Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

First Time Glasses

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Michael - 03 Dec 2008 00:20 GMT
I'm 42 and have just picked up my very first pair of prescription
glasses from the eye doc after getting an eye exam. They're "single
vision" (which means nothing to me). I mainly needed the glasses for
computer and for reading up close. The doc said I could wear them all
the time and they would help when driving.

I'm noticing that things up close are now amazingly clear and easy to
read. BUT: I'm noticing things like the tv across the room are now
slightly blurry for a little while then slowly come into focus.

Is all this just a matter of getting used to wearing glasses for the
first time ever?

The eye doc said I can either wear them for reading OR I can wear them
all the time (like driving at night).  Should I only use them for
reading or just go ahead and wear them all the time?

I seem to be getting two points of view from folks...some say JUST for
reading...others (like the doc) say all the time is just fine.

Thanks!!
Mike Tyner - 03 Dec 2008 01:04 GMT
If roadsigns are better without them, take them off to drive.

At 42, your first pair of reading glasses should make things blurry far away
and it doesn't normally clear up.

If roadsigns aren't blurry, try a drugstore +175 for trimming your
fingernails.

(a patient once responded "I beg your pardon I don't DO my own nails.")

-MT

> I'm 42 and have just picked up my very first pair of prescription
> glasses from the eye doc after getting an eye exam. They're "single
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Thanks!!
Mark A - 03 Dec 2008 01:09 GMT
> I'm 42 and have just picked up my very first pair of prescription
> glasses from the eye doc after getting an eye exam. They're "single
> vision" (which means nothing to me). I mainly needed the glasses for
> computer and for reading up close. The doc said I could wear them all
> the time and they would help when driving.

Single vision is as opposed to bi-focals or progressives (no-line bifocals).

> I'm noticing that things up close are now amazingly clear and easy to
> read. BUT: I'm noticing things like the tv across the room are now
> slightly blurry for a little while then slowly come into focus.
>
> Is all this just a matter of getting used to wearing glasses for the
> first time ever?

No, virtually everyone at your age starts to develop presbyopia, which means
you need more "plus" correction  up close than you do for distance vision.
Lens come in plus or minus diopter correction, depending on whether it is
correcting for farsightedness or nearsightedness respectively.

> The eye doc said I can either wear them for reading OR I can wear them
> all the time (like driving at night).  Should I only use them for
> reading or just go ahead and wear them all the time?

Assuming your Rx is correct, and you never needed correction up until now,
you probably only need them for reading (unless you are an alien from
another planet and aren't developing presbyopia like everyone else your
age).

> I seem to be getting two points of view from folks...some say JUST for
> reading...others (like the doc) say all the time is just fine.
>
> Thanks!!

If you can't see clearly with the glasses at a distance, and you can see
clearly at distance without them, then don't wear them while viewing at
distance. Good vision is primarily up to you, not up to the OD.

However, just in case you don't really have single vision lenses, you should
post your exact Rx in this forum for review (in case want decent advice). If
you don't have it, got back to your OD and ask for a written copy of your Rx
(you are entitled to it by Federal law). Also, ask your optician what brand,
model, lens material of your lenses and post it here.

It is possible (if the doc says wear them all the time) that you have
progressives with plano (no correction) power for distance vision area at
the top of the lens, and a plus correction for the reading area at the
bottom of the lens. That is the one situation where I can see why he would
tell you to wear them all the time. Progressive are notorious for having
distortion caused by improper fitting (and to some extent the very nature of
a progressive lens), but in most cases you will get used to it over time
(unless the fitting is just plain wrong).

There is one other explanation that I can think of, and that is your
correction that is needed is the same for distance and reading, but there is
some distortion in your distance vision caused by an aspheric lens that is
not centered properly on your pupils, or other fitting problem with your
lenses that is causing distortion in your distance viewing. This seems
unlikely if you never needed glasses before and then at age 42 now need them
for reading.
Salmon Egg - 03 Dec 2008 05:23 GMT
In article
<b0859efb-d78b-4132-9cbc-122f39ecacbd@o2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

> I'm 42 and have just picked up my very first pair of prescription
> glasses from the eye doc after getting an eye exam. They're "single
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Thanks!!

I start by saying I am not a medical or vision professional. It is
merely a hobby. :=)

As you describe it, you see well enough at a distance to not need
glasses for that purpose. If you did not use a computer, you would only
require the glasses for reading. So far, it seems that no pro has
suggested the use of bifocals. If I were you, knowing what I know now, I
would get bifocals with zero power (effectively no) lens for the main or
distance vision portion with an add for reading. That add would probably
be about 3 diopters. Check with your OD. That would enable you to retain
your old vision for driving and allow you to read books and the like.
The source of your current problem appears to be that you can no longer
distort your crystalline lens to focus at reading distance.

