" of street lights when you drive at night. But I don't believe they make any appreciable difference at a desk or computer. -MT >> well, it's not a super-strict budget; and good vision counts for a lot .. >> but please tell me this: will a tint help with some of the same things >> as the AR coating? > To a small degree. AR coatings are great for reducing the "echoes" of > street lights when you drive at night. But I don't believe they make any > appreciable difference at a desk or computer. ok .. one more thing (famous last words ;)) : earlier you said, "Scotchgard or Cristal Alize are worth $80 ..." .... doe that mean those two products DON'T have the cleaning and peeling problems you mentioned? and .... one more one more thing: I think I'm gonna buy those Essilor Ovation lenses ... BUT ... forgetting budget, is something like the top dog Varilux Physio -- or the Vx Comfort -- lens actually worth the additional money?? or is it more marketing hype? .. another way to get my dollars into Essilor's pocket ? These are hard consumer purchases; I can look at television A and television B and decide which one I want ... can't do that efficiently with progressive lenses .... which all makes me wonder why these guys have not come up with some kind of simulator which would give you a pretty good feel for the product differences ... unless of course there isn't much difference .. thanks again .... BW > ok .. one more thing (famous last words ;)) : earlier you said, > "Scotchgard or Cristal Alize are worth $80 ..." .... doe that mean those > two products DON'T have the cleaning and peeling problems you mentioned? IMO yes. These two are hydrophobic and I'm sure there are others. Water runs off easy, fingerprints are easier to clean off, and sweat leaves less residue. I know the Scotchgard pretty well. I'm surprised how well it balances the color so the "purple" effect isn't noticeable. Cristal Alize I mention based on its reputation with other ODs. It should bother physics students that anyone could put a "coating" on top of A/R. > Varilux Physio -- or the Vx Comfort -- lens actually worth the additional > money?? or is it more marketing hype? . There are differences, and I'm no expert. Each version represents a different emphasis, like widening the "near corridor" would force more astigmatic distortion up into the distance part of the lens. When you push the math here, it bulges there. Power gradients can be more sudden or more gradual depending on the emphasis and the compromises. Better designs have been sculpted out over time. Special versions exist for short frames. Then there's individual preferences and environments. But it's just cast plastic. I can understand satisfying different demands, but I never saw much point in using obsolete molds. I'm just not into marketing. > These are hard consumer purchases; I can look at television A and > television B and decide which one I want ... can't do that efficiently > with progressive lenses .... which all makes me wonder why these guys have > not come up with some kind of simulator which would give you a pretty good > feel for the product differences ... unless of course there isn't much > difference .. With +1.00 adds there aren't big differences. When the adds are +200 and above, it's worth considering premium lenses if you need correction to work up close. After 50, when adds are often +250, every type of multifocal has its own problems. I'm afraid I know less about the market than I do about the physics. I had a pair of Zeiss Gradal when I was younger, and they were easier to work in than the stock Essilor. I think I'm wearing Essilor now, but it's two different pair. The other pair sucks at the computer. -MT >> Varilux Physio -- or the Vx Comfort -- lens actually worth the additional >> money?? or is it more marketing hype? . [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > been sculpted out over time. Special versions exist for short frames. Then > there's individual preferences and environments. well I ended up buying Augen Trivex lenses (with no AR) from a chain store, based on a composite of inputs here and some sales talk at the store ... it's already clear to me that multifocals are simply not "perfect" and probably can't be and I guess you can either tolerate that for the advantages they offer or you can use single vision lenses and put up with *those* inconveniences one oddity of sorts, perhaps: I was asked the usual "where on the nose do you wear your glasses" (which is top for me) but now I note that I have to drop them down a bit for comfortable distance vision BUT push them back up to the top of the nose for comfortable near vision .. ?? which is making me wonder whether I was recommended the right lens at all; I assume the lab guys and gals can't really do too much about the size or position of the "sweet spots" in the lens; they are what they are, no? or did they perhaps cut the thing improperly? I'm not sure how you can compensate for the need for two opposing directions here, for want of a better way to phrase the problem ... (far sement needs to be lower; near seg needs to be higher .. or so it seems) another question, perhaps a stupid one: I moved to a somewhat smaller frame size (38 mm lens height after using a 46) .. if you use a bigger frame do you get a bigger "sweet spot" ? are the segments larger? or do they just have more "unpowered" area on the periphery? I feel a little too "aware" of the area outside of the frame ... it's a bit discomforting ... of course I have only worn these things for a few hours at this point ... but would appreciate any input since I'd like to get to adjustments or lens changing sooner rather than later if it's necessary thanks to one and all ... BW > well I ended up buying Augen Trivex lenses (with no AR) from a chain > store, based on a composite of inputs here and some sales talk at the > store ... it's already clear to me that multifocals are simply not > "perfect" and probably can't be and I guess you can either tolerate that > for the advantages they offer or you can use single vision lenses and put > up with *those* inconveniences Good outlook. Trivex is a good choice. > one oddity of sorts, perhaps: I was asked the usual "where on the nose do > you wear your glasses" (which is top for me) but now I note that I have to > drop them down a bit for comfortable distance vision BUT push them back up > to the top of the nose for comfortable near vision .. ?? Normally you shouldn't have to push them down to see clearly. By the book, they probably set the "segs too high." Experienced opticians will sometimes push this envelope if you use the glasses more for near than driving. The fact they asked you where you wear your glasses means they paid attention. If it was a mistake, be glad at least they got them the same height in both eyes. :) > wonder whether I was recommended the right lens at all; I assume the lab > guys and gals can't really do too much about the size or position of the > "sweet spots" in the lens; they are what they are, no? They're supposed to pay careful attention