Getting Stronger: Discussion Forum

Discussion Topics => Rehabilitation => Topic started by: Pip on March 05, 2010, 02:47:46 PM

Title: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Pip on March 05, 2010, 02:47:46 PM
Wow! My distance vision in my left eye had gotten noticeably weaker in the past couple of weeks and I had been getting eyestrain and headaches. I tried the anti-corrective lens method and in just one day my vision in the left eye was back to where it was and the eyestrain was gone.

I did try the Bates method years ago with no success. I finally got Lasik done about 3 years ago with good results after my allergies made wearing contact lens too uncomfortable. Having my left eye distance vision worsen to the point where it was causing problems in driving was really upsetting because that meant I would have to either have touch-up surgery done or wear a contact lens.

So what I did was close my right(dominant) eye and tried to focus on lines as far away as possible for several minutes at a time a few time throughout the day and there was some mild improvement. In the evening I wore +1.5 reading glasses and read my daughter's smallish print bedtime story with just my left eye with the book held as far away as I could get it. Dd sure that I was being weird! After about 20-25mins of that my vision was back to where it had been after Lasik correction. In one day. This morning when I woke up, my vision was still good.

I wish I had known about this years ago. But what is cool is that if my dd's vision starts to deteriorate, there is a good chance we can stop it in it's tracks. Thanks for writing about this - you have made a difference in my quality of life and I look forward to trying out some of the other hormesis related ideas.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 05, 2010, 10:05:21 PM
These are great results, Pip!  I'm happy to see that this is working for you.  Interestingly, my right eye is also the dominant one, so I used a similar approach as  you did to strengthen my left eye.  I wore plus lenses while working at the computer to apply just the slightest strain.  At other times I wore a set of of plus lenses from which I had removed the left lens to "handicap" my stronger right eye and "even out" the extent of adjustment needed. Or, I would wear an eye patch or diffuser over the right eye, to make the left one do all the work.  Like your daughter, my kids also thought it was "weird".  It would be nice to figure out a more "cosmetically acceptable" way to do this. But as you say, what you learn from this may help your daughter avoid the need for corrective lenses some day.

While your one-day improvement is impressive, don't be surprised if the improvement starts to "wear off".  It' important to keep up the focusing exercises for several weeks to make the changes permanent.  And even then, you may find you need an occasional "tune up", especially if you are doing a lot of unrelieved close reading or computer work. (Just as one keeps going to the gym to stay fit).  I find that breaking up my work so that I am using my eyes at all distances throughout the day is important to maintaining good focus.

That being said, I have been free of glasses for about a decade now and my eyesight continues to get sharper every year. I can read fine print and see tiny details from afar, while most of my over 50 friends are always reaching for their glasses.  It's amazing to me that more people have not realized that they can overcome the need for glasses.  I hope that will change some day.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Pip on March 06, 2010, 09:56:55 PM
Yes, I am continuing to do the focusing exercises randomly throughout the day.

I think I found out why my eyesight went downhill so quickly over the past few weeks - I have been reading the news on my iphone in the mornings before getting out of bed recently. I noticed today that after reading tiny type on my iphone for about 10-15 minutes, distance vision was worse in both my eyes. The right eye adjusted after a bit, but the left eye did not. I did the focusing exercise and things sharpened up again. I will definitely ease up on reading my news through the iphone. 
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Cindy on April 11, 2010, 08:34:06 PM
I came over to this site on referral from an intriguing comment to an article by Maggie-Koeth-Bader on the "Boing Boing" site. The article was about prenatal sensory stimulation and how it can affect the development of senses like vision and hearing.  One of the readers had found this blog and tried the focusing and anticorrective lens technique worked on their own eyesight. It sounded a lot like your experience, Pip!

So I tried it myself just to see.  I am extremely nearsighted and have always needed glasses for driving or vision distance. But I have been trying these techniques and making amazing progress in just 5 days! I first practiced reading text at longer and longer distances, by winking shut my stronger right eye to make my left eye work harder. I got to the point where I could read across the room. I'm now at the point where I no longer need my glasses for driving in the daytime. I still use them at night just to be safe, but I may be able to give them up totally.

People ask me if I switched to contacts, but I told them I gave up my glasses using eye exercises. Nobody quite believes me, but I don't really care.  I'm really amazed not to need my glasses any more after such a short time!  Sometimes especially when I'm tired I am finding that my eyes partially revert but if I do the focusing exercises for a few minutes, I get the sharp vision right back.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Cindy on April 16, 2010, 06:11:19 AM
Just an update, ten days into this. My eyes are continuing to strengthen, my visual acuity is great.  I can see fine print more clearly and sharply and also my distance vision has really improved.  I'm not using my glasses any more, even when I'm tired.  Occasionally, my distance vision is a little blurry at first, but by focusing on intermediate distance objects and looking around, it clears up in a few minutes.  And what is really coolest of all is that I don't need my glasses for driving. I do have an optical restriction on my drivers license, so when I renew my license I'll have to take the little vision test to get that cleared, but I don't think I'll have a problem.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Student on May 15, 2010, 08:17:07 PM
FYI: Sorry, but these types of eye exercises and lens therapies have been scientifically studied.
Unfortunately, they do not work. There is some evidence that plus lenses MAY slightly reduce the rate of
progression of myopia for a limited time in kids. But otherwise, they don't seem to work.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Cindy on May 16, 2010, 08:17:52 AM
Hmm...you say that lens therapies do not work. Then how do you explain the fact that I no longer need my glasses for driving or to read signs at a distance? This is not an illusion or a placebo effect. The difference is huge!

Student, can you provide any citations for these studies? Perhaps they were looking at different techniques, like the Bates or Bershak methods. I had tried those, and they did not work for me. What worked is using plus lenses to constantly read at the "edge" of my focal distance and keep pushing this further. I don't think this involves relaxation or other muscle changes. Something is definitely going on with the eye itself. There are many ways to make something "not work" if you don't do it right or long enough. It took me several weeks of constantly working at this for 2-3 hours a day.  It doesn't happen overnight.

Also, regarding children, I've noticed that kids who get glasses at a younger age seem to be the more "bookish" ones or the ones who are doing a lot of close up indoor activities, as opposed to those who are outside throwing baseballs. There may also be effects of nutrition. So you have to look at what causes myopia in the first place.  I don't want to over-generalize, but I think that in most cases myopia is caused by environment and habits. I don't think people are genetically fated to need glasses!  

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on May 19, 2010, 01:44:30 PM
FYI: Sorry, but these types of eye exercises and lens therapies have been scientifically studied.
Unfortunately, they do not work. There is some evidence that plus lenses MAY slightly reduce the rate of
progression of myopia for a limited time in kids. But otherwise, they don't seem to work.

I realize that there is some controversy regarding whether plus lenses and "undercorrection" really do work. My personal experience and that of others is these therapies work quite effectively, when done properly and for long enough.  However, many have challenged whether this is scientifically possible.

First, I agree with Cindy that lens therapies are quite distinct from eye exercises such as the Bates method and should not be confused with these. There is significant evidence, primarily from animal studies, that myopia can be both caused and corrected by the use of lenses, based upon the Incremental Retinal Defocus Theory (IRDT). The process of elongation of the eye is called "emmetropization". As I elaborated upon on the Rehabilitation (http://gettingstronger.org/rehabilitation/) page of my blog, those studies show that animals fitted with plus lenses undergo hyperopic growth which compensates for myopia. This is confirmed both by focusing tests and by physiological evidence that the stimulus of "retinal-image defocus" actually impacts neuromodulators, proteoglycan synthesis, and the integrity of "scleral structure" in the eye, resulting in the elongation of the eye and causing myopia.

Nevertheless, the efficacy of lens therapies has been questioned, at least for humans. For example, there is a key paper by Chung, Mohidan and O'Leary (http://tinyurl.com/chung22) which found that myopic children fitted with undercorrected lenses showed a more rapid progression of myopia than children wearing lenses with full correction. So the eyesight of these children actually got worse by using undercorrection than normal correction. This would appear to contradict the IRDT hypothesis that the eye can be stimulated via lens therapy to grow shorter in axial length, and hence reduce myopia. And this result has been repeatedly cited by others as disproving the effectiveness of plus lenses or undercorrection.

However, a re-analysis of this study by Hung and Ciuffreda of Rutgers University (http://abstracts.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/5/4791) came to a different conclusion. In addition to normal correction and slight undercorrection groups, the Hung and Ciufredda study included a group using "high-powered plus lenses". Their analysis found that the high-powered plus lenses led to hyperopic growth (in other words, shortening of the eye's axial length), which decreased the myopia of the children wearing those lenses.  And the progression of myopia in children who wore undercorrected lenses is explained by the fact that they wore these all the time, not when just reading.  This led to a diminished stimulus by facilitating accommodative focuses during "near-to-far viewing cycles", which underminded the benefits of undercorrection.

Based upon this analysis, the proper use of undercorrection would be to wear the undercorrective lenses only during long distance viewing. This is a key point! Note that, according to the protocol of the study by Chung et al (p. 2556):

Quote
Subjects were instructed to wear their glasses all the time except during sleeping.

The fact that the undercorrected lenses were worn for close up viewing as well as distance viewing, would tend to undermine their effectiveness, according to the IRDT theory.

In summary, Hung and Ciufredda conclude:

Quote
Based on IRDT analysis, high-powered plus lens, full correction, and 0.75 D under-correction result in relative hyperopic, emmetropic, and myopic growth, respectively. Thus, the theory is able to explain these apparently contradictory findings. Moreover, the IRDT provides a consistent theoretical framework for understanding the development of myopia under a variety of experimental and clinical conditions.

So far from disproving the value of plus lenses and undercorrection, this study supports the IRDT theory for treating myopia. The conclusion should be taken as showing how NOT to use undercorrected lenses -- don't wear them for close work and reading, only for far distance viewing activities such as driving.  On the other hand, for close work (reading and computer use), wearing stronger plus lenses are effective in counteracting myopia. Based upon IRDT theory, I suppose the ideal combination would be bifocals with plus lenses for close vision and undercorrection for distance vision, or using two different glasses for these different situations.








Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Cindy on June 05, 2010, 09:30:10 PM
Based upon IRDT theory, I suppose the ideal combination would be bifocals with plus lenses for close vision and undercorrection for distance vision, or using two different glasses for these different situations.

I have not tried undercorrected lenses.  I found that using the plus lenses worked well enough. I agree that is important not to wear the plus lenses all the time. (How could you?) I now wear them mainly when I'm at the computer for long periods of time, or for reading. But for sure I don't use them all the time, and certainly not when I'm not reading or at the computer. I also try not to be reading or at the computer for too long a stretch at one time. I think it's important to keep your eyes alternating between near and far.

This really did help me, and I don't need glasses any more for driving or other long distance vision.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on July 05, 2010, 09:30:19 PM
Just added a new post on the main blog (click here (http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/improve-eyesight-and-throw-away-your-glasses/#more-1158)) about using anti-corrective lenses to phase out the use of glasses or contact lenses.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: skirrel on August 08, 2010, 07:50:53 AM
can the same approach be used to treat astigmatism?

thx
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on August 10, 2010, 08:47:46 PM
Hi skirrel,

Your question is an excellent one.  I'm not aware of any simple way to use standard non-prescription plus or minus lenses available in pharmacies to address astigmatism in the same way that these type of lenses can be used to overcome near- or far-sightedness. That is because astigmatism is due to asymmetric imperfections in the cornea or lens that lead to defocusing and blurry images.  The eye has a non-spherical oblong shape, but a normal  focal length.

However, there is a way to use "anti-corrective" lenses, as advocated on my blog, to induce adaptive changes in the eye that will reduce or eliminate astigmatism. The approach is to order prescription lenses that do not cancel out the astigmatism, but rather make the eye work to remodel itself.  And that involves ordering glasses with a slightly weakened correction for astigmatism.

To explain how that works, let's look at an example of a fairly typical spherocylindrical prescription, which is written this way:

          sphere   cylinder       axis
OD:     -2.75       -1.25         x15
OS:     pl            -0.75         x85

OD is an abbreviation for the Latin oculus dexter, meaning right eye. OS is an abbreviation for the Latin oculus sinister, meaning left eye. The first number is called the "sphere". A negative number indicates myopia (near-sightedness). A positive number indicates hyperopia (far-sightedness). Astigmatism is measured by the second and third numbers.  The second number in this prescription is called the "cylinder" (astigmatism), and the third number is the axis of the cylinder component. The axis of the astigmatism does not relate to the amount of cylinder, just the location of the irregularity. If the patient has no cylinder, then the last two columns may remain blank, or "DS" for "diopter sphere” may be used. The above prescription shows that the patient has 2.75 diopters (myopia because the sphere number is negative) with 1.25 diopters of astigmatism at an angle of 15 degrees in the right eye, and the left eye is plano with 0.75 diopters of astigmatism at an angle of 85 degrees.  Don't worry about the angles, just the strength of the astigmatism.

The myopia can be corrected by using plus lenses (for close work) and undercorrection, especially to exercise the right (OD) eye which has the stronger myopia. The undercorrection could be acheived by ordering lenses with perhaps a -1 to -1.75 OD instead of the full -2.75 OD.  The left eye (OS) can be a plain lens with no diopters ("plano").

If the astigmatism is weak (between -0.5 and +0.5 cylinder) this can be done by simply eliminating any cylinder correction. If the absolute value of the cylinder correction is greater than 0.5 (which means less than -0.5 or greater than +0.5), then merely reduced its value by 0.5 to 1.0 units the next time you order glasses.  So the person with the above prescription might cut their correction down to -0.75 in the right eye and -0.25 in the right eye.

The weaker glasses can include undecorrection for myopia or hyperopia simultaneously with the weaker correction for astigmatism.

If progress is made, then further weaken the astigmatism correction the next time you order lenses, until you don't need the glasses any more.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: skirrel on August 11, 2010, 07:11:47 AM
But would astigmatism improve even if you don't have undercorrections for it?  for example, just a reduced prescription for myopia without ANY correction for astigmatism, even if your astigmatim is 1.25?

also, isnt it the irregular shape of the eye that causes the lenses to be shaped irregularly in an astigmatic eye?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on August 11, 2010, 06:51:22 PM
skirrel,

You are indeed correct that an astigmatic eye is not spherical. It is asymmetrically shaped -- or more precisely, it is the lens or cornea that is misshapen, depending on whether the astigmatism is lenticular or corneal. However, this irregular shape was originally caused by visual behavior. Astigmatism is typically not a purely genetic condition; rather, it develops in response to environmental stimuli. It is often associated with myopia, but it can also result from poor lighting or reading habits, e.g. reading or computer use habits.

There is some evidence from primate studies that astigmatism (axial spherical ametropias) which is experimentally induced by rearing the monkeys with specially fitted cylindrical lenses to blurring, will spontaneously reverse over time after the lenses are removed. Removing these special lenses from the monkeys is the equivalent of removing your optical correction for astigmatism. This spontaneous reversal in the astigmatism is of course associated with a remodeling of the shape of the monkey's eyes -- back to normal shape.  Here is the reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810233/

So to answer your question: If you reduce your myopia correction but do not reduce the astigmatism correction, the astigmatism remains. The -1.25 cylinder correction in the above example is correcting for the axial astigmatism, removing any stimulus or strain on the eye that would normally induce it to self correct. The eye remains "happy" being astigmatic because, after all, all images now focus perfectly on the retina. There is no stimulus for the lens or corneal aberation to remodel.

By undercorrecting for astigmatism, or better yet eliminating any such correction, the resulting slight defocus acts as a stimulus for the eye to remodel. Of course, the remaining astigmatism must be mild enough to induce the eye's connective tissues and muscles to accommodate change; if the blur stimulus is too great, the eye just "gives up" and does not change. So just as it is important with myopia to gradually step up the plus lenses or step down the myopia correction, it is important not to remove an extreme astigmatism correction in one fell swoop.

Let me know if that answers your question.

Todd


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: skirrel on August 12, 2010, 09:19:18 AM
I must have mistaken what i have said.  I meant reducing the myopia, but eliminating the astigmatism correction altogether.  ALso, i heard that astigmatism is caused by tilting of head, or reading at an angle where the eyeball must look to one side. (ie, putting a book to right of head and having to move eyeballs to look to the right).
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on August 12, 2010, 02:13:09 PM
I must have mistaken what i have said.  I meant reducing the myopia, but eliminating the astigmatism correction altogether.  ALso, i heard that astigmatism is caused by tilting of head, or reading at an angle where the eyeball must look to one side. (ie, putting a book to right of head and having to move eyeballs to look to the right).

Yes, I think that reducing the myopia prescription, and eliminating the astigmatism correction altogether is exactly the way to go.  That should help reverse both myopia and astigmatism at the same time.

From what I've read, astigmatism can be caused by a whole range of "bad habits".  Including tilting your head, keeping your head in a fixed position too long--whether straight ahead or angled, reading in poor light, overtaxing your eyes by reading too much without a break, etc.  A number of these points are address in the DeAngelis book, "The Secret of Perfect Vision".  He proposes a number of "exercises" to increase flexilibity and versatility.  The one I like best is looking straight ahead and holding your head fixed, then shifting your eyes to the eight extremes, the corners and edges of an imaginary box ahead of you: up, down, left, right, up/left, up/right, down/left and down/right.   At each of the eight points you try to focus on what you see.  This works best under well lighted conditions that help promote focusing.  By doing this periodically, you increase the strength and flexibility of the eye muscles -- kind of like going to the gym to do resistance exercises.   This exercise only takes a few minutes, you can do it once or twice a day, or to break up a long reading or computer session.

I think if you combine the weakened prescription with challenging your eyes to focus at the limit of their range -- with the above eye exercises of DeAngelis -- you have a winning combination for reducing astigmatism.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: skirrel on August 17, 2010, 12:13:29 PM
Do you think that food can affect eyesight negatively or positively?  ie i heard that high fructose corn syrup is bad for eyesight.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Patrea on August 24, 2010, 09:13:34 AM
So please, have I got this right: I have myopia
R -3.00, L -1.50
So I should have slightly underpowered lens for long distance, say -2.00 and -1.00, and for computer work long sighted specs at say +1 - ?

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on August 25, 2010, 06:51:45 PM
Do you think that food can affect eyesight negatively or positively?  ie i heard that high fructose corn syrup is bad for eyesight.

skirrel,

Sorry for the delayed response -- I was travelling the past week.  

I do think that food can affect eyesight.  My experience is that all sugary foods and carbs --  I wouldn't single out HFCS -- can often have a negative affect on my ability to focus. I also found that high dose omega-3 (which I take as Twinlabs orange-flavored emulsified fish oil, either straight or in a glass of juice) is great for my eyes.  I only take it once or twice a week, and find that a few hours after a dose my eyesight sharpens and the reds, oranges and purples become especially intense.  Not sure why, but perhaps it affects the membranes in the rod and cone receptors in your eyes.

I gave up coffee a few years ago (except for an occasional decaf), but I did find that coffee gave me sharper vision -- not that I'd recommend it.

Are the plus lenses working out for you?

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on August 25, 2010, 07:07:58 PM
So please, have I got this right: I have myopia
R -3.00, L -1.50
So I should have slightly underpowered lens for long distance, say -2.00 and -1.00, and for computer work long sighted specs at say +1 - ?

Patrea,

Your idea is just about right.  If you are getting new prescription glasses, get your normal -3/-1.5 for important things like driving and routine work, but get a second pair of under-corrected  "workout glasses" with the -2/-1 or even -2/-0.5 to build up your eye strength.  Since you are well aware of the "oscillation" principle, be careful to use these for limited periods of time at first, then gradually longer as you adapt.  Eventually, you want to "even out" your eyes, so paradoxically you may want to slightly "handicap" your stronger eye in order to "force" the weaker right eye to pick up some slack and start working harder.  One way to do that is to actually put a patch or diffuser over the lens of the stronger eye; an alternative is to use a much stronger under-correction on the strong eye so that it "gives up" and lets the weak eye do the work.  So you could get a "workout" pair that has a -2/0 prescription, where the "0" is what they call "plano" or zero correction.  Then the right eye will work harder to focus, while the left eye "gives up" for a while.  Again, oscillate between an hour doing this, and several hours with normal lenses or even resting by doing activities that don't require any glasses.

For extended close up work, at the computer or reading, switch to the +1 lenses, though you may find that +1.5 or even +2 are tolerable -- try out the cheap "reading" glasses at the pharmacy to see what allows you to just barely get a sharp image when reading from 18'' back, or whatever your normal distance is from the computer screen when you work.  Another option, as I mentioned in one of my replies to skirrel above, if you use contact lenses, you can wear the plus lenses over your contacts.

Just as with exercise and nutrition, there are many ways to improve.  As long as your understand the principles of Hormetism (applied hormesis) -- which you obviously do -- you can use your creativity and your specific circumstances to devise a routine that will work for you!

Todd

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: skirrel on August 25, 2010, 07:30:21 PM
so if ur eyes have uneven strength, how exactly does one eye work harder than the other?  Is it because of the mind?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on August 28, 2010, 11:44:06 AM
so if ur eyes have uneven strength, how exactly does one eye work harder than the other?  Is it because of the mind?

skirrel,

The left and right eyes each start out with slightly different strengths, due to natural genetic or environmental variations.  But over-reliance on one eye over the other can lead to the stronger eye bearing more of the "vision load" than the weaker eye.  With time, this can lead to some atrophy of the focal capability of the weaker eye.

By analogy, people who have strokes often end up with a weak and and a strong hand.  The normal response is to rely mostly on the strong hand, but this often results in atrophy of the strength or dexterity of the weak hand.  On the Rehabilitation (http://gettingstronger.org/rehabilitation/) page of this blog, I describe a technique called Constraint Induced Movement Therapy, which helps stroke victims recovery by having them place their strong hand in a "mitt", thereby forcing them to use their weak hand.  They must do repetitive exercises with the individual fingers of the impaired hand, until it eventually matches the strength of the stronger hand.  Then the mitt can be removed.

Exactly the same phenomenon is the case with weak and strong eyes.  To strengthen the weak eye, you must stop relying so much on the strong eye.  This can be done by using a patch or a diffuser lens over the stronger eye, or by "handicapping" the stronger eye with an extreme undercorrection, so that you must now being relying on the weak eye if you want to see anything in focus.  But remember, that if the defocus is too extreme, even the weak eye will "give up", just as trying to lift a weight that is beyond your strength will result not in getting stronger, but in your weak arm "giving up".

Make sense?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: skirrel on September 22, 2010, 05:59:22 PM
will the weak eye become worse if it "gives up"
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on September 22, 2010, 07:17:36 PM
will the weak eye become worse if it "gives up"

skirrel,

It depends on how much weaker it is than the strong eye.  Again, think by analogy with your arms.  If one arm is slightly stronger than the other, you'll still use both arms when lifting heavy objects, but you'll rely more on the strong arm.  If one arm is very weak, however, you'll rely almost totally on the strong arm to lift things.

It's even more so with eyes, since their focal abilities are not under voluntary control.  If one eye is significantly less able to focus than the other, it won't even make the attempt.  As you put it, the weak eye will just "give up".  That doesn't mean it will lose its ability to focus, but it will progressively weaken as it gets "out of practice".