That does not solve the computer seeing problem. What I did was to get
bifocals for viewing my computer and leaving them at the computer. Then
as Mike Tyner suggested. buy drug store reading glasses for viewing your
computer. I you wish to do it for yourself, measure the distance from
your eye to the computer in meters when you are in your desired computer
location. Find the reciprocal of that distance. The lenses you buy
should match that value. I would expect that to be between 1.5 and 2.5.
If your OD is cooperative, that would help.

My add for the bifocals was set so that I could look at objects closer
than my normal reading distance.

Bill

Signature

Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!

Mike Tyner - 03 Dec 2008 11:37 GMT
> computer. I you wish to do it for yourself, measure the distance from
> your eye to the computer in meters when you are in your desired computer
> location. Find the reciprocal of that distance. The lenses you buy
> should match that value. I would expect that to be between 1.5 and 2.5.

Well, the reciprocal works at age 52, but at 42 he has lots of accommodation
left and only needs a little help.

-MT
Salmon Egg - 03 Dec 2008 18:02 GMT
> > computer. I you wish to do it for yourself, measure the distance from
> > your eye to the computer in meters when you are in your desired computer
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> -MT

As I said, I am not a vision pro. But why engage in an accommodation
battle? Does the exercise of focusing yield a benefit? Moreover. as he
ages, getting new glasses can be delayed.

I am familiar with the controversies discussed here. Some of the common
optometric practices seem counterintuitive at first blush. Does the
minimization of accommodative effort fall in that category?

Bill

Signature

Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!

Mike Tyner - 04 Dec 2008 15:08 GMT
> But why engage in an accommodation
> battle? Does the exercise of focusing yield a benefit? Moreover. as he
> ages, getting new glasses can be delayed.

Good question. First answer: every quarter of add power increases the blur
at your feet. Unlike natural accommodation, you can't relax away that blur.

At 42, you've only lost a diopter or so of natural ability, and it's pretty
disruptive to add back +2.50 of blur to make up for it, just because you'll
"need it one day."

> I am familiar with the controversies discussed here. Some of the common
> optometric practices seem counterintuitive at first blush. Does the
> minimization of accommodative effort fall in that category?

"Minimizing effort" sounds good but normal accommodation is effortless and
we can't assume that all accommodation is bad. Match the degree of
assistance to the degree of the problem.

Then we deduct a quarter diopter, for the sake of the market^H^H^H for
comfort.

-MT
Salmon Egg - 04 Dec 2008 19:04 GMT
> > But why engage in an accommodation
> > battle? Does the exercise of focusing yield a benefit? Moreover. as he
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> -MT

It appears to me that whether or not accommodative effort is minimized
or encouraged is a relatively minor problem compared to all the bad
things that could happen to one's vision. My guess is that there is
little evidence to say one way or the other is definitively a better
approach. I mae the further guess that there is some "We always did it
this way" creeping in.

Bill

Signature

Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!

Mike Tyner - 05 Dec 2008 00:35 GMT
> approach. I mae the further guess that there is some "We always did it
> this way" creeping in.

I did it this way and I did it that way. This way made more people happy.

-MT
ShadowTek - 03 Dec 2008 16:49 GMT
Michael <msurtees@gmail.com> wrote in news:b0859efb-d78b-4132-9cbc-
122f39ecacbd@o2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

> The eye doc said I can either wear them for reading OR I can wear them
> all the time (like driving at night).  Should I only use them for
> reading or just go ahead and wear them all the time?

I hate wearing glasses while driving, especially at night. Glare reflects
off of the lenses and causes distractions. Besides, the rims always
interfere with a certain perimeter of peripheral vision.
Mark A - 03 Dec 2008 17:27 GMT
> I hate wearing glasses while driving, especially at night. Glare reflects
> off of the lenses and causes distractions. Besides, the rims always
> interfere with a certain perimeter of peripheral vision.

Do you have a high quality anti-reflective coating on your lenses?
ShadowTek - 03 Dec 2008 23:35 GMT
>> I hate wearing glasses while driving, especially at night. Glare
>> reflects off of the lenses and causes distractions. Besides, the rims
>> always interfere with a certain perimeter of peripheral vision.
>
> Do you have a high quality anti-reflective coating on your lenses?

lol  No. I just have the same old pair of cheapos that I've had for years.
Mark A - 04 Dec 2008 00:24 GMT
> lol  No. I just have the same old pair of cheapos that I've had for years.