to vertical placement. My question is how does this distance blur affect your _near_ vision? Is the computer better when you push the lenses up? Should be. > another question, perhaps a stupid one: I moved to a somewhat smaller > frame size (38 mm lens height after using a 46) Ugh. Big change. OK for street glasses but if you're going to wear these much at a desk, go back and get a bigger frame while you still might be able to. :) .. if you use a bigger frame do > you get a bigger "sweet spot" ? Well they're cutting off 8 mm of it. Another reason they have to set the segs as high as possible. > are the segments larger? Of course - but only because you don't saw them off at the knees! > or do they just have more "unpowered" area on the periphery? Most of them don't _decrease_ in power below the "reading point." > I feel a little too "aware" of the area outside of the frame ... it's a > bit discomforting ... That's fashion for you. :) If your glasses are for dress wear, they're probably OK, you'll get used to a lot of it. If they're primarily for desk work, go back and get some big ugly glasses. Just one man's opinion. :) -MT > well I ended up buying Augen Trivex lenses (with no AR) from a chain > store, based on a composite of inputs here and some sales talk at the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > BW If you have to move the frame around on your face to adjust for distance or reading, then they were not fitted properly. A proper fitting means measuring the fitting height (where your pupil is relative to the frame as it sits on your face) and making sure the lens is cut and put in the frame correctly for the measured fitting height. You should go back and demand a remake and make sure you fitted properly by a trained professional (not someone who was selling clothing last month at another store in the mall). Preferably the person who fits you is old enough to wear progressives themselves. A bigger frame will usually have a larger reading area and a larger distance area, but the reading area is the one that most people notice the most because it is inherently smaller that the distance area. The transition area does not change based on frame size. Regardless of the frame, the same lens is always made, it is just cut differently to fit in the frame (it starts out round before cut to fit in your frame). If you are not happy with the frame, then get a refund if the store offers it. One reason progressive lenses and frames are so expensive (the markup on these products is astronomical) is that there are typically a fair number of remakes necessary. Do not feel uncomfortable about asking for a remake or refund if you are unhappy with your purchase. > If you have to move the frame around on your face to adjust for distance > or reading, then they were not fitted properly. A proper fitting means > measuring the fitting height (where your pupil is relative to the frame as > it sits on your face) and making sure the lens is cut and put in the frame > correctly for the measured fitting height. <snip> thanks, Mark and Mike ... this is really very useful information so let me press my luck and ask a little bit more; there's still some things I feel like I need to know to get this done right ... I took a night drive to see how that would go; two not-so-good observations: (a) stopped at an intersection I turned my head to the left (perhaps 45 degrees or so) to see oncoming traffic and all I could see was basically blurred headlights (and with uncertain distance perception); at about 70-80 degrees head turn things cleared up .. now I know you're not going to get great vision on the periphery but is it supposed to be this bad? (b) no real problems with seeing the road directly ahead (with the frame pushed down on my nose a bit) ... but when I gazed down at the instrument cluster it was pretty damn blurry; I could basically read everything but it was very distinctly distracting/unpleasant to view ... to "reasonably" and clearly see the instruments, radio, AC controls I HAD to bend my neck downwards (10, 15, 20 degrees ??) ... possible to do but not what I had expected and I can't say I like any of it; I'm probably on the hyper-aware side right now but even so, I think if things were working better that would self-correct so ... is this stuff all off the charts? Are you "supposed to" have to rotate your had near 90 degress to see oncoming traffic? not be able to view instruments with a quick gaze downwards ? just doesn't seem right ... did I get a horrendous fitting? wrong lens? am I perhaps just a "bad candidate" for progressives? I had not thought this technology was all that esoteric ... for a reference point, using my single vision glasses I don't have any of these problems in the slightest other than the instrument cluster not being too sharp .. but still readable After seeing a bunch of 28-30 mm frame heights I thought the 38 mm height was reasonable; no big deal on the appearance, I will move back to a 45-48 mm lens height ... I'm not posing for the cover of GQ; I'd have thought the shop would give a bit of guidance on this sort of thing ... apparently not they offer a 30 day money back on these things; I don't mind trying a re-make but I think they need to give me someone who's actually trained/licensed for the fit ... I don't think the person who helped me had any particular training other than in sales perhaps and a cursory intro to optometry ... I didn't fuss over it because I've never really had any particular difficulties with glasses over the years ... from what I'm learning I'm beginning to think it perhaps should be flat out illegal for anyone other than a licensed optician or optometrist to fit progressive lenses ... and wondering how many people are walking around with PALs that don't function properly ... > One reason progressive lenses and frames are so expensive (the markup on > these products is astronomical) is that there are typically a fair number > of remakes necessary. do you mean a fair number on the same patient or overall for the practice/business? I'm willing to do the successive approximation so long as we're making progress ... seems like some of these shops are selling PALs like they were pants ... size 34-36 or "L" is close enough ... doesn't seem like those kinds of tolerances are viable in the corrective lens game thanks again, guys .... BW PS: btw, Mike ... the computer vision is basically unworkable but I wasn't expecting much; I use a 24 inch monitor and it's probably set back about 20-22" from my eyes ... would not want it any closer; it generates quite a bit of heat .. this is not a problem as I can view it clearly with the naked eye; generally, my near vision is ok I guess; I do find I have to position the reading material a little carefully but that I'm thinking DOES go with the turf ... or does it ?? the one problem there is that with an "average" book I find that I can't "absorb" the full text width on a page .. it takes a bit of horizontal head motion ... and vertical scanning is not as easy as I'd like ... here again, I'm at a loss as to