 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2007plus lenses / eyestrain from comoputer work?
My job currently reqires full time computer use, so I am viewing a computer 8+ hours a day. I have been experimenting with plus lenses +1.25D lenses for a few months now when I use my computer. Without any lenses my vision is good, I see typically 20/15 distance vision and can focus down to about 6". During computer usage, I typically view the monitor from about 32" without plus lenses. When I started using plus lenses, I could focus clearly at about 25". I have attempted to keep the monitor just on the edge of being out of focus. After about two months, I have noticed that Ican now focus clearly on the screen at 29" using the same plus lenses. I have also noticed that after long hours at the computer, my distance vision would be worse than it was first thing in the morning. When wearing plus lenses, I noticed that I do not have any change in my distance vision, even after hours at the computer. I have read quite a bit about Nearwork-Induced Transient Myopia (NITM) and believe it explains why I see more clearly for distance after using plus lenses at the computer. What I don't fully understand is: Why can I now see clearly at 29" using +1.25D lenes, when previously 24" was the max? Is it possible to train the eye to accomodate more. -OR- or am I simply reducing residual effects of NITM caused by many years of computer work? Dear Me, Subject: Congratulations -- you are protecting your distant vision the way it must be done. When the eye has a negative refractive STATE of about -1/2 diopter, you will see slight blur at distance. As the eye "adapts" to a "distant environment" produced by your long-term use of the preventive-plus, the refractive STATE of the eye will change in a positive direction. Me> What I don't fully understand is: Why can I now see clearly at 29" using +1.25D lenes, when previously 24" was the max? Otis> This is a direct confirmation of the benifical effect of the plus lens. Otis> Here is the math: But let me simplify: 1. If your refractive STATE were zero, then the point of "just blur" would be 1 meter when looking through a +1 diopter lens. 2. If your refractive STATE were -1 diopter, the maximum "just blur" distance would have been 0.5 meters. Now: 1. When your "just blur" distance was 24 inches, through a +1.25 diopter lens, your refractive STATE was about 0.6 diopters, given that combination. 2. Your new refractive STATE changed, from 24 inches to 29 inches through a +1.25 diopters lens was about 0.75 diopters. 3. Your refractive STATE changed by +0.15 diopters. Commentary: This is not a lot, and depends on your judgment. But it directly confirms that your vision is improving as it should provided you continue. When you can read at 31 inches through a +1.25 diopter lens, your refractive STATE will be zero -- which is considered ideal for the normal eye. Other scientists and physicists can confirm the math as I have presented it. (But I will confirm it in due course.) Me> Is it possible to train the eye to accomodate more. -OR- or am I simply reducing residual effects of NITM caused by many years of computer work? Otis> You are reducing the effects of NITM, and confirming the change in your refractive STATE by your own measurements. Just my engineering second-opinion, Otis > My job currently reqires full time computer use, so I am viewing a computer > 8+ hours a day. I have been experimenting with plus lenses +1.25D lenses [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Is it possible to train the eye to accomodate more. -OR- or am I simply > reducing residual effects of NITM caused by many years of computer work? On Sep 30, 9:37 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Me, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 1. If your refractive STATE were zero, then the point of "just blur" > would be 1 meter when looking through a +1 diopter lens. Theoretically yes. But in reality eye adopts to +1 really fast In one day it is no distant blur at all If we presume that + lenses help miopic eye to shift state then logically in eye with refractive state zero they can induce hyperopia. Dear Lena, With all due respect, you are making an assumption that is not correct. You assume that the natural and NORMAL eye does not have a positive refractive STATE. The truth is this. Men who do no long-term close-work have positive refractive STATES, running from zero to +3 diopters, with the average about +1.8 diopters. This is nature's design, and that is the way it is. See: http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/DynamicEye.html For the situation that "Me" is describing, his refractive DISTANCE is 29 inches. This makes his refractive STATE slightly negative. When he he measures his "just blur" distance is 32 inches, through a +1.25 diopter lens, his refractive STATE will be zero diotpers. This is often refered to as "perfect" by the traditional theory. Best, Otis > On Sep 30, 9:37 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes lena, listen to Otis, he has logged many hours being the loony he is today. On Sep 30, 11:30 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Lena, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have positive refractive STATES, running from zero to > +3 diopters, with the average about +1.8 diopters. Otis, I agree explain me then why some people with refractive state +1.5 (aftorefractor) have blured distance vision and need + glasses ,when the most of the people with the same refractive state do not ? Dear Lena, I agree with you. It is possible for some individuals to have a refractive status of +1.5 diopters and blurry vision -- in the same sense that is it possible for a person to have a refractive status of 0.0 diopters and blurry vision. Best, Otis > On Sep 30, 11:30 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:> Dear Lena, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > have blured distance vision