The solution:  "handicap" the strong eye with plus lenses (in the case of myopia) or use a patch or diffuser over the strong eye.  And let the weak eye go to work!  This is precisely the principle that constraint-induced movement therapy uses to restore the impaired function of arms, hands and fingers in individuals who have suffered a stroke.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: skirrel on September 23, 2010, 02:56:12 PM
so based on what you said, you've implied that if someone with high myopia did not wear any correction/undercorrection and looked far away and it was very blurry, their eyes would give up and worsen?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on September 24, 2010, 04:59:40 PM
so based on what you said, you've implied that if someone with high myopia did not wear any correction/undercorrection and looked far away and it was very blurry, their eyes would give up and worsen?

skirrel,

Yes.  If the blur is too great, the eyes will not attempt to accommodate.  But in reality, in the situation you describe of going without any glasses, it is likely that a person will notice things that happen to be closer and not in the far distance.  By starting to focus on these, and objects slightly further away, vision will begin to improve without glasses.  And eventually, with time, the maximum focal distance can begin to increase again.

The more common situation, however, is that one eye is stronger than the other.  As long as you rely on the stronger eye to do the "focusing work", the weaker eye will not pitch in and help.  So my main suggestion in the earlier post was to "handicap" the stronger eye to let the weaker eye do more of the work, and thereby grow stronger.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: skirrel on September 25, 2010, 02:29:35 PM
well thats wierd because i've noticed that my eyes get worse when i look at close objects for too long. but when i go without correction and look far away for a really long time, and have done this many times, my eyesight does not get worse and maybe have improved just a teeny bit
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on September 25, 2010, 06:05:10 PM
well thats wierd because i've noticed that my eyes get worse when i look at close objects for too long. but when i go without correction and look far away for a really long time, and have done this many times, my eyesight does not get worse and maybe have improved just a teeny bit

There's no contradiction. As your own experience demonstrates, doing close work (reading or computers) for extended periods of time, without a break, will tend to worsen your eyesight.  Eventually it leads to stronger myopia. By contrast, looking into the distance for long times will tend to counteract the myopia.

It is precisely this observation which led to the invention of plus lens therapy!  By wearing plus lenses while working at the computer or doing near work, your focal range and eye shape are changed so that your eyes behave exactly as if they were looking into the distance! The constant strain of near work is alleviated, and when you take off the plus lenses your eyes are already adjusted to focus on the middle and far distance.  Try it and let me know if you notice the difference.

Perhaps I misunderstood your original question:

so based on what you said, you've implied that if someone with high myopia did not wear any correction/undercorrection and looked far away and it was very blurry, their eyes would give up and worsen?

which was a follow up to your earlier question:

will the weak eye become worse if it "gives up"

So I assumed you were talking about looking into the far distance under circumstances where your myopia is so severe that everything is very blurry.  This might apply if your myopia is greater than about -5.  If it is that severe, your eye(s) may not even make the attempt to focus. They'll stay in a blur. If your myopia is moderate, then looking at distant objects can be very helpful.  The key is whether you can see well enough to at least begin to focus.  That is why I suggested that when you go without glasses, you focus first on objects in the middle distance, right at the edge of your focal range, and progressively lengthen the distance that you can see without glasses:

...in the situation you describe of going without any glasses, it is likely that a person will notice things that happen to be closer and not in the far distance.  By starting to focus on these, and objects slightly further away, vision will begin to improve without glasses.  And eventually, with time, the maximum focal distance can begin to increase again.

Hope that makes things clearer (no pun intended).

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Matt22 on October 08, 2010, 12:05:20 PM
Hey I'm new here am just starting using undercorrections and reading at the edge off my focusing capabiltys to hopefully reduce my glasses prescription. I'm about -4.5 diopters. I 'm wondering if people could tell me how much myopia they have managed to get rid off with these methods. If I could loss a diopter or so I'd be amazingly happy. I wish I found out about retinal defocus and the wearing of undercorrections when I was younger. Are the improvement made due to the eye graudually changing shape as we pushing it to focus?
Thanks for any response.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Cindy on October 08, 2010, 05:50:02 PM
Hello, Matt22, welcome to the forum!  I had myopia of -3 in my left eye and -2.5 in my right eye when I start in with the plus lenses. I noticed very rapid progress at first, and was able to switch to some older glasses I had kept which were -2 in both eyes.  I no longer wear any glasses even when driving!  Sometime when I get tired, my distance vision is a little blurry so I keep my glasses around just in case, but I don't ever use them. I really recommend using plus lenses. Stick with it - good luck!

Cindy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Matt22 on October 09, 2010, 08:48:59 AM
Thanks cimdy how did you acheive this by using plus lenses and undercorrections and  doing alot of print pushing exercises? Your improvements are realy good. I hope to stik with it am fed up of getting stronger and stronger prescriptions. How long did your improvement take I realise can take awhile but am willing to keep up with it for as long as it takes.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Cindy on October 10, 2010, 06:57:28 PM
Matt, I mainly used a combination of plus lenses when reading, and just not wearing glasses the rest of the time.  I had really fast results, but I worked at it every day.  I saw good results in about 5 days, and after two weeks I did not need my glasses any more, even for driving.  My eyes were still not perfect, but good enough. And then going without glasses for about 2 months got me back to 20/40 in an eye test.  I still use plus lenses sometimes when I'm at the computer.   I realize this seems very fast, but I guess I'm lucky.   Another woman I know is still working on it and seeing some improvement after 3 months, but she still need low correction glasses.

Cindy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Matt22 on October 20, 2010, 10:59:53 AM
hey,  Is the exercise off fcusing on a close object then a distant object good for your vision as well, could someone explain the proper way of doing this. Also has any one tryied pinhole glasses?  Thanks for any information
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Cindy on October 21, 2010, 11:52:31 AM
Definitely. I'm always doing that in the normal course of my day. I think that focusing near and far often throughout the day helps to keep your eyes flexible.  I don't look at it as a special exercise, just something I do almost without thinking.  I don't know anything about pinhole glasses.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Matt22 on October 26, 2010, 11:16:41 AM
Can I just ask, Am I better wearing undercorrections alot or no glasses at all I'm -4.5 diopter. I think I have read I;m better to wear undercorrections as this will stimuilate the eye to focus more is this true?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on October 27, 2010, 12:43:24 PM
Can I just ask, Am I better wearing undercorrections alot or no glasses at all I'm -4.5 diopter. I think I have read I;m better to wear undercorrections as this will stimuilate the eye to focus more is this true?

Matt,

-4.5 diopeters is a pretty strong correction.  I'll bet everything looks very blurry when you take off your glasses -- am I right?  So I would suggest two things here:

1.  When reading a book or working at the computer, sit as far back as possible from the print until it starts to go out of focus, then move a few inches closer until it clears up.  Read at this distance.  If the distance is more than about 2 feet, buy some +1 or +1.5 diopter reading glasses at the pharmacy and do your reading with those plus lenses.

2. When not reading, for activities like walking around or driving where you need to see things further away, get yourself some new glasses or contacts that are undercorrected by about 1 to 1.5 diopters.  So maybe some -3.5 or -3.0 glasses.  Wear those for all distance activities, for a few hours a day.

3.  Periodically test yourself by removing the glasses and see if things are more in focus.

4.  After a month or two, if you are making progress, move to further weaken your prescription.

Try that and let us know if it helps. 

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses: My update
Post by: Patrea on October 28, 2010, 11:08:52 PM
Well it's working for me. It's 2 moinths now and I stopped using my glasses at the PC and (gulp) changed the screen resolution from 800 to 1024. I'm also using +1 lenses for an hour or so a day at the PC.
It's now pretty comfortable going without glasses all the time - except I do wear them driving and in the street.
The key I find is to stage progress in small chunks, make it a daily habit and be relaxed about it. Don't put yourself in extreme discomfort or danger, of course.
Great advice Todd - given that improvement is supposed to be physically impossible!

So please, have I got this right: I have myopia
R -3.00, L -1.50
So I should have slightly underpowered lens for long distance, say -2.00 and -1.00, and for computer work long sighted specs at say +1 - ?


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses: My update
Post by: Cindy on October 30, 2010, 05:11:12 PM
That's great to hear, Patrea!  I had the same results, giving up my glasses after only a couple of weeks.  Looks like your right eye had a stronger correction than your right.  Do you notice a difference between the two eyes when you are not wearing glasses?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Matt22 on October 31, 2010, 11:29:22 AM
Thanks todd yes I wear -3.5 glasses most of the time for distantes and driving, I feel quite comfotable in these. For reading I have started to use a +1 lense while reading a book at the edge of were I can focuse. Yes my vision is pretty blurry without glasses. Hoping this changes and I can reduce my prescription. Thanks for the advice
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses: My update
Post by: Todd Becker on October 31, 2010, 06:59:33 PM
Well it's working for me. It's 2 months now and I stopped using my glasses at the PC and (gulp) changed the screen resolution from 800 to 1024. I'm also using +1 lenses for an hour or so a day at the PC.  It's now pretty comfortable going without glasses all the time - except I do wear them driving and in the street. The key I find is to stage progress in small chunks, make it a daily habit and be relaxed about it. Don't put yourself in extreme discomfort or danger, of course.

Great advice Todd - given that improvement is supposed to be physically impossible!

Great to hear of your progress, Patrea! Looks like you and Cindy have both succeed in going with out glasses, except for driving. (I was able to get rid of my glasses for driving, but I hesitate to write about that because I don't want to encourage anything dangerous.  I'm working on way to revise my method to make it safe for anyone).

Great comment about the physical impossibility of eyesight improvement.  I think that one of the themes of "Getting Stronger" is that many things that experts tell us are "impossible" -- eyesight improvement, stroke recovery, eating one meal a day, permanent weight loss, running faster barefoot than in shoes -- are in fact possible, once you understand how the body and mind adapt and remodel themselves.

I liked your Hormesis blog - do you have plans for any new posts soon?  I'm also interested to hear how you are doing with Tabata.  You might want to start a new discussion topic on Tabata training on this blog, I think it is very interesting!

Thanks todd yes I wear -3.5 glasses most of the time for distantes and driving, I feel quite comfotable in these. For reading I have started to use a +1 lense while reading a book at the edge of were I can focuse. Yes my vision is pretty blurry without glasses. Hoping this changes and I can reduce my prescription. Thanks for the advice

Matt22, Glad to hear you are getting started with plus lenses.  Let us know of any progress or problems you are seeing as you work on this.  Remember, it takes time and persistence, so stick with it and be patient.

Todd

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Matt22 on November 01, 2010, 10:06:57 AM
Thanks yes I will keep working on it. Reading wearing the +! lense is getting more comfotable hopefully in a month or so I can up the plus lense. Could I ask what level off myopia people on this forum started with? I realise -4.5 is quite highI'd be more than happy if I could get down to say -3 or something like that so I won't be as dependant on glasses.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Matt22 on November 10, 2010, 11:59:49 AM
Hey I tried today puttiing a patch over one eye and just working on the one eye at a time. My eyes are a similar only 0.25 dipoter difference. But found it easier to find the edge of my focusing capabilities reading this way My reduced prescription -3.5 glasses seem to be alot shaper.  
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on November 10, 2010, 01:06:29 PM
Hey I tried today puttiing a patch over one eye and just working on the one eye at a time. My eyes are a similar only 0.25 dipoter difference. But found it easier to find the edge of my focusing capabilities reading this way. My reduced prescription -3.5 glasses seem to be alot shaper.  

Matt,

Glad to hear things are getting sharper!

I have done exactly the same thing as you to work on one eye at a time.  I'm actually in the process of writing up a post on an improved way to do this using "stick-on" lenses instead of a patch.  It works better and is a lot less weird looking.  You select a stick-on lens to put on the inside of the glasses lens of your stronger eye (the one with the smaller minus correction).  I would get a set of +1.25 or +1.5  MagnOptx lenses from eyesave.com (http://www.eyesave.com/styles/p12263/Reading+Glasses-Optx+2020-MagnOptx+Lenses/index.aspx).  You apply just one of the lenses to the inside of the glasses lens for the stronger eye.  This will "handicap" it and make it blurrier than the weaker eye, which will become the new "stronger" eye and take over the job of focussing.  But you will still get plenty of light in the other eye, and you will keep your stereoscopic vision. It works very well.

As I said, I'm still experimenting with this method and writing it up, but you may want to try it.  The stick on lenses are fairly inexpensive, only about $25.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: skirrel on November 14, 2010, 08:01:55 PM
does anyone know if its safe to use 2 week contact lenses for a month or two as long as u change the solution?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Matt22 on November 15, 2010, 08:04:28 AM
Todd, Thanks for the advice on the stick on lenses, I will hopefully be able to progress on to these with time. How do they work do they need cutting down to fit the lense.
 skirrel, not sure about contact lense, I just used to wear dailys.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on November 18, 2010, 01:19:31 PM
Matt,

The stick-on lenses from MagnOptx come either as smaller "bifocal" size lenses or full size lenses. They don't need to be cut down. I've found that I can use the smaller, less expensive "bifocal" stick-ons just by centering them in the middle of the lens.  I don't even notice any edges and they work great as "diffusers" to induce blur in the stronger eye and allow the weak eye to take over and do the heavy lifting.  I'm careful to use them only 15-30 minutes at a time, alternating going without glasses, so that my eyes don't overadjust.  But these work great!

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: earmenow on December 12, 2010, 07:22:44 AM
Hey

I have used reading glasses for a couple of years when on the computer, I found out about plus lenses and print pushing through some Yahoo group. Unfortunately someone on there was a complete git to me, it sounds stupid now but it completely put me off! I decided to keep wearing the glasses, but my eyesight has still deteriorated and I think it is because I wasn't keeping it blurred.

I'm not 100% sure of my prescription, I think it is -1 and -1.25; not even sure which eye's which off the top of my head. Originally when I discovered this I must have been around -0.75 or less. Luckily though I am still below the -1.5 threshold that some people say is the upper limit for a reasonable chance of success.

Anyway, I thought I would share with you my current regime. I read on the i-see.org message board about the idea of convergence, if I understand it it is the idea that when focusing on close objects the eyes will cross slightly. Supposedly this can even happen when wearing plus lenses. So to better simulate long distance vision the solution proposed in one post was to patch one eye - "Why waste 3D vision on a 2D display". I hope it also gives the covered eye a rest, meaning I can do more work by switching occasionally. The only drawback is looking like dorky pirate, but I only do it at home so I don't mind!

I'm still researching as I go along, I am thinking of getting David De Angelis' book at some point as well. If I remember I will return to post my success or failure. :)

Here is a message off the i-see group, a translation of the methods of "Yuri Utekhin" a Russian academician who I can find very little information on at all... I hope it is relevant because I have only scanned it before posting, lol!
Quote
Original page here:

http://vizhu-horosho.narod.ru/009.html

Note: "Zorkost" in Russian means both "vigilance" and "sharp eyesight".

The idea is if you are "vigilant", you will do these exercises and
keep your eyesight sharp.

My translation from Russian.

"ZORKOST" EXERCISES

DEVELOPED BY ACADEMICIAN YURI UTEKHIN

The scientific principle behind the "Zorkost" exercises is the fact
that two open eyes cannot work using the centers of both retinas
simultaneously, since this would cause double vision.

Therefore one eye of necessity ceases to work using the center of
retina, which causes a reduction in general visual acuity. In certain
cases neither eye uses the center of the retina.

Accordingly if we read first with one, then with another eye
alternately, then the working eye places its retina precisely at the
center, since the second eye does not interfere with it.

The habituation of each eye to this regime increases visual acuity.

Here is how this is carried out in practice.

First of all let us note that the glasses used for carrying out the
exercises must be weaker than the usual glasses by 3 diopters for
children and 2.5 diopters for adolescents and adults. If
nearsightedness is between 2.5 to 5 diopters, then "Zorkost" exercises
can generally be performed without the glasses. How long one reads
with one eye is a matter of personal preference - from 15 to 30
minutes, then the second eye is uncovered while the first is covered.
It is possible to continue such reading several hours in a row. In
this case one of the lenses is covered by moveable paper occluder. It
is, of course, more convenient to order two pairs of identical glasses
and, after taping up the right lens on one pair and the left on the
other, to change glasses in the process of training.

The eye with the greater degree of nearsightedness must be trained
longer and more actively, for example, by reading with it for 30
minutes, and with the better eye for 15. In order to increase the
effectiveness of the training, it is necessary every five minutes of
reading, to bring the book from the furthest point readable up to a
distance of 10-15 cm from the eye for a very short period, two or
three times.

Here one must not forget to continue actively reading as the book
smoothly moves inwards and as it stays briefly at the near point. This
brings about a certain massage of the muscles controlling the lens,
which decreases fatigue.

One should become accustomed to this regime of reading and make it
automatic. It is best to use a stand for the book, and its
illumination must be good, a lamp not less than 60-100 watts with an
opaque lampshade.

The positive effect from these exercises will be felt quickly. When
beginning training, the maximum distance from the eye to the text is
usually about 30 cm. Gradually sight will begin to be improved, and
this distance will increase.

Self-monitoring is very important: twice a month it is necessary to
measure the maximum distance from which you still read text without
glasses with one eye - separately for the right and left eye - and to
record the results in a journal. So that the data can be compared, use
the same text and identical illumination for all measurements. As soon
as the distance from the eye to the book in the training glasses
exceeds 38-40 cm, it is time to go to the doctor in for a new pair of
weaker glasses.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Cindy on December 12, 2010, 08:59:34 PM
Thanks for posting the Zorkost exercises, earmenow.  (Great name!)  Looks interesting.  I also experimented with patching my eyes (actually taping paper over one lens at a time) when I did print pushing exercises, because my eyes had uneven corrections, like yours.  It helped make the weaker eye to do more work I think.

You are also right to try keeping the focal distance right at the edge of blur, or the print pushing doesn't work as well.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Matt22 on December 13, 2010, 10:52:25 AM
Cindy by the edge of blur, do you mean were its only just starting to blur?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Cindy on December 13, 2010, 01:16:36 PM
Cindy by the edge of blur, do you mean were its only just starting to blur?

Hi Matt - What works for me is push the print to where it is slightly blurry but still readable and hold that distance.  What I find is that it usually clears up on its own while I'm reading it at that distance.  So occasionally I keep "testing" the distance again by pushing until the slight blur comes back.  And it may clear up again.  If it doesn't clear up, I sometimes pull it closer again.

It's all a matter of what is "on the edge of being uncomfortable".  If you make the print too blurry, your eyes just give up and it is too unpleasant to read.  But if you push slightly, your eyes usually meet the challenge.

Think of it like lifting weights:  what is the heaviest weight you can reasonably lift many times?  If the weight is too heavy, you give up and gain nothing.  If it is too light, you don't benefit.

It's called the "Goldilocks priniciple".

Cindy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: GlennL on December 22, 2010, 08:15:50 PM
I read your article with great interest and have a query in regards to the necessity of using anti-corrective lenses.  I do not wear glasses/contacts and recently found my eyesight getting poorer i.e. farsightedness.  To apply the Bates method do I need to use anti-corrective/plus/minus lenses or can it be done without the lenses?  It would seem from reading your article that as long as I can move the document just out of focus whilst not wearing glasses that I can apply the method.  Is this correct?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on December 22, 2010, 09:43:02 PM
GlennL, you are correct. Since you have farsightedness (hyperopia) you can do this without anticorrective lenses (which would be minus lenses in your case) unless your hyperopia is extremely strong. You'll get the benefits as long as you can bring print to the "edge of blur" at a comfortable distance.  The technique is the opposite of what I described for myopia: in your case, "pull" the print in as close as you can and allow it to clear.

If each of your eyes has a different degree of hyperopia, you may want to alternate reading with one eye at a time for several minutes, then switching eyes. You can wear a patch, but another technique is to hold one hand at an angle against your nose so that the non-reading eye sees the back of your hand angled at 45 degrees. It's actually not that uncomforable once you get used to it and it allows enough light to enter the non-reading eye so it doesn't have to readjust to light as would a patched eye. Your brain just ignores what the non-reading eye sees, so the reading eye has to do all the focusing work.  Alternate between eyes this way to ensure balanced improvement, but make the weaker eye (the one that is more farsighted) do most of the work until it catches up with the other eye.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 04, 2011, 06:35:38 PM
Dear Friends of (second-opinion) prevention,
I would like to add my support for Todd, and his use of "anti-prescription" glasses.  The preventive concept came from a book by Brian Severson (a pilot) who needed to clear his Snellen from 20/70 to normal -- and pass the objective FAA exam.  (A truly honest verification of success.)  I also support Dr. Bate's effort in 1913, and agree that prevention, while difficult, is possible.  One thing I do for myself is to obtain my own Snellen, set it up at 20 feet and read it.  That way I don't need to go to an OD for any "exam" -- that I do better for myself.  I don't make "claims" myself, but, in my judgment, Todd had it "correctly" as fundamental science, and practical results.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on January 04, 2011, 09:02:06 PM
Otis, thanks very much for your support.  It's very much appreciated, and you are being all too modest.

For those of you who may not be familiar with Otis Brown, I'm honored to have him post on this forum.  As a youth, Otis became aware that "corrective" minus lenses were actually causing his own myopia, interfering with his ambition to become a pilot. Out of this experience, Otis eventually became a leading advocate of myopia prevention through self-diagnosis, eye exercises and the use of plus lenses (or what I call "anti-corrective" lenses), building on the pioneering work of Dr. William Bates. It was Otis who introduced the plus lens method to fellow pilot Brian Severson, from whose book I learned so much.

In addition to his recently launched blog, myopiafree (http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/), I highly recommend Otis' excellent web book about the causes and prevention of myopia, entitled How to Avoid Nearsightedness (http://www.i-see.org/otis_brown/). This treatise by Otis is on the Alex Eulenberg's site, International Society for the Enhancement of Eyesight (I-SEE) (http://www.i-see.org/), a wealth of resources for those interested in preventing or reversing myopia or hyperopia.

Otis makes two recommendations which I think are especially helpful and important:
1.  Diagnose yourself by using a Snellen eyechart.  This is the familiar "eye chart" that you are tested on by the DMV or your opthamologist.  It is very easy to download and print out your own chart to test your own vision.  This is really the only way to know whether you are making progress. There are good versions of the Snellen chart, with instructions (http://www.i-see.org/eyecharts.html), on the I-SEE website.  I like this one (http://www.i-see.org/block_letter_eye_chart.pdf).
2.  Preventing myopia progression is hard work, and reversing myopia is even harder.  Don't expect overnight success.  Diligence and persistence are necessary.  And you'll face a lot of resistance and nay-saying from the medical establishment.

Of course, if you want to pursue conventional medical practice, then you've come to the wrong site!  That goes not only for vision improvement, but most everything on this blog.

Thanks, Otis!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 06, 2011, 10:07:22 AM
FYI: Sorry, but these types of eye exercises and lens therapies have been scientifically studied.
Unfortunately, they do not work. There is some evidence that plus lenses MAY slightly reduce the rate of
progression of myopia for a limited time in kids. But otherwise, they don't seem to work.