what experience to compare this to ... I don't know what the normal -- or the reasonably expectable -- experience is .. > thanks, Mark and Mike ... this is really very useful information > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > lenses ... and wondering how many people are walking around with PALs that > don't function properly ... Anyone who is new to progressives will need to adapt to them before they are comfortable. This can take several weeks. I previously mentioned that if you cannot see straight ahead through the distance portion of your lens without moving your frame, then something is wrong and your lens were not fit properly. However, the same does not necessarily apply to left and right, because the peripheral vision is usually worse with a progressive and this is a function of lens design and your Rx and not usually a problem with the fitting. The only exception would be if you vision were better if you moved your frame to the left or right, which means they did not get the PD (pupil distance) correct. The intermediate area varies depending on the lens design. Lens designs made for short frames (called short corridor lenses) typically have less of an intermediate area. If intermediate vision is very important to you, then mention it to your optician (don't even bother with mentioning it at a place like Lenscrafters, you must go to a good optical store where they offer a lot of different lens designs from independent labs). However, getting a better intermediate area can sometimes come at a cost of a smaller reading area. Getting a sophisticated lens design can help, but it will cost you. Also, you will need to turn your head a little for best intermediate vision, since the proper viewing area for any given intermediate distance is very small. Personally, if you are got your lenses from Lenscrafters, I would invoke the 30 day money back guarantee. Find a good optical shop with experienced opticians. Even Wal-mart optical is better than Lenscrafters. > do you mean a fair number on the same patient or overall for the > practice/business? I'm willing to do the successive approximation so > long as we're making progress ... seems like some of these shops are > selling PALs like they were pants ... size 34-36 or "L" is close enough > ... doesn't seem like those kinds of tolerances are viable in the > corrective lens game Most people who get a remake only need one remake, but some need more than one. I don't know the percentage of remakes, but it is much higher than single vision lenses, but still less than 50% of patients. > "Barrie Wilson" <bwilson@nowhere.com> wrote in message > I previously mentioned that if you cannot see straight ahead through the > distance portion of your lens without moving your frame, then something is > wrong and your lens were not fit properly. understood ... and I'm pretty sure that there's a problem with that > However, the same does not necessarily apply to left and right, because > the peripheral vision is usually worse with a progressive and this is a > function of lens design and your Rx and not usually a problem with the > fitting. and I generally understand this too; but I'm assuming it's a matter of degree; that's why I was asking if having to rotate your head on the order of 70-80 degrees at an intersection in order to see oncoming traffic with reasonable clarity sounded like it falls within normal ranges which I might get used to; I just have no norms to go by; I've never asked a PAL wearer if they have a similar experience ... secondly, fit aside, I am wondering if a lens with a different design might not do the trick .. something with a wider corridor ? > If intermediate vision is very important to you, then mention it to your > optician I don't think it really is, other than perhaps to see the instrument cluster on the car ... and perhaps for a reasonably comfortable transition from distance to near vision > (don't even bother with mentioning it at a place like Lenscrafters, you > must go to a good optical store where they offer a lot of different lens > designs from independent labs). well, this was all done at EyeMasters, which is probably about the same caliber as LensCrafters I'm guessing > Personally, if you are got your lenses from Lenscrafters, I would invoke > the 30 day money back guarantee. Find a good optical shop with experienced > opticians. Even Wal-mart optical is better than Lenscrafters. I think I can believe that without a lot of trouble; I stopped by Walmart and I think they have a real optician on duty, on the floor at all times ... I'm not even sure that's the case at EyeMasters ... they make no attempt at indicating it, like by having someone out with a white lab coat .... the person who helped me certainly was not an "optical pro" ... too many things she didn't know ... too many "let me ask on that" to questions like, "can you put a tint on this lens" ... I would think an experienced optician would know that right away thanks for the input, Mark .... sorry if I'm being a little on the obsessive-compulsive side with this ... but good vision is obviously important and I think it's a damn shame that I cannot get all of this kind of information at virtually any shop dispensing optical Rx's ... at least we have newsgroups now .... BW > I don't think it really is, other than perhaps to see the instrument cluster > on the car You've mentioned this a couple of times. My experience is that dashboard stuff is designed to be seen by people who can't see at near, for whatever reason. The numbers are large, there is a lot of color contrast and they are lit at night. I just don't have a problem with it. I'm willing to live with a lot of blur for very short periods of time. What is total dickhead please? >> I don't think it really is, other than perhaps to see the instrument >> cluster [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it. I'm willing to live with a lot of blur for very short periods of > time. Dan, I can see the instruments pretty well with my SV glasses or with no glasses at all ... but the PALs are causing me some problems; what I'm trying to do is find some common reference points so I can identify where the problem(s) might be, and to identify what things I might have to simply live with or trade off on ... since most people drive a car, I thought someone might say, "oh, that's pretty normal" or "oh no, if you can't see *that* you have to do *this*" I don't know what kind of car you drive but on mine the only things that might qualify as "designed to be seen by people who can't see at near" are the speedometer and RPM guage ... other than that there are multiple LED displays and backlit switches to report all kinds of information and control various functions .. some important, some less so ... then there's the radio, CD, climate control and so on and so on; NONE of them fall within the "designed for presbyopes" category ... at best, it's "inconvenient" to NOT be able to see those things ... besides, it's all got a really nice aesthetic at night and I'd like to be able to see it clearly ... if that's possible ... btw, if you live in Texas, periods of time in the car are not necessarily short .... BW > > thanks, Mark and Mike ... this is really very useful information > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Anyone who is new to progressives will need to adapt to them before they are > comfortable. This can take several weeks. Dear Mark, Why all of you think that you have a right to change human brains ? > Dear Mark, > Why all of you think that you have a right to change human brains ? Why do you think refraction is possible without magnification? -MT > > Dear Mark, > > Why all of you think that you have a right to change human brains ? > > Why do you think refraction is possible without magnification? > > -MT Why do you think that they , sorry you should use to astigmatism of progressives ? Why not to use to blur when it is only +1 or -0.75 ? it is the same. Only it will stop the progression in at least 20 % of myopia. And slow down development of hyperopia in presbyopic people. > Only it will stop the progression in at least 20 % of myopia. Myopia rarely increases between 30 to 50. It's more likely to decrease. > And slow down development of hyperopia in presbyopic people. That doesn't happen. People get more hyperopic after 40 whether they wear progressives or not. -MT > > Only it will stop the progression in at least 20 % of myopia. > > Myopia rarely increases between 30 to 50. It's more likely to decrease. Wait, I mean myopic blur at onset. > > And slow down development of hyperopia in presbyopic people. > > That doesn't happen. People get more hyperopic after 40 whether they wear > progressives or not. after 60 - yes. It is two different things accommodation off it is presbiopia hyperopia is not accomodation is it ? They should_not_be_related at least till 60. > -MT >> That doesn't happen. People get more hyperopic after 40 whether they wear >> progressives or not. > > after 60 - yes. No, look it up. After 60 they get more nearsighted. > It is two different things > accommodation off it is presbiopia Presbyopia is loss of accommodation. > hyperopia is not accomodation is it ? Hyperopia is measured at the farpoint. Presbyopia occurs at the nearpoint. > They should_not_be_related at least till 60. I didn't relate them. I didn't mention presbyopia. I said the average human refraction becomes more hyperopic between 30 and 50. -MT > >> That doesn't happen. People get more hyperopic after 40 whether they wear > >> progressives or not. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > -MT How much is that more? Why many after 40 not in glasses ? > How much is that more? I don't understand. > Why many after 40 not in glasses ? Several common reasons. 1) they don't read much, or they have long arms, or they wouldn't dare let you know they have a problem. 2) they have some nearsightedness or astigmatism that alleviates presbyopia. 3) they have small pupils. Having presbyopia is not the same as having complaints. -MT > > How much is that more? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -MT I understand all of that. But if person starts wearing readers and then progressives all the time, following advise of OD, the hyperopia progresses faster. > I understand all of that. > But if person starts wearing readers and then progressives all > the time, following advise of OD, the hyperopia progresses faster. Maybe a little. They get comfortable and discover they don't like to work so hard. They relax with glasses on. In the end they wind up no more farsighted than others who strain and try to resist those evil bifocals. Why do you feel you must always work your ciliary muscles to their limit? It doesn't keep the lens elastic. -MT > > I understand all of that. > > But if person starts wearing readers and then progressives all [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -MT Mike, Not only cilliary muscles Rectus latheral and (do not remember another) > Not only cilliary muscles > Rectus latheral and (do not remember another) Nonsense. Those muscles work fine after 60. Why no accommodation? Those muscles work fine after cataract surgery. Why no accommodation? Those muscles work fine after cycloplegia. Why no accommodation? -MT > > Not only cilliary muscles > > Rectus latheral and (do not remember another) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -MT In young age (40) ( when lens is still flexible enough ) convergence goes off first. > In young age (40) ( when lens is still flexible enough ) convergence > goes off first. That isn't what I measure here. Maybe in your part of the world. How many have you measured? -MT > > In young age (40) ( when lens is still flexible enough ) convergence > > goes off first. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -MT Did you measure convergence? > Did you measure convergence? Yes. Uncorrected presbyopes tend to converge MORE, straining to focus. -MT Mike I'm interested in something; What do you mean by the word 'strain'? > Mike I'm interested in something; > > What do you mean by the word 'strain'? No problem there. I'm using the "defined" version. It means ciliary muscle contraction, accommodative effort. Total presbyopes can't accommodate but that doesn't the ciliary muscle can'tl contract. Trying to accommodate (contracting the ciliary muscle) causes the eyes to converge and the pupils to constrict. These effects are still measurable even after accommodation is no longer effective. If your terms are undefinable, they lead to confusion and contradiction. For example, presbyope or not, "relaxing" the ciliary muscle can NOT improve focus at near. -MT Okay, that's interesting. > Okay, that's interesting. What's interesting? Learn to quote. -MT I mean, your definition of strain is interesting. It's different from the way how I use it. I don't quote people, because I find it patronizing when people quote me. I think it's less rude when you don't quote. Do you know what I am saying. Okay and also quoting takes up space, it's a bit unnecessary when the post is right after the one it is replying to. > I don't quote people, because I find it patronizing when people quote > me. I think it's less rude when you don't quote. Do you know what I am > saying. Okay and also quoting takes up space, it's a bit unnecessary > when the post is right after the one it is replying to. So you can create your own rules of etiquette, just as you create your own version of "science." That doesn't mean that everyone else will accept it. -MT I don't really understand newsgroups etiquitte. I am new to all of this stuff. Where I used to post, it was better etiquitte if you didn't quote people too much, only when necessary. Excuse me if I was wrong. > I don't really understand newsgroups etiquitte. Or ophthalmology, optometry, optics, or eyesight. > Excuse me if I was wrong. We're getting used to you being wrong. You, Lena, and Otis should keep score. It's amazing how often each of you IS wrong, and how INfrequently (if ever) you admit it. >Or ophthalmology, optometry, optics, or eyesight. Don't understand number 1 2 3. But number 4 the eye doctors don't understand. You don't need to know about optometry or optics and that to know about eyesight. You need to understand the way of the mind. And which statement was wrong? > >Or ophthalmology, optometry, optics, or eyesight. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And which statement was wrong? Didn't you say you wanted to be (when you grow up) an ophthalmologist? Or was it one of your other identities? > You don't need to know about optometry or optics and that to know > about eyesight. You need to understand the way of the mind. Psychics say that. Con-men say that. Rishi says that. You say that. So you are, what? A parrot? A con-man? A psychic? Imago ergo sum. -MT We don't believe you. -MT I did, but I thought about it and I thought maybe I'll get more money if I become a pilot. So I changed my mind. > I did, but I thought about it and I thought maybe I'll get more money > if I become a pilot. So I changed my mind. You also said you were planning on getting a job at the optometrist shop. You wanted to 'learn', this is what you said. I guess you changed this mind too. After all, ODs are stupid idiots and their products are harmful and evil, right? So instead, maybe once and for all you can "domonstrate" your theory by simply telling us facts about YOUR vision -- where it started, what made you cry, what you did, and where it is now. Since this is the only "demonstration" you claim, this is the LEAST you should do. Until then, your efforts to convince anybody are in vain. Or maybe you should go back to practice your typing and deposit your diarrhetic product on the Internet for the whole world to see. >I did, but I thought about it and I thought maybe I'll get more money > if I become a pilot. So I changed my mind. Please file all of your flight plans at least 48 hours in advance on a public web site; I don't want to fly on a 747 being navigated with rest methods > >I did, but I thought about it and I thought maybe I'll get more money > > if I become a pilot. So I changed my mind. > > Please file all of your flight plans at least 48 hours in advance on a > public web site; I don't want to fly on a 747 being navigated with rest > methods Amen. > > I don't quote people, because I find it patronizing when people quote > > me. I think it's less rude when you don't quote. Do you know what I am [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That doesn't mean that everyone else will accept it. The order of posts isn't the same for everybody. > > > Not only cilliary muscles > > > Rectus latheral and (do not remember another) why do you believe that? there may be some exophores who recruit accommodative convergence to help maintain alignment and they might have difficulties when they hit presbyopia but that is the exception rather than the rule. again, I think your understanding of human physiology and anatomy is inaccurate. > In young age (40) ( when lens is still flexible enough ) convergence > goes off first. that is simply an invalid statement. so you think all presbyopes start to develop horizontal phorias and tropias? this is just another misstatement by you and illustrates that you do not understand the basic physiology of human vision. presbyopia is a condition that happens to everyone. you can try to avoid using plus lenses to help with your reading, and soon enough distance too, but in the end the problem is just that your failing accommodative abilities can no longer compensate for the anatomy of your eye. plus lenses do not change your eye anatomy, it just helps you see more comfortably. natural aging is the cause. the person to blame is also the one who causes your skin to wrinkle and your hair to get gray. sorry, it's life. a person must learn to deal with these normal body changes however they see fit. you apparently like to suffer and then complain about it. you are perfectly welcome to strain and avoid using lenses to help your vision. its your prerogative. in the end, when your ciliary muscle relaxes fully in ~15 years, you will end up with exactly the same prescription as you would if you used glasses to help you read comfortably all along. wearing glasses will not affect the length of your eye or the curvature of your cornea. On Sep 25, 4:15 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > > In young age (40) ( when lens is still flexible enough ) convergence > > goes off first. > > that is simply an invalid statement. But on a positive note ... her credibility around here is virtually nil, so ... she really doesn't have anything to lose.... On Sep 25, 7:15 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Not only cilliary muscles > > > > Rectus latheral and (do not remember another) [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > you are perfectly welcome to strain strain, hot flushes, holesterol,dry eye welcome to walgreens. > strain, hot flushes, holesterol,dry eye > > welcome to walgreens. Thank you, Lena. I was worried that you might go a day without another totally meaningless, useless, ridiculous, and agenda-driven post, totally devoid of fact. Missing the old Centrally Planned Economy, are you? The planes go East, too, you know. > strain, hot flushes, holesterol,dry eye > > welcome to walgreens.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Wow, all these evil things were caused by progressives? > > strain, hot flushes, holesterol,dry eye > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wow, all these evil things were caused by progressives? I'm sure that at least a FEW conservatives were also involved ;-) > > strain, hot flushes, holesterol,dry eye > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wow, all these evil things were caused by progressives? No. The Industry made the Myths. Gently worrying about improvement of "quality of living" of average men, explained what symptoms should be at what age. Introduced the "cure" "Ask you doctor if it is right for you" Public applaud and falling in love. > > > strain, hot flushes, holesterol,dry eye > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The Industry made the Myths. Which of these symptoms (or conditions, for that matter) is a myth? > Gently worrying about improvement of "quality of living" of average > men, > explained what symptoms should be at what age. No. They didn't. That's your cynical-to-the-point-of-irrationality- and-destructiveness agenda talking again. The fact that I AGREE that the media IS being with advertisements for such things as limp weenies (eg, Otis), toenail fungi, and restless lets ... does not, in ANY WAY, disprove that those issues are real in our society to some degree or another. > Introduced the "cure" Hm. Modern medicine claims to have "cured" very little. > "Ask you doctor if it is right for you" Lena, you should try to decide between getting OFF OF your soapbox and inserting it into your posterior. If you want to talk about how US "mainstream medicine" is NOT primarily cure-focused, and/or how there is MORE money to be made in treatment than there might be in CURE or PREVENTION, then you