Eyesight without glasses

[peterg]

An incredible update.

Today, I have looked at the eyechart 3 times when my workday has allowed it. I have avoided doing the excercise I described yesterday and just tried to be more natural in getting the focus to read the 20/20 line.

First two attempts today I was successful in reading the 20/20 line.

However, in my last attempt literally 15 minutes ago, I just calmly blinked maybe 4 or 5 light times and then the eye chart jumped out at me.

For the first time it was all completely black and sharp, no double vision from the big E all the way to the 20/20 line.  It was as if I was looking at it from 5 feet away.  I read through all the letters from the big E down to the 20/20 row at least 2 or 3 times before I lost it.  But I am sure I had it for 20 seconds.  This is absolutely incredible.  I'll be printing off the lines below the 20/20 line.  I have no doubt whatsoever I would have read the 20/15 line. 

Right now, I am somewhat p&$$ed off, because I am starting to believe that for 30 years I have walked around with glasses when I did not need them and could have been taught a therapy to try to get out of them.  The least an eye care professional could have done was indicate that there is a possibility that I am a temporary or accomdative myope, and that they can't tell for sure.  It would be up to me to try to find out, although they could give guidance on what to try.  That to me is the responsible thing to do even if 99 out of 100 people will take the distance glasses.  I will return to my positive feelings, but I am somewhat stunned by this latest result of mine and what it means....

[shadowfoot]

peterg,

That is incredible! My guess is that you are experiencing a rapid relief of pseudomyopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomyopia), a condition that causes refractive error due to long term tension in the eyes. As the eye does not actually have to change shape, improvement is much faster. However, in my experience, regression is also much much faster. I wish you success in your continuing journey.

[peterg]

shadowfoot - yes, I think pseudomyopia or accomodative myopia as I called it.  Thanks for your regression insight as well.  I have not yet  have broken through and figured out if I can have longer lasting effects, just geting glimpses of better and better vision that I am able to maintain for longer periods of time.   I will have to wait until later today to find out if I have made any obvious new improvements.  So far, I am unable to replicate my effect. I seem to be more capable of having my computer screen (laptop) at the boundary of my arms.  It is usually blurry there, but with occasional focusing ability.  I will have to modify my setup soon (portable keyboard, monitor).

[peterg]

After a bad day yesterday, I am having a good day today.  I had the snap entry of the eye chart once again, maybe not as long as the first time, but exactly the same thing, clear, black, no double vision.  This is quite relieving as I was worried I'd be a one hit wonder.  My only regret is that I did not print off and attach the 20/15 and lower lines.  I have just done that with the hopes that the next time I get that snap vision, I will be able to confirm which line I can read down to.  My first attempt just now did not get it, but I did make out the first L on the 20/15 line before my vision blurred. I should note, that since yesterday, I seem to not be able to hold my gaze very long.

I think now I understand my sensation of occasionally the letters looking like they float.  It is my brain having a go at trying to bring the double vision together.  I was at an arena a few weeks ago, and was staring at some writing on the boards, and eventually made it out, but the letters appeared to float off the boards.  Exactly the same sensation as staring at a stereogram picture.  Like I said, I think my brain is taking the 2 images and causing that vision to happen.

[peterg]

I am trying my best to look deeply in my everyday activities.  Today I read the logo of a electric toothbrush after a good 5 minutes of trying.  Letters were 2mm in height and toothbrush was about 1.5 meters away from my eyes.  Saying it in metric, as I think diopters are a metric calculation.  I held it for a few seconds.  I am betting that was evidence of better than 20/20 capability with my eyes.

[OtisBrown]

Dear Peter and friends,

Subject:  The concept of prevention does not exist for medicine. They say so explicitly in this video.

I would agree that prevention is indeed difficult, but you may as well realize that you will get NO HELP FROM A PERSON WITH A MEDICAL TITLE.  Sorry to say, that even they admit that they are NEVER GOING TO HELP YOU IF PREVENTION IS YOUR GOAL.  Here is the a video that discusses that truth in detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlrrc2Zq8Hs

Note in the commentary that a Dr. Prentice used a plus under his control, and stated it was successful (from -1 diopter) but also stated that unless the person is "wise" in the use of the plus -- he simply WILL NOT WEAR IT!! So who is to be responsible for your personal distant vision, checking it and keeping it?