I always appreciate this type of statement.  In fact if you only read WebMD, you will discover that they say, "...prevention will always be impossible -- now and forever.]  On Engineering/scientific grounds -- I don't agree.  But I do agree that prevention (before a minus lens) is difficult.  It is false to say that tne dynamic eye has been, "scientifically studied".  You can say that they have been "medically studied" by biased people who want the study to FAIL, but that is the "medical mind" at work.  In fact, some MDs and ODs have "understood" the need for the plus, BEFORE THE MINUS, and have put their kids in a plus -- and kept their refractive STATE postive and their vision clear for life.  But Todd has it correct.  If you can still read the 20/60 line on your Snellen, and have intense motivation, you can probably clear your Snellen to pass the DMV, and avoid any use of the minus.  Let us just call Todd's work the scientific second-opinion.  Thanks for your commentary.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 06, 2011, 06:19:17 PM
Dear Friend,

I am pleased you report your "prescription" as -1.25 and -1.0.  That is always a good starting point.  Personally, I don't rely on a prescription, since I found out they prescribe for "best visual acuity".  This means over-prescription by -1, -2, -3 and yes even -4 diopters.  Thus I check my own vision at home, and strongly recommend that you do also.  You can get an 'easy' Snellen from i-see (Schnieder PDF) an put it on the wall.  If you are passing the 20/50 line, you can truly measure your HONEST PROGRESS.  If you use David's book, then that is an excellent starting-point for anyone who is very serious about his vision.  NOTE:  The DMV in some States is 20/50, and others 20/40.  If you pass that line, or better, you would pass the DMV test.  I always like "personal control" of my vision, and that his how you get it.  You are better than Todd who was -3 diopters.  So set a goal of 20/40, and if you pass that, then continue with the plus and I think you can get to 20/30 and 20/25.  It does take resolve (like losing weight), and no one can provide that essential motivation -- indeed that is what Todd is all about.  If you will provide your Snellen reading we will totally help you!  Best, Otis

Hey

I have used reading glasses for a couple of years when on the computer, I found out about plus lenses and print pushing through some Yahoo group. Unfortunately someone on there was a complete git to me, it sounds stupid now but it completely put me off! I decided to keep wearing the glasses, but my eyesight has still deteriorated and I think it is because I wasn't keeping it blurred.

I'm not 100% sure of my prescription, I think it is -1 and -1.25; not even sure which eye's which off the top of my head. Originally when I discovered this I must have been around -0.75 or less. Luckily though I am still below the -1.5 threshold that some people say is the upper limit for a reasonable chance of success.

Anyway, I thought I would share with you my current regime. I read on the i-see.org message board about the idea of convergence, if I understand it it is the idea that when focusing on close objects the eyes will cross slightly. Supposedly this can even happen when wearing plus lenses. So to better simulate long distance vision the solution proposed in one post was to patch one eye - "Why waste 3D vision on a 2D display". I hope it also gives the covered eye a rest, meaning I can do more work by switching occasionally. The only drawback is looking like dorky pirate, but I only do it at home so I don't mind!

I'm still researching as I go along, I am thinking of getting David De Angelis' book at some point as well. If I remember I will return to post my success or failure. :)



Here is a message off the i-see group, a translation of the methods of "Yuri Utekhin" a Russian academician who I can find very little information on at all... I hope it is relevant because I have only scanned it before posting, lol!
Quote
Original page here:

http://vizhu-horosho.narod.ru/009.html

Note: "Zorkost" in Russian means both "vigilance" and "sharp eyesight".

The idea is if you are "vigilant", you will do these exercises and
keep your eyesight sharp.

My translation from Russian.

"ZORKOST" EXERCISES

DEVELOPED BY ACADEMICIAN YURI UTEKHIN

The scientific principle behind the "Zorkost" exercises is the fact
that two open eyes cannot work using the centers of both retinas
simultaneously, since this would cause double vision.

Therefore one eye of necessity ceases to work using the center of
retina, which causes a reduction in general visual acuity. In certain
cases neither eye uses the center of the retina.

Accordingly if we read first with one, then with another eye
alternately, then the working eye places its retina precisely at the
center, since the second eye does not interfere with it.

The habituation of each eye to this regime increases visual acuity.

Here is how this is carried out in practice.

First of all let us note that the glasses used for carrying out the
exercises must be weaker than the usual glasses by 3 diopters for
children and 2.5 diopters for adolescents and adults. If
nearsightedness is between 2.5 to 5 diopters, then "Zorkost" exercises
can generally be performed without the glasses. How long one reads
with one eye is a matter of personal preference - from 15 to 30
minutes, then the second eye is uncovered while the first is covered.
It is possible to continue such reading several hours in a row. In
this case one of the lenses is covered by moveable paper occluder. It
is, of course, more convenient to order two pairs of identical glasses
and, after taping up the right lens on one pair and the left on the
other, to change glasses in the process of training.

The eye with the greater degree of nearsightedness must be trained
longer and more actively, for example, by reading with it for 30
minutes, and with the better eye for 15. In order to increase the
effectiveness of the training, it is necessary every five minutes of
reading, to bring the book from the furthest point readable up to a
distance of 10-15 cm from the eye for a very short period, two or
three times.

Here one must not forget to continue actively reading as the book
smoothly moves inwards and as it stays briefly at the near point. This
brings about a certain massage of the muscles controlling the lens,
which decreases fatigue.

One should become accustomed to this regime of reading and make it
automatic. It is best to use a stand for the book, and its
illumination must be good, a lamp not less than 60-100 watts with an
opaque lampshade.

The positive effect from these exercises will be felt quickly. When
beginning training, the maximum distance from the eye to the text is
usually about 30 cm. Gradually sight will begin to be improved, and
this distance will increase.

Self-monitoring is very important: twice a month it is necessary to
measure the maximum distance from which you still read text without
glasses with one eye - separately for the right and left eye - and to
record the results in a journal. So that the data can be compared, use
the same text and identical illumination for all measurements. As soon
as the distance from the eye to the book in the training glasses
exceeds 38-40 cm, it is time to go to the doctor in for a new pair of
weaker glasses.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: skirrel on January 10, 2011, 05:46:21 PM
yea im ordering lenses from an online site to get weaker prescriptions.  btw todd, do you know how to prevent glaucoma/treat it permanently besides using foods?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 10, 2011, 08:19:54 PM
Hello,

I read about the article with great interest. I decided to try out the exercises. The problem I've been having is that the text doesn't seem to clear at the blur point like it should. When I read with my +2.5 lenses at the blur point, it doesn't seem to want to clear itself like it should. Can anyone help me?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 11, 2011, 07:06:29 PM

Hi Jansen,

I think that Todd should answer your question.  But let me add this suggestion to help you.

You (we) need to undderstand your refractive status.  Do you have a "prescription" that you could post?  I know that prescriptions can be inaccurate, so it would also help if you could read a "Snellen".  You can print-out this one for free on i-see:

http://www.i-see.org/eyecharts.html

Just go down to "Joel Schnider" and click on the "PDF".  That will bring up a Snellen chart.

After you print it out, place it at 20 feet, and find the line you can read about 1/2 the letters correctly.

I know this will sound like "extra work", but it is a good starting point to help you select the proper strength plus lens (anti-prescription) to help you on your preventive journey.

Let us know if you have a problem obtaining or reading that Snellen.  It truly for your own personal benifit.



Hello,

I read about the article with great interest. I decided to try out the exercises. The problem I've been having is that the text doesn't seem to clear at the blur point like it should. When I read with my +2.5 lenses at the blur point, it doesn't seem to want to clear itself like it should. Can anyone help me?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 11, 2011, 07:29:04 PM
Thank you for the reply. I actually use an eye chart designed for use at 10 feet. For that chart, I'm about 20/70 in the left eye and I'm not able to measure my progress for my right. My last prescription about 4 months ago was -1.5 in the left and -2.75 in the right.

I will try using the chart in the link provided.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 12, 2011, 04:20:15 AM

Hi Jansen,

Thanks for the "reading" of your Snellen, and your refractive status.  The reason I requested it, was to estimate the amount of plus you could use.

I prefer (and use) the Snellen I suggested.  You might have to use a plus of +1.75 to +2.0 diopters for comfortable reading. 

Because you can see 20/70, you can avoid the minus as much as possible.  To drive a car you would have to use it.

Your age is importan also.  In school, or vision simply goes down -- as  a result of that school environment.

You should not expect "rapid results".  It takes long-term persistence to use the plus in this "recovery" mode.  In fact it took Brian Severson about six months to slowly get his Snellen clear.  But as a pilot, he know how important it was to do it.

Be preapred to make this a "habit".  I know that is difficult, but that is what it takes -- in my opinion.

Best,
Otis


Thank you for the reply. I actually use an eye chart designed for use at 10 feet. For that chart, I'm about 20/70 in the left eye and I'm not able to measure my progress for my right. My last prescription about 4 months ago was -1.5 in the left and -2.75 in the right.

I will try using the chart in the link provided.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 12, 2011, 08:03:13 PM
I don't really have trouble reading with +2.5 lenses. I can read at the blur point at about 12 inches. The problem is that the text doesn't seem to be clearing, even after an entire week of reading at the blur point. My reading distance hasn't changed in weeks.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 12, 2011, 08:35:12 PM

Hi Jansen,

One thing that is important to understand -- results are indeed slow.  But you did the most important part, which is to "start" with the plus.  You might find it easier to go to a "weaker" plus, and read at 18 inches or so.  The effect will be the same for your long-term goal.  It will take more than a week to see any effect, in my opinion.  But let me provide a video of how I read my Snellen:

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

I try to "duplicate" the office Snellen as much as possible.  It is very important that you have a bright light on that Snellen to get the best reading possible.  From a great deal of research, I know that we get "into" nearsightedness at a slow rate -- so getting "out" is also slow, which I do accept.  But Brian Severson seemed to understand that issue, and as the weeks went by, he just kept wearing that plus.  Also, how old are you?  I only ask, because you might have a number of years in school to go through.  Also -- do you wear that minus lens all the time, some of the time, or only when absolutly necessary.  I know it is hard to avoid it with 20/70 vision, but it is a good idea if you can.  I can't give you any "time line" for results, but if it were me, I would plan to spend at least 3 to 4 months, and make the "plus" a habit.  The other goal (for me at least) is to get the 20/40 line reasonably clear.  It is good to have a "make or break" objective that you can check yourself.  The issue that Todd over came was that he knew it would take great persistence to achieve any results.  Good luck, and keep on posting.  We will help "push" you in doing this work. Otis


I don't really have trouble reading with +2.5 lenses. I can read at the blur point at about 12 inches. The problem is that the text doesn't seem to be clearing, even after an entire week of reading at the blur point. My reading distance hasn't changed in weeks.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 13, 2011, 03:48:19 PM
I'm in High School, so I have many years (4-8 years) of school. I only wear minus lenses when absolutely necessary, and when I do, I wear an  undercorrection of .50. Is there a real benefit to wearing a weaker plus rather than a stronger one? I have tried +2.00 before, and it was a bit to weak for me.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 13, 2011, 04:29:29 PM

Dear Jansen,

Subject: Comfort and reason.  Being in "control" of your life.  How imporant is clearing your Snellen to you?

I have been reviewing these issues for a long time.  I am certainly respectful about how truly "just prevention" is -- for you can anyone who decides to follow that path.  It takes a person with a "strong will" to do it --and keep on doing it.  No disrespect is ever intended by me.  Prevention is indeed difficult since it does take a "trade" of benifit, and effort.  This is why I sold my book to "pilots ony", because I felt that they would "stick", when others got "tired" of it.  That will be another choice you will have to make at your young age.  With that being said, then wearing the +2.5 is a good choice.  If working on a computer, and a greater distance, you could use a weaker plus.  This is all part of a reasonable judgment only you could make.  I like the idea that I am going to accomplish what WebMD states is IMPOSSIBLE.  They state that, not only that you "can't get out of it", but, even worse, you can not even avoid getting into it.!!!  People who have a strong goal, and will accept the need to clear from 20/70 to the range of 20/50 and 20/40 in about four months are being reasonable.  If you "see" that result, it should encourage you to continue.  But all of this will be up to your judgment!!  What Brian discovered, was that as his Snellen cleared, to 20/40 (passes the DMV -- about a change of +3/4 diopter) he could use a plus stronger by 1/2 diopter.  Let me add my understanding (from research).  The eye goes "down" by -1/2 diopter for each year in high school.  Thus, if you do nothing, you will lose an additional 1/2 diopter in both high school and college. (In college it is -1/3 diopter per year.)  So this is the reason why "agressive" use of the plus, and clearing to 20/40 is so important.  You are attempting the "impossible" as far a majority-opinon WebMD is concerned.  Keep on posting, and wearing that plus.  It take a "strong man" to do it.  Best, Otis

I'm in High School, so I have many years (4-8 years) of school. I only wear minus lenses when absolutely necessary, and when I do, I wear an  undercorrection of .50. Is there a real benefit to wearing a weaker plus rather than a stronger one? I have tried +2.00 before, and it was a bit to weak for me.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 13, 2011, 05:49:04 PM
Thank You for your very encouraging words Mr. Otis Brown. I will stick with my current lenses 2.5 and hold my eyes in the 8 clock positions as mentioned in the "Secret of Perfect Vision" by David De Angelis.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 14, 2011, 04:17:53 AM

Hi Jansen,
You have the correct idea.  But it does take "strong determination" to "stick" with this "plus" wearing.  That is why I would set the reasonable goal of clearing the 20/40 line in about four months.  I will check back once a week and see how you are doing.  Do not expect any result for about two months -- and sticking with the effort in that situation is indeed difficult.  I take this as a scientific challenge, but the personal resolve for it the real issue.  I only wish I had this type of knowledge and self-empowerment when I was 16 years old.  Otis



Thank You for your very encouraging words Mr. Otis Brown. I will stick with my current lenses 2.5 and hold my eyes in the 8 clock positions as mentioned in the "Secret of Perfect Vision" by David De Angelis.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on January 14, 2011, 08:25:51 AM
Hello,

very interesting technique and i want to try it.  I am 42 yrs and myopic, -4.5 in R and -3.75 in L.  got glasses when i was 14 or so.   as a child a tried Bates method but couldnt tell the difference.  sometime in my mid 20's i tried some other variants, that is putting on undercorrection lens and some eye exercises.  the number did come down a bit over some time, but it was not obvious.  Now this looks logical and promising.  But I have a few questions.

1. Why is it that when the eye just starts to get myopic it doesnt self correct when we look away, which we will inevitable do?
2. Doctors say that by not wearing the right prescription you will strain your eyes and make things worse.  In your theory straining eye is good!  This somehow goes against what I have been hearing from childhood.

I ask this because very recently my daughter (8yrs) got prescribed glasses -2.  I was feeling very dejected and my frantic search on the net got me to this forum.
Can this plus lens therapy work for children?  I would be first trying it myself to see if i get some improvement.

In my case should i be getting reading glasses of -1.25 for right eye and -0.5 for left eye.  this is an effective plus lens for me for reading at a foot length.  this i got from   http://schwerdfeger.name/articles/pluslens.shtml
Also should get an undercorrection of 0.25 or 0.5 for distance?

I hope this works, for i am really worried about my daughter.  if i can manage to halt myopic progression in her i would be happy.

Please advise.
Thank you,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on January 14, 2011, 10:26:01 AM
Rajeev,

Welcome to this site. You ask excellent questions.  I'll try my best to answer them:

1. Why is it that when the eye just starts to get myopic it doesnt self correct when we look away, which we will inevitable do?

Consider the relative amount of time you are reading, working at the computer, or doing other "close work", compared with the amount of time you are going for a walk, driving, playing sports or engaging in activities that require you to focus on distant objects.  My guess is that you spend more time with the former than the latter, am I right?  If the time spent focusing on distant objects (not merely looking at them, but really discerning fine features) is much less than the time spent focusing on close objects, the eye will adapt accordingly.  This is not just a peculiarity of the eye, it is a general principle that applies to all of our organs and our musculo-skeletal system.  David DeAngelis calls this the SAID principle (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand).  More simply put: "Use it or lose it."

2. Doctors say that by not wearing the right prescription you will strain your eyes and make things worse.  In your theory straining eye is good!  This somehow goes against what I have been hearing from childhood.

What is the evidence for this statement by the opthamologists and other doctors?  I heard the same thing as a 14-year old when I was prescribed minus lenses.  And every year, the prescription increased. If the doctors were right, why did my eyesight continue to worsen? After I gave up wearing glasses almost ten years ago, and began using plus lenses when reading and distance focusing when walking or driving, I was able to discontinue using my glasses completely in less than a year.  And my vision has continued to improve since then!

I'd also like to clarify that I do not advocate "straining" the eyes, which implies that one is overloading or injuring them. Plus lenses should be selected which allow you to read right at the edge of what you can see clearly, but never with a blur.  The sample principle is involved in weight-lifting: lift the heaviest weight you can lift with good form, but avoid overloading or you will injure and "strain" your muscles.

3. Can this plus lens therapy work for children?  I would be first trying it myself to see if i get some improvement.

It's great to see that you are being proactive for your daughter.  Fortunately, this technique is MOST effective and rapid for children and adolescents; it also works for adults but takes more time and dedication.  I suggest that you and your daughter both work at this together; you'll understand what she is going through and it will create an additional bond.  Maybe you can even make a game or competition out of it.  The #1 success factor is persistence and consistency.  Make a commitment to wear plus lenses at least 30 minutes a day when reading, for the next two months, before you make any judgement.  And return to this site to report your progress--perhaps even start a Personal Page.  Those who track and report their progress in any endeavor have the best success, whether it is losing weight or improving eyesight.  Use objective tests like the Snellen eye chart (http://i-see.org/eyecharts.html) to track your progress.

4. In my case should i be getting reading glasses of -1.25 for right eye and -0.5 for left eye.  this is an effective plus lens for me for reading at a foot length.  this i got from   http://schwerdfeger.name/articles/pluslens.shtml Also should get an undercorrection of 0.25 or 0.5 for distance?

Your myopia is quite strong at -4.5/-3.75.   So don't expect miracles, be happy with slow, steady progress.  Looks like you are aiming to cut about 3.25 diopters off of your prescription. For reading and computer work that's fine, but first test it out!  Go to your local pharmacy, where they sell cheap "reading glasses", and place the reading glasses directly over or in front of your normal lenses, then try reading fine print that is about 18" from your nose.  Try different strengths between +1.5 to +3.25 to see what works best for you to just be able to clear a blur that is 18 inches away.  Then get a pair of minus lenses that is reduced by exactly the amount of the drugstore reading glasses.  Your suggestion of a 0.25 to 0.5 undercorrection for distance sounds like a good start.  As your eyes improve, you can continue to undercorrect further.  You might consider bifocals that include both of these elements.

Good luck and please come back and let us know how it goes for you!

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 14, 2011, 12:54:58 PM

Dear Jansen,

Subject: To make this work more effective -- for both of us.

I never know how a person will "take" prevention advocacy on my part.  But I do say this.  I wish we could (metaphorically) change places.  I would rather be the person working with the plus --and YOU helping ME.  That is one of the motivations as to why post.

Since I know this work is "long", why don't we do it this way.  Each Sunday post a question.  ALL SUBJECTS ARE "OPEN".  Todd or I will respond!! That way you will have the "intellectual" support you need to continue this work.  For us it is easy to provide advice. But it indeed very difficult to follow that advice for the next four months.  Having a "friend" to help you can make a difference.  Otis



Thank You for your very encouraging words Mr. Otis Brown. I will stick with my current lenses 2.5 and hold my eyes in the 8 clock positions as mentioned in the "Secret of Perfect Vision" by David De Angelis.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 14, 2011, 01:15:46 PM
Hi Rajeev,
You ask good questions, and Todd has some good answers.  I advocate prevention, but restrict myself to no "deeper" that 20/70, and persons who have "reached their 'majority'".  We are not "hostile" to medical people at all.  But, for me, I think individual "empowerment" is crucial.  Here are some sites that "argue" for prevention, aganist the "traditional" minus lens of the last 400 years.

http://www.myopia.org/

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html

http://www.chinamyopia.org/

I would "follow"  Jensen's efforts -- if he chooses to continue.  We will all learn a great deal more from his efforts and his posting here.
Best, Otis


Hello,

very interesting technique and i want to try it.  I am 42 yrs and myopic, -4.5 in R and -3.75 in L.  got glasses when i was 14 or so.   as a child a tried Bates method but couldnt tell the difference.  sometime in my mid 20's i tried some other variants, that is putting on undercorrection lens and some eye exercises.  the number did come down a bit over some time, but it was not obvious.  Now this looks logical and promising.  But I have a few questions.

1. Why is it that when the eye just starts to get myopic it doesnt self correct when we look away, which we will inevitable do?
2. Doctors say that by not wearing the right prescription you will strain your eyes and make things worse.  In your theory straining eye is good!  This somehow goes against what I have been hearing from childhood.

I ask this because very recently my daughter (8yrs) got prescribed glasses -2.  I was feeling very dejected and my frantic search on the net got me to this forum.
Can this plus lens therapy work for children?  I would be first trying it myself to see if i get some improvement.

In my case should i be getting reading glasses of -1.25 for right eye and -0.5 for left eye.  this is an effective plus lens for me for reading at a foot length.  this i got from   http://schwerdfeger.name/articles/pluslens.shtml
Also should get an undercorrection of 0.25 or 0.5 for distance?

I hope this works, for i am really worried about my daughter.  if i can manage to halt myopic progression in her i would be happy.

Please advise.
Thank you,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 14, 2011, 11:37:22 PM
I have a question. Just how "blurry" should the blur point be when reading? I heard the blur shouldn't be excessive.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 15, 2011, 05:20:40 AM

Hi Jensen,
Subject:  Good question.
The "purpose" of using this technique, is so that the "plus" will have the best effect.  Thus, if you used a +1/2 diopter, it you would not get "blur" until you were reading at 40 inches.  If you got a +4, you could only see clearly at 8 inches.  So the idea of going to a rack of plus lenses is to select a lens for reading that "just blurs" your reading SLIGHTLY.  This is a matter of your own "subjective" judgment.  A lens too strong, and you can't make out the reading.  Just right would be where you "push away" until you can't see the words, and the "pull in" until it is clear.  This is a personal subjective judgment.
PURPOSE:  When you do that, your natural eyes are looking "in the distance" -- to the maximum extent possible.  It is exactly like you are "living outdoors" all the time.  Some people describe this "living outdoors", as "stress reduction", and words to that effect.  What I "look at" is Eskmos who live "out doors".  They simply have postive refractive status (and clear distant vision).  But these are people who did not spend 12 years in a "school environment" -- like we do in our "modern civilization".  The purpose of establishing the "blur point", is that it has the best possible effect on your long-term distant vision.  Even so, for the natural eye, it does take time for the eye to gradually respond to being kept "in the open" for the four months that it will take to clear the 20/40 line for you.  There is no "perfect" explanation, but that is part of the reason why it is necessary to check.  Otis


I have a question. Just how "blurry" should the blur point be when reading? I heard the blur shouldn't be excessive.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 15, 2011, 06:12:46 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: Part 2 about why you check for "SLIGHT BLUR".
There is a tendency to "lean forward" as you read.  Children do this to an incredible degree.  They will start reading at 13 inches (about -3 diopters) and will "lean forward" and be reading at 4 inches (-10 diopters) after a few minutes.  No one attempts to "stop" them from doing this.
For you and me, the goal it to "prevent" this "lean forward".  So every 10 minutes, I push the book aways until it "just blurs" and pull in SLIGHTLY to it clears comfortably.  The issue of "just blur check" is to make certain I realize that I must keep my eyes, "in the distance" for all reading.  That is how and why I check for "just blur".  As always, this is my "independence" statement.  Both Todd and I are "Engineers", and we tend to be very independent, and wish to "take care of ourselves" by our own wisdom and self-management.  That is how I live my life.  Otis

I have a question. Just how "blurry" should the blur point be when reading? I heard the blur shouldn't be excessive.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on January 15, 2011, 09:09:39 AM
Hello Todd and Otis,

Thank you for your reply.  This makes sense.  There is an instantaneous change in eye shape/focus and a more time dependent change.  It appears myopia develops due to the time dependence. our ability to instantaneously refocus still remains in the myopic state.  Is that why the traditional eye exercises do not help much?