Then what do you expect?
ShadowTek - 04 Dec 2008 20:03 GMT
>> lol  No. I just have the same old pair of cheapos that I've had for
>> years.
>
> Then what do you expect?

I expect that that are also others who didn't have the money to spend on
"high quality" lenses at the time of purchase, which means that it is an
issue for some people. Also, this being his first pair of glasses, he may
not have know what kind of lenses would be best to buy, so he may have
bought a cheaper pair like mine.

Although, the bottom-of-the-line model is likely to be better than it was
when I last bought lenses.
The Real Bev - 05 Dec 2008 04:15 GMT
>>> lol  No. I just have the same old pair of cheapos that I've had for
>>> years.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "high quality" lenses at the time of purchase, which means that it is an
> issue for some people.

Assuming you don't get extra coatings or extra-thin lenses, what actual
quality differences between cheap and expensive CR-39 lenses are there?

> Also, this being his first pair of glasses, he may
> not have know what kind of lenses would be best to buy, so he may have
> bought a cheaper pair like mine.
>
> Although, the bottom-of-the-line model is likely to be better than it was
> when I last bought lenses.

How are they different now?

Signature

Cheers, Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The early bird gets the worm, the second mouse gets the cheese.

Salmon Egg - 05 Dec 2008 05:27 GMT
> How are they different now?

How much are people willing to pay for bragging quality glasses?

Bill

Signature

Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!

ShadowTek - 05 Dec 2008 17:35 GMT
> Assuming you don't get extra coatings or extra-thin lenses, what
> actual quality differences between cheap and expensive CR-39 lenses
> are there?

I'm not really sure. I've only owned cheapos; the only ones that I have
been able to afford when it comes time for new lenses, so they are the only
ones that I can personally comment on.

>> Although, the bottom-of-the-line model is likely to be better than it
>> was when I last bought lenses.
>
> How are they different now?

I didn't have any specific features in mind when I said that. I was just
referring to the typical progression of technology over the passage of
time.
Robert Martellaro - 03 Dec 2008 21:24 GMT
>I'm 42 and have just picked up my very first pair of prescription
>glasses from the eye doc after getting an eye exam. They're "single
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>Thanks!!

This might explain you situation.

http://www.eyeweb.org/optics.htm
           
Scroll down to "Latent hyperopia".

Most folks will wear the glasses "as needed" to reduce fatigue and/or improve
contrast and visual acuity. The lag in focus on the distance gaze might go away
with intermittent use, and would most likely be eliminated if the glasses are
worn full time.

Hope this helps

Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
Wauwatosa Wi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
- Richard Feynman
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 04 Dec 2008 01:28 GMT
> I'm 42 and have just picked up my very first pair of prescription
> glasses from the eye doc after getting an eye exam. They're "single
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Thanks!!

your observations are totally as would be expected for an early
presbyope or early hyperope.  just use the glasses when you are doing
near tasks (reading, computer, etc) and forget about them otherwise.
as you get older you may find that they don't adversely affect your
distance vision at all when you first put them on.  you are
experiencing normal physiological changes in the lens and ciliary
muscle portions of your eye and it occurs to ALL humans at around your
age.  read about presbyopia.
Dr Judy - 04 Dec 2008 20:50 GMT
> I'm 42 and have just picked up my very first pair of prescription
> glasses from the eye doc after getting an eye exam. They're "single
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Is all this just a matter of getting used to wearing glasses for the
> first time ever?

I think that you are hyperopic and your eye doc prescribed your
distance correction to be used as readers.

People who are hyperopic can see clearly at distance by flexing a
muscle inside the eye that controls the lens.  This is the muscle that
is also used to focus at near.  At about age 38 to 45, the lens loses
it's flexability and it becomes harder to read.  At age 42, you likely
have enough flex left to clear your distance vision without glasses
but not at near, in efffect you "use up" your near flex room to clear
the distance.  By wearing glasses to correct the distance vision, you
then free up flex to clear near.

Since you have been flexing that lens for distance for the past 42
years, you continue to do so even with the glasses which is why the TV
is blurry with glasses.  As you look at it, your visual system relaxes
and the TV becomes clear.

At this point you can suit yourself, wear the glasses just for near or
wear all the time.  In another year or two you will find that you need
them for distance.  This is not the glasses making things worse, just
the normal age related change that would occur whether glasses are
worn or not.

Judy
 
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



©2009 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.