I wish these medical people would tell me this.  If I want plus-prevention, they will never help me.  I only wish they would tell me before they put that first over-prescribed minus.

Thus an important issue is this. How do I judge my success. I must pass the 20/40 line, and gradually begin passing the 20/30 and 20/25 line. 20/20 is nice, but not required. Here are the DMV required visual standards.

http://www.lowvisioncare.com/driving_regulations.html

They range from Florida, 20/70, Georgia 20/60, Texas 20/50, and most other states, 20/40 with both eyes open, or with the better eye.

In fact, if my vision were 20/50, I would just get a low-cost -1 diopter from Zennioptical.com and just keep it in my car.  But at all other times, no minus.

Otis


NOTE; I don't advocate driving a car, UNLESS YOU PERSONALLY VERIFY YOU PASS THE
20/30 LINE.

[jimnicol]

Hi, and thanks for letting me in. I stumbled upon the Getting Stronger site after doing a search for vision without glasses. Spent a couple of days reading through the posts before registering, and became very intrigued as to the possibilities using anti-correction and under-correction. I'm quite nearsighted (- 5.00R, -5.25L) so I’m not sure how much I can benefit, but I'd like to give it a try. I've ordered up some underpowered specs from Zenni (-4.50R, -4.75L to start) for driving and walking around, and since I'm too nearsighted to use anti-correction when reading, I'm instead just backing off on how close I hold the book or newspaper, so that I'm reading on the edge of the blur, as described here. But there’s one thing I haven’t quite figured out, and that's how to advance the cause when I'm doing computer work (which, as a writer, I do a lot). I need plus lenses over my glasses or contacts just to focus on the computer screen to begin with, and working without my glasses isn't practical because I'd have to get within a foot of the screen to be able to read anything on it, and then I can't type! Do I just use stronger plus lenses than I need?

Thanks again for letting me participate.

Jim

[Todd Becker]

Hi jim and welcome to the forum!

From your note, I think you have grasped the main concept of anti-correction and print pushing quite well.  The underpowered  -4.5/-4.75 glasses from Zenni for distance use make sense -- a 0.5 diopter undercorrection should work.  For close work at the computer or reading, you want to find an undercorrection that will allow you to read at the edge of focus for a comfortable reading distance -- perhaps about 0.5 meters or 19-20 inches, .  So here is how you figure out the right correction:

Diopters are inverse meters.  So a 0.5 meter correction corresponds 1/0.5 = 2 diopters.  Thus, if you subtract 2 diopters from your current correction, that should allow you to read at 19-20 inches at the edge of focus.  In your case, you should order -3.00R / -3.25L lenses for that purpose.  Of course, as your eyesight improves, you will need to further weaken that prescription.  Eventually, you can print push wearing no glasses at all.  And then you can proceed to use plus lenses once your correction is reduced to about - 2 diopters in each eye.

Before you buy the lenses, you may want to try this out by going into the pharmacy and trying on some +2 lenses OVER your regular lenses, then trying to read text that is an arms length away.  If you need stronger or weaker lenses than +2, then adjust my suggested undercorrection by the amount of the plus lenses that provide the correct focal distance.

Let me know if that explanation works for you.

Todd

[jimnicol]

Hi Todd,

Much appreciate the quick response...I think I get the idea, but one thing is still confusing me, and that's the concept of undercorrecting for close work, because I use plus lenses (reading glasses) over my normal minus correction currently for close work. (Without the reading glasses, I'm a little over corrected for close work - if I understand it right - like somebody who needs bifocals.) Do I have to take that into account somehow when I try to figure what undercorrection to use for close work?

Whew. Feel like I'm chasing my tail a bit when I try to figure that one out

Jim

[OtisBrown]

Hi Jim,
I have seen some results that surprised me.  I checked this man's prescription, and further have a copy of his DMV test -- that he passed.