and need + glasses ,when the most of the > people with the same refractive state do not ? On Sep 30, 9:30 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Lena, > > With all due respect, you are making an assumption that > is not correct. On THIS issue (incorrect assumptions), I would extend a fair amount of credibility to Otis. He IS the all-time master of being 180 degrees wrong on s.m.v. > What I don't fully understand is: > Why can I now see clearly at 29" using +1.25D lenes, when previously 24" > was the max? Were the monitors the same? Were the monitor settings the same? Were the PC settings the same? > My job currently reqires full time computer use, so I am viewing a > computer 8+ hours a day. I have been experimenting with plus lenses [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Is it possible to train the eye to accomodate more. -OR- or am I simply > reducing residual effects of NITM caused by many years of computer work? Go to a an optometrist and get an Rx for your computer work. Don't mess around with your eyes and your job just to save a measly $50 on an eye exam. And you will receive wonderful progressives with guarantee that for the 400$ that you paid you will become faresighted and presbyopic in 3 years, and OD will have new "regular." visit him/her once a year. then hi/she can make your progress of hyperopia faster. > And you will receive wonderful progressives > with guarantee that for the 400$ that you paid you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > visit him/her once a year. > then hi/she can make your progress of hyperopia faster. Ah yes, the newest conspiracy by ODs to corner the country's money supply. THE JIG IS UP, Lena is on to your game !!!!! Do you take drugs to get this paranoid or does it come naturally to you ? Dear Lena, Subject: Refractive STATE change. Currently "Me's" refractive STATE is about -0.1 diopters. (The difference between 29 inches "just blur" versus 32 inches "just blur"). Obvioulsy "Me" can quit wearing the plus when he gets to 32 inches "just blur". Thus, by his own measurements, his refractive STATE will never go more positive that +1/4 diopter. Best, Otis > > "Me" <m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > visit him/her once a year. > then hi/she can make your progress of hyperopia faster. > > "Me" <m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > visit him/her once a year. > then hi/she can make your progress of hyperopia faster. Lena? Do you believe that visits to the barber shop accelerate hair growth, or that the purchase of new shoes in adolescent boys CAUSES accelerated foot growth? Thanks, Darling. Hugs and kisses to you.... > Why can I now see clearly at 29" using +1.25D lenes, when previously 24" > was the max? > Is it possible to train the eye to accomodate more. -OR- or am I simply > reducing residual effects of NITM caused by many years of computer work? The computer isn't the culprit. Paper is just as bad. NITM and resting accommodation are reflexes. The excess accommodation drops away eventually, one of the reasons so many myopes improve a little in their late 20s and 30s. -MT > > Why can I now see clearly at 29" using +1.25D lenes, when previously 24" > > was the max? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -MT ... and there's not only NO evidence that it causes axial-length myopia, there's much evidence that it DOES NOT. Otis? Why don't hyperopes -- who accommodate far more than myopes -- get less hyperopic? Lena? Feel free to jump in here. Atchoo? You, too. Dear Me, Subject: The capability of your accommodation system. Your refractive STATE is slightly negative as you measure it through a +1.25 diopter lens (i.e., just blur at 29 inches). Let us call it -0.20 diopters for sake of argument. Your range of accommodation (stop-to-stop) can also be determined by the measurements you supplied. Me> Without any lenses my vision is good, I see typically 20/15 distance vision and can focus down to about 6". Otis> The refractive CHANGE required to see clearly at 6 inches is -6.6 diopters. Your distant (stop) position is -0.2 diopters. Therefore your range of accommodation, by your measurement is -6.4 diopters. Otis> That is an excellent range. (This is also called, traditionally, "Amplitude of accommodation"). Otis> Thanks for doing this work to help us understand this work of vision-clearing with the plus. Best, Otis > My job currently reqires full time computer use, so I am viewing a computer > 8+ hours a day. I have been experimenting with plus lenses +1.25D lenses [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Is it possible to train the eye to accomodate more. -OR- or am I simply > reducing residual effects of NITM caused by many years of computer work? >Otis? Why don't hyperopes -- who accommodate far more than myopes -- >get less hyperopic? >Lena? Feel free to jump in here. >Atchoo? You, too. Don't be so stupid! Hyperopes don't get less hyperopic because they STRAIN AT THE NEARPOINT. It is quite simple, there is no need for your stupid argument. > >Otis? Why don't hyperopes -- who accommodate far more than myopes -- > >get less hyperopic? > >Lena? Feel free to jump in here. > >Atchoo? You, too. > Hyperopes don't get less hyperopic because they STRAIN AT THE > NEARPOINT. > It is quite simple, there is no need for your stupid argument. What?? Otis, you, and Lena are arguing that stress leads to myopia. Hyperopes endure accommodative stress all ... the ... time ... particularly at near. Why don't they simply shift myopic? Gesundheit! >Otis, you, and Lena are arguing that stress leads to myopia. No I'm not! Your skill in strawman argument is Most High. But please, you are able to speak even two sentences WITHOUT putting words into my mouth, dear old man? I have never said accommodative stress leads to anything at all. The eye which accommodates while at rest is never harmed, and if at perfect rest the sight is perfect also. |
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.