should, BUT ... you shouldn't go any farther than that because ... as you have ... you've sounded like nothing but an extremist with much more axe to grind than information. As I used to say to Uncle Otie ... before it got insanely tiring to have to repeat it time and again ... if you have a theory about prevention -- be it myopia, presbyopia, or anything else ... then get in touch with the optometric colleges and try to get a RCCT going. You're just pissing in the wind here, though, and I don't believe that a rational person in this country thinks that there's any ocular conspiracy PREVENTING you from pushing forward with such studies. PubMed is RIFE with the results of studies that show safety and efficacy for Ayurvedic treatments, Yoga as a modality for this or that, Garlic as a potent antimicrobial, etc., etc. NOBODY and NOTHING is stopping YOU, Atchoo, Alex Eulenberg, or even (dare I say) f.cking idiot and pathological liar, Otis Brown from pushing forward for multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Perhaps nothing OTHER THAN your deep-seated fear that you -- our latest emperor -- have no clothes. > Public applaud and falling in love. "The fact that I AGREE that the media IS being with advertisements..." That should say: "The fact that I AGREE that the media IS being BOMBARDED...." "and restless lets " And THAT one should say "restless legs." Hmph. Tired fingers. > Hmph. Tired fingers. You should rest, dear friend. > > Hmph. Tired fingers. > > You should rest, dear friend. yes. undoubtedly the strain is causing his eyes to elongate and the curvature of his cornea to steppen. nothing that a little sun-gazing can't cure! > > > > strain, hot flushes, holesterol,dry eye > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Which of these symptoms (or conditions, for that matter) is a myth? Dry eye is really serios condition. But it is very rare condition Now you can buy eye drops at every gas station Enjoy preservatives. > > > > > strain, hot flushes, holesterol,dry eye > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Enjoy preservatives. Again, what you say is BOTH stupid AND nonsensical (congrats). Dry eye estimates: 20-30 MILLION sufferers, including about 14% over age 40 ("very rare?"). I presume you think that optometrists are causing THIS one, too? Preservatives are being removed, if too slowly, FROM eyedrops, except in anti-microbials where they have a unique side-effect of temporarily increasing epithelial permeability, which hastens antimicrobial effect. Far gentler, non cyto-toxic preservatives are also being brought to market. Come on, Lena. Just once: could you POSSIBLY make a VALID point that has SOME basis in fact?? If not, then would you consider STFU? You look like a biased, closed- minded, irrational, agenda-driven f.cking idiot just about every time you post (you and your axis of a.shole compatriots, that is). And I'm being kind. Believe me. > > > strain, hot flushes, holesterol,dry eye > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "Ask you doctor if it is right for you" > Public applaud and falling in love. I see. "The industry made the myths." The industry invented presbyopia. The industry invented cholesterol. The industry invented hot flashes. All for the purpose of selling us the cures. I now understand why there are no homosexuals in Iran. > > strain, hot flushes, holesterol,dry eye > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wow, all these evil things were caused by progressives? yes-- progressives made of high-index plastic causes those problems. But polycarbonate progressives with transition lenses causes cervical cancer. > > > I understand all of that. > > > But if person starts wearing readers and then progressives all [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Not only cilliary muscles > Rectus latheral and (do not remember another) Still doesn't answer Mike's basic question. Why doesn't that surprise me? > > I understand all of that. > > But if person starts wearing readers and then progressives all > > the time, following advise of OD, the hyperopia progresses faster. > > Maybe a little. They get comfortable and discover they don't like to work so > hard. They relax with glasses on. But next visit OD will push prescription more. They can handle more plus . It is very easy to take +1 for distance. Eye will adopt in 1 week But next visit OD will push prescription more.( I mean distance) They can handle more plus . Reading plus to take is more easy. I try to read in +4 it is comfortable, relaxing (reminder I do not use any glasses) > In the end they wind up no more farsighted than others who strain and try to > resist those evil bifocals. > Why do you feel you must always work your ciliary muscles to their limit? It > doesn't keep the lens elastic. > > -MT > > >> That doesn't happen. People get more hyperopic after 40 whether they wear > > >> progressives or not. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > How much is that more? > Why many after 40 not in glasses ? What does that prove? How do they know how well they see? Why do I bother asking you questions. You're illogical, irrational, and unscientific. You start from a position of eye doctor resentment and bias. You are a female Otis ... and that's the worst insult that =I= could ever come up with. > > > >> That doesn't happen. People get more hyperopic after 40 whether they wear > > > >> progressives or not. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > You are a female Otis ... and that's the worst insult that =I= could > ever come up with. I am just female, by myself. > > > >> That doesn't happen. People get more hyperopic after 40 whether they wear > > > >> progressives or not. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > How do they know how well they see? I do not know. I think they know better what they want. > Why do I bother asking you questions. You're illogical, irrational, > and unscientific. You start from a position of eye doctor resentment > and bias. > > You are a female Otis ... and that's the worst insult that =I= could > ever come up with. > > > How much is that more? > > > Why many after 40 not in glasses ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I do not know. > I think they know better what they want. Ah, thanks. Yet ANOTHER meaningless statement that ignored MY perfectly valid point. > > > > How much is that more? > > > > Why many after 40 not in glasses ? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Ah, thanks. Yet ANOTHER meaningless statement that ignored MY > perfectly valid point. She has a wandering wondering mind. > >> That doesn't happen. People get more hyperopic after 40 whether they wear > >> progressives or not. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > -MT it is becomes faster, if some1 were catch with OD that will smartly advise to wear readers +1 all the time. Is it not the same advise like that OD gave "never_never_newer read without glasses" to somebody who is myopic? You post that myope can read without, did not you? > it is becomes faster, if some1 were catch with OD that will smartly > advise to wear > readers +1 all the time. It's silly to wear +1 readers all the time. They get in the way. > Is it not the same advise like that OD gave "never_never_newer read > without glasses" > to somebody who is myopic? That OD was a fringe lunatic. Most ODs (and MDs) would agree that myopes may read fine without glasses. > You post that myope can read without, did not you? I did. It's one of the reasons people can avoid reading glasses after 40. -MT > > it is becomes faster, if some1 were catch with OD that will smartly > > advise to wear > > readers +1 all the time. > > It's silly to wear +1 readers all the time. They get in the way. Mike, It is silly. But OD sad, person did. Very simple. Opinion of authority is almost a low. > > Is it not the same advise like that OD gave "never_never_newer read > > without glasses" > > to somebody who is myopic? > > That OD was a fringe lunatic. Most ODs (and MDs) would agree that myopes may > read fine without glasses. How many of them are over there ? hundreds ? thousands ? > > You post that myope can read without, did not you? > > I did. It's one of the reasons people can avoid reading glasses after 40. Not everyone is like you > -MT > Mike, > It is silly. > But OD sad, person did. > Very simple. > Opinion of authority is almost a low. It's unfortunate but some doctors give bad advice. >> That OD was a fringe lunatic. Most ODs (and MDs) would agree that myopes >> may >> read fine without glasses. > > How many of them are over there ? hundreds ? thousands ? I think about 35,000 ODs and 15,000 ophthalmologists. Or do you mean myopes? About 80 million. >> > You post that myope can read without, did not you? >> >> I did. It's one of the reasons people can avoid reading glasses after 40. > > Not everyone is like you It's unusual to hear a doctor tell a myope "never never read without glasses." He was either a fringe lunatic or a freshman. A very small minority. -MT > > > You post that myope can read without, did not you? > > > I did. It's one of the reasons people can avoid reading glasses after 40. > > Not everyone is like you I may not be like Mike, but I am a typical (classic) moderate myope, now also presbyope. I have always been able to read without glasses, even the smallest print. I still can. When I was younger (before 40) I could read equally comfortobly with or without glasses, it's the distance that I needed the glasses for. Then after 40 I used to remove my glasses when reading, which was a hassle in most situations. Nobody told me to wear or not wear glasses EVER (except for driving), I always did what was comfortable. Around 45 I got my first bifocals and got used to them within 1 minute. My distance Rx was reduced at that time. They served me well for some time, but then I found it again more comfortable (and clearer) to read without glasses. Eventually I got progressives and I loved them from the first minute. My myopia continued to decrease, whereas my near vision with the same reading zone continued to become less comfortable, until it finally settled. Everybody that I knew in my age group went through changes in their vision. The only difference was that the myopes could read with no glasses on, whereas the others could not. I need glasses for reading at more than 12 inch distance, and I can read the tyniest print without glasses at about 6 inches clearer than with glasses. But if I drive without glasses I would suggest that you keep away from me. I now use my computer PAL glasses most of the time. I did not need any adjustment time. They are good for all distances and the transition between zones is very smooth. It feels natural and as if I have accommodation. I would never use glasses that don't feel right. Now Lena, I have no idea of the source of your factual knowledge and strong opinions. My personal experience is very limited, but amazingly those like Mike and others, who have seen and cared for thousands of patients, describe a similar pattern, as if they were talking about me. Coincident? > Now Lena, I have no idea of the source of your factual knowledge and > strong opinions. She seems to be staggeringly short on the former and quite long on the latter. > > > > You post that myope can read without, did not you? > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > thousands of patients, describe a similar pattern, as if they were > talking about me. Coincident? Dear Mrs Brainy, I completely agree with your opinion and experience I wrote: > > I understand all of that. > > But if person starts wearing readers and then progressives all > > the time, following advise of OD, the hyperopia progresses faster. Mike wrote > Maybe a little. They get comfortable and discover they don't like to work so > hard. They relax with glasses on. That maybe a little gives difference: No glasses and 20/20 distance or +2.5 in 4-5 years. Proibably in the long run all be the same hyperopic (+6). But that gives difference like 10-20 years. Lena > > > Dear Mark, > > > Why all of you think that you have a right to change human brains ? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Only it will stop the progression in at least 20 % of myopia. > And slow down development of hyperopia in presbyopic people. ================== you are welcome to have blurry vision. there is no law against it. go for it. however most normal people prefer clear vision. and if a person is over 40 and is experiencing presbyopia and would like to see both distance and near using the same glasses, then they usually choose bifocals and progressives are one type of bifocal. or you could get a lined bifocal, or you could get two different pairs of glasses-- one for distance and one for near. or you could just have blurry vision. it is everyone's choice to do as they wish. why do you want to control everyones choices for them. it is more practical to wear a single pair of glasses that provide both distance, near, and intermediate vision so many people choose that path. but ANY approach to correcting presbyopia has its drawbacks-- you just have to pick the one you can live with. sorry that you don't understand. you will in a few years. and I am sorry that you believe that progressives have caused your near vision to deteriorate. its not what really is happening, its really that you are just getting older. you are not the first hyperope to become presbyopic and experience rapid changes in their vision. it happens all the time and its simply normal human physiology. you have no training or understanding of the subject and instead you choose to believe unsubstantiated notions. do you think thunder is caused by the gods in the sky who are angry? there is zero evidence that blurry vision (by not using glasses) slows myopia progression or the development of hyperopia or presbyopia. I thought you were trained as a scientist but instead you choose to behave like a superstitious gypsy. perhaps its your heritage. but you are entitled to it so have fun living your way. other people have different ways of thinking and living-- sorry that you can't make everyone do what you think they should. On Sep 24, 8:29 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Dear Mark, > > > > Why all of you think that you have a right to change human brains ? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > distance and near using the same glasses, then they usually choose > bifocals and progressives are one type of bifocal. Most people just wear reading glasses and very OK with it. Some have obbsession . To see near and far. and switch to bifocals It is head, not eyes. > lined bifocal, or you could get two different pairs of glasses-- one > for distance and one for near. or you could just have blurry vision. > it is everyone's choice to do as they wish. why do you want to > control everyones choices for them. > it is more practical to wear a single pair of glasses that provide > both distance, near, and intermediate vision so many people choose > that path. but ANY approach to correcting presbyopia has its > drawbacks-- you just have to pick the one you can live with. sorry > that you don't understand. you will in a few years. Are you positive that I have that genes ? > and I am sorry that you believe that progressives have caused your > near vision to deteriorate. its not what really is happening, its > really that you are just getting older. you are not the first > hyperope to become presbyopic presbiope becomes hyperopic not what you wrote. and experience rapid changes in their > vision. it happens all the time and its simply normal human > physiology. you have no training or understanding of the subject and > instead you choose to believe unsubstantiated notions. do you think > thunder is caused by the gods in the sky who are angry? > there is zero evidence that blurry vision (by not using glasses) slows > myopia progression or the development of hyperopia or presbyopia. I > thought you were trained as a scientist but instead you choose to > behave like a superstitious gypsy. perhaps its your heritage. but > you are entitled to it so have fun living your way. other people have > different ways of thinking and living-- I am not in their way. They are very welcome do anything that they like to. Take diet pills, drink pub, make plastic surgery to size 3D > Some have obbsession . To see near and far. and switch to bifocals > It is head, not eyes. Yes, let's exercise those sphincters so they don't get flabby. > Are you positive that I have that genes ? Only if you're a mammal. -MT > On Sep 24, 8:29 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Are you positive that I have that genes ? I am 99.9% certain it will happen to you. it is a basic well- established well-known phenomenon of the human body. the ciliary muscle which attaches to the lens by way of the zonula fibers begins to be less effective in adjusting the power of the crystalline lens at about age ~40 - 42. it happens to us all, just the way be all have heartbeats and nerve impulses. wanna bet that its not gonna happen to you? it already has and I'll also bet you that it will get worse over time. > > and I am sorry that you believe that progressives have caused your > > near vision to deteriorate. its not what really is happening, its > > really that you are just getting older. you are not the first > > hyperope to become presbyopic > > presbiope becomes hyperopic not what you wrote. wrong. each state is independent of the other. you can be hyperopic but not presbyopic. you can be presbyopic without ever being hyperopic. you do not know the definitions of the terms and you do not understand the underlying optical consequences for the human eye. how can you try to act as though you know that progressive lenses are harmful? a person is hyperopic for either one of two reasons-- either their eye is slightly small or their corneal curvature is slightly flat. when a hyperopic person is young, their ciliary muscle contracts thereby steepening the curvature of the lens which adds plus refractive power to the eyeand compensates for the hyperopia. thus the eye can counter its own refractive error by having the crystalline lens work to focus the image of distant objects as well as near objects. it happens automatically as a reflex. young hyperopes usually get along fine some of them have problems with eyestrain and headaches when they do near work. but when the hyperopic person gets older, the function of the ciliary muscle is continually reduced so that it eventually is no longer capable of affecting the lens. therefore in hyperopes their decreasing ability to internally compensate within their eye for their far-sightedness begins to be evident. depending on the degree of hyperopia that the person has, the age of onset is ~35 - 40. Hyperopes usually develop near problems before most other ammetropes. the weakening of the focusing ability of the lens continues as a person gets older, to the point where gradually more and more help for the lens is required by increasing the persons reading prescription. Eventually, depending upon how much hyperopia the person actually has, the ability of the lens to focus properly at even distant objects becomes compromised to where the use of a bifocal prescription becomes the most practical solution. It happens to everyone Lena. Wanna bet? On Sep 25, 1:15 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sep 24, 8:29 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > but not presbyopic. you can be presbyopic without ever being > hyperopic. presbyopic without ever being hyperopic do_not_need_progressives. you do not know the definitions of the terms and you do > not understand the underlying optical consequences for the human eye. > how can you try to act as though you know that progressive lenses are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > far-sightedness begins to be evident. depending on the degree of > hyperopia that the person has, the age of onset is ~35 - 40. Have you ever seen mesurments at onset ? > Hyperopes usually develop near problems before most other ammetropes. > the weakening of the focusing ability of the lens continues as a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > presbyopic without ever being hyperopic do_not_need_progressives. They don't need to see more than two distances? You decide for them? "You don't need a Lexus. You only need a Celica. Lexus will spoil you." > Have you ever seen mesurments at onset ? Every day. -MT > > presbyopic without ever being hyperopic do_not_need_progressives. > > They don't need to see more than two distances? You decide for them? They do not need glasses for distance > "You don't need a Lexus. You only need a Celica. Lexus will spoil you." > > Have you ever seen mesurments at onset ? > > Every day. How many is hyperopic at onset? (i am asking 40 y age ) And what degree ? > -MT > They do not need glasses for distance YOU believe distance correction is harmful. I do not. -MT > > They do not need glasses for distance > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -MT It is uncofortoble at least. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message