Today I got my eye checked, also myself using the snellen chart.  I have taken 0.5 off.  So now  I have prescription of -4R/-3.25L for distance.  For reading at about 15 to 18 inch limit I have -2.5 and -1.75 respectively.  I will use this for reading and computer work as much as possible and try to be on the edge of focus.  apart from this are there  other exercises?  does the fast near and far focus exercise help in any way (look at finger then look at tree 20 times)?  maybe not according to the hypothesis of slow time dependent change.  do you have any experience that it does?

Maintaining the correct distance on the edge of focus while reading appears difficult for kids.  they anyway have a tendency to bring the book closer then required.
Do you have any tricks which I can make my daughter remain on edge of focus?

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 15, 2011, 09:44:28 AM

Hi Rajeev,
Subject: Children are almost "impossible".
I am not a critice -- except for myself.  But this "habit" children have must be documented.  Here is an analysis provided by optometrist Dr. Raphaelson. 

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/ReadDist.html

Thus is is not "reading" as such.  You could probably read "forwever" is you always kept your eyes at "over" 13 inches (-3 diotpers) and always wore a +3 diopters for all that reading. (Just my opinion.)

But this is only "part" of the "iceberg".  The "deeper" data shows that the totallly "natural eye" simply follows the "average" of the accommodation "signal".

What I would recommend for your child, is that you put up a brightly lit Snellen and have her read it.  If she can still read the 20/60 line (1/2 the letters correctly), then that is a "starting point".  Also check her "reading habits" as per the above graph.  Best, Otis

Hello Todd and Otis,

Thank you for your reply.  This makes sense.  There is an instantaneous change in eye shape/focus and a more time dependent change.  It appears myopia develops due to the time dependence. our ability to instantaneously refocus still remains in the myopic state.  Is that why the traditional eye exercises do not help much?

Today I got my eye checked, also myself using the snellen chart.  I have taken 0.5 off.  So now  I have prescription of -4R/-3.25L for distance.  For reading at about 15 to 18 inch limit I have -2.5 and -1.75 respectively.  I will use this for reading and computer work as much as possible and try to be on the edge of focus.  apart from this are there  other exercises?  does the fast near and far focus exercise help in any way (look at finger then look at tree 20 times)?  maybe not according to the hypothesis of slow time dependent change.  do you have any experience that it does?

Maintaining the correct distance on the edge of focus while reading appears difficult for kids.  they anyway have a tendency to bring the book closer then required.
Do you have any tricks which I can make my daughter remain on edge of focus?

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on January 15, 2011, 05:01:55 PM
Rajeev,

You are right that the eye undergoes both an instantaneous change and a longer term, more permanent change. I think that some of the ocular stretching exercises in David DeAngelis' book "The Secret of Perfect Vision" are probably helpful, based on the evidence he cites, as is your suggested near-to-far focusing exercise.  However, I don't have much personal experience with these exercises, whereas I've used plus lenses extensively myself and know that they enable long term improvements in vision. Whereas I think that the eye exercises are mainly useful for maintaining good flexibility and rapid focusing ability.  But they probably don't "remodel" the eye as plus lenses do.

Glad to hear you are already reducing your prescription! You mention that you are able to read normal print at 15-18 inches without lenses.  What Snellen reading do you see in each eye? If your prescription is -4R/-3.25L, that would suggest your Snellen fraction is higher than 20/200 in each eye -- am I right?

Probably the most important thing your daughter can do to slow or reverse progression of her myopia is to avoid holding books too close or sitting too close to a computer. Keep them at least 15-20" away. If she is uncomfortable reading "at the edge of blur", then its OK to bring it 1 or 2 inches in from the edge. This is more comfortable and will at least prevent progression of myopia.  Once she is comfortable with that habit, try getting her to increase the distance.  Another useful trick is to hold a book at an angle, with the right side of the page several inches further back then the left side, so your eyes scan near to far with each line.  Periodically switch so that the left side is further away than the right, to maintain flexibility.

Another thing she can do at school is to choose a seat that is as far back as she can possibly sit and still see the teacher writing on the board without glasses.  This may mean starting in the front row, and moving back with time.  Of course, if there are assigned seats, this will not work unless you or she explains this to the teacher.

It's hard for a kid to remain motivated to maintain these habits, but I think that if she can see herself get better on the Snellen chart each month, that may be enough to inspire her.  And certainly as she gets to middle school and high school and is more self-conscious about her looks, the idea of not having to wear glasses may appeal to her!

Good luck,

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 15, 2011, 05:48:21 PM


Dear Rajeev,
Subject: Sometimes ODs are blind to "deeper science".
I have friends in both optometry and ophthalmology.  When I am in their office I trust them as a "patient".  But the are dealing with a great mass of people who are ignorant.  We want a doctor who is "cock sure".  But sometimes this gets excessive.  The offical medical "position" it that EVEN THE SLIGHTEST MYOPIA PREVENTION IS IMPOSSIBLE.  When someone looks me in the eye and says that "point-blank", I have to accept it -- if I am a "patient".  But if I am a wise engineer, who studies the scientific facts myself, then that statement tells me that I WILL NEVER GET ANY HELP AT ALL -- EVER.  Further, as an engineer, I must do "prevention" myself.  his makes prevention both "low cost", and more effective for me.  It saves my time "arguing" with anyone with a medical title. The WebMD statement is this:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001023.htm
WebMD>  Prevention:  There is no way to prevent nearsightedness.
So Rejeev, if you take this seriously, then there is nothing you can do to help your daughter with prevention.  I would agree that PREVENTION requires a great force-of-character, and a parent who can talk to a cihld, and check the child's Snellen.  I also accept that (for me) the line I must pass is the 20/40 line, or reading 1.8 cm letters at six meters.  This is not "perfect", but it is acceptable to drive a car.  I have seen "prescriptions of -3.75 diopters for a child who could PASS the 20/40 line.  That "attitude" that does that scares the hell out of me -- because I now the effect of a minus on the refractive STATE of the natural eye.  But let me report the wise actions of a competent parnet, who can not swallow the "party line".
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/year8.txt
This is howyou "do it yourself" as a parent.  Spend as much time as you can with Todds preventive idea.  That will help a lot.
Best, otis


Hello Todd and Otis,

Thank you for your reply.  This makes sense.  There is an instantaneous change in eye shape/focus and a more time dependent change.  It appears myopia develops due to the time dependence. our ability to instantaneously refocus still remains in the myopic state.  Is that why the traditional eye exercises do not help much?

Today I got my eye checked, also myself using the snellen chart.  I have taken 0.5 off.  So now  I have prescription of -4R/-3.25L for distance.  For reading at about 15 to 18 inch limit I have -2.5 and -1.75 respectively.  I will use this for reading and computer work as much as possible and try to be on the edge of focus.  apart from this are there  other exercises?  does the fast near and far focus exercise help in any way (look at finger then look at tree 20 times)?  maybe not according to the hypothesis of slow time dependent change.  do you have any experience that it does?

Maintaining the correct distance on the edge of focus while reading appears difficult for kids.  they anyway have a tendency to bring the book closer then required.
Do you have any tricks which I can make my daughter remain on edge of focus?

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 15, 2011, 10:53:53 PM
Hello everyone,

I'm glad that there are more people posting here. I just read Mr. Brown's link to Mike's case, which looks very promising. I assume that by his plus lense treatment, he read at the blur point and waited for it to clear, similar to what I'm doing.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 16, 2011, 04:19:19 AM

Hi Jensen,
Subject:  You got that "right". Preventoin is indeed "personal".

Yes, it is correct.  Todd posts about being a "in control", or taking "control".  There is a great deal of science behind and supporting the concept of "prevention".  There must be a "special boldness" in the person who can truly "stick" with the use of the plus, and "be his own man", and work to the REASONABLE 20/40 line.  The only people who must pass the 20/20 line are professional pilots.  All the rest of us are required to pass the 20/40 line.  I always take the work of prevention to be a matter of "self-enlightened" self interest.  My site is designed to help the person (as much as possible) understand these issues.  We learn by "conversation", and that is what Todd is all about.  I know to "learn" I must be "pushed".  My approach is to push a person hard -- and then "back off" -- and give the person time to think.  I don't enjoy "fighting" with majority-opinion ODs, because of the WebMD statement.  But, the brave second-opinion ODs have truly recognized the "minus" as a "poor idea" or a "bad idea".  But that still leves us with the requirement to pass the 20/40 line on our Snellen.  So, Jansen, you have a "struggle" that will develop over the next four months, with the goal of passing the  20/50 to 20/40 line as the target.  Keep posting at least once a week (on any subject) and we will attempt to help you.  Otis

Hello everyone,

I'm glad that there are more people posting here. I just read Mr. Brown's link to Mike's case, which looks very promising. I assume that by his plus lense treatment, he read at the blur point and waited for it to clear, similar to what I'm doing.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on January 16, 2011, 08:42:03 AM
Hi Otis,

Thank you for the case of a parent who could reduce his child's myopia.  That was very encouraging indeed..  i am already feeling better.

Could you explain what you meant by " You could probably read "forwever" is you always kept your eyes at "over" 13 inches (-3 diotpers) and always wore a +3 diopters for all that reading. (Just my opinion.)"

I am still trying to get conversant with the conversion from diopters to the reading on the chart.
A 20/30 would mean -0.5 D. is that right?

Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on January 16, 2011, 08:59:30 AM
Hi Todd,

Thanks for your suggestions for my daughter.
 
In my case after adding +2D to my prescription of -4.5R/-3.75L I can read to an upper limit of about 15".
I have started this today and am hoping for the best.

So for my daughter who has -2 D it appears that she should be reading without glasses, that would be an effective +2D?  Is that right?  or should she read with a +0.5D reading glasses?  Probably I should try out whatever is the limit upto 12 to 15 " as they tend to always come closer to the book.

Rajeev

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 16, 2011, 10:24:18 AM

Hi Rajeev,
Subject: My thesis -- that you can avoid entry -- but it is indeed difficult.
I am an "independent" Engineer.  If at all possible, I want 'contol' of my life, and will protect my distant vision with a plus if I can.
Central to that idea is that I check my Snellen on my own.  Provided your daughter can still read the 20/70 line (approximately) I would truly "question" the -2 diopter lens she was "prescribed".  Here is an easy-to-use Snellen you can use for your daughter.
http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html

Just click on "Display" a few times, then try at 20 feet.  You can change distance of the letters by reading the instructions.
This is approximate -- but a "first start".  I know from long experience that a number of ODs "over-prescribe", and this is a good way to find out.  This is intended to be "empowering" for you, and I know how difficult it is to take this step.  It will help Todd and I help you if you do this.
++++++++

Hi Todd,

Thanks for your suggestions for my daughter.
 
In my case after adding +2D to my prescription of -4.5R/-3.75L I can read to an upper limit of about 15".
I have started this today and am hoping for the best.

So for my daughter who has -2 D it appears that she should be reading without glasses, that would be an effective +2D?  Is that right?  or should she read with a +0.5D reading glasses?  Probably I should try out whatever is the limit upto 12 to 15 " as they tend to always come closer to the book.

Rajeev


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on January 16, 2011, 12:45:55 PM
Hi Todd,

Thanks for your suggestions for my daughter.
 
In my case after adding +2D to my prescription of -4.5R/-3.75L I can read to an upper limit of about 15".
I have started this today and am hoping for the best.

So for my daughter who has -2 D it appears that she should be reading without glasses, that would be an effective +2D?  Is that right?  or should she read with a +0.5D reading glasses?  Probably I should try out whatever is the limit upto 12 to 15 " as they tend to always come closer to the book.

Rajeev


Rajeev,

Glad to hear that the +2D is working for you at 15".  Are you doing this with an actual new set of -2.5R/-1.75L lenses, or by wearing +2D lenses over your glasses or contacts?

You are right that your daughter should be able to just read without glasses, keeping the book or computer as far away as is comfortable. However, if she finds this hard to do or tends to forget, I would consider having her use a pair of weak plus lenses, anywhere from +0.5D to +1D.  Have her take periodic breaks from reading and ask her if she can see distant objects more clearly.  Check where she can read on the Snellen chart every few days to see if she is making progress. (The Snellen chart that Otis linked to above is a good one). It is useful to check each eye separately (have her cover one eye at a time) so you are aware of which eye is dominant.

Good luck!

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 16, 2011, 08:57:06 PM
Hi Rajeev,
Subject: Why no "translation" of diopter to Snellen will ever be possible.
This is because the OD does not "prescribe" to "just clear" the 20/20 line. Each OD has his own "idea".  Some ODs (who will avoid the use of the minus if possible) will confirm a child at 20/25 to 20/30 -- and will NOT PRESCRIBE A MINUS LENS.  There are others who love the effect of a minus, and will use a lens that is very strong.  Thus if this same child, at 20/30, is put into a chair, and the OD can creat 20/18, 20/15, and even 20/12 with a strong minus -- they will do it, thinking they are doing your child a "favor" to make her distant vision very, very sharp.  Thus for the same "Snellen", the child will wind up with a -2.0 diopter "prescription".  This over-prescription "habit" is called "Best Visual Acuity".  This is the reason I CHECK MY SNELLEN MYSELF.  But, further, why I have my own "trial lens" kit (some experience required), and measure my refractive status myself.  This is why I ask each person interested in true-prevention, to set-up and read a Snellen in bright light.  If he is going to do everything, under HIS CONTROL, then that reading is essential.  Let me see if I responded correctly to your questions:


Hi Otis,

Thank you for the case of a parent who could reduce his child's myopia. 
Otis> The great thing was that the paernt worked to pass the 20/40 line. That ins normal for chidren.
That was very encouraging indeed..  i am already feeling better.

Could you explain what you meant by " You could probably read "forwever" is you always kept your eyes at "over" 13 inches (-3 diotpers) and always wore a +3 diopters for all that reading. (Just my opinion.)"
Otis> If we lived "otdoors" (eyes int the distance) our refractive status would be postive, and our distant vision clear.  The plus creates that situation for the natural eye.

I am still trying to get conversant with the conversion from diopters to the reading on the chart.
A 20/30 would mean -0.5 D. is that right?
Otis> No, for the reasons I stated.  The Snellen reading is key.
Best, Otis


Rajeev

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on January 17, 2011, 04:41:31 AM
Hi Todd and Otis,

I got new glasses with reduced power rather than adding lens over existing glass.  The Optician i went to also believes in undercorrected power so getting a power lower by 0.5 was easy.  i too was not sure of how i would be able to function with reduced power while driving, but it is easy.  After a few hours of effective plus lens for reading (intermittent with breaks), far vision does appear to be better.
with the reduced number i could read some letters of the second last line the 20/25.  Once i get back to 20/20 with reduced power i could try a higher reduction.

Otis, the interactive reading chart is very good.  i will check my daughters vision with that.  The glasses my daughter is wearing are already undercorrected.  With the undercorrected glasses she could just about read the 20/25 line.  This is surprising since the optician we went to first prescribed -2.75 for her.  I think he made her read the 20/15 line as well.  I will need to coax her to wear a low plus lens while reading.

Thank you once again for all the clarifications and the internet sites.

Rajeev Kapoor
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 17, 2011, 05:45:54 AM
Subject: Why we "the public" reject plus-prevention.
It is necessary to understand that plus-prevention is truly "tedious".
WebMD insists that "Prevention" by any means is IMPOSSIBLE.  Therefore medical people (N.E.I.) will never commision a study or effort of that nature, aimed at threshold prevention.  I ALMOST agree with them -- but I do agree that "threshold" prevention is both wise and possible.  But if not "medical", then who exactly is responsible?  Here is the reason WHY and HOW plus-prevention is rejected (at about 20/60 to 20/70).  Until "we" teach ourselves how to do it -- WebMD will be correct, and we will always be ignored. Remarks by the medical doctor Chalmer Prentice:
    EXAMPLE CASES
     Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye
-1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no cchange for the space of
two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point.   I
recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work. (Eventually
this person reached 20/25.)

     Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;

     ...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 19, 2011, 04:12:46 AM

Dear Rajeev,
Subject: Doctors who help there children with the plus.
I think it is very important to understand that a few doctors have:
1.  Insisted that their children never "lean forward" an get their eyes closer than 13 incehs (about -3 diopters).
2. Insisted that there children wear the "plus" -- even with 20/20 vision!
These doctors have FOUGHT THE SYSTEM of the minus lens.  I personally reviewed the primate data, that clearly shows that our natural eyes "adapt" to that long-term near, and that truly intimate that the use of  the plus is very wise as some ODs and MDs have done for their own children.
"Cutting" a prescription is indeed a wise step.  But you do get into "argument" about doing it.  For me, I would avoid the use of the minus -- if I can confirm 20/40 or better on my Snellen.  Less than 20/40, and you will need a minus lens (to be used only for distant vision).  We know that WebMD insists that "prevention" will always be impossible.  I don't agree.  For your interest, here is an ophthalmologist who had "fought the system" for the last 40 years or more.
http://www.kaisuviikari.com/
This is the true nature of the (preventive) second-opinion.  I personally think that ALL PROFESSIONALS should mention the idea of prevention to the FIRST patient that comes in their office -- and has never worn and minus lens.  Obviously, that has not YET HAPPENED.  Use of the plus (Oakley-Young) shows the wisdom of these second-opinon professionals.  Best, Otis

Hi Todd and Otis,

I got new glasses with reduced power rather than adding lens over existing glass.  The Optician i went to also believes in undercorrected power so getting a power lower by 0.5 was easy.  i too was not sure of how i would be able to function with reduced power while driving, but it is easy.  After a few hours of effective plus lens for reading (intermittent with breaks), far vision does appear to be better.
with the reduced number i could read some letters of the second last line the 20/25.  Once i get back to 20/20 with reduced power i could try a higher reduction.

Otis, the interactive reading chart is very good.  i will check my daughters vision with that.  The glasses my daughter is wearing are already undercorrected.  With the undercorrected glasses she could just about read the 20/25 line.  This is surprising since the optician we went to first prescribed -2.75 for her.  I think he made her read the 20/15 line as well.  I will need to coax her to wear a low plus lens while reading.

Thank you once again for all the clarifications and the internet sites.

Rajeev Kapoor

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 19, 2011, 12:00:52 PM

Subject: Getting Stronger -- by widsom and by learning.

Here is a site that can provide additional insights.

http://www.ahaworks.com/

In all cases, "relaxation" is looking in the distance.  "Strain" is proportional to the distance you read.  Thus if you read at 13 inches, the "strain" is -3.0 diopters.  Getting rid of strain (looking in the distance) can prevent.

Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 19, 2011, 04:01:24 PM
So far, I've been using the plus lenses for about 2 weeks now. I can start to make out letters on the 20/60 line, and I notice clear flashes throughout the afternoon and especially in the morning.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 19, 2011, 05:56:52 PM

Dear Jansen,
Subject: Why "prevention" is so difficult.
I am pleased you are reading the remarks of the medical profession, indicating how difficult (slow) change is.  Success does indeed favor the prepared mind.  Personally like to call succes getting to the 20/50 and 20/40 line, because that is the DMV requirement.  As you "get there", you can probably avoid the minus, since your vision will be good enough for the "black board" and sports.  We all need an "eariy indication" that are efforts are having some effect.  Persistence is indeed a large part of the work of prevention.  Otis



So far, I've been using the plus lenses for about 2 weeks now. I can start to make out letters on the 20/60 line, and I notice clear flashes throughout the afternoon and especially in the morning.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on January 19, 2011, 08:47:59 PM
Jansen,

I had a few questions.

Are you using plus 2.5 for all reading that you do?  How much time do you read with plus in a day?
Do you read at the edge of the blur, that is when the letters are barely visible, or do you read at the edge of focus, where the letters are just out of focus.

I have been doing this for 2 days and while reading without glasses ( i have -3.75) i can read at a foot length with letters very blurred and then sometimes sharp letters appear on top of blur and then it passes by.  this happens at edge of blur.  i can read, but without really "seeing" the letters.  It is sort of strange!

Is this how it is done?  (Todd and Otis may correct me)

Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 19, 2011, 08:57:45 PM
Hello Rajeev,

At school, not much reading is usually done, so I usually don't use my 2.5 plus lenses during that time. when I do homework and computer which is (2-3) hrs of my day, I use the plus lenses. I read at both the edge of focus and blur because if I feel my eyes are not able to focus at the edge of blur, I start bringing the text closer. I'm not quite sure If I'm doing this correctly, so I'll need Mr. Otis Brown's help on this one.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 19, 2011, 09:10:53 PM

Hi Jansen,
Subject: Individual "insights" and "familiarity" are essential.
Re:  I can not tell you "perfectly" how to use the plus -- but from what you say, you are doing it correctly.  You are doing it correctly for now, and as your Snellen clears further, I will provide more advice.

The major goal I have for a person at 20/70, is that he understand that you don't want to go any "deeper" than that.  It gets "out-of-hand", if you go below 20/70. Thus just gaining one line in two weeks is important.  The reason is that, as even Dr. Bates implied, if you get deeper, you get "eye stretch" myopia, the even he said could not be "cured".  This is why your "catching" the issue at 20/70 was so critical -- in my opinion.  If in the next four months you can get to 20/50 and 20/40, that is a reasonable challenge and success.  So keep on posting -- as I always enjoy heping the man who will help himself.

Hello Rajeev,

At school, not much reading is usually done, so I usually don't use my 2.5 plus lenses during that time. when I do homework and computer which is (2-3) hrs of my day, I use the plus lenses. I read at both the edge of focus and blur because if I feel my eyes are not able to focus at the edge of blur, I start bringing the text closer. I'm not quite sure If I'm doing this correctly, so I'll need Mr. Otis Brown's help on this one.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 20, 2011, 10:05:08 AM

Hi Rajeev,
Subject: WebMD's statement and why I am "intimidated" by the statement.
First -- I support all effort of prevention.  But if I use "medical terms" then I get "attacked" for "practicing medicine".  I have been "accused" of this, and charges were filed in Harrisburg to that effect by a "Layman".  So I am very cautious about any statement I might make.
Second -- It takes good Engineering/SCIENTIFIC leadership by the person himself to slowly clear his Snellen from 20/70 to normal (20/40 or better).  I am pleased that Jensen has seen a "glimmer" of Snellen clearing.  But he still has a long way to go.
Thrid -- If an when he is successful, I will be willing to discuss work on a "deeper" degree of myopia.  But let us wait until Jansen, but his own leadership achieves a reasonable degree of success.

To further respond:


Jansen,

I had a few questions.

Are you using plus 2.5 for all reading that you do?  How much time do you read with plus in a day?
Do you read at the edge of the blur, that is when the letters are barely visible, or do you read at the edge of focus, where the letters are just out of focus.

I have been doing this for 2 days and while reading without glasses ( i have -3.75) i can read at a foot length with letters very blurred and then sometimes sharp letters appear on top of blur and then it passes by.  this happens at edge of blur.  i can read, but without really "seeing" the letters.  It is sort of strange!

Is this how it is done?  (Todd and Otis may correct me)

Otis>  Almost all of us have 20/20 and a postive status at age 5.  I think we should ALL BE TOLD ABOUT PREVENTION BEFORE WE GO BELOW 20/70.  Tragiacally, The N.E.I. keeps its mouth shut -- so we never find out.  This is why Todd's site is so important.  Let us hope that Jensen can get to 20/40 in four months.  We will then build a case for prevention on his success.  Otis

Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on January 20, 2011, 01:07:26 PM
Jansen,

I had a few questions.

Are you using plus 2.5 for all reading that you do?  How much time do you read with plus in a day?
Do you read at the edge of the blur, that is when the letters are barely visible, or do you read at the edge of focus, where the letters are just out of focus.

