 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2008Advice for 9-year old newly in glasses.
When my son was 2, he had an eye exam with a pediatric opthamologist (we thought he had crossed eyes). She said his eyes and vision were perfectly fine, and that his cross-eyed appearance was due to the way the eyelids were shaped. Now my son is 9. For the past 3 years, he's spent an awful lot of time in front of a computer and his Gameboy, and he spends a lot of time reading and doing closeup work. I was concerned that he might be straining his vision, and since it had been 7 years since his last vision workup, my wife and I scheduled an appointment with an opthamologist (his new opthamologist is his old opthamologist's brother). The doctor performed a bunch of tests, including a "Worth 4 dot" test. I asked the doc what this tested, and he said it was to determine how his eyes worked together. I don't recall what my son saw, but it wasn't the standard, and the doc said "but that's OK, it's not a problem". All in all, the doc originally said my son was myopic and would "probably" require -1.50 lenses. But he decided to dilate his eyes "to be sure". Once dilated, he changed his recommendation to -1.00 in each eye, with no astigmatic correction. He had my son try on the test lenses and my son said he could see at a distance just fine. The doc said for my son to wear his glasses all the time in the classroom and at home when watching TV, or riding his bike and other outdoor activities. He also told me that he could keep them on for closeup work, but wasn't necessary. He said my son's eyes would focus accomodate just fine with or without the minus lenses. I was wondering if we should tell him to take them off when doing closeup work because that would mean he would need to focus a bit harder to "counteract" the effects of a minus lens? Or should he leave them on all the time, which would make him accustomed to wearing them (and lessen the chance of losing them). The doc never made this clear. Thanks, Ed > I was wondering if we should tell him to take them off when doing > closeup work because that would mean he would need to focus a bit > harder to "counteract" the effects of a minus lens? Or should he > leave them on all the time, which would make him accustomed to wearing > them (and lessen the chance of losing them). The doc never made this > clear. There is no evidence that wearing them causes any problem. Focusing "a bit harder" means "just like everybody else." There are many outside the eye professions, and even a few degreed professionals, who believe that the extra focusing effort stimulates more nearsightedness. But in 100 years no one has been able to publish a study showing a group wearing glasses got more nearsighted than a group who didn't. Instead, the published comparisons show no difference between those who wear glasses full-time and those who remove them for near work. -MT, OD >> I was wondering if we should tell him to take them off when doing >> closeup work because that would mean he would need to focus a bit [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >-MT, OD References would be interesting. Table 2 of "Epidemiology of Myopia" by Saw, Katz, Schein, Chew, and Chang, (Epidemiologic Reviews (c) 1996 Vol 18 No. 2) is a dismal list of statistically botched studies that cannot be considered as conclusive evidence for anything very much because of these failings. The fact that studies done so far are not statistically reliable is not proof that there is nothing out there, just proof that we do not know what is out there. There is no shortage of evidence for some sort of environmental factor in myopia. One striking example is Fig 12 in "Homeostasis of Eye Growth and the Question of Myopia", by Wallman and Winawer (Neuron, Vol. 43, 447-468, August 19, 2004), with caption Figure 12. Near-Work and Myopia Frequency distribution of refractive errors in four populations of Israeli students. Boys in religious schools, who do much sustained near-work, have a much higher prevalence of myopia than do girls in religious schools or than either girls or boys in secular schools (replotted from Zylbermann et al., 1993.) The text suggests that all populations have similar nutrition and background, leaving environment as a major factor. From the point of view of somebody seeking advice for a single case, I agree with Mike Tyner - nobody knows enough to give the advice you are looking for so you might as well just behave as comes naturally. From the point of view of a society that is working very hard to encourage most of its members to seek out education that typically involves large amounts of near work, I think that we should be running large scale scientifically rigorous studies to find out more about the development and progression of myopia. I do not think that we should be ignoring the topic just because in the past (and unfortunately in the present, in small numbers) people have talked rubbish about it.  SignatureA.G.McDowell On Jan 29, 12:25 am, "A.G.McDowell" <mcdowe...@mcdowella.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <jo6dnf1zoYBPKQDanZ2dnUVZ_oKhn...@giganews.com>, Mike Tyner > <mty...@mindspring.com> writes [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > - Show quoted text - As well, there is no shortage of studies indicating a high degree of familial aggregation or heredity of refractive error. A short trip to the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health databases will turn up many studies just recently published. Therefore, there is little evidence to support that research in myopia is languishing. The sad thing about this group is that it is populated by a vocal minority of people who are stuck in a time warp. > Now my son is 9. For the past 3 years, he's spent an awful lot of > time in front of a computer and his Gameboy, and he spends a lot of > time reading and doing closeup work. I was concerned that he might be > straining his vision, When doing close up work one must use muscles TO DEFORM the eye balls. So they can be permanently deformed. >and since it had been 7 years since his last > vision workup, my wife and I scheduled an appointment with an > opthamologist (his new opthamologist is his old opthamologist's > brother). Is the brother also short-seeing? > The doc said for my son to wear his glasses all the time in the > classroom and at home when watching TV, or riding his bike and other > outdoor activities. In other words when it is necessary. > He also told me that he could keep them on for > closeup work, but wasn't necessary. He said my son's eyes would focus > accomodate just fine with or without the minus lenses. With the minus lenses one must use the muscles stronger and in the result the permanet deformation may be enlarged. > I was wondering if we should tell him to take them off when doing > closeup work because that would mean he would need to focus a bit > harder to "counteract" the effects of a minus lens? Or should he > leave them on all the time, which would make him accustomed to wearing > them (and lessen the chance of losing them). The doc never made this > clear. Neil Brooks wrote: "You DO know -- don't you, Otis -- that in the USAF studies, - Some myopes got more myopic over time; - Some got LESS myopic over time; - Some stayed the same. You DO know that, don't you, Otis??" Such small myopia can be probably repaired with Bates method. S* > When doing close up work one must use muscles TO DEFORM the eye balls. So > they can be permanently deformed. False and misleading. Focusing does not "deform the eye balls." Bates was ignorant of many aspects of physics, anatomy, and physiology, and those "believe in the method" are similarly uninformed. > With the minus lenses one must use the muscles stronger and in the result > the permanet deformation may be enlarged. False and misleading. Uncorrected hyperopes "must use the muscles stronger" in an identical fashion and they do not get "permanet deformation." > Such small myopia can be probably repaired with Bates method. False and misleading. None of the "Bates" techniques have been shown effective compared to untreated controls. Most aspects of the "method" rely on imagination and placebo therapy. Staring at the sun does not "repair" myopia. -MT >> When doing close up work one must use muscles TO DEFORM the eye balls. So >> they can be permanently deformed. > > False and misleading. Focusing does not "deform the eye balls." Bates was > ignorant of many aspects of physics, anatomy, and physiology, and those > "believe in the method" are similarly uninformed. When the ciliary muscles contract (to deform the lens for near seeing) the eye balls must deform too. It is the general phisics law. >> With the minus lenses one must use the muscles stronger and in the result >> the permanet deformation may be enlarged. > > False and misleading. Uncorrected hyperopes "must use the muscles > stronger" in an identical fashion and they do not get "permanet > deformation." "they do not get "permanet deformation."". Are you sure that the near works conserve hyperopes? >> Such small myopia can be probably repaired with Bates method. > > False and misleading. None of the "Bates" techniques have been shown > effective compared to untreated controls. Most aspects of the "method" > rely on imagination and placebo therapy. Staring at the sun does not > "repair" myopia. It is easy to check. If one with -1.0 will be wearing glasses all day long when in a short period of time he will need stronger glassses. Next he may try use the glasses only when it is necessary and practise Eyerobics. S* > When the ciliary muscles contract (to deform the lens for near seeing) the > eye balls must deform too. It is the general phisics law. The ciliary muscle is ring-shaped. When it contracts, it pulls against itself more than it pulls against the eyeball. The lens moves, but the eyeball does not lengthen during accommodation. > "they do not get "permanet deformation."". Are you sure that the near > works conserve hyperopes? I'm sure that hyperopes get _more_ hyperopic over a lifetime, not less. > It is easy to check. If one with -1.0 will be wearing glasses all day long > when in a short period of time he will need stronger glassses. Next he may > try use the glasses only when it is necessary and practise Eyerobics. Sure, myopia increases. Every time I bought new shoes for my child, his feet soon got bigger. It was easy to check. But - if you make one group wear glasses all the time, and another group wear glasses "only when necessary", which group gets nearsighted faster? Answer - they change at the same rate. -MT >> When the ciliary muscles contract (to deform the lens for near seeing) >> the eye balls must deform too. It is the general phisics law. > > The ciliary muscle is ring-shaped. When it contracts, it pulls against > itself more than it pulls against the eyeball. The lens moves, but the > eyeball does not lengthen during accommodation. When the ring-shaped muscle contracts its lenght (circumference) becames shorter. It should deform the front part of the eye. >> "they do not get "permanet deformation."". Are you sure that the near >> works conserve hyperopes? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > wear glasses "only when necessary", which group gets nearsighted faster? > Answer - they change at the same rate. Some people who wear glasses all the time often use the two. The new one to the theatre and the old to near work. Do you know that? S* > When the ring-shaped muscle contracts its lenght (circumference) becames > shorter. It should deform the front part of the eye. "It should" means you don't know. "It should" deform farsighted eyes even more. But it doesn't. They don't get nearsighted. But nearsighted people get just as nearsighted when they remove their glasses to read. That means "it's irrelevant." > Some people who wear glasses all the time often use the two. The new one > to the theatre and the old to near work. Do you know that? Of course. They do it for several reasons. Preventing myopia isn't a good reason. -MT >> When the ring-shaped muscle contracts its lenght (circumference) becames >> shorter. It should deform the front part of the eye. > > "It should" means you don't know. "It should" deform farsighted eyes even > more. But it doesn't. They don't get nearsighted. Permanent deformations are time dependent. Farsighted people do not read a lot and must take a rest after a few lines.. For this reason taking a rest for an Eyerobics is recomended for nearsighted (during reading). >> Some people who wear glasses all the time often use the two. The new one >> to the theatre and the old to near work. Do you know that? > > Of course. They do it for several reasons. Preventing myopia isn't a good > reason. One reason is the weak accommodation. Reading is simply impossible with the strongest. But at -1.0 are the two possibilities and the both may be checked. S* > Permanent deformations are time dependent. Farsighted people do not read a > lot and must take a rest after a few lines.. For this reason taking a rest > for an Eyerobics is recomended for nearsighted (during reading). Please cite the research that supports this claim without reference to Bates or his followers. > Permanent deformations are time dependent. That could be true if you assume deformation happens. I've never seen research showing it does. Have you? > Farsighted people do not read a lot and must take a rest after a few > lines. That depends on how farsighted. Many farsighted people have no symptoms until they're 30. > For this reason taking a rest for an Eyerobics is recomended for > nearsighted (during reading). I'm sure it is recommended. I just don't believe it works. None of the other "exercise" programs work. Maybe yours is different. When you finish that study comparing 100 people doing "Eyerobics" with 100 people who don't, let us know. > One reason is the weak accommodation. Reading is simply impossible with > the strongest. Everybody gets "weak accommodation" after 40. But almost nobody gets nearsighted at that age. You've convinced yourself that these things are true without actually doing the research to find out. -MT "Mike Tyner" > You've convinced yourself that these things are true without actually > doing the research to find out. Almost all research in all science were made mainly in Western. Such also had been done. For this reason rich were using monocle (only when necessary). Reading through monocle do not have sense. Like reading with the strongest lenses. I agree with like this: "Q. IS THERE A SECOND BEST WAY FOR ALREADY ADVANCED CASES OF MYOPIA TO HELP THEM TO KEEP THEIR EYES THE SAME, OR FROM GOING WORSE? A. Yes. First have minimum - or less - prescription glasses for emergency use only, such as driving, or for whatever might be important. Then wear the glasses as little as possible otherwise. Stop all unnecessary close work. What close work one thinks he has to do, should be done without glasses if possible, under good incandescent light, looking up and away often. If the ease is so severe that one cannot do close work without glasses, he should have special half-power glasses for close work, or bifocals. From then on, do not change the glasses, unless the power of the lenses can be reduced. Be checked for that every one or two years. " It is from: http://www.i-see.org/eyeglasses_harmful/chap6.html S* > Almost all research in all science were made mainly in Western. Such also > had been done. I don't understand. By "research" we usually mean you read major journals and accepted textbooks. Web sites are different. You can say anything you like on a web site and you don't have to prove it. >For this reason rich were using monocle (only when necessary). I don't understand. I don't know anyone who wears a monocle, except for monocle-style fitting with contacts; one eye for near, one eye for distance. But that