From Dennis Romich,

My distance vision had been poor for many years. I had overheard Otis Brown discussing nearsightedness, and his suggested technique for restoring the myopic eye to normal. Without telling Otis, I decided to attempt to use the plus lens, and see what would happen, since the approach seemed reasonable and much safer than any other method.

I obtained a plus lens at a local store without a prescription. The lens was a +1.5 diopter lens and is commonly sold as a reading glass for people who have lost their near vision.

I had become nearsighted in grade school and was prescribed minus lenses which I dutifully wore all day long. As the years went by, my vision worsened, and the Doctor would prescribe stronger minus lens. My distance vision without prescription lenses was very bad through high school, college, and graduate school. The last professional check (Ophthalmologist) showed that my prescription was -4.5 diopters (Right eye) and -4.25 diopters (Left eye). This is approximately 20/320 vision using the Snellen eye chart. In some states, I would be classed as legally blind without my glasses.

As I wore the plus-lens and did not wear the minus lens, I noticed that my distance vision began to clear. After several weeks, I purchased Otis' book, and checked my eyes against the eye chart. They were 20/30, which means I will pass the standard driver's license criteria of 20/40 or better without prescription lenses.

Otis was surprised at this effect of the plus lens. He stated that most individuals could return their vision from 20/70 to 20/20, but he felt that returning vision from 20/320 to 20/30 was hard to believe. Since I have done it successfully, I have no doubt that other individuals who have a similar problem could obtain similar results using Otis' recommended method of vision restoration.

I am a registered professional engineer, and have a Master's degree in both Engineering and Business Administration.

+++++++

Hi, and thanks for letting me in. I stumbled upon the Getting Stronger site after doing a search for vision without glasses. Spent a couple of days reading through the posts before registering, and became very intrigued as to the possibilities using anti-correction and under-correction. I'm quite nearsighted (- 5.00R, -5.25L) so I’m not sure how much I can benefit, but I'd like to give it a try. I've ordered up some underpowered specs from Zenni (-4.50R, -4.75L to start) for driving and walking around, and since I'm too nearsighted to use anti-correction when reading, I'm instead just backing off on how close I hold the book or newspaper, so that I'm reading on the edge of the blur, as described here. But there’s one thing I haven’t quite figured out, and that's how to advance the cause when I'm doing computer work (which, as a writer, I do a lot). I need plus lenses over my glasses or contacts just to focus on the computer screen to begin with, and working without my glasses isn't practical because I'd have to get within a foot of the screen to be able to read anything on it, and then I can't type! Do I just use stronger plus lenses than I need?

Thanks again for letting me participate.

Jim

[jimnicol]

Hi Otis, and thanks. So Dennis just ditched the minus lenses for a 1.5 plus? Talk about undercorrection! I wonder how he managed to function like that. Getting back to my close work questions above, I find that if I just wear the minus lenses (without reading glasses over them) I'm pretty close to that edge of clarity I want. So maybe if I just forgo the reading glasses it'll be good...?

Jim

[OtisBrown]

Hi Jim,
My personal interest was to research the second-opinion ODs who called the minus, "poison glasses for children".  I had seen Dennis in the halls of our building, but has not talked to him.  I had judged that only prevention was possible -- and I hate to mislead a person about this issue.  In my personal opinion I think Dennis was "over-prescribed", but he did not find out until he started reading his own Snellen.  Then, when he approached me (and had a good experience) with the plus, I ask him to look at a distant stop light, and some other checks.  I asked for his prescription.  I told him that what he OBJECTIVELY measured would count the most, and that the best test would be that he pass the State DMV test, which is for Maryland, 20/40.  So he worked with his +1.5 and his Snellen, and went and passed the DMV (the second time, after more work with the plus.  The moral of the story?  I can not even estimate who will become successful!!  But Todd's experience is no surprise, based on what Dennis had accomplished.  Otis

Hi Otis, and thanks. So Dennis just ditched the minus lenses for a 1.5 plus? Talk about undercorrection! I wonder how he managed to function like that. Getting back to my close work questions above, I find that if I just wear the minus lenses (without reading glasses over them) I'm pretty close to that edge of clarity I want. So maybe if I just forgo the reading glasses it'll be good...?