I have been doing this for 2 days and while reading without glasses ( i have -3.75) i can read at a foot length with letters very blurred and then sometimes sharp letters appear on top of blur and then it passes by.  this happens at edge of blur.  i can read, but without really "seeing" the letters.  It is sort of strange!

Is this how it is done?  (Todd and Otis may correct me)

Rajeev

Rajeev,

1. I am very excited to read your statement that "sometimes sharp letters appear on top of blur and then it passes by...It is sort of strange!"

This is PRECISELY what happened to me when my vision began to clear up ten years ago.  I have never heard anybody report the same experience!  I reported this in my blog on the Rehabilitation (http://gettingstronger.org/rehabilitation/) page:

Quote
One clue to the mechanism is that adaptations are not instantaneous, but occur gradually over weeks or longer. Another clue is that one frequently sees a double-image–a combination of the old blurry image and a new sharper image–during the period of adaptation. The sharper image is at first faint, but becomes stronger over time. Eventually, it displaces the blurry image. This was my experience. After days of working on pushing my range, I would look, for example, at electrical power lines and see a double sharp-blurry image. The sharpness and darkness of the power lines increased over several weeks. Now I see them sharply...I do not think the double imaging I saw is consistent with the short term strengthening of muscles, because the images were simultaneous. A better explanation may derive from the theory of neuroplasticity: the retina actually undergoes persistent changes in shape as retinal tissues grow and develop in response to stimulation of photoreceptor cells.

This is one of the main reasons I don't quite accept the classical Bates view that myopia is reversed by changing the eye muscles to adjust the shape of the eye.  That would not explain the simultaneous blurred and sharp version of the same image.  This "double image" is a clue to me that a remodeling must be taking place within the retina.  The "blur" stimulates migration and/or growth of new rod and cone cells in order to improve the capture of focused image features.  Combining this observation with the IRDT theory suggests to me that plus lens therapy results in permanent reshaping of the eye, not merely an accommodation of the eye muscles.

As a practical matter, you should be very excited about this because it means your eyes are remodeling themselves.  Seek out that sharp extra image as much as you can, and you'll find that over time it will displace the blurry image.  Then you will have made a quantum leap in improved visual acuity!

2. Regarding your distinction between "the edge of focus" and "the edge of blur".  This is indeed a very subtle distinction which I haven't heard made before.  But if I understand how you are using those terms, I would recommend staying at "the edge of focus", where you can still distinguish letters clearly, rather than "the edge of blur" where letters are barely distinguishable.  There are two reasons for this:  (1) the focusing mechanism of your eyes is "intelligent" and resembles a digital camera in that it will literally "give up trying" to focus if the blur is too strong; (2) the discomfort of trying to read barely legible letters is uncomfortable in the extreme and demotivating to most people.  Reading on the edge of focus is much more sustainable.

The caveat here is that the focal distance of "the edge of focus" will change over time, even within a single reading session.  So I recommend testing that distance every several minutes by moving the reading material in and out to re-establish the correct distance. You'll probably find that the focal distance improves a bit at first, as your eyes adapt, but may get worse after a long reading session, as your eyes tire.  See what works for you.

Good luck,

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on January 21, 2011, 04:38:41 AM
Hi Todd,

I remember i had read that in your earlier article of clear image forming over blurry image.  these usually happen only when the letters are really out of focus.  But you are right that this is not sustainable, so i think reading should be  done on edge of focus and only sometimes make it really blurred to try to get that flash of clear image.  Probably the eyes should not be tired too much other wise the image becomes blur again.

Thanks,
Rajeev

 
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 21, 2011, 06:48:28 AM

Hi Jansen,

Subject: The Visual Requirements I must always pass.

Re:  List of Driver Requirements.

I think you are doing a wonderful job in clearing your Snellen (even though it does take some time).  It will be your persistence that can "win" for you.

There are people who want to get "rid" of their minus lens.  Well yes!  But to do that, you must personally verify you pass these reasonable standards.  After you pass them, then you can avoid wearing the minus.  At 20/60, you would pass the Georgia DMV test.  But I am certain that you will continue, and wish to pass the Texas standard (20/50), and in general pass the "universal" standard of reading the Snellen at 20/40 -- which passes all these "State" requirements.  Here is the link for your interest.

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

I always accept that that I must pass the 20/40 line -- so that is why I have my Snellen up at 20 feet, and check it each month.  If you "stick" with your "program" of wearing the plus for all reading and computer work, I think you will get to nomral in about four months.  The real issue is to have a goal you can reasonably expect to meet.  Todd and I are here to support, but obviously your intelligence and motivation is the key issue.  Best, Otis

Hello Rajeev,

At school, not much reading is usually done, so I usually don't use my 2.5 plus lenses during that time. when I do homework and computer which is (2-3) hrs of my day, I use the plus lenses. I read at both the edge of focus and blur because if I feel my eyes are not able to focus at the edge of blur, I start bringing the text closer. I'm not quite sure If I'm doing this correctly, so I'll need Mr. Otis Brown's help on this one.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Patrea on January 21, 2011, 10:24:49 AM
Hi Todd

I recently hit a plateau after steady improvement. My weaker myopic right eye is not keeping up with my left.

So I have got +2 lenses, cheap shop bought specs, and literally pushed out the right lens. It's been a week now and slowly the improvements are starting again.

I am still delighted that I can go without specs daily, and quite happy to put them on for driving and low light in the street - and for gallery viewing, like the Glasgow Boys - great show and only 2 days left!
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/glasgow-boys/ (http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/glasgow-boys/)
 ;D

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on January 21, 2011, 06:29:03 PM
Hi Todd,

I had a few questions.
when you started plus lens therapy you were at -3D.  Did you stop wearing glasses or did you were undercorrected ones for long distance and go down in steps gradually?  If so how much did you undercorrect at each step of improvement?
How old were you when you started this?

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 23, 2011, 08:39:59 AM
For Jansen,
Subject:  The PROVEN effect of a minus on the natural and normal eye.
As I stated early in our discussions -- I wish I could (metaphysically) trade places with you!
I know that it is "tough" to keep on "working" with the plus, and deal with the "slow" Snellen clearing that you will encounter.  I will post these messages to help you think about these issues.  It is often claimed that the "minus" is safe.  In terms of Engineering/SCIENCE, it is not at all safe.  Here is the reason.  A MINUS LENS PUT ON AN EYE WITH A POSTIVE STATE, WILL MOVE NEGATIVE, AND BECOME MYOPIC.  Here is the annimation of that science and fact.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf

Thus, while you are at 20/70 (or change) to 20/60, you are getting to the point where you can avoid the minus (except when absolutly necessary).  If I knew this when I was young -- I NEVER WOULD HAVE WORN THE MINUS.  But I would have accepted the obligation to use the plus, and continue to use the plus, until I could clear my Snellen to 20/50 and perhaps 20/40 in four months.
I hope this helps you understand why I advocate avoding the minus -- if you can.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 23, 2011, 07:17:51 PM
For Mr. Brown,

Whenever I use minus, its because I'm in the back of the classroom and need to see the projector. I never use minus lenses other than these occasions.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 23, 2011, 08:23:31 PM
Hi Janse,
Thanks for your commentary!  I agree that until you begin to get the 20/60, and 20/50 line clear, you will have to use the minus in that manner.  That is perfectly reasonable, and everyone understands that issue clearly.  It does take great persistence and patient to use the plus as you are doing it now -- but you are doing the "right thing" for your long-term visual welfare.  I suggested four months, because that is how long it took other "motivated" people to clear their Snellens to reasonable-normal.  I will continue to post remarks by people who had the great courage to make this process "work" for their own personal welfare.  Keep up the excellent and thoughful work. Otis


For Mr. Brown,

Whenever I use minus, its because I'm in the back of the classroom and need to see the projector. I never use minus lenses other than these occasions.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 25, 2011, 06:41:25 PM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: Support from people who have the courage to continue to use the plus under their control.
I know that each day, you will "think" about your use of the plus 2.5 at home while reading and working with the computer.  I also know you will ned reenforcement, from people I respect who have been successful with this process of getting their refraction to change in a postive direction, and with that, their Snellen cleared from 20/70 to normal.  As time allows, I will post remarks of motivated engineers, scientists and ophthalmologists who have made this commitment to clearing their Snellen.  The most important person is Stirling Colgate.
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/AboutUs.txt
You are now doing what Stirling did.  Keep up the excellent scientific effort.
Otis



For Mr. Brown,

Whenever I use minus, its because I'm in the back of the classroom and need to see the projector. I never use minus lenses other than these occasions.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 25, 2011, 11:20:52 PM
Thank You for the link. Fortunately, Plus lenses are rather easy to obtain these days.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 26, 2011, 09:21:22 PM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: There is no "perfect" way to describe the need for prevention and how and why to do it.
Here is a video to encourage you as you use that +2.5 diopter for your close work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuC7a1lkrk
There are ODs and MDs who, while they are taught that myopia prevention is "impossible", finally realize that idea is a convenient "office myth".  They then INSIST that there own children always wear the plus as you are doing so now.  The result is that their children's refractive status remains postive, and their Snellen clear.  I know we all need encouragement as we do the wise work with the plus, so I will present these videos to help you with this crucial effort for your long-term visual welfare.  Otis

Thank You for the link. Fortunately, Plus lenses are rather easy to obtain these days.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 29, 2011, 07:06:46 AM
HI Jansen,
Subject:  More information to help you with your preventive work using the plus.
I know it takes daily "motivational" understanding to continue to use the plus 2.5 at home consistently.  If it were me, I would promise myself that I would give it four months, and anticipate getting to 20/50 to 20/40 on my Snellen after that level of commitment.
Indeed some second-opinion ODs like Soon See, truly understand the issue and need clearly.  Here is a "graph" at the bottom of this site, that shows how the eye can change its refractive status from -1 diopter to about zero in about nine months.  Since you started at -1.5 diopters, you should expect a change of about  +1/2 to +3/4 diopters in four months.  That will get you to pass the required DMV tests as we previously discussed.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html

I know this does take self-interest "motivation", so I post these remarks to continue to suppor you and your goal.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 29, 2011, 10:02:05 AM
Thank you very much for the infomative graph! I can definitely relate to the graph about myopia progression without the use of minus lenses, because I stopped using them a while back. My myopia never really got worse, but I've decided its time to cure it/pass the DMV requirement How long do you have to use the lenses each day to have the same results as the one shown in the graph?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 29, 2011, 01:05:06 PM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: How long will it take?  Am I doing it "right"?  Have others been successful in four months?
First, Todd did it and was successful.  But as he stated, he "kept on doing it."  That it the truly "difficult" part of threshold preventoin.
Second, the more excellent information you have, the better organized will be your decision, and the ability to keep on making a "habit" of wearing the plus when comfortable for you.
Third, that graph is very suggestive and accurate.  No one will "threaten" you about the problem of wearing the minus, but Soon's graph has been verified for all who spend years in school.
From what you have told me, you are using the plus correctly at home -- if the work (computer, reading) is good for you and you check to see you are at very slight blur.  It is good to set a goal that is reasonable, and that is to pass the 20/50 to 20/40 line in four months.  You have to have a certain "faith" in youself that you will achieve that reasonable goal. To further reply:
Thank you very much for the infomative graph! I can definitely relate to the graph about myopia progression without the use of minus lenses, because I stopped using them a while back.
Otis>  GOOD!  Virtually no OD will "volunteer" this information -- except for Soon See.
My myopia never really got worse, but I've decided its time to cure it/pass the DMV requirement
Otis>  Passing the 20/40 line is the best possible indictor of future success.
How long do you have to use the lenses each day to have the same results as the one shown in the graph?
Otis> Whenever you sit down to read for more than 5 to 10 minutes.  It should become and "automatic" habit.  Be reasonable, but that is how to do it.  Best, Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 30, 2011, 05:42:44 PM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: The person I admire the most.
I know it is hard to get 'inspired' to use the preventive plus in a thorough manner.  Here is my nephew, Keith, who with considerable "force of charater" used the plus.  This described how and why he used it -- in his own words.
Dear Uncle,          February 19, 1990
     Thank you very much for the book, "How to Avoid
Nearsightedness".  I got it yesterday after I came back from the
weekend.  I am looking forward to reading it soon, but for now I
have a great deal of school work to read.
     I would imagine you'll be pleased to have me tell you that
one of the first things I did after opening your book was to check
my eyes with the eye chart.  I am able to read the 20/20 line on
the eye-chart. I have been using my drug store plus lenses most
of the time now.  I have always passed the driver's license eye
test.

     I use these glasses nearly 100 percent of the time when I
read text books and use them for about 70 percent of the total
reading I do.  I started using them as much as possible again
because, at the end of last semester my sight was pretty bad (I
didn't check them on a chart).  I am lucky to have an uncle who
showed me back in eighth grade that I could prevent my
nearsightedness.

     One thing college has taught me is to listen to others and
then use or adapt methods to work for me.  In the last few years I
have had a great deal more reading work to do. If I don't use the
magnifying lenses I notice fairly quickly that my sight starts to
deteriorate.  Then I realize it's time to do something to stop
that process.

     At the moment, I am wearing the magnifying lens because I
know what it does for my vision.  Thanks for taking the time to
tell me how to avoid a situation, wearing glasses at all times for
the rest of my life, that I would find unpleasant, and for sending
me a copy of your book so I can learn more in-depth about the
methods I am using.

       Keith B.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 31, 2011, 08:11:46 PM
Today marks my 1st month of completing the plus lens. So far, my vision has gone from borderline of 20/70 to around 20/70 or 20/60.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 01, 2011, 06:16:23 AM

Hi Jansen,
Subject:  The courage to "keep going" with this "habit of prevention".
It is not too difficult to listen to the "arguments" for prevention.  It is not too difficult to get a +2.5 diotper and teach youself how to use it correctly.  But I greatly respect how difficult it is to make the use of a plus a "habit".  I am often asked why no one "prescribes" prevention.  Both of us now know the answer.  It must become a "wise habit".  But to further encourage you, here is a medical doctor in Finland, who supports the concept -- with her own children.  She wrote a book, and advocates that a plus be systematically used for prevention.  All of this can and should encourage you.  I will keep posting, and supply more information as you continue to "work" this issue.
http://www.kaisuviikari.com/

http://www.kaisuviikari.com/book/index.htm
My nephew ran the triathelon and the "Ironman", and his comments reflect this type of determination.  Best, Otis

Today marks my 1st month of completing the plus lens. So far, my vision has gone from borderline of 20/70 to around 20/70 or 20/60.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on February 02, 2011, 08:33:57 PM
Effect of Bifocals.

when i took my daughter for eye exam i asked the doctor if bifocals is a valid option to avoid progressive myopia.  as expected the doctor did not agree and infact said that if bifocals are worn the child's eyes will not be doing any accommodation and hence over a long period may lose their ability to accommodate to near distances.   i presume this will lead to earlier presbyopia.  do you think this is a possibility.
If as you say children should read with +3D glasses, will this in anyway make them lose their power to accommodate at near distances?

There have been studies stating that bifocals in children does reduce the progression of myopia however the improvement was stated as marginal and is therefore not prescribed by doctors.

Due to demands of school my daughter needs to wear glasses, but i would expect that if myopia and excess accommodation are linked bifocals are a better option at least in school.  Whenever at home i make her read without glasses.

If you could throw some light on this it would help.

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 02, 2011, 09:13:36 PM
Hi Rajeev and Jansen,
Subject: My respect for the excellent bi-focal study by Francis Young.
Re:  The use of the plus ALONE -- if the person can manage it. (i.e., can read the 20/70 line with no minus.)
Much of the advice, suggestions and recommendations I give to Janen develops from the results of the most excellent of these bi-focal studies.  The "minus" inhibits "recovery", which is the reason you wish to use "no lens on top".  But it does take a "strong" person to avoid the minus, and 'agressively' use only the plus, 2.5 to 3 diotpers (with the person checking by "pushing print").  But the goal must be that the individual clears his vision to PASS THE DMV REQUIREMENT -- of from 20/50 to 20/40 -- under his wise, personal control.  You have asked some questions that require a much more extensive review than I can provide here -- so I will reply in several postings.

Part 1:
Effect of Bifocals.

when i took my daughter for eye exam i asked the doctor if bifocals is a valid option to avoid progressive myopia.
Otis> It is.  The Young-Oakley study showed that the "plus" group DID NOT GO DOWN.  The pure-minus group went down at a rate of -1/2 diotper PER YEAR. (This is indeed the second-opinion, and it would be wise to understand it that way.)
 as expected the doctor did not agree and infact said that if bifocals are worn the child's eyes will not be doing any accommodation and hence over a long period may lose their ability to accommodate to near distances.   i presume this will lead to earlier presbyopia.  do you think this is a possibility.
If as you say children should read with +3D glasses, will this in anyway make them lose their power to accommodate at near distances?

There have been studies stating that bifocals in children does reduce the progression of myopia however the improvement was stated as marginal and is therefore not prescribed by doctors.

Due to demands of school my daughter needs to wear glasses, but i would expect that if myopia and excess accommodation are linked bifocals are a better option at least in school.  Whenever at home i make her read without glasses.

If you could throw some light on this it would help.

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 02, 2011, 09:21:43 PM

For Rajeev,
Subject: Effect of Bifocals.
If used correctly -- they "stop the eye from going DOWN".  Here is the graph:
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/bifig1.gif
If you don't believe me.
when i took my daughter for eye exam i asked the doctor if bifocals is a valid option to avoid progressive myopia. 
Otis> It is valid -- but you can identify the OD who will not help -- by his reaction to your question.
as expected the doctor did not agree and infact said that if bifocals are worn the child's eyes will not be doing any accommodation and hence over a long period may lose their ability to accommodate to near distances.
Otis> This is just plain "office bull".  In fact the "plus" ends all "strain" which explains why it is effective in a preventive role.
  i presume this will lead to earlier presbyopia.  do you think this is a possibility.
Otis> NO!!!  The SECOND-OPINION MDS WILL TELL YOU THIS.
If as you say children should read with +3D glasses, will this in anyway make them lose their power to accommodate at near distances?
Otis> NO!!  AGAIN -- THE SECOND-OPINION.  No one will ever resolve this issue for you.

There have been studies stating that bifocals in children does reduce the progression of myopia however the improvement was stated as marginal and is therefore not prescribed by doctors.
Otis> I advocate that the parent check the child's Snellen at home.  These ODs ARE VERY BIASED!!  I meet many of them.   
Otis>  Look at the graph I provided.  I will EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS SUCCESSFUL IF YOU WISH.

Due to demands of school my daughter needs to wear glasses, but i would expect that if myopia and excess accommodation are linked bifocals are a better option at least in school. 
Otis> This MUST BE YOUR CHOICE.
Best, Otis

Whenever at home i make her read without glasses.

If you could throw some light on this it would help.

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on February 03, 2011, 03:00:58 AM
Hello Otis,

Thanks for the feedback, it is definitely encouraging, particularly the graph showing the effect of bifocals.
There is a recent review by D. Cheng et al. in Clinical  and Experimental Optometry (2011) 94, p. 24-32.  I am trying to attach it here.

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 03, 2011, 09:59:06 AM
Hi Rajeev,
Yes I would be interested in reviewing your reference.  But, by personal interviewing, I have found that second-opinion ODs have recognized that the over-prescribed minus is a profound "problem" for the natural eye.  With their personal courage, they describe the minus (how ever "necessary") as "poision glasses for children".  I think each professional (what ever his opinion) should suggest that, consiistent with passing the 20/70 line on your home Snellen.
1.  Avoid wearing the minus lens.
2. Examine the PROVEN effect of a -3 diotper on the natural eye.
3. Undertake a PERSONAL EFFORT with the plus lens -- for all close work
4. Learn to be patient with this effort.
5.  Set a REASONABLE GOAL for yourself, i.e., pass the DMV standard for visual acuity (which is between 20/50 and 20/40).
6.  Understand that this is PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY, not a "collective" responsibility.
7. Learn from people who are SUCCESSFUL, like Todd, who do not draw "income" from being an "optometrist".
I know that children are very difficult.  They don't like wearing a plus for prevention, and issues of that nature.  I truly will not get into a "fight" about that issue.  I support Jansen here, because he seems to value is distant vision, and takes the "tough responsiblity" to continue to use th eplus.  Otis


Hello Otis,

Thanks for the feedback, it is definitely encouraging, particularly the graph showing the effect of bifocals.
There is a recent review by D. Cheng et al. in Clinical  and Experimental Optometry (2011) 94, p. 24-32.  I am trying to attach it here.

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 03, 2011, 05:39:07 PM
For Rajeev and Janesn,
I am pleased you allowed me to present the "plus" (or bi-focal data).  That data truly indicates the necessity of STARTING with the plus while you can still pass the 20/70 line, and avoid the minus for the most part.  The "rate of clearing" in the Snellen is honestly "slow", but under your control is it both wise and possible.  I am often asked what "ODs and MDs 'think'".  Here is one who realized the need for "wise prevention" before it gets "out-of-hand". PLease note that she "Induced" about -3 diopters before she STARTED with prevention.
http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/od-success/
She described this as "self-induced", and the excessive minus as "doctor exacerbates" or "iatrogenic".  Here clearing "rate" was indeed slow (as expected from the Oakley-Young study), but she managed to "clear" back to normal.  It took her seven years, or about +1/2 diopter per year.  A "clearing" of about +1/2 diopter for Jansen, would get the 20/40 line clear for him, or normal as far as the DMV requirement is concerned.  This shows that true-prevention under YOUR control is possible.  But  it does take a wise and motivated person who understands these issues, and acceptes the "challenged" to keep on doing it until (under his PERSONAL control) he gets that 20/50 and 20/40 line clear.  I hope this helps Jansen understand the challenge and opportunity he now has in himself -- and why it is both wise and necessary.  Otis



Hello Otis,

Thanks for the feedback, it is definitely encouraging, particularly the graph showing the effect of bifocals.
There is a recent review by D. Cheng et al. in Clinical  and Experimental Optometry (2011) 94, p. 24-32.  I am trying to attach it here.

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 04, 2011, 07:03:09 AM

Dear Rajeev, Todd, and Jansen,
Subject: Why a "pure medical" study will always "fail".
Re: Why your personal goal, can overcome these "issues".
I have reviewed quite a number of "studies". They all `agonize' about how they are going to get a person to "comply" with the use of the preventive plus – and also sustain their "desire" for a totally double-blind study.

You know how you can get me to "comply"??

Just tell scientific truth – about the proven effect of a-3 diotper on the
natural eye's refractive state.

Just tell me about Colgate, and his use of the preventive plus.

You can tell me that most people will not sustain the effort – long enough to
see any effect. And then they will quit.

"Complance" means that we are FORCED to do something. A blind study means we
can not be TOLD THE REASONS FOR THE NECSSITY OF ALWAYS WEARING A 2.5 FOR ALL
CLOSE WORK.

Further, it means that we will not be checking our Snellen on an objective
basis.

This is what separates Engineering/SCIENCE from medicine for me.

My eyes belong to ME – not an OD.

If I wish to protect by eyes, then I can't turn them over to any OD.

Jansen – has started out at about 20/70, (about -1.5 diopters).

I suggested that he "commit" to four months, and "look for normal vision (pass
the 20/40 line).

I can get my facts right.

But I can NEVER PREDICT WHAT ANY PERSON WILL, OR MIGHT DO.