is done for presbyopes, after age 40. THEY DON'T GET NEARSIGHTED in any case. > Reading through monocle do not have sense. Like reading with the strongest > lenses. Something doesn't make sense. I agree. > A. Yes. First have minimum - or less - prescription glasses for emergency > use only, such as driving, or for whatever might be important. The problem is that we have at least one study showing that people who wear undercorrection get nearsighted FASTER. There are no studies (other than web sites) showing that it slows down myopia. > Then wear the glasses as little as possible otherwise. But people who remove their glasses get nearsighted at the same rate as those who wear them all the time. > Stop all unnecessary close work. That's your solution? Just quit reading? > What close work one thinks he has to do, should be done without glasses if > possible, But those who remove their glasses get nearsighted at the same rate as those who leave them on. > It is from: http://www.i-see.org/eyeglasses_harmful/chap6.html In other words, you're relying on opinions published by people who ignore major journals and medical textbooks. You can believe anything you like. Just don't call it "science" when there are no experiments to prove it. Not everything you read on the internet is true. Ask them to show you an experiment where one group of myopes wore glasses full-time and the other didn't. -MT (Stuff here trimmed - Mike adheres to the consensus view, which IMHO is at least consistent with what is known from studies on real people). >> Stop all unnecessary close work. > >That's your solution? Just quit reading? This is an example of a gap in our knowledge that I would like research to address. There is epidemiological evidence of some sort of link between reading and myopia. If we knew more about that link we might be able to find circumstances in which reading would not produce myopia, or produce only lesser amounts. Brighter lighting? greater distance to text? background pattern to break the monotony of lines of black text on a white background? white on black? All of these are now possible if the text is on a computer, as is (with more effort) projecting that text on a screen several feet away from the viewer. SignatureA.G.McDowell > This is an example of a gap in our knowledge that I would like research > to address. There is epidemiological evidence of some sort of link [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > text is on a computer, as is (with more effort) projecting that text on > a screen several feet away from the viewer. I believe that research has/is attempting to address these issues. The exact mechanism has yet to be determined, although the lines of enquiry have become somewhat more defined. Wildsoet has recently published an interesting article on children, accommodation, and bifocal contact lenses. I think we are not too far from arriving at a consensus on at least a partial mechanism. > text is on a computer, as is (with more effort) projecting that text on > a screen several feet away from the viewer. I've been trying that arrangement at home on a cheapo DLP and it'll probably catch on. TV, email, DVDs, AVIs, and MP games all from the same couch. There is consensus that closer working distances are a contributing risk factor so I'm forced to agree with Otis about the "nose in the book". When people want to know my opinion, I include that with appropriate cautions that the next doctor down the road will say it's BS. But there's still an independent inverse correlation between WD and risk. -MT > (Stuff here trimmed - Mike adheres to the consensus view, which IMHO is > at least consistent with what is known from studies on real people). [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > text is on a computer, as is (with more effort) projecting that text on > a screen several feet away from the viewer. There is a lot of discussion on this group about correlation versus causation. There is a correlation between myopia and close work. Studies have been done showing that use of glasses does not affect the progression of myopia. My personal belief is that myopia causes reading. When I was a kid, my myopia was not corrected until fourth grade. I could not see distance very well. In fact, it was downright bad. When I played ball with my friends, I got very little satisfaction from it. I couldn't see the damn ball. I couldn't catch it or hit it. If I went inside and read a book, that was satisfying. I could see the book. I read faster and better than most kids my age. It worked. SignatureDan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net >> Almost all research in all science were made mainly in Western. Such also >> had been done. > > I don't understand. By "research" we usually mean you read major journals > and accepted textbooks. Web sites are different. You can say anything you > like on a web site and you don't have to prove it. You are talking about mainstreem science. They neglected Copernicus theory for 250 years. I have my own observations and conclusions. In Web sites I check if my conclusions have support in western research. My main conclusion is that myopia is caused by the lower salt consuption. Of course in Web is the support: "Myopia, iodine deficiency and rickets are on the rise among Australian children. Judy Skatssoon reports. Eastman believes the re-emergence of iodine deficiency is linked to diet, with people using less salt, and a reduction in the availability of iodised salt." It is from: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Health/A-modern-dilemma/2005/01/27/1106415699086.html I have accepted textbooks and there are that healtthy people should eat 15g salt per day plus 3g per each litre of sweat. It should be salt similar to that in the ocean water. Tell as why todays doctors recommend a few grams? >> Stop all unnecessary close work. > > That's your solution? Just quit reading? Not all reading is necessary. >> It is from: http://www.i-see.org/eyeglasses_harmful/chap6.html > > In other words, you're relying on opinions published by people who ignore > major journals and medical textbooks. In textbooks knowledge is presented. Reader can conclude own conclusions. We must wait for explanation of "myopia epidemy". > You can believe anything you like. Just don't call it "science" when there > are no experiments to prove it. Not everything you read on the internet is > true. Ask them to show you an experiment where one group of myopes wore > glasses full-time and the other didn't. Here is a third group. Which who do not use at all. An experiment is not the best way . Investigation should work better. I am sure that such was done many times. Each eye doctor should have his own deductions. S*. Dear Ed, Subject: The nature of the second-opinion -- in science. Majority-opinion> First, ignore anything written by Otis. Actually, read what he writes, and discount any advice that seems to fit in with what he says. Ed, the optometic second-opinion says that great care should be taken with the minus. To prove this read: www.chinamyopia.org Mike has his belief-system. It is on shakey ground at this point. If he wishes to believe that the fundamental eye is not dynamic (science) and tells you that the a strong minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of all eyes -- then go ahead and enter his belief-system. But it is always wise to review the fact that the minus lens is considered a "risk factor" for inducing an even more negative refractive STATE in the normal eye. Do your own review of this second-opinion. Enjoy, > "Mike Tyner" > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > S* On Jan 31, 8:07 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Ed, > > Subject: The nature of the second-opinion -- in science. Science? Science would seek to answer these questions: www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt > Mike has his belief-system. It is on shakey ground at this point. It