Jim

[Todd Becker]

...one thing is still confusing me, and that's the concept of undercorrecting for close work, because I use plus lenses (reading glasses) over my normal minus correction currently for close work. (Without the reading glasses, I'm a little over corrected for close work - if I understand it right - like somebody who needs bifocals.) Do I have to take that into account somehow when I try to figure what undercorrection to use for close work?

... I find that if I just wear the minus lenses (without reading glasses over them) I'm pretty close to that edge of clarity I want. So maybe if I just forgo the reading glasses it'll be good...?

Hi Jim,

I'm a little confused now.  If you are close to the edge of focus for close work, while wearing your normal minus lenses, then those minus lenses would result in blur at distances beyond 20 inches, and would be useless for distance vision.  Perhaps you are talking about an old pair of undercorrected minus lenses?  If so, then you have a good strategy for moving forward without the need for plus lenses (at least until your vision improves to about -2 diopters).  

Bottom line, choose whatever combination of lenses -- undercorrected, or normal minus lenses with plus lenses on top -- allows you to read at the edge of focus at about 20 inches (for the computer) or closer in (if you read books or magazines a lot).  The best way to do this is to go to the pharmacy and experiment with different strengths of reading glasses to see what works for you at a comfortable reading distance.  Then you can either use the combination of plus and minus lenses, or do the math and order lenses from Zenni Optical with undercorrected lenses equal to your current minus lens prescription reduced by the amount of the overlaid plus lens that works for you.

Hope this is clear, but let me know if not.

Todd

[peterg]

Hi Jim,

Good luck on your quest - I am sure you will make some improvements.

I think based on your starting perscription, I would advise reading the book by Steven Gallop which is available at The Optometric Foundation Extension Program site:

http://oep.excerpo.com/index.php?action=show_details&product_id=3589

The author of this book (optometrist) talks about his own experience getting as high as -9 diopters, before finally starting the descent on the other side of the mountain.  In my opinion, the main value this book introduces is on the psychological side of going against the norm.  For this reason, I think it is valuable for anyone starting on the quest to improve their eyesight. 

Peter

[OtisBrown]

Hi Peter,

As you know, I advocate that an exhaustive discussion develop between the OD and the person (at 20/40 and -3/4 diopters) about why the public totally rejects all doctors who support GETTING OUT OF IT WITH A PLUS.  I am not interested in "reducing the rate at which my vision is certain to get worse.  No, at 20/40 to 20/50,  I want to get out of it.  i realize that (you and I) would be horrified if at 20/40 the doctor told us that the minus is a truly bad idea, and that we should teach ourselves to 1) Put up a Snellen and read it 2) Work to always personally pass the 20/40 line or better and 3) Since this un-protected eye goes down at -1/2 diopters per year it will be necessary to continue to wear the plus 2 through the school years, from high school to college.  But what about those few ODs who advocate this approach.  ANSWER: They are called CRAZY by their fellow ODs, and the public (that does not understand) will file mal-practice charges against them.

Gallop> Looking Differently at Nearsightedness and Myopia: The Visual Process and the Myth of 20/20
The Visual Process and the Myth of 20/20 - By Steven J. Gallop, OD, FCOVD - An insight into the kinds of changes that can occur during the visual training/myopia reduction process. It will help the reader reduce nearsightedness and prevent the progression of myopia. A highly readable book that can benefit patients as well as health care practitioners. Softbound, 110 pages.

Otis> Here is a doctor who tried to use the plus on the "ignorant public".

http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/kids/

Otis> Until the parents are willing to address this issue, I think we are going to continue to have massively myopic people.  I consider this to be like "obesity prevention" -- were prevention must start when you are 10 percent over-weight.  Todd has the correct idea -- but very few people have the fortitude to conduct prevention on their own.  It was this ODs statements that caused me to realize that if I wished prevention, I would have to do it myself, before my vision went much below 20/40.  Otis