I only know what I would do, if I realized THAT NO ONE WAS EVER GOING TO DO IT
FOR ME – and that prevention costs nothing at all -- other than intelligence in
understanding the PROVEN behavior of all natural or fundamental eyes.

(Preventive) second-opinion best,



Hello Otis,

Thanks for the feedback, it is definitely encouraging, particularly the graph showing the effect of bifocals.
There is a recent review by D. Cheng et al. in Clinical  and Experimental Optometry (2011) 94, p. 24-32.  I am trying to attach it here.

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 04, 2011, 06:19:28 PM
Hi Janesn,
Subject: Review of the "plus" with Rajeev -- and what is means to me.
As always, I wish (metaphysically), I was the person learning to use the plus correctly.  That is how I take my effort to provide advice and suggestions to you.  This is strictly an "empowerment" effort, and your own efforts can "win" -- in the same manner that Todd cleared his vision under HIS control.  I think it took Todd about a year to clear his vision, and I am certain he agrees that it was worh it, rather than be "stuck" with prescription glasses.  Let me summarize these so-called "bi-focal" studies.  They show that prevention is possible, and with good judgment and consistent wearing of the "anti-prescription" plus glasses you can successfuly clear your Snellen to normal.  If it were me, I would have the plus in my pocket, and would use it at home for all reading and computer work.  I would "accept" that a "postive change" will be slow -- but I love my distant vision clear (and avoid the minus) so I would continue to "work" with the plus.  There has been no scientific study, were each person was properlly informed of this choice, and the entire effort put under his control.  That is how I judge that prevention can be accmplished.  We are all here to support YOU with that effort.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 05, 2011, 07:37:19 AM
Hi Todd

I recently hit a plateau after steady improvement. My weaker myopic right eye is not keeping up with my left.

So I have got +2 lenses, cheap shop bought specs, and literally pushed out the right lens. It's been a week now and slowly the improvements are starting again.

I am still delighted that I can go without specs daily, and quite happy to put them on for driving and low light in the street - and for gallery viewing, like the Glasgow Boys - great show and only 2 days left!
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/glasgow-boys/ (http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/glasgow-boys/)
 ;D

Patrea,

Glad to hear you have made progress and can go without your specs.  I hope you were able to enjoy the exhibit at the gallery without having to get too close up to the artwork!

I did something similar to you and have one pair of plus lenses with the right lens pushed out. Looks a bit weird, but I use this  approach occasionally to strengthen my left eye, which is still slightly myopic. 
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 05, 2011, 07:44:56 AM
Hi Janesn,
Subject: Review of the "plus" with Rajeev -- and what is means to me.
As always, I wish (metaphysically), I was the person learning to use the plus correctly.  That is how I take my effort to provide advice and suggestions to you.  This is strictly an "empowerment" effort, and your own efforts can "win" -- in the same manner that Todd cleared his vision under HIS control.  I think it took Todd about a year to clear his vision, and I am certain he agrees that it was worh it, rather than be "stuck" with prescription glasses.  Let me summarize these so-called "bi-focal" studies.  They show that prevention is possible, and with good judgment and consistent wearing of the "anti-prescription" plus glasses you can successfuly clear your Snellen to normal.  If it were me, I would have the plus in my pocket, and would use it at home for all reading and computer work.  I would "accept" that a "postive change" will be slow -- but I love my distant vision clear (and avoid the minus) so I would continue to "work" with the plus.  There has been no scientific study, were each person was properlly informed of this choice, and the entire effort put under his control.  That is how I judge that prevention can be accmplished.  We are all here to support YOU with that effort.  Otis

I'm the same as Otis:  I usually have with me a "plus in my pocket" to whip out when I'm going to be doing a lot of reading or computer work.

I've had a few recent business trips where I had a lot of reading to do on long transatlantic flights.  Reading with the plus lenses was very comfortable, and it was like a "tune up" for the eyes.  When I went out for walks after work, I noticed my distance vision was even sharper than usual.

So even someone like me who doesn't use minus lenses anymore benefits by occasion use of plus lenses to maintain good focus.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 06, 2011, 06:53:03 AM
Hi Patrea and Todd,
Let me add my thoughts to Todd's suggestion.  It is always a good idea to avoid the minus as much as possible.  But I would add the following suggestions (for your own peace of mind, and to help you).  Down load a Snellen for free from here:
http://www.i-see.org/eyecharts.html
Then look for Joel Schneider, and click on "PDF".  Put is up at 20 feet.  Here is how I check:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgUkoSSgVOs
Since you can read through a +2, that suggests that your vision has improved.  The goal of this step is to personally check to see how close you are to passing the DMV -- wich is 20/50 to 20/40 for all most all of us.  Todd is better than that, and he will pass the California DMV test.  I always work to the 20/40 line -- and will never wear a minus as long as I pass it.  This is an additional step, but it should help a lot -- just to be on the "safe" side.  If you can't pass the 20/40 line (read 1/2 the letters correctly), then you will be "stuck" with the minus until you do pass it.  Todd's remarks about wearing a "plus" on the plane, and "seeing clearly" are a good indication of both the necessity and success of this approch.  Both Todd and I are engineers, so we prefer to think for ourselves, and if at all possible, conduct "prevention" by ourselves.  In my parlence,  as an engineer, I know if I want a job done "right", then I must "do it myself".  The posts I have made for Jansen follow my desire to help the man -- who first learns to help himself.  Keep on doing the "right thing" for yourself.  Otis

Hi Todd

I recently hit a plateau after steady improvement. My weaker myopic right eye is not keeping up with my left.

So I have got +2 lenses, cheap shop bought specs, and literally pushed out the right lens. It's been a week now and slowly the improvements are starting again.

I am still delighted that I can go without specs daily, and quite happy to put them on for driving and low light in the street - and for gallery viewing, like the Glasgow Boys - great show and only 2 days left!
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/glasgow-boys/ (http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/glasgow-boys/)
 ;D

Patrea,

Glad to hear you have made progress and can go without your specs.  I hope you were able to enjoy the exhibit at the gallery without having to get too close up to the artwork!

I did something similar to you and have one pair of plus lenses with the right lens pushed out. Looks a bit weird, but I use this  approach occasionally to strengthen my left eye, which is still slightly myopic. 
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 06, 2011, 08:39:23 PM
Hello,

I have a question. If I use bring the plus lenses to school and use it for reading and other close work, will it speed up my improvement?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 07, 2011, 05:30:51 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: Learning and "giving advice".
It is very difficult for me to give "advice".  I know that you will have "social pressure" to NOT wear a plus for reading in school.  That would be the real issue (for me) and for you.  This would be a reason why you would use the plus for all work at home.  You know I encourage pilots, who must clear their Snellens to use the plus virually for all close work, for more than five minutes.  But they know the 'trade off".  If they want their Snellen to "clear", then they will do it -- because of how much they need their goal to get their refractive STATE to "move positive", and their Snellen to clear.  If it were me, I would always have a plus in my pocket, and would be always wearing it at home.  This is what my nephew did, and kept his Snellen clear for the last 20 years.  But he also runs the "Ironman" and loves not having to wear "prescription glasses".  Again, if it were me, I would look for some "plus" that I could look "over the top" at the board.  Then I could read with the plus, and look at the board.  I am certain you will get some "commentary" if you do that.  If your freinds are wise, they might understand the reason.  No one here ever said that prevention will ever be "easy".  But it is indeed wise.  Otis


Hello,

I have a question. If I use bring the plus lenses to school and use it for reading and other close work, will it speed up my improvement?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 07, 2011, 12:37:38 PM
Hi Jansen,
Part 2 -- Should I wear a plus in school?  The answer is YES.
But I do respect the following idea.  It takes time to learn of this method.  It takes time to get "use to" wearing the plus.  It takes personal motivation to (gradually) learn how to make a "commitment" to "systematic" use of the plus for four months.  I described this to my nephew as "body intelligence". By that I mean we have the "intelligence" to go to school and college, but there is a "personal judgment" factor, where you decide what is important in your life, and understand the wisdom of using the plus for your own personal welfare.  If you can do it, then wearing a "plus" in school would definitely help a lot.  But that is indeed a lot of 'commitment'.  Clearly Stirling Colgate just 'intuifively' figured out that he MUST DO THIS -- so he did it.  Todd, recognized from Severson, that using anti-prescription glasses was an excellent idea -- so he did it.  I know that if I just "learned" about the preventive plus, it would take me sometime before I could really get "commited" to wearing the plus consistently.  That is why Todd and I are here -- to support this type of choice for your long-term visual future.  Keep on posting and asking questions!  That is what Engineering/SCIENCE is all about.  Otis

Hello,

I have a question. If I use bring the plus lenses to school and use it for reading and other close work, will it speed up my improvement?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 07, 2011, 08:26:34 PM

Hi Jensen,
Subject: What do eye-professionals think?
Sorry to say, most are totally hostile to the idea that you can "do prevention yourself".  But there are a few who "changed their minds", and now advocate plus-prevention on the threshold as I do.  It is always good to understand it that way.  They even insist that their own children wear a +2.5 for all close work.  The result will be that their children with not even "enter in" to myopia - in the first place.  For the record, his is a "brave" optometrist who speaks the truth, as far as I am concerned.  But real "motivation" must always come from "within".  If it does not exist (or develop) there, then no "external force" can have any effect.  Best, Otis

http://www.chinamyopia.org/mainenglish.htm
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 08, 2011, 07:14:38 AM
Hi Jansen,
Some additional information, that might help you choose to start wearing the plus for prevention.
http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/newday/
I know that most of us will "dither" about making a truly tough choice -- so collecting and reading information is always of value.
But I am curious.  What percentage of your time do you spend actually wearing the plus?  Also, do you have a Snellen set up where you can check it?  For me, having this type of "control" over myself, and my distant vision is of great importance to me.  Otis



Hello,

I have a question. If I use bring the plus lenses to school and use it for reading and other close work, will it speed up my improvement?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 08, 2011, 07:01:39 PM
There is one thing that I've always been a little confused about. On the "Rehabilitation" part of Mr. Todd's website, he mentions that if you cannot focus on the letters, move in until you can focus. What are you supposed to do after this?
Also, do you blink normally while reading with the plus lenses on?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 08, 2011, 08:14:42 PM
Hi Jansen,
Obviously Todd will have to answer some of your quesiton.  Since I know you can read through a +2.5 diopter plus, I would understand that "move in until you focus" has the same "goal" as what Brian describes as "pushing print".  Blink normally!  How is your reading of your Snellen at this time?  Do you have a bright light on it?  Thanks for your answer. Otis
There is one thing that I've always been a little confused about. On the "Rehabilitation" part of Mr. Todd's website, he mentions that if you cannot focus on the letters, move in until you can focus. What are you supposed to do after this?
Also, do you blink normally while reading with the plus lenses on?

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 08, 2011, 08:25:11 PM
Hello,

My snellen reading has changed the tiniest bit. In the morning, I get clear flashes of 20/50 or better, but this settles out to 20/60-20/70 as the day goes by. Bringing the plus to school has helped a bit I think.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 09, 2011, 04:40:21 AM
Hi Jansen,
Thanks for checking your Snellen.  I check about once a week.  Your refractive state will change very slowly, and that is the truly "tough" part of prevention.  I have great respect for the man wno can "stick" with his own effort.  I can never get into a person's "brain" and make him wear the "plus" correctly.  But rather, I can respect how difficult "motivation" is to keep on wearing the anti-prescription glasses under YOUR control.  This quite literally is your "fight" to preserve, or change your refractive STATE by about +1/2 to +3/4 diopters, (or change in Snellen from 20/70 to the range of 20/50 to 20/40 in about four months).  I know it is difficult to "stay motivated", and the must be a matter of your "educated judgment".  Dr. Bates argued that we should "discard" or minus lenses.  I agree, but only AFTER you can personally CONFIRM that you read the 20/40 line on a brightly lit Snellen.  What has becomd clear is this.  Each year in high school means that our eyes go DOWN by -1/2 diotper for each year.  I think you are a bright person, and will be going to college.  A wise person  "looks into the future".  Where records are maintaind (the military academy), the eye goes down by about -1.3 dioters in four years.  Thus, if completed college, you could add at least -1.3 diotpers to your current -1.5 diopters (average), and would be at -2.8 diopters after four years.  Then you would not be able to read the 20/100 to 20/140 line.  Success favors the "prepared mind".  So if at times, wearing the anti-prescription plus seems "difficult", you should keep these scientific facts in mind.  There are some "issues" in your life where only YOU can decide, and choose.  In my judgment, in full view of the facts, this is one of those issues.  Keep on posting -- we both enjoy the discussion.  Otis

Hello,

My snellen reading has changed the tiniest bit. In the morning, I get clear flashes of 20/50 or better, but this settles out to 20/60-20/70 as the day goes by. Bringing the plus to school has helped a bit I think.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 09, 2011, 08:59:18 AM
Is there a possiblity that we can prevent ourselves from going down -1/2 diopter each year in high school by using plus lenses while doing close work at school?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 09, 2011, 01:28:35 PM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: Can we prevent (entry) into myopia?  At the threshold, can we get out of it?
I will post Soon's "picture" of this "response" of the natural eye to a "school" environment -- with my commentary.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html
This is an accurate picture of the eye as we start to get into it, and as we get and start wearing a minus lens.
You had a -1.5 diopter lens because your Snellen was about 20/70.  If you are systematic with your plus (as you seem to be), you can expect that you will begin to get "clear flashes" of 20/40.  I use the 20/40 as my legal requirement.  While not "perfect", 20/40 is reasonable vision, so you can avoid the minus lens.
When you begin to get "flashes" of 20/40 -- that will be a "red letter day".  It is good to have a reasonable objective -- that you can achieve and personally confirm in a reasonable period of time.  Keep up the excellent scientific work.  Otis

Is there a possiblity that we can prevent ourselves from going down -1/2 diopter each year in high school by using plus lenses while doing close work at school?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 11, 2011, 07:06:51 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: How to "cause myopia" in yourself.
I was very curious about the minus lens -- as to its "safety".  Yes it works, but in my judgment it is also dangerous.  But here is why it is a "poor idea", even if it "works" instantly. The point is to learn to ask the 'right questions", and understand why an engineer will ask this type of question.  Otis
"Dr.B.G.Gokulan" Wrote:
The linked graphic shows the eye gets elongated with use of a thick
myopic glass...but let me ask...who ll wear a myopic correction without
myopia???
thanx.. Dr. Gokulan

++++++++++++++

That is truly an excellent question. It is "thought provoking" indeed. In fact
young man, with normal vision (postive refractive status) choose to wear a
strong minus lens for several months -- on purpose.

Then knew that if they did so, their normal eyes would change their refractive
status from a "plus" value to a "negative" value, of one or two diotpers. This
equates to about 20/60 to 20/120 on the Snellen.

WHY DID THEY DO THIS?

They wished to make their eyes "myopic" so that they could avoid the Russian
draft system. AFTER they developed thta negative state, they would be examined,
and rejected by the examining doctor, because they were myopic.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf


Thus the method "works" if you wish to make yourself seriously myopic.

Maybe not a "good idea" but it does prove the responsiveness of the NATURAL eye
to a lens.

Best,

Otis


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 11, 2011, 09:39:49 PM
Hello,
I'm having some trouble obtaining a bright enough light for my snellen. If a shine a flash light onto it, it is enough lighting to get an accurate test.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 11, 2011, 10:17:39 PM
Hi Jansen,

I have two suggestions:
1.  Put up the Snellen chart next to a window and use it with bright daylight.
2.  Use one of the Snellen charts that can be generated on your computer screen.  Alex Eisenberg has a number of these linked on his i-see.org site:  http://i-see.org/eyecharts.html    You can experiment with them to see which chart works best for you.

Good luck,

Todd

Good luck
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 12, 2011, 05:16:23 AM
Hii Jansen,
Subject:  Consistent, repeatable results -- for your own confidence.
Here is how i put a bright (75 watt) light on my Snellen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgUkoSSgVOs
A low-light gives and inaccurate reading.  Some suggestions:
1.  Take the Snellen outside.
2.  Find a lamp that produced this degree of light.
3.  A flashlight is very weak.
I will post an "electronic" Snellen that you could use in due course.
Getting to 20/40 on a well-lit Snellen is critical for your progress.  I would do what I did.
Put it on a board, so you can take it outside.  I thank you for being persistent in the use of the plus.
That is crucial to gradually clear your Snellen to pass all the required DMV tests.  Keep up this excellent work.  Otis

Hello,
I'm having some trouble obtaining a bright enough light for my snellen. If a shine a flash light onto it, it is enough lighting to get an accurate test.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 13, 2011, 06:10:34 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject:  About the Snellen, and "Engineers".
Both Todd and myself believe that we should be in "control" of our lives.  We also believe that if you want a job done "RIGHT" -- you do it yourself -- given kind, wise and intelligent support.  We also respect the idea that "prevention" is difficult, and it takes a "strong will" and persistence to do it. 
SNELLEN:  I prefer to use the Snellen I have up -- and to always confirm I can read the "Golden" 20/40 line.  I take that as a personal responsiblity.  In poor light, I might have a "problem" reading the 20/40 line, which is why you need to have a bright light on it for an "official" measurement.  With that idea in mind, here is an "Electronic" Snellen for your use.  You need to get 20 feet away from your computer to read it officially.  Just click here:
http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html
and then on "Display" several times.  That will show some random letters.  I also "click" on "H O T V" to make this easier.  Give it a try, and see if you can confirm you pass the 20/50 and 20/40 line.  Remeber, it takes about four months clear your vision using the "plus" in a very consistent and logical manner.  Otis




Hello,
I'm having some trouble obtaining a bright enough light for my snellen. If a shine a flash light onto it, it is enough lighting to get an accurate test.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 13, 2011, 07:50:57 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: Some exercise I do with my own Snellen, plus lens, and the reading that I do.
What I do is to sit at 20 feet from my Snellen.  I then take a book, and read it and "push print" as you have taught yourself to do.  Then after reading for several minutes, I look over the top of my plus lens a the Snellen.  By doing this "exercise", I can ofter "clear" a line on my Snellen.  (This process is called "accommodative rock", and is taught in some optometry schools).  There is no "perfect" way take these wise steps, and all of this depends on your personal goal, to eventually pass the 20/40 line, and keep it that way through the school years.  Best, Otis

Hello,
I'm having some trouble obtaining a bright enough light for my snellen. If a shine a flash light onto it, it is enough lighting to get an accurate test.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 14, 2011, 04:39:02 PM
Hello,

I recently read online about Brian Severson, who used a similar method to restore his eyesight. He apparently read at the blur point, but also opened his eyes wide, and then gently blinked while reading. Will opening the eyes wide and then gently blinking while reading at the blur point help at all?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 14, 2011, 04:51:39 PM
Hi Jansen,
I always say this -- I wish "I" were the one reading his Snellen, and LEARNING how to prevent -- using the method Todd used on himself.  Brian Severson, as a pilot, had intense motivation to use the plus, and clear his Snellen from 20/70 to FAA 20/20.  There is no question about the necessity of that type of "core" motivation being essential for success.  Also, I am a pilot, but as 3rd class FAA license for me requires that I pass the 20/40 line.  That is why I advocate that you work to achieve that level of vision for your eyes.
YES PLUS-PREVENTION IS THE CORE METHOD FOR TODD AND BRIAN
But other methods, sometimes called, "Bates" can be used to agument the effect of the plus used with wisdom.  I prefer the "accommodative rock" method, where I use the plus for reading, and then look over the top of my plus at my Snellen to get the best "bump" for my visual acuity.  But other pilots, like Fred Deakins (USAF) use the plus and these other methods.  For me, I prefer just to carry the plus in my pocket, and just put it on for close-work. 
LOW COST PLUS -- AVAILABLE AROUND THE HOUSE
I found a source of "plus" -- from "Goodwill".  They run about $3.00.  That beats the $10.00 in the drug store.  But there is no substitue for your personal resolve to keep this effort up until you begin passing the FAA 3rd class requirement, by your widsom, and my your self-interest.  Otis

Hello,

I recently read online about Brian Severson, who used a similar method to restore his eyesight. He apparently read at the blur point, but also opened his eyes wide, and then gently blinked while reading. Will opening the eyes wide and then gently blinking while reading at the blur point help at all?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 14, 2011, 07:53:33 PM
Hello,

I recently read online about Brian Severson, who used a similar method to restore his eyesight. He apparently read at the blur point, but also opened his eyes wide, and then gently blinked while reading. Will opening the eyes wide and then gently blinking while reading at the blur point help at all?