is? Why? > If he wishes to believe that the fundamental eye is > not dynamic (science) Presuming anybody knows what you're talking about -- for argument's sake -- nobody around here EVER says that an eye is not dynamic. So you're just lying. > and tells you that the a strong > minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of > all eyes -- then go ahead and enter his belief-system. It's a belief system based on numerous clinical trials. What's yours based on? > But it is always wise to review the fact that the minus lens > is considered a "risk factor" for inducing an even more > negative refractive STATE in the normal eye. Considered? Where's the evidence. People seem to experience runaway hair growth after their first haircut. Some people see their feet getting larger after wearing their first pair of shoes. Where's your evidence of causality?? >Mike has his belief-system. It is on shakey ground at this point. >If he wishes to believe that the fundamental eye is >not dynamic (science) and tells you that the a strong >minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of > all eyes -- then go ahead and enter his belief-system. Instead of lying about what I believe, I think you should stick to explaining what YOU believe. I believe you should explain your definition for "fundamental." Apparently it means adult human eyes behave the same as infant humans, and that chickens and monkeys and humans all share the same developmental physiology. > But it is always wise to review the fact that the minus lens > is considered a "risk factor" for inducing an even more > negative refractive STATE in the normal eye. You're lying about risk factors. You are your only source. If you can't show us a peer-reviewed article or an ophthalmology textbook that proves glasses make myopia worse, you should stop lying and misrepresenting facts. > Do your own review of this second-opinion. But DON'T use Medline. Use web sites, 100-year-old articles, and books by fringe-science "experts" with degrees in engineering or chemistry. Whatever you do, DON'T ask a doctor. They don't know anything about it. -MT Dear S*, Subject: Prevention is WISE at the threshold. If you study the statistics of the "mondern" eye in a long-term "near" environmet, you will find that it goes "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year -- consistently. With more intensive study (by the young student) the rate can increase to -8/10 dipoter per year -- Singapore report by experts.) Since we know this rate (or you or the parent should know it) it would be WISE to institute the PREVENTIVE methods at the -3/4 diopter level (about 20/30 to 20/40 on the Snellen). So my commentary is this: Almost all research in all science were made mainly in Western. Such also had been done. For this reason rich were using monocle (only when necessary). Reading through monocle do not have sense. Like reading with the strongest lenses. Otis> Agreed. The "minus" should only be used when necessary, and NOT USED for any close work. It DOES make a difference. S*>I agree with like this: S*> "Q. IS THERE A SECOND BEST WAY FOR ALREADY ADVANCED CASES OF MYOPIA TO HELP THEM TO KEEP THEIR EYES THE SAME, OR FROM GOING WORSE? Otis> Since we KNOW that a child at -1 diopter will go DOWN (say from age 10 years) is they start with the minus -- then it would be wise to start with the plus at that point, to avoid that steady -1/2 dipoter per year, and "advance cases of myopia". The person who does not STOP is at -1/2 diopter, will be at -5 diopters (advanced case) if he does not stop it at 10 years old. And that first minus is indeed a "problems". S*> A. Yes. First have minimum - or less - prescription glasses for emergency use only, such as driving, or for whatever might be important. Then wear the glasses as little as possible otherwise. Stop all unnecessary close work. What close work one thinks he has to do, should be done without glasses if possible, under good incandescent light, looking up and away often. If the ease is so severe that one cannot do close work without glasses, he should have special half-power glasses for close work, or bifocals. Otis> Some people have recognized this problem -- and resolved it under THEIR control. You know the two methods, Bates and/or the plus. Otis> If they are willing to monitor their Snellen, and work with the plus, and number of people have been able to clear their Snellens from 20/70 back to normal -- but never under majority-opinion control. From then on, do not change the glasses, unless the power of the lenses can be reduced. Be checked for that every one or two years. " Otis> I strongly advocate prevention as a choice at the -1 diopter level. I you do not stop it then, your distant does indeed become a permanet situation. Just my second-opinion. > "Mike Tyner" > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > S* On Jan 31, 12:35 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > If you study the statistics of the "mondern" eye in a > long-term "near" environmet, you will find that > it goes "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year -- consistently. > With more intensive study (by the young student) the > rate can increase to -8/10 dipoter per year -- Singapore report by > experts.) Since you've been shown to be factually incorrect on this one, many times, you're simply lying again. Myopes in the US Air Force Academy were studied. - some got more myopic - some got less myopic - some stayed the same With no interventions at all. Some simply got better. Maybe it's genetic? To your way of thinking, an emmetrope would become - a -6.00d myope (like you!) after a K-12 education - an 8.00d myope after a four-year degree - 9.00d myope after a Master's, and - a 10.00d myope after a PhD Is that what happens, Uncle Otie? So ... what you're doing is lying by false use of average. You could AVERAGE the birth rate across all Americans, but I highly doubt any man is going to get pregnant. I knew a man who slept with his feet in the oven and his head in the freezer. "On average," he remarked, "it's quite comfortable." It's only one of the MANY ways that you lie, but it's still a lie. Why do you do that? Why do you feel the need to lie constantly?? > it would be WISE to institute the PREVENTIVE methods > at the -3/4 diopter level It would be WISE to find out if PREVENTIVE methods WORK. Otis> Agreed. The "minus" should only be used when necessary, and NOT USED for any close work. It DOES make a difference. Because you say so, or because you read it on the internet? Why DOESN'T it show up in published reports comparing groups wearing glasses vs not wearing? Where did you find a group comparision showing that it DOES make a difference? Why do you always ignore this question? Tell us where it is published so we can go read it too! It's my business. I'm supposed to know! Settle this! Shut me up! You say good evidence exists. My professors and my textbooks say it doesn't. WHERE IS IT? What could possibly BE your motive for creating such discord among parents and children? You blame the myope, the parents and the doctors for something Nature does. She will not be placated or appeased or moved by our entreaty. That pisses me off more than you do. But... OTIS! YOUR PARENTS AND YOUR DOCTORS DID NOT MAKE YOU NEARSIGHTED. -MT > OTIS! YOUR PARENTS AND YOUR DOCTORS DID NOT MAKE YOU NEARSIGHTED. But his parents (heredity) MAY have made him stupid. Wow! What an amazing (and spirited) response to my question! To the novices on board, thank you for your advice and info. But I've decided to take the advice of the experts here and allow my son to wear his glasses all the time. He likes them and is doing well in school since he's been wearing them (as per one of his teachers). I am hoping my son's myopia doesn't progress much. My wife and I are mild myopics (she's about -1.75 and I'm a -1.00), but neither of us required vision correction until adulthood. So, I'm hoping my son's vision changes for the better as he matures. Thanks, -Ed > Wow! What an amazing (and spirited) response to my question! > am hoping my son's myopia doesn't progress much. My wife and I are > mild myopics (she's about -1.75 and I'm a -1.00), but neither of us > required vision correction until adulthood. So, I'm hoping my son's > vision changes for the better as he matures. I'm glad you can forgive us! As you can tell it's an old pushbutton issue here. Most myopes experience a predictable pattern. They start getting nearsighted, get "worse" for a few years, then level off and stabilize. From that point on, many of them experience a half-diopter of improvement around 30-40. You and your wife are a little unusual. The typical age of onset is 9-11 years, and yours did not start until adulthood. Nonetheless, having two myopic parents and onset at age 9, we might predict that your son will get worse than either of you. On the bright side, there's an undisputed correlation between IQ and diopters of myopia. -MT, OD > I'm glad you can forgive us! As you can tell it's an old pushbutton issue > here. ... it's not so much the issue. It's just Otis. Absent Otis (and his occasional dilettantes) -- as I always say -- there's a chance that the other participants on this forum COULD, somehow, move this issue forward. Nah. It's Otis. Good luck, Ed. Hope all turns out well. > I'm glad you can forgive us! As you can tell it's an old pushbutton issue > here. Yes, I see that. I read this newsgroup often. I have a high interest in vision care. > Most myopes experience a predictable pattern. They start getting > nearsighted, get "worse" for a few years, then level off and stabilize. From [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > myopic parents and onset at age 9, we might predict that your son will get > worse than either of you. Actually, I did (briefly) wear correction when I was 14. My eye doctor made me wear plus lenses for about 2 years, even though I could see well without them. I suspect he was a believer in the Bates method. I rarely wore those glasses because... I couldn't SEE anything more than 2 feet from my face with them! I was only able to see up-close... really close! When my parents took me to a different eye doc when I was 16, I was told my vision was perfect. It remained that way until I was 24, and that's when I began wearing -.25 in both eyes. Now, aged 44, I wear a -1.00 in my right eye and a -.50 in my left (and +1.25 add for that lovely presbyopia). Even though I have bifocals, I rarely wear my glasses, except for very close work and night driving, where my right eye is just too blurry to see well in the dark. > On the bright side, there's an undisputed correlation between IQ and > diopters of myopia. LOL > Actually, I did (briefly) wear correction when I was 14. My eye > doctor made me wear plus lenses for about 2 years, even though I could [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > night driving, where my right eye is just too blurry to see well in > the dark. Obviously, your eyes haven't been fully informed of Otis's "down rate." ;-) Dear Ed, Subject: A reasonable judgment. Prevention is indeed difficult -- no doubt about it. The minus works instantly and is very impressive and we all know. It is indeed easy. I hope everything turns out fine for your son. > Wow! What an amazing (and spirited) response to my question! > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Thanks, > -Ed On Jan 31, 6:48 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Prevention is indeed difficult -- no doubt about it. Yet another one of your many, and profound, problems. You think failure means a lack of intelligence/effort on the part of the subject. Yet .... time and time again .... I've shown you that: - some myopes stay stable - some get better - some get worse over time. What you've never demonstrated is that you have ANY method that has ANY impact whatsoever on this distribution. What it ALMOST CERTAINLY means is that: - where you see success, it was a normal age-based reduction in myopia - where you see failure, it was a normal age-based increase in myopia That's one of the myriad reasons that you're an idiot and a charlatan. > Wow! What an amazing (and spirited) response to my question! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mild myopics (she's about -1.75 and I'm a -1.00), but neither of us > required vision correction until adulthood. Your childhood was in time when " (Decades ago), all foods seemed heavily salted. Then, a link between sodium intake and high blood pressure was discovered. Suddenly, "sodium - free" or "low sodium" products began flooding the consumer market. Certainly, to a degree, this is justified. Many diseases are worsened by excess sodium intake, and millions of Americans must closely watch the amount of sodium in their diet. However, sodium is a required element for normal body functions. It is lost in sweat and urine and is replaced in the diet. The body has a remarkable ability to maintain sodium and water balance throughout a variety of conditions, thus ensuring our survival. Ultraendurance events challenge this survival mechanism." It is from: http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/salt.html > So, I'm hoping my son's vision changes for the better as he matures. Children like outdoors and indors activities. Low salt diet can cause "low salt syndrome" which cause the muscle weakness and lack of interest for the activities . Such children are only able to contract the small ciliary muscles and read, read, read (Dan Abel wrote: "My personal belief is that myopia causes reading"). Could you tell us about the salt consumption inYour family? S* Mr./Ms. Szczepan, what planet are you on? > > Wow! What an amazing (and spirited) response to my question! > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Could you tell us about the salt consumption inYour family? > S* >Mr./Ms. Szczepan, what planet are you on? From such where people eat from 1g (somewhere in Brazil) to 50g (somewhere in China) and nobody know what is better. S* On Feb 1, 3:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote: > Your childhood was in time when " (Decades ago), all foods seemed heavily > salted. Then, a link between sodium intake and high blood pressure was [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Could you tell us about the salt consumption inYour family? > S* > Mr./Ms. Szczepan, what planet are you on? i really like the way you cut to the chase. I was about to post a response until I read your's. that's "nuff said." Dear Szczepan, OD> Of course. They do it for several reasons. Preventing myopia isn't a good reason. Otis> The goal of science is to prevent entry into a negative refractive STATE. That was Bates' goal, and always the second-opinion. Otis> I would agree that wearing a strong minus lens is not the way you prevent entry into myopia. Second-opinion best, Otis > >> When the ring-shaped muscle contracts its lenght (circumference) becames > >> shorter. It should deform the front part of the eye. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > checked. > S* Otis> I would agree that wearing a strong minus lens is not the way you prevent entry into myopia. Yes, we've discussed a study where lenses of EXCESSIVE strength were fit to try to slow the progress of myopia. We've also discussed the results - those wearing 0.75 too MUCH did NOT get myopic any faster OR slower than those wearing appropriate correction. > Second-opinion best, Of course, lay opinions are always more reliable than textbooks and peer-reviewed journals. -MT Ah, Otis? You appear to be interested in engaging ... again. Have a go at these questions, then, would you?? www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt Thanks, Otis. I know that ... as a self-professed "scientist ..." you'll WANT to address these questions (not having Alex Eulenberg answer them FOR you might help....) > When the ring-shaped muscle contracts its lenght (circumference) becames > shorter. It should deform the front part of the eye. not if the connective tissue in the sclera is rigid enough, and the actual amount of tension generated by the ciliary muscle is relatively small. your whole train of thought that the shape of the eye is affected by accommodation has been experimentally-tested in real-time ultrasound experiments and found to be invalid. On Jan 29, 12:15 pm, "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote: >> When the ring-shaped muscle contracts its lenght (circumference) becames > shorter. It should deform the front part of the eye. >not if the connective tissue in the sclera is rigid enough, and the actual amount of tension generated by the ciliary muscle is relatively small. But something in the front part of the eye must deform. Lenses, cornea and/or pupil. >your whole train of thought that the shape of the eye is affected by accommodation has been experimentally-tested in real-time ultrasound experiments and found to be invalid. This are details. If shape of the eye is the same then the deformations are inside of the front part of the eye. But the cornea must react a little for such. S* > This are details. so details of how the human eye actually functions are not important? you are making claims that are simply untrue. do you ever research things before you speak? > If shape of the eye is the same then the deformations are > inside of the front part of the eye. Duh. > But the cornea must react a little for such. Why? and perhaps it does react "a little" in some insignificant microscopic fashion but that reaction has no influence on human vision. you are incredible. you give advise but you have NO VALID information. you need to read and study some instead of giving people advise. there are many levels of stupidity. the worse is the person who is so stupid that they don't even know they are stupid. I think that is you. <p.clarkii@gmail.com> > you are incredible. you give advise but you have NO VALID > information. > you need to read and study some instead of giving people advise. Not advice but suggestion and my conclusion after study. > there are many levels of stupidity. the worse is the person who is so > stupid that they don't even know they are stupid. I think that is > you. I know that I am full of doubts. So I present my conclusions here and appreciate any answers. S* > When doing close up work one must use muscles TO DEFORM the eye balls. So > they can be permanently deformed. This is a ridiculous conclusion. It just doesn't happen. > With the minus lenses one must use the muscles stronger and in the result > the permanet deformation may be enlarged. Ridiculous statement number two. Whatever you do, please disregard the statements of the above poster and that of Otis Brown. What they suggest will only do harm. On Jan 28, 12:23 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote: >> When doing close up work one must use muscles TO DEFORM the eye balls. So > they can be permanently deformed. > This is a ridiculous conclusion. It just doesn't happen. >> >> With the minus lenses one must use the muscles stronger and in the result > the permanet deformation may be enlarged. > Ridiculous statement number two. Could you tell as why? Whatever you do, please disregard the statements of the above poster and that of Otis Brown. What they suggest will only do harm. Are you absolute sure that wearing -1.0 glasses to near work is not harm? S* >>> With the minus lenses one must use the muscles stronger and in the >>> result [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Could you tell as why? Because uncorrected hyperopes don't get nearsighted, for one reason. For another, the eyeball does not lengthen substantially during accommodation. > Are you absolute sure that wearing -1.0 glasses to near work is not harm? We're sure that those who wear glasses get nearsighted at the same rate as those who remove them. -MT "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> > For another, the eyeball does not lengthen substantially during > accommodation. It do not need "substantially". The human eye has 60 dioptres. It lenghtens a little. >> Are you absolute sure that wearing -1.0 glasses to near work is not harm? > > We're sure that those who wear glasses get nearsighted at the same rate as > those who remove them. "He said my son's eyes would focus accomodate just fine with or without the minus lenses." So everybody can check. One week with removing, one without. S* Dear Ed, Subject: The ease of the minus lens. Re; But consider the preventive alternative. There are some people who believe (because of their profession) that a minus lens HAS NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE STATE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL EYE. This is science, not medicine. When someone tells you that a "minus" is "perfectly safe", I would suggest reviewing the second-opinion -- that it is not. You might read this site by a famous optometrist -- who is pioneering the concept of prevention at the threshold: www.chinamyopia.org In general, if you wish to PREVENT you child from developing stair-case myopia -- then now is the time to review the alternative. Once your son starts wearing that minus -- there is no possibility of "recovery". The effect (of "near" compounded by a minus) lasts for the rest of his life. Second-opinion best, Otis > When my son was 2, he had an eye exam with a pediatric opthamologist > (we thought he had crossed eyes). She said his eyes and vision were [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Thanks, > Ed >When someone tells you that a "minus" is "perfectly safe", I would >suggest reviewing the second-opinion -- that it is not. Well, we can believe your opinion, or we can believe the studies that compare real people wearing glasses with people who don't. Until you find such a comparison that supports your opinion, one that CONTRADICTS those that HAVE been published, you're simply lying to yourself. Science is what you measure and observe, not simply what you believe to be true. If accommodation caused myopia, NOBODY WOULD BE FARSIGHTED. Instead, hyperopes outnumber myopes. WHY IS THAT? Now don't answer. Instead, tell us about the other three or four nitwits you've found that agree with you. Glorify your lunatic-fringe science by calling it a "second opinion." Don't ask the surgeons. Don't ask the optometrists. Don't ask the pediatricians. Don't look in the textbooks. Don't believe the PhDs who actually research this stuff. Hold fast. There's a reward at the end for those who stubbornly maintain their misconceptions. After all, only an engineer can really measure anything. So tell us how to measure myopia with a Snellen chart. Tell us how to determine clinical significance. Tell us how you're the only one here who knows how to design a study and how all those articles and all those physiologists are just WRONG. Tell us we're CLOSE-MINDED and ARROGANT because we believe our textbooks instead of you. Tell us we're HIDING this valuable information from the public, perpetrating FRAUD just so we can sell glasses. Tell us how all our patients would VANISH if we could cure myopia. We've heard all this from you before, but we really need to hear it again. -MT > <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > -MT Ed (The OP): Mike's much kinder and more eloquent than I am. I'll simply tell you that Otis is borderline insane and a pathological liar. If you have any inclination to listen to anything he posts, ask yourself why he's never answered these questions: http://www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt Otis hurts people, including well-meaning parents. Heed him at your peril. Dear Ed, You will get diametrically OPPOSED opinions on preventing nearsighedness. I just report the fact that second-opinion PROFESSIONAL optometrists have successfuly CLEARED THEIR OWN VISION (change of refractive STATE) as