Yes, I recall Brian writing about the use of blinking to help clear the blur.  I tried that and it does help, although I found the effect to be temporary.  Try it for yourself and see what you think, Jansen.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 17, 2011, 10:07:21 AM
Hi Jansen,
I know it is difficult to "stay motivated" in the use of the plus.  But I am curious.  Could you give us an estimate of what line you read on your Snellen (brightly lit, or out-doors) at 20 feet.  Also, is the wearing of the plus for all close work comfortable for you?  Thanks, Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 17, 2011, 04:22:27 PM
I'm starting to have a feeling that +2.50 lenses are too strong for me. I have to pull the reading material about 10 inches from my face for it to be perfectly clear and sharp, and 12 inches for it be slightly blurred. I also used the IVAC and could read some letters on the 20/80 line. Today is very dark and rainy, and I tend to always have better vision when the sun is out, so I will try to have natural lighting on my chart soon.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 17, 2011, 04:39:02 PM
Hi Jansen,
Thanks for your report!  I truly know how difficult it is to sustain this effort.  I had hoped for your sake for a "better Snellen", but that is the way it goes.  If a +2 is more comfortable, then that is the lens you should use.  I peronally think that the Snellen I have "up" gives me the best reading and confidence.  I will also post some remarks by an ophthalmologist who insisted that her own child wear the plus -- even with 20/20 vision.  As always, the goal is to avoid the minus, except for school.  With 20/70 to 20/70, (on your Snellen) it is true you will have to use it.  There is nothing "easy" about prevention, and I think we all acknowlege that truth.  Otis


I'm starting to have a feeling that +2.50 lenses are too strong for me. I have to pull the reading material about 10 inches from my face for it to be perfectly clear and sharp, and 12 inches for it be slightly blurred. I also used the IVAC and could read some letters on the 20/80 line. Today is very dark and rainy, and I tend to always have better vision when the sun is out, so I will try to have natural lighting on my chart soon.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 17, 2011, 04:43:56 PM
Thank you!
I plan on switching to +2.00 soon, because having to bend over just to make the print slightly blurry at school was a pain for my back and neck. I didn't realize this until I sat in the desk at school and couldn't pull my chair in any further!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 17, 2011, 08:08:08 PM
Hi Jansen,
As always, I give "advice" as though "I" were wearing the plus -- as you are now doing it.  Todd can confirm this estimate of your refractive status.  Reading at 10 inches (is about -4 diopters).  If you can read at that distance with a +2 diopter lens, then your refraction is the DIFFERENCE.  Thus you would be "nearsighted" by approximagely -2 to -1.5 diopters.  The -1.5 diopters is a "correct" prescription to give you 20/20 vision at this time.
NOW THE HARD PART:  Do you wish to continue?  You have about one month of this work.  It is impossible to predict the "rate" at which a person can clear his vision to 20/50 to 20/40 range.  It took Todd about one year.  If it were me, I would give it a full four months, and see what I could accomplish.  I think you said that you could do "most things" with no minus.  I would continue to do that if you can.  If it were me, I would continue to "work" with the +2, and get a good well-lit Snellen.  This work does require strong fortitude, and we all acknowledge that fact.  So please keep on posting your "thoughts", and we will help if we can.  Otis


I'm starting to have a feeling that +2.50 lenses are too strong for me. I have to pull the reading material about 10 inches from my face for it to be perfectly clear and sharp, and 12 inches for it be slightly blurred. I also used the IVAC and could read some letters on the 20/80 line. Today is very dark and rainy, and I tend to always have better vision when the sun is out, so I will try to have natural lighting on my chart soon.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 18, 2011, 10:15:14 PM
Hello,

I recently switched from +2.5 to +1.75 and I feel much more comfortable reading and using the computer.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 19, 2011, 04:29:23 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: Choosing a COMFORTABLE plus lens.
That is the correct choice.  From your statements, and what you measure yourself (very imporant), your eyes have a refractive state of about -1.5 diopters.  As far as I am concerned we should be taught to begin reading with a "plus" as soon as our eyes get "down to" about -3/4 diopters (about 20/40 to 20/50 on our Snellens).  From the people I know who are successful, it takes time to get your refractive status to change by +3/4 diotpers, maybe four months.  But if you are prepared to make this wearing of the plus a "habit" (reduce the effect of a "near" environment), then slowly your refractive status changes in a plus direction. This is what Brain accomplished.  When this happens, you will notice that your Snellen begins to clear (albeit slowly), and eventually you can begin using a +2 for close work (because of that refractive change in your natural eyes).  As always, keep posting your remarks, and we will continue to help with this process.  Otis



Hello,

I recently switched from +2.5 to +1.75 and I feel much more comfortable reading and using the computer.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 19, 2011, 09:44:41 AM
I have another question. Does the Accommodative rock exercise help clear the line temporarily or forever?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 19, 2011, 10:45:51 AM
Hi Jansen,
Good question.  In my opinion, it is a process of general "improvement", with the goal of getting your vision back to normal (that for me, means that I pass the 20/40 line on my Snellen).  I just suggested this "rock" process to help you get to 20/40, and to work with your Snellen to verify that you get there -- by all wise means possible.  (I do include some of what Dr. Bates advocated also, and any other method that Todd might suggest.)  What I would do, is not be concerned so much with "permanent", but with getting that 20/40 line clear.  AFTER I got the 20/40 line clear, then I would worry about keeping it clear, or whether I would have to continue using thes Plus/Exercise methods to "clear" it whenever my Snellen started "back down" due to required long-term close work.  Actually my nephew resolved this issue for himself.  He just re-started the use of the plus, whenever his eye "adapted" to his long-term near work.  As always, I wish I were the one accepting the challenge to use the +1.75 diotper to gradually clear the 20/50 and 20/40 line.  Otis


I have another question. Does the Accommodative rock exercise help clear the line temporarily or forever?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 19, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Jansen,
Subject:  Will my "nearsighedness" become PERMANENT, if I don't get back to 20/50 and 20/40.
I always like to consider what will happen if I DON'T take preventive action under MY CONTROL.
Let us say you STOP wearing the plus -- for a number of reasons.  What will happen, is that your 20/70 vision will not be permanent.  In fact, for each year you spend in high school, your vision will go down by -1/2 diopter, and in college -1/3 diotpers EACH YEAR. This is AVERAGE, some far worse than that.  Here is the "graphic" of your visual future:
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html
I am not "critical", but I like to know My future, and, wit no prevetive plus, you will get down to 20/200 in about five years.  Otis


I have another question. Does the Accommodative rock exercise help clear the line temporarily or forever?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 21, 2011, 09:36:42 PM
Its almost been 2 months since i've started the plus lens therapy. For some reason, i've been stuck at the same distance when reading, and it hasn't improved much. I can still read 20/70-20/60, but the 20/50 letters are still unreadable to me unfortunately.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 21, 2011, 11:28:38 PM
Jansen,

Thanks for the update.  From your earlier posts, I gather that you started at 20/70 and have improved slightly to 20/60.  That's progress, but I can understand the frustration at seeing a "stall".

Here are some suggestions:
1.  When you use the plus lenses, are you reading right at "the edge of focus"?  By that, I mean that you should push back from the print until it begins to blur, then pull in ever so slightly until it clears up.  This should be very slightly uncomfortable, but never should it involve straining or pain.  You may have to periodically retest the distance by moving back and forth.
2.  Always read with strong lighting.  Your eyes can focus much better if there is strong black-and-white contrast.  Read outside or use a bright light.  Or turn up the brightness on your computer screen.
3.  Take frequent breaks, every 15 minutes or so.  Remove the plus lenses and look around the room, focusing on distant objects.  This helps develop flexibilty in accomodatation.
4.  Sometimes a change in diet can make a big difference. Cut back on or eliminate sugary drinks and foods, especially sodas, and drink water instead. Studies show that omega-3 fatty acids (http://www.allaboutvision.com/nutrition/fatty_acid_1.htm) play a key role in the synthesis and repair of eye tissue, and promote visual acuity.  These essential fatty acids are found most abundantly in fish.  I personally found that fish oil helped my vision -- both the sharpness and brightness of colors improved.  You can get the cod liver oil capsules (http://www.amazon.com/Twinlab-Norwegian-Liver-Softgels-Pack/dp/B001G7QFZU/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298359079&sr=8-1-fkmr0) online or over the counter in any pharmacy, or order the very palatable liquid form online.  I found that a tablespoon every 2 days of the orange-flavored cod liver oil really helps improve visual acuity.  You can get the Twinlabs product in many health food stores, or online.  Each 12-oz bottle ($6.41 plus shipping) will last you two months if you take a tablespoon every other day:

http://www.vitacost.com/Twinlab-Emulsified-Norwegian-Cod-Liver-Oil-Orange

Good luck, Jansen.  Keep up the good work, and keep on posting here!

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 22, 2011, 04:04:29 AM
Hi Jansen,
With deep respect -- I understand how difficult it is to do this, to "stick" with this effort.  The "chart" by Soon See, shows how "slow" this preventive process is.  I like Todd's recommendations, and would follow them.  The "additional knowledge" (for me) would be the effect of each year in school, and the fact that my eyes would (and will) continue down for each year in school.  I do think that if you "stick" with the "habit" of wearing that plus, you will begin to "see" the 20/50 line, but you must continue.  People like to "prove" or "see" for themselves, and believe me, getting to the 20/50 line is eventually possible.  I know that Severson did it, but he was "intense" and persistent with his own effort.  As always, keep wearing the plus, try not to get too frustrated, and keep posting.  Otis


Its almost been 2 months since i've started the plus lens therapy. For some reason, i've been stuck at the same distance when reading, and it hasn't improved much. I can still read 20/70-20/60, but the 20/50 letters are still unreadable to me unfortunately.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 22, 2011, 03:36:48 PM
Thank you for the suggestions everyone. Also, by beginning to blur, do you mean the text starting to become unreadable? I have always been confused about this; because what I do is: Bring the text in until it is very crisp, and then push out until I start losing the crispness. However, It is rather confusing to me because I don't know exactly when to stop pushing the text away.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 22, 2011, 04:07:49 PM
http://www.thevisioncommunity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=144&phpMyAdmin=B4iGOWMpQ9L9TeOvCcp5aNVlEW1
Here is a website showing an image and it allows one to adjust the level of blur. What level of blur would be good when reading at the edge of blur?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 22, 2011, 04:17:06 PM
Jansen,

Your question is a good one, and you are not the only one who gets confused about.  So I'll try to explain the approach carefully.  Here is the procedure:

1.  Select a strength of plus lenses that allows you to read print crisply at a comfortable reading distance (usually about 12-16 inches from your eyes) but is blurry beyond that distance.  If your myopia is very strong (more than +3 diopters), you might not even need to use any plus lenses at all, until your distance vision starts improving.
2.  Move the book or computer screen away from your eyes until it just starts to look a little blurry.
3.  Continue reading the text for about a minute.  Blink tight and open your eyes a few times.  See if the text begins to "clear", which means to get sharper.
4.  If the text clears, continue reading at this distance.  If it starts to blur, try the blinking again to see if it clears up.
5.  If the text gets blurry and remains blurry for more than a minute, get closer until it is perfectly sharp.
6.  Never let the text have any degree of blur for more than a minute. You should be reading sharp text, in focus, all the time.
7.  The text should always be right AT THE LIMIT of where it is sharp.  That means it should not be possible to push back more than an inch or two without it getting blurry again.
8.  It is OK, even good, to feel a slight discomfort. But you should NEVER strain, be in pain, or have to squint your eyes.  Your eyes and facial muscles should always be relaxed.
9.  Be sure to take a break at every 15-30 minutes.  Take off your lenses and look around the room. Focus on sharp features of the room at a distance -- edges of walls or windows, artwork, books -- where you can clearly seen things in focus.  Look at objects at various distances.  Get up and walk around or take a short break.
10. Wear your plus lenses ONLY when reading, looking at the computer or TV, or doing close up work.  Do NOT wear plus lenses for distance.  For distance, either use no lenses at all, or ideally a reduced minus prescription.
11. As your myopia gets weaker and your distance vision improves, you may need stronger plus lenses to induce the blur at 12-16 inches.  This is progress!  Switch to the stronger plus lenses and continue as your myopia improves.

This technique is the opposite of normal minus lenses, which get stronger as your vision worsens.  With plus lens therapy, you move to stronger plus lenses as your vision improves, in the same way that weight lifters progress to heavier weights as they get stronger.

Let me know if this makes sense to you or if you have questions about any of these points, or if you are experiencing any problems with this method.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 22, 2011, 04:33:02 PM
http://www.thevisioncommunity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=144&phpMyAdmin=B4iGOWMpQ9L9TeOvCcp5aNVlEW1
Here is a website showing an image and it allows one to adjust the level of blur. What level of blur would be good when reading at the edge of blur?

That's a very cool website, Jansen!  To answer your specific question, I would not let the blur go beyond a level of "1" in the photo you linked.  Your eyes are like the automatic focusing mechanism in a camera, in at least this respect:  They will automatically adjust to accommodate when objects are very slightly out of focus.  However, they will totally give up even trying if the blur is greater than a certain amount.  Again, to use a weight lifting analogy, you can lift weights that are right at the limit of your abilility. But if you even go 2-5 pounds beyond that, your muscles will just give up trying.  On the other hand, if you lift weights that are too light, you get no benefit.  You need to apply the "Goldilocks Principle" -- not too easy, not too hard -- JUST RIGHT!

So keep the blur to an absolute minimum -- but right on the edge of focus.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 22, 2011, 06:33:02 PM
Thank you so much for Clarifying this for me. I think the website I linked helped me a bit in visualizing the "Edge of Blur." I now know that you should keep the text at the slightest blur, even if it is still readable. Also, once the text clears, should it stay like that forever?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 22, 2011, 07:23:00 PM
Hi Jansen,
What  "neat" idea!  Under "Choose background image" -- he should include a picture of a Snellen chart!  If you suggest it, he might include that in his test.  It would be useful for our discussions.  The  "level of blur" I use is to "push" until can't read the letters, then I "pull in" until I can read them with reasonable comfort.  When you read them that way, you don't notice any slight blur that might be there.  This is truly an individual judgment and Todd suggested.  The "deeper" goal is to never "lean forward" to much, which defeats the purpose of the plus.  Pushing-print, gets the work "optically" in the distance, and that is the purpose of doing it.  As always, I wish I was the one who was "accepting" the challenge of doing this work.  Otis

http://www.thevisioncommunity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=144&phpMyAdmin=B4iGOWMpQ9L9TeOvCcp5aNVlEW1
Here is a website showing an image and it allows one to adjust the level of blur. What level of blur would be good when reading at the edge of blur?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 22, 2011, 08:35:57 PM
Thank you very much for all the advice. By the way, there is a blur simulator I found using snellen chart:
http://www.billauer.co.il/simulator.html
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 22, 2011, 10:48:56 PM
Thank you so much for Clarifying this for me. I think the website I linked helped me a bit in visualizing the "Edge of Blur." I now know that you should keep the text at the slightest blur, even if it is still readable. Also, once the text clears, should it stay like that forever?

Jansen, 

Good find with that blurring snellen chart simulation! 

To answer your question, once the text clears it should stay that way throughout your reading session.  If it starts to get blurry, get closer until it clears again and try the blinking technique.  If your vision improves and you can clear the text during one session, that doesn't mean it is permanent.  You'll find your vision fluctuating -- getting better and worse -- from day to day, but gradually you should see improvement over a period of weeks.  It's like getting on the scale when dieting -- the numbers go up and down in the short term, but the long term trend should be in the right direction.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 23, 2011, 07:40:22 AM
Hi Jansen,
What a good find!  Of course 6/12 is 20/40, and 6/18 would be 20/60.  I am often asked about this comparison about a "prescription" and what a person sees on his Snellen.  This is an excellent "rough" check -- but the important thing is to look at your Snellen.  If you get a change of +1/2 diotper in the next three months that will "clear" the 20/50 line for you -- and encourage you to continue.  I have also developed my own (personal) trial-lens kit, so that I could use minus lens to find out the "minimum" lens to clear the 20/25 to 20/20 line for myself.  That is probably an un-necessary "frill", but I do like to be in "control" of this work.  Otis

Thank you very much for all the advice. By the way, there is a blur simulator I found using snellen chart:
http://www.billauer.co.il/simulator.html
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 23, 2011, 07:27:00 PM
I actually am a bit confused at the edge of focus still. After the text clears, are you supposed to push the text away until it is at the edge of focus again, or just keep reading at the same point?
Also, do I do the hard blinking technique at the point where if I move the text back an inch or two the text will be slightly blurred?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 23, 2011, 07:58:27 PM
Hi Jansen,
I will duplicate your situation as I type this.  I have a +3 diopter lens and can read this at 11 inches.  As I push away, I can read (with blur) at 19 inches. I then lead forward so there is SLIGHT BLUR -- but confortable reading at 16 inches.  That is my "comfort, with slight blur) point.   This as Todd stated is the "just right stress" point.  The reading should be clear, but with the slightest blur.  This must be "adjusted" with comfort.  So once I "find" this point, then I keep on reading at that point.  If my nose is too close to the reading, I use a plus weaker by about 1/2 diopter.  It obviously takes a little "skill" and several plus lenses to find the "comfort" point. I get my plus lenses from Good Will for about $3, so I can "waste" some money with differnt power plus lenses.  As your "Snellen Clears", and your refraction changes in a positive direction, you will find you need a "stronger" plus at the same distance.   Once you have found that distance, with a comfortable plus lens, the REAL EFFORT, IS TO CONTINUE THIS WORK AS A "HABIT".  For me, it is like brushing my teeth on a "regular basis".  I know what will happen to my teeth if I don't do it.  Best, Otis
I actually am a bit confused at the edge of focus still. After the text clears, are you supposed to push the text away until it is at the edge of focus again, or just keep reading at the same point?
Also, do I do the hard blinking technique at the point where if I move the text back an inch or two the text will be slightly blurred?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: srlaserguy on February 23, 2011, 10:00:24 PM
Quote
I am very excited to read your statement that "sometimes sharp letters appear on top of blur and then it passes by...It is sort of strange

I have been using +1 lens to help correct my nearsightedness for three weeks now. At the edge of my focusing limit,  I am starting notice this sharp and blur thingie.  I had almost perfect vision ten years ago and then started to work on the computer and my vision started to decline. During the start of the decline period I noticed the same sharp and blur thingie and took it as a sign of old age. Maybe my 8 hours of computer work per day was remodeling my eye for close work so  the sharp and blur thingie was really the dying of my long distance cones?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 24, 2011, 03:41:47 AM
Hi Sr laser Guy,
Subject: Perfect vision (20/20) ten years ago (refractive STATE = 0) -- and long-term close work.
There is no question in my mind (but I am an engineer) that long-term "close" results in our natural eye changing their refractive STATE from "plus" to "minus" -- as a natural process.  This helps my "understanding" of these issues, and of science itself.  I gave up on ODs a long time ago (although some are very nice).  What I strongly suggest is that you get a Snellen and find out what you can read at 20 feet and post it here.  I take normal vision to be "me" passing the 20/50 to 20/40 on "my" Snellen.  If I do that -- I avoid wearing the minus.  As a very 'rough' check, and to start you off "right", why not click here:
http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html
And then on "display" several times.  Some letters will appear.  Back off to 20 feet and see if you can read some of them.  (You can adjust this chart for 10 feet if you wish.  That will help BOTH of us understand your current status.  THIS IS NOT EASY, but it is a personal challenge in my opinion.  Otis
Quote
I am very excited to read your statement that "sometimes sharp letters appear on top of blur and then it passes by...It is sort of strange

I have been using +1 lens to help correct my nearsightedness for three weeks now. At the edge of my focusing limit,  I am starting notice this sharp and blur thingie.  I had almost perfect vision ten years ago and then started to work on the computer and my vision started to decline. During the start of the decline period I noticed the same sharp and blur thingie and took it as a sign of old age. Maybe my 8 hours of computer work per day was remodeling my eye for close work so  the sharp and blur thingie was really the dying of my long distance cones?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on February 24, 2011, 04:41:49 AM
Hello Todd,

Thanks for all the point by point procedure for reading at edge of focus.
Some questions.
You say "Never let the text have any degree of blur for more than a minute. You should be reading sharp text, in focus, all the time. "  Is there a harm in reading beyond focus for a long time?  If i read at edge of blur (we discussed this earlier too) i can see a clear image over a diffuse image. blinking moves this clear image around and sometimes it vanishes and then reappears. this does not happen if i am just near focus.

Also you say that "Wear your plus lenses ONLY when reading"  Is there a harm in wearing plus lens and looking at distance except that things will be very blurry.

Why I ask this is that there is this this defocus theory which distinguishes between hyperopic defous (image forms behind retina) and myopic defocus (image forms in front of retina).  If the eye grows in the direction of the defocus then creating myopic defocus (which we do by reading with plus lens at blur) will slowly make the eye shorten and hence reduce myopia. 
Also sometime back Otis had mentioned that Russian young men wore minus lenses and over a period of time they became myopic. 
So my question is looking at a distance with high plus lenses should do the opposite. has anyone tried this.
i know some experiments on chicks did show this effect, but those are birds.  what about humans, has anyone tried this?

Thanks,
Rajeev

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 24, 2011, 10:02:07 AM
Hi Rajeev,
Subject:  Birds, versus "us".  Are we "primates"?  Or not?
No one can answer all your questions.  I would point out that there is no "hyperopic" de-focus.  If you meen there is blur on the retina when the natural eye has a  postive refractive STATE.  Thus that theory is indeed flawed at its core.
Rajeev> Also sometime back Otis had mentioned that Russian young men wore minus lenses and over a period of time they became myopic. 
This has been confirmed by INDEPENDENT ODs from Russia and Lithonia, from about 100 years ago.  You can's confirm this change of refractive STATE for the natural eye from this report, and this type of "experiment" will always be prohibited -- for obvious reasons.  So this type of experiment MUST be performed with primates (and we are primates).  When a -3 diopter lens was placed on the natural eye with meaured postive refractive STATE, those eyes with a =3 diotper when DOWN by about -2.3 diopters in about a year.  Those eyes with no minus changed slightly.  I think we should all be warned about this tragic effect of a minus on the natural eye's refractive state -- and make or choice based on that scientific knowedge.  That "class" of experiments simple confirms the "intentional" effect of the minus proven by the "draft evaders" in Russia.  Otis


So my question queston looking at a distance with high plus lenses should do the opposite. has anyone tried this
Hello Todd,

Thanks for all the point by point procedure for reading at edge of focus.
Some questions.
You say "Never let the text have any degree of blur for more than a minute. You should be reading sharp text, in focus, all the time. "  Is there a harm in reading beyond focus for a long time?  If i read at edge of blur (we discussed this earlier too) i can see a clear image over a diffuse image. blinking moves this clear image around and sometimes it vanishes and then reappears. this does not happen if i am just near focus.

Also you say that "Wear your plus lenses ONLY when reading"  Is there a harm in wearing plus lens and looking at distance except that things will be very blurry.

Why I ask this is that there is this this defocus theory which distinguishes between hyperopic defous (image forms behind retina) and myopic defocus (image forms in front of retina).  If the eye grows in the direction of the defocus then creating myopic defocus (which we do by reading with plus lens at blur) will slowly make the eye shorten and hence reduce myopia. 
Also sometime back Otis had mentioned that Russian young men wore minus lenses and over a period of time they became myopic. 
So my question is looking at a distance with high plus lenses should do the opposite. has anyone tried this.
i know some experiments on chicks did show this effect, but those are birds.  what about humans, has anyone tried this?

Thanks,
Rajeev


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: srlaserguy on February 24, 2011, 10:40:50 AM
Otis

Thanks for your reply.

I took the Snellen eye test at 20 feet on 2/13 and my results:

Right Eye 20/60

Left Eye 20/50

Both Eyes 20/25

I took this test about of week after I stop wearing my corrective glasses and started using anti-corrective glasses for my computer time. I will take the Snellen test again at the end of March so to allow enough time to see results between tests.

My glass prescription:

OD -0.75, -1.00, 060
OS -1.25, -1.00, 170

When I was in High school I always read the bottom line of any eye chart with ease, so think I had 20/15 vision back in the day.

BTW I love your link.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 24, 2011, 01:27:13 PM
Hi Rajeev,
Part 2, It is possible to prevent a negative STATE for the NATURAL EYE on the THRESHOLD?
You are asking a question of "scientific philosophy", and tragically of "entrenched optometry".  Failure to separate these issues causes intense anger in the people who are "in" entrenched-optometry.  Even Todd and I have had a long discussion about these issues with an majority-opinion optometrist (M.T.OD).  The result was extreme anger and insult on his part.  That is never good for scientific logic.  But I encourage your questions -- but not on this particular thread.  I will continue to review this issue with you under the thread, "The Need to Self-Experiment in Medicine", and will post the subject as, "Phylosophy of Hormesis, Engineering/SCIENCE and Medicine."  This is my personal tribute to those in medicine and optometry who have argued for years, the possibility of PREVENTION before the eye became more negative than -1.0 diopters,  and Snellens less that 20/70.  For Todd and I, the concept is to "do it yourself" provided you are not in "too deep".  Please let us take this self-experiment review to that thread.  Engineering/Science best, Otis

Hello Todd,

Thanks for all the point by point procedure for reading at edge of focus.
Some questions.
You say "Never let the text have any degree of blur for more than a minute. You should be reading sharp text, in focus, all the time. "  Is there a harm in reading beyond focus for a long time?  If i read at edge of blur (we discussed this earlier too) i can see a clear image over a diffuse image. blinking moves this clear image around and sometimes it vanishes and then reappears. this does not happen if i am just near focus.

Also you say that "Wear your plus lenses ONLY when reading"  Is there a harm in wearing plus lens and looking at distance except that things will be very blurry.

Why I ask this is that there is this this defocus theory which distinguishes between hyperopic defous (image forms behind retina) and myopic defocus (image forms in front of retina).  If the eye grows in the direction of the defocus then creating myopic defocus (which we do by reading with plus lens at blur) will slowly make the eye shorten and hence reduce myopia. 
Also sometime back Otis had mentioned that Russian young men wore minus lenses and over a period of time they became myopic. 
So my question is looking at a distance with high plus lenses should do the opposite. has anyone tried this.
i know some experiments on chicks did show this effect, but those are birds.  what about humans, has anyone tried this?