they report here. http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html So take the majority-opinion with a grain of salt. A word to the wise. > When my son was 2, he had an eye exam with a pediatric opthamologist > (we thought he had crossed eyes). She said his eyes and vision were [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Thanks, > Ed On Jan 28, 10:45 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Ed, > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Mythology. On Jan 28, 8:45 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Ed, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So take the majority-opinion with a grain of salt. A word > to the wise. Well, Otis. YOU are neither smart nor reasonable, so I'll just pose this to Ed. Correlation does not equal causation. In studies - some myopes get more myopic over time - some myopes get LESS myopic over time - some myopes stay the same over time This is with NO conscious interventions Knowing that ... and knowing that no controlled, randomized test has ever shown any statistically significant influence to either your, or any other refractive intervention, what smart, rational, logical, scientific, or NON agenda-driven person would attribute cause and effect to an individual's claim?? In other words, I'm a high hyperope. I also loved cucumbers in my early childhood. Is it reasonable for me to attribute cucumber intake to high hyperopia?? Now let's say that they fed 500 young children mountains of cucumbers, and another 500 young children no cucumbers. And let's say that none of them became hyperopic to any greater degree than the other. YOU would still say that cucumbers caused hyperopia (and would try to sell a book explaining that theory). But ... that's because you're an idiot. Right? Right. You see how that works?? Is it REALLY reasonable to On Jan 28, 8:45 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Ed, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So take the majority-opinion with a grain of salt. A word > to the wise. Correlation does not equal causation. Unless you're Otis. In studies, - some myopes get more myopic over time - some myopes get LESS myopic over time - some myopes stay the same over time This is with NO conscious interventions Knowing that ... and knowing that no controlled, randomized test has ever shown any statistically significant influence to either your, or any other refractive intervention, what smart, rational, logical, scientific, or NON agenda-driven person would attribute cause and effect to an individual's claim?? In other words, I'm a high hyperope. I also loved cucumbers in my early childhood. Is it reasonable for me to attribute cucumber intake to high hyperopia?? Uh ... not really ... no. Now let's say that they fed 500 young children mountains of cucumbers, and another 500 young children no cucumbers. And let's say that none of them became hyperopic to any greater degree than the other. YOU would still say that cucumbers caused hyperopia (and would try to sell a book explaining that theory). But ... that's because you're an idiot. Right? Right. >The doc said for my son to wear his glasses all the time in the >classroom and at home when watching TV, or riding his bike and other [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >them (and lessen the chance of losing them). The doc never made this >clear. First, ignore anything written by Otis. Actually, read what he writes, and discount any advice that seems to fit in with what he says. He's a quack. When wearing glasses, your son has normal vision. The need to accomodate for closer objects will be exactly the same as for people who have normal vision without glasses. Signature- Mike Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail. "Ed" > I was wondering if we should tell him to take them off when doing > closeup work because that would mean he would need to focus a bit > harder to "counteract" the effects of a minus lens? Or should he > leave them on all the time, which would make him accustomed to wearing > them (and lessen the chance of losing them). The doc never made this > clear. To considering: http://www.chinamyopia.org/hanbossino/myfamilystoryenglish.htm S* > "Ed" > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > To considering:http://www.chinamyopia.org/hanbossino/myfamilystoryenglish.htm > S* That's not science, man. If you want to discuss alternative medicine, I recommend an alternative medicine site. On Jan 31, 12:04 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote: > "Ed" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > considering:http://www.chinamyopia.org/hanbossino/myfamilystoryenglish.htm > S* >That's not science, man. If you want to discuss alternative medicine, I recommend an alternative medicine site. In science are steps. The first is an observation ( Newton's apple). To find a reason of the myopia epidemic all observations should be taken into consideration. S* > In science are steps. The first is an observation ( Newton's apple). To find > a reason of the myopia epidemic all observations should be taken into > consideration. We know myopia exists. We know that many people are myopic. Recognizing the problem IS the 1st step in the scientific method: 1) Recognize the problem - we have; 2) Make observations about the problem - we have; 3) Establish a hypothesis - many have; 4) Design and conduct experiments to test your hypothesis - many have; 5) Based on those experiments, form a conclusion - many have The purpose of a science-based forum is to discuss things with a grounding in science, and the scientific method -- things that have been consistently shown to be both safe and effective. What you're talking about DOES belong in an alternative medicine forum. It has no experimental evidence to back it up. Just like Otis: the experimental evidence shows your theory to be invalid. >> In science are steps. The first is an observation ( Newton's apple). To >> find [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 3) Establish a hypothesis - many have; Let us consider the two: 1. Reading causes myopia, 2. Myopia causes reading The second is rather new. Here is the proper hipothesis: "Myopia is caused by muscle weaknes (J. Bershak). So we need next hipotesis. My is: "It is caused by deficiency of minerals". A good source of minerals is unrafined salt made of ocean water. See how much is there magnesium and sulphur (important for muscles) :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sea_salt-e_hg.png > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Just like Otis: the experimental evidence shows your theory to be > invalid. Things are changing. Till now my intuition was not bed. S* > The second is rather new. Here is the proper hipothesis: "Myopia is caused > by muscle weaknes (J. Bershak). So we need next hipotesis. My is: "It is > caused by deficiency of minerals". A good source of minerals is unrafined > salt made of ocean water. See how much is there magnesium and sulphur > (important for muscles) > :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sea_salt-e_hg.png Look out ironjustice, here comes saltman. "Dr. Leukoma" >Look out ironjustice, here comes saltman. Sportsmen must eat salt (much more than 15 grams). Why children (which are very active) are different? S* > Let us consider the two: > 1. Reading causes myopia, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (important for muscles) > :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sea_salt-e_hg.png I did a search on "bershak j" in Pubmed and nothing came up. "Dr. Leukoma" >I did a search on "bershak j" in Pubmed and nothing came up. It is here: http://www.i-see.org/bershak.html S* > It is here: http://www.i-see.org/bershak.html Those who try to resurrect the Bates method never seem to get around to publishing a comparison between groups they have treated and groups they have not. When you find those results for the "Bershak method", we will be eager to read them. -MT >> It is here: http://www.i-see.org/bershak.html > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > When you find those results for the "Bershak method", we will be eager to > read them. The both method have chance to be succesfull only after changes in nutrition. People eat what they want and it is not wrong. But eating salt is not allowed and this is probably wrong. Table salt is now a "technical NaCl" and this is also wrong. S* > "Dr. Leukoma" > > >I did a search on "bershak j" in Pubmed and nothing came up. > > It is here:http://www.i-see.org/bershak.html > S* It reads like a preacher of the Bates religion. I particularly was impressed by his lack of a bibliography. And what's with this "orthodox optometry" stuff? Bates has been rejected by all visual scientists across the board. Anyway, you've now earned a place in my killfile. > >> In science are steps. The first is an observation ( Newton's apple). To > >> find [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Things are changing. Till now my intuition was not bed. > S* WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? > On Jan 31, 12:04 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > consideration. > S* Many observations then can be summarily dismissed, depending upon one's level of education and knowledge. "Dr. Leukoma" >Many observations then can be summarily dismissed, depending upon one's level of education and knowledge. If it is new sometimes it is proper to verify it. S* > "Dr. Leukoma" > > > >Many observations then can be summarily dismissed, depending upon > one's level of education and knowledge. > > If it is new sometimes it is proper to verify it. One of the things that education and knowledge gives is the ability to recognize when something is actually new, or just new to the person presenting it. Your "new" information gets discovered and presented to this group about every three months, for the many years I have been reading the group. From http://www.i-see.org/perfect_sight/: "William Horatio Bates (1860-1931) first published his treatise, The Cure of Imperfect Sight by Treatment Without Glasses (title page), also known as Perfect Sight Without Glasses (cover), in 1920." After scientific studies disproved this method of cure, eye doctors stopped recommending it. SignatureDan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net "Dan Abel" > From http://www.i-see.org/perfect_sight/: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > After scientific studies disproved this method of cure, eye doctors > stopped recommending it. The both method (Bates and Bershak) are very difficult to understanding and time-consuming. So they are impractical. But they discavered that the external muscles affect the focusing and recommend the eye muscle training. But we know that all training is succesful only when no mineral defficiency. So my suggestion to improve muscles by minerals suplementation. Kids have much opportunity to training all muscles so is quite possible that the issue is in nutrition. Many research is still undone. S* > The both method (Bates and Bershak) are very difficult to understanding > and time-consuming. So they are impractical. They are. If you try to name the individual components of the "Bates method," what are they? 1. Removing glasses 2. Relaxing 3. Imagining perfect black 4. Sunning 5. Miscellaneous advice, such as avoiding loud noises. What have I left out? > But they discavered that the external muscles affect the focusing and > recommend the eye muscle training. If they "discovered" such a thing, it was never published in major literature and it has never been confirmed by modern measurements. In fact, modern measurements like ultrasound and MRI show that the changes in the globe (cornea and sclera) are negligible during accommodation. Each eye has six external muscles. Four of them could not lengthen the eye by contracting. The other two could possibly shorten the eyeball by contracting simultaneously, but not without bugging the eyes out of the socket to some measurable degree when you focus. You can watch a friend's eye and see that doesn't happen. > But we know that all training is succesful only when no mineral > defficiency. First show us some successful training, with or without mineral deficiency. Train one group, don't train the other, and tell us how much change you find in each group. > So my suggestion to improve muscles by minerals suplementation. Your suggestion is based on unfounded assumptions. First show us some successful "training" you can prove by comparing two groups. > Many research is still undone. Well, let's say you should learn a little about the real anatomy and function of the eye, before explaining to everybody how it all goes wrong. -MT >> The both method (Bates and Bershak) are very difficult to understanding >> and time-consuming. So they are impractical. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What have I left out? I used impractical in sense that is much easier to correct then to repair. >> But they discavered that the external muscles affect the focusing and >> recommend the eye muscle training. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fact, modern measurements like ultrasound and MRI show that the changes in > the globe (cornea and sclera) are negligible during accommodation. > Each eye has six external muscles. Four of them could not lengthen the eye > by contracting. The other two could possibly shorten the eyeball by > contracting simultaneously, but not without bugging the eyes out of the > socket to some measurable degree when you focus. You can watch a friend's > eye and see that doesn't happen. To make precise movements muscle must contract simultaneously. Pointing for far seeing must be precise. So and the strain also. It must shorten the eyeball and flatten the cornea. In nature all is perfect. Pointing to far object help in proper focusing. >> But we know that all training is succesful only when no mineral >> defficiency. > > First show us some successful training, with or without mineral > deficiency. Train one group, don't train the other, and tell us how much > change you find in each group. Some muscles work all time (heart). Some have possibility to tell us (pain) that they cannot work. Nutrition and minerals can improve it. The same is when is pain in the eye when pointing to far object. First nutrition next training. >> So my suggestion to improve muscles by minerals suplementation. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well, let's say you should learn a little about the real anatomy and > function of the eye, before explaining to everybody how it all goes wrong. I am here to lern. All my suggestions and conclusions I should ended: Am I right? I am just learnig also PC and English. It is not easy. S* > I used impractical in sense that is much easier to correct then to > repair. "Impractical" means "difficult, but possible." I don't think "repair" is possible without surgery. I haven't yet found any procedure or exercise that changes the basic anatomy of the eye. Except surgery. > To make precise movements muscle must contract simultaneously. If you actually read a textbook you'll find that muscles act in pairs but one must relax when the other contracts. If the rectus muscles contract simultaneously, the eyeball draws back into its socket. If the oblique muscles contract simultaneously, the eyeball pulls forward out of its socket. If the muscles contract in almost any other way, the gaze shifts. > Pointing for far seeing must be precise. So and the strain also. I do not see how "precise" means "strained." You'll find that "strain" is not defined in terms of muscle activity, because that can be measured and disproven. We have several muscles that stay contracted all the time and they don't get "strained." Your "strain" is usually described as "mental strain" |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message