Thanks,
Rajeev


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 24, 2011, 01:46:25 PM
Hi SR Laser Guy,
This is very good.  For me reasonable vision is that I PASS the legal defined standard.  I have posted the link previously. Basically is states that you must read the 20/50 line (Texas) and 20/40 line (most other states) with both eyes open.  When a person posts that he reads 20/40 or better, I consider that a success.  But obvioulsy I wish to work to "better" that line if I am reading the 20/40 line, but not the 20/30 line.  You probably did have 20/15 (and a postive refractive STATE) in school. We know that the natural eye simply "goes down" from long-term near work.  (Reference Eskimo studies of the natural eye). So the next question is this, do  you wish to take total control of your distant vision, and "work" with a fairly strong plus, to "clear" both eyes to 20/40, and probably 20/20 with both eyes?  It is a matter of very "consistent" work, as will probably take from four to six months.  I know that pilot Brian Severson did it, but his chosen profession REQUIRED IT OF HIM.  If you wish to continue, get some low-cost plus lenses of about +2 to +2.5 diopters (I get them for about $3 from Good Will) and do some "self experiments" with them.  I always enjoy helping a person "grow" his knowlege science on this subject.  Otis
Otis

Thanks for your reply.

I took the Snellen eye test at 20 feet on 2/13 and my results:

Right Eye 20/60

Left Eye 20/50

Both Eyes 20/25

I took this test about of week after I stop wearing my corrective glasses and started using anti-corrective glasses for my computer time. I will take the Snellen test again at the end of March so to allow enough time to see results between tests.

My glass prescription:

OD -0.75, -1.00, 060
OS -1.25, -1.00, 170

When I was in High school I always read the bottom line of any eye chart with ease, so think I had 20/15 vision back in the day.

BTW I love your link.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 24, 2011, 04:33:04 PM
Hello,

Thank you for your reply. I think I have found the slightest blur point. If I continue reading at this point, without using the blinking technique, the text should still clear, am I correct? The reason why I ask is because blinking hard seems a little odd in the public.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 24, 2011, 04:42:16 PM
Hi Jansen,
Todd and I are on the same "wave length", in that we agree that plus-prevention is both wise and necessary.  When I describe I  wear a "plus" to avoid re-entry into myopia -- then I provide advice along that line.  My emphasis is in finding the "just blur" point for yourself, and the "hard part", sticking with the use of the plus for all close work.  As far as "personal habit" goes, I don't blink, and the only "exercise" that I do is to look over the top of my "plus" at distant objects, about once ever ten minutes or so.  As long as I personally pass the 20/40 line (or better) with both eyes open, I can avoid wearing the minus.  I understand that you are from 20/60 to 20/80, and will have some time to go before you begin passing the 20/50 to 20/40 lines on your brightly-lit Snellen.  As always, this is not "easy", and we are here to "promote" your asking questions so you will continue to re-dedicate yourself to the wise use of the plus for your personal visual welfare.  Otis
Hello,

Thank you for your reply. I think I have found the slightest blur point. If I continue reading at this point, without using the blinking technique, the text should still clear, am I correct? The reason why I ask is because blinking hard seems a little odd in the public.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 24, 2011, 06:58:41 PM
I actually am a bit confused at the edge of focus still. After the text clears, are you supposed to push the text away until it is at the edge of focus again, or just keep reading at the same point?
Also, do I do the hard blinking technique at the point where if I move the text back an inch or two the text will be slightly blurred?

Hi Jansen,

The idea is to always be reading clear text, but to know that you are at the limit. That means if you were to push the text away, it would begin to get blurry immediately.  But if you've been reading clear text for 15 minutes, perhaps your maximum focal distance has changed.  If it gets shorter, you'll know that because the text starts to blur.  But what if your focal distance gets longer?  You won't know that unless you periodically "test" your focal distance by pushing back.  So that's why you should periodically push the text back, just to make sure you are getting the maximum benefit.

Remember, your eyes will only change when a stimulus is applied, just like your muscles will strengthen only when tested.

As far as the blinking goes, this is only a technique to gentlly trigger your eyes to refocus.  It's like pushing the shutter button on your camera half way to get it to actively try refocusing.  It's not necessary, it is just helps to jog the eyes into action.

Hope that helps.  Most of this is intuitive if you think about it by analogy with weight lifting.  You need to always be finding the balance between comfort and growth.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 24, 2011, 07:30:04 PM
Hello Todd,

Thanks for all the point by point procedure for reading at edge of focus.
Some questions.

I'll try to answer them:

Quote
You say "Never let the text have any degree of blur for more than a minute. You should be reading sharp text, in focus, all the time. "  Is there a harm in reading beyond focus for a long time?  If i read at edge of blur (we discussed this earlier too) i can see a clear image over a diffuse image. blinking moves this clear image around and sometimes it vanishes and then reappears. this does not happen if i am just near focus.

It's not so much that there is any harm in reading beyond focus, it's that the benefit is reduced or eliminated.  The stimulus for your eye to remodel its axial length is for there to be only the slightest degree of defocus.  You eye is able to detect the defocus and this stimulates changes in proteoglycan synthesis that result in differential growth in the scelera and vitreous layers of the eye, eventually reducing the axial length of the eye and correcting your myopia.  If the degree of defocus is too great, your eye cannot "autodetect" this and there is no impetus to any change in tissue synthesis. 

Quote
Also you say that "Wear your plus lenses ONLY when reading"  Is there a harm in wearing plus lens and looking at distance except that things will be very blurry.

Again, there is no harm, you just lose the opportunity to benefit by testing your eyes' ability to focus on more distant objects.  Remember, you want to maximize the amount of time you are focusing on text or objects that are just at or very slightly beyond your limit of comfortable focusing.  Of course, you need to rest your eyes periodically, to allow them to recover and "heal" by synthesizing new tissue.

Quote
Why I ask this is that there is this this defocus theory which distinguishes between hyperopic defous (image forms behind retina) and myopic defocus (image forms in front of retina).  If the eye grows in the direction of the defocus then creating myopic defocus (which we do by reading with plus lens at blur) will slowly make the eye shorten and hence reduce myopia.

Exactly!
 

Quote
Also sometime back Otis had mentioned that Russian young men wore minus lenses and over a period of time they became myopic. 
So my question is looking at a distance with high plus lenses should do the opposite. has anyone tried this.
i know some experiments on chicks did show this effect, but those are birds.  what about humans, has anyone tried this?

I think Otis gave a good answer to your question about the Russians's use of minus lenses to induce myopia.  Use of plus lenses will do the opposite.  Normally plus lenses would be worn for near viewing to correct myopia.  But I suppose if you already have 20/20 vision, you could use them for more distant viewing to further sharpen your distance acuity.  You'd have to be careful not to induce hyperopia and worsen your ability to read fine print up close.  If you really go in for this, you might want to alternately practice viewing things both close up and far away.   You could be come an eye athlete!

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 24, 2011, 07:41:30 PM
Thank you very much! I will continue to use the plus lens. Just a question for the future, but where do you get +3.00 lenses and lenses of higher powers, or powers such as +.50?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 24, 2011, 08:00:19 PM
Thank you very much! I will continue to use the plus lens. Just a question for the future, but where do you get +3.00 lenses and lenses of higher powers, or powers such as +.50?

Most pharmacies have +3.00 and even stronger plus lenses. It's harder to find drugstore glasses with less than +1.00 power lenses.  If you want cheap custom lenses, you can try Zenn Optical, which I learned about from Otis:  http://www.zennioptical.com/
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 24, 2011, 08:03:53 PM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: Good question -- partial answer.
We should always have access to an lens, plus of minus, and these should be sold on the Internet.  The reality is that it is hard to obtain some "test" lenses for your own use.  You can get the "plus" in a drug store, from +1.00 to +3.75 diotpers.  But to find low-cost minus, or weak plus is difficult.  Here is a trial lens "set" that I use for my Snellen, and to determine my refaractive STATE.  This is "simplified optometry", and I could prescribed for myself (at low cost) if that were my wish.  Both of us could have that technical ablity, and the concept is "empowereing".  Here are the lenses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fuepac7BubI
Let me emphasize that I am an engineer, and this is not a medical set up.  Just a way to establish your refractive STATE, under YOUR control.  I don't think this set is for sale anymore.  I got them from In-Focus.  However, Zennioptical (com) sells "pairs" of lenses for about $10, or each lens is $5.  That is how you can obtain low-cost "test" lenses.  This is how I determine my refractive STATE to be +3/4 diopters at this time.  (That I consider to be very valuable an "protective" of my vision.)  Otis

Thank you very much! I will continue to use the plus lens. Just a question for the future, but where do you get +3.00 lenses and lenses of higher powers, or powers such as +.50?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 24, 2011, 08:18:46 PM
Hi SR Laser Guy,
Subject: The best Snellen -- is a bright-light consistent Snellen.
The "Computer Screen Snellen is OK", but to get consistent results you can TRUST, I suggest using this set-up for your own trust and results.  Since I think you can "get there", 20/20 is defined as being about to read 1/2 the letters on a given line.  Here is my set-up for your interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgUkoSSgVOs
My goal is that I pass the 20/40 line, and then, see if I can "do better". Typically I can read the 20/25 line, but I do see "variablity", meaing that I can read all the letters on the 20/20 line.  I don't worry about "perfect", only "practical".  Should you need a "weaker" minus lens, you can get that from Zennioptical.  But the real issue, for you is to get each eye to about 20/40, and both eyes "together" to 20/20.  But, I think it will take about four months to do that -- for me it would be "worth it" just to "prove" that I could do it. Otis

Otis

Thanks for your reply.

I took the Snellen eye test at 20 feet on 2/13 and my results:

Right Eye 20/60

Left Eye 20/50

Both Eyes 20/25

I took this test about of week after I stop wearing my corrective glasses and started using anti-corrective glasses for my computer time. I will take the Snellen test again at the end of March so to allow enough time to see results between tests.

My glass prescription:

OD -0.75, -1.00, 060
OS -1.25, -1.00, 170

When I was in High school I always read the bottom line of any eye chart with ease, so think I had 20/15 vision back in the day.

BTW I love your link.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 25, 2011, 06:03:09 PM
Hi SR Laser Guy,
Subject;  Easy conversion to obtain low-cost (temporary) minus (if you need them.)
My late "visit" to an OD cost us $400.  In my opinion, it is almost impossible to get low-cost minus (weaker) minus (if I need them).
I work with "simplified" lenses, since you almost never need the "astigmatic" part of the prescription. Here is how you do the coversion.
++++++
My glass prescription:
OD -0.75, -1.00, 060
OS -1.25, -1.00, 170
++++++
Take 1/2 of the "astgmatic" prescription, in your case -1.00 at 60 degrees, and -1.00 at 170 degrees. Then add that number to the OD and OS.  Therefore, the conversion is:
OD = -0.75 - 0.5 = -1.25 Diopters (Spherical)
OS = -1.25 - 0.5 = -1.75 Diopters (Spherical)
For myself, I just work with "spherical" -- since the "astig" does not prevent 20/20 for the naked eye.
With 20/25 naked-eye vision, I think you are over-prescribed by about -1.0 diopters at this time.  That amount of un-necessary minus, worn all the time will prevent recovery -- in my opinion.  Otis




Otis

Thanks for your reply.

I took the Snellen eye test at 20 feet on 2/13 and my results:

Right Eye 20/60

Left Eye 20/50

Both Eyes 20/25

I took this test about of week after I stop wearing my corrective glasses and started using anti-corrective glasses for my computer time. I will take the Snellen test again at the end of March so to allow enough time to see results between tests.

My glass prescription:

OD -0.75, -1.00, 060
OS -1.25, -1.00, 170

When I was in High school I always read the bottom line of any eye chart with ease, so think I had 20/15 vision back in the day.

BTW I love your link.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: srlaserguy on February 25, 2011, 09:57:03 PM
Thanks Otis for your replies.

I have thrown out my prescription glasses away two weeks ago. I never want to wear corrected glasses again and I think my vision is good enough not to wear them at all.  When I did wear them, I only used them about 30% of my waking time during the periods I wanted to see the fine details from a distance. What drove me to try to improve my vision is I just hate wearing corrected eye wear.  Until ten years ago I never remember see anything that looked blurry at any distance. Print at a distance might have been to small for me to read, but always clear.  There is a difference between too small to read and blurry. I am use to seeing perfectly clear without glasses and the fact I lost that ability is just depressing for me.

I think my vision is already improving thanks to you and Todd.

BTW I used the bright light method to test my vision and not the computer version.


Hi SR Laser Guy,
Subject;  Easy conversion to obtain low-cost (temporary) minus (if you need them.)
My late "visit" to an OD cost us $400.  In my opinion, it is almost impossible to get low-cost minus (weaker) minus (if I need them).
I work with "simplified" lenses, since you almost never need the "astigmatic" part of the prescription. Here is how you do the coversion.
++++++
My glass prescription:
OD -0.75, -1.00, 060
OS -1.25, -1.00, 170
++++++
Take 1/2 of the "astgmatic" prescription, in your case -1.00 at 60 degrees, and -1.00 at 170 degrees. Then add that number to the OD and OS.  Therefore, the conversion is:
OD = -0.75 - 0.5 = -1.25 Diopters (Spherical)
OS = -1.25 - 0.5 = -1.75 Diopters (Spherical)
For myself, I just work with "spherical" -- since the "astig" does not prevent 20/20 for the naked eye.
With 20/25 naked-eye vision, I think you are over-prescribed by about -1.0 diopters at this time.  That amount of un-necessary minus, worn all the time will prevent recovery -- in my opinion.  Otis




Otis

Thanks for your reply.

I took the Snellen eye test at 20 feet on 2/13 and my results:

Right Eye 20/60

Left Eye 20/50

Both Eyes 20/25

I took this test about of week after I stop wearing my corrective glasses and started using anti-corrective glasses for my computer time. I will take the Snellen test again at the end of March so to allow enough time to see results between tests.

My glass prescription:

OD -0.75, -1.00, 060
OS -1.25, -1.00, 170

When I was in High school I always read the bottom line of any eye chart with ease, so think I had 20/15 vision back in the day.

BTW I love your link.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 26, 2011, 04:25:58 AM
Hi SR Laser Guy,
Subject: Some "office person" over-prescribing me - -and killing my vision for life.
I have no doubt that my on "habits" as a child induced a slight negative STATE for my natural eyes.  Had and OD actually HELPED ME with the plus, I never would have gotten seriously into myopia.  But these "office" ODs have a slammed-shut mind, on this preventive second-opinion.  Thus, for Todd and myself -- it is a matter of "doing (prevention) yourself.  If you do your own "measurement", i.e., the low-cost trial lens kit, and Snellen, you know EXACTLY your refractive status.  (You don't have to get the lenses, but you must know how to do it.)  In fact, if you want a low-cost minus lens (of about 0.75 diopter) each eye), you could get them from Zennioptical for about $12.  They would serve two purposes.  You could use them at night, if you wish for drving a car.   (I am not hostile to the minus lens, only over-prescription of it -- and not knowing the danger of it.)  But, if you can do what Colgate did (heavy use of a +2.5 for all work), I would think that your natural eyes will "change postive", and your Snellen will clear to 20/20.  Each eye (I believe) will clear to about 20/40 or better.  But it does take strong resolve.  I obtained this "leadership" position from a "stoic" or "altrustic" optometrist -- who would not "quit" with this concept.
People "mis-read" me an my intentions.  I am NOT hostle to ODs or MDs.  I am "pro" the person himself, and his abilty to "get control" of his distant vision through wise use of the plus (under YOUR control).  This is where Todd and I are in complete agreement. Please keep posting your thoughts.  We learn together.  Otis
Thanks Otis for your replies.

I have thrown out my prescription glasses away two weeks ago. I never want to wear corrected glasses again and I think my vision is good enough not to wear them at all.  When I did wear them, I only used them about 30% of my waking time during the periods I wanted to see the fine details from a distance. What drove me to try to improve my vision is I just hate wearing corrected eye wear.  Until ten years ago I never remember see anything that looked blurry at any distance. Print at a distance might have been to small for me to read, but always clear.  There is a difference between too small to read and blurry. I am use to seeing perfectly clear without glasses and the fact I lost that ability is just depressing for me.

I think my vision is already improving thanks to you and Todd.

BTW I used the bright light method to test my vision and not the computer version.


Hi SR Laser Guy,
Subject;  Easy conversion to obtain low-cost (temporary) minus (if you need them.)
My late "visit" to an OD cost us $400.  In my opinion, it is almost impossible to get low-cost minus (weaker) minus (if I need them).
I work with "simplified" lenses, since you almost never need the "astigmatic" part of the prescription. Here is how you do the coversion.
++++++
My glass prescription:
OD -0.75, -1.00, 060
OS -1.25, -1.00, 170
++++++
Take 1/2 of the "astgmatic" prescription, in your case -1.00 at 60 degrees, and -1.00 at 170 degrees. Then add that number to the OD and OS.  Therefore, the conversion is:
OD = -0.75 - 0.5 = -1.25 Diopters (Spherical)
OS = -1.25 - 0.5 = -1.75 Diopters (Spherical)
For myself, I just work with "spherical" -- since the "astig" does not prevent 20/20 for the naked eye.
With 20/25 naked-eye vision, I think you are over-prescribed by about -1.0 diopters at this time.  That amount of un-necessary minus, worn all the time will prevent recovery -- in my opinion.  Otis




Otis

Thanks for your reply.

I took the Snellen eye test at 20 feet on 2/13 and my results:

Right Eye 20/60

Left Eye 20/50

Both Eyes 20/25

I took this test about of week after I stop wearing my corrective glasses and started using anti-corrective glasses for my computer time. I will take the Snellen test again at the end of March so to allow enough time to see results between tests.

My glass prescription:

OD -0.75, -1.00, 060
OS -1.25, -1.00, 170

When I was in High school I always read the bottom line of any eye chart with ease, so think I had 20/15 vision back in the day.

BTW I love your link.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 26, 2011, 04:40:15 AM
For Laser Guy, and other "independent minds",
Subject: Why I make my own measurements with Snellen and my "home" trial lens kit.
Here is a video of a "well intentioned" OD making a "measurement" using a "Phoropter".  (It is just a very complex trial-lens kit.) They measure "astig" and "cyl" -- for which no "correction" should be made -- in my opinion.  It takes about seven minutes to do this "measurement". The person is looking through small "holes", and has no clue about what is being done.  The OD wants to make this "patients" vision AS SHARP AS POSSIBLE.  In this "complex process" there is always the possiblity of serious OVER-PRESCRIPTION.  If the person does not check at home -- he will wear it, and that WILL destroy his naked eye vision.  But the "patient" is too intimidated to CHECK AT HOME.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_5yvePa0U0

I can't "prove" it, but I think about 80 percent of the "public" are over-prescribed, because these ODs LOVE the effect of a strong minus on a child's eyes.  I am both a pilot and an engineer.  I say -- show me the science and facts of the natural eyes proven behavior.  If I am wise, and can "pull together" the concept of prevention, I will do it myself -- at "low" or "no" cost.  But that effort would depend on "me" and no one else.  This is not a "rant" againt ODs, but my desire to change a "tragic situation".  Otis

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 26, 2011, 06:42:00 PM
I have a question for Todd. I noticed that if I use the plus lenses for distance, my vision sharpens up immediately after I take it off after 1-2 minutes of looking into the distance. Is this harmful for my eyes?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Patrea on February 27, 2011, 05:01:51 AM
Hi Todd

Is there a way to measure the strenght of lenses easily? I bought several cheap pairs that don't have the +values marked and I have lost track of which is which. Thanks
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 27, 2011, 06:38:58 AM
Hi Patrea,
Subject: Low-cost measurement of plus-lens power.
This is basic engineer, and I am certain that Todd will concur.  If you have some plus lenses, and don't know their power, then just find a sun-lit room, and hold put the plus on some paper.  Now slowly lift the plus towards the sun.  What will happen, is that a "blob" of the sun will gradually "shrink" until it becomes a "point" or disk.  Now measure the distance between the paper and the lens.  FOR EXAMPLE:  If you find that it is one meter (about yard), the lens-strength is 1 diopter.  If the distance is 20 inches (1/2 meter, or 50 cm) the power is 2 diopters.  The "equation" is that 1/Distance = POWER in diopters.  (Distance is in meters.)  I would ask Todd to add his commentary.  Best, Otis
Hi Todd

Is there a way to measure the strenght of lenses easily? I bought several cheap pairs that don't have the +values marked and I have lost track of which is which. Thanks
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 27, 2011, 12:15:36 PM
Patrea,

The method that Otis suggested is correct and brilliantly simple!  Take a yardstick outside and slide your glasses back and forth until the circle is sharp and not blurry.  Be careful not to stare at the circle if it's a sunny day or you could damage your eyes; I'd advise wearing sunglasses, doing this in partial shade, and/or glancing only very briefly at the focussed image.  

Another, perhaps safer way is to do this inside a sunny room, in indirect light, near a window. Bring the plus lens away from a wall or other flat surface until you see an "upside down" image of the window projected against the wall, just like focusing a camera. Then measure the difference from the glasses to the focused image on the wall.

I tried out Otis' method on some +1.25 lenses and the image focused at about 31".  A meter is 39.37 inches, so that's 39.37/31 = 1.27 diopters, pretty close!

This method will, of course, work only on plus lenses. To make it work for minus lenses, you can use another trick, based the laws of optics.  You'll need a small strong magnifying glass, which is really just a very strong plus lens.  It must be small, with a diameter that is no larger than than of your glasses lens. (Or you can use a larger magnifying glass, but reduce the area by cutting a circle out of paper and taping it over the magnifying glass with the cutout circle centered).

Now, make two measurements:
M1.  Measure the focal distance of the magnifying glass itself (just like you did above for the minus lenses).  In my case, I measured 12 inches, which is the same as 39.37/12 = +3.2 diopters.
M2.  Now hold the magnifying glass right up against your glasses lens and repeat the focusing test to get a clear image.  I found some old minus lenses from a freind and measured the focal distance as 21 inches, which is +1.9 diopters.

Now subtract the M1 from M2 to get the difference.  In the above example, I get +1.9 minus +3.2 = -1.3 diopters

This is pretty close to the prescription value of -1.25 diopters.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 27, 2011, 12:20:22 PM
Good News! Today I was able to make out some letters of the 20/50 line. Before this reading, I was actually using the plus lens while looking into the distance, which I understand is not supposed to be very helpful. However, After using them to look into the distance in the morning, I was able to make out some letters of a line in the snellen I wasn't able to before.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 27, 2011, 05:04:55 PM
HI Jansen,
Subject:  Trying your own "methods" with the plus!
First, congratulations on "seeing" 20/50.    As previous discussed, I wish it were "me" doing this scientific work.  I know that plus-prevention takes a wise person who can be persistent in this work.  The fact that Todd and Brian were successful does provide leadership that this is the right thing to do.  I think that the "tipping point" is when you personally can verify (yourself) that YOU changed your refractive status by about +1/2 diopters, and Snellen from (20/80 to 20/60 vicinity) to 20/50.  That is very important.  But (in my judgment) you must continue, and get to normal, which we should define as passing all the DMV requirements for normal visual acuity.  I did suggest that it will take about four months to "get there", and am pleased you are seeing self-confirmed results.  Keep on posting your ideas as you continue to work towards this reasonable goal.  Otis
Good News! Today I was able to make out some letters of the 20/50 line. Before this reading, I was actually using the plus lens while looking into the distance, which I understand is not supposed to be very helpful. However, After using them to look into the distance in the morning, I was able to make out some letters of a line in the snellen I wasn't able to before.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 27, 2011, 05:41:03 PM
Thank you Mr. Brown. I'm actually bordering on 20/60-20/50 as I can only make out some of the letters on the 20/50 line. In a few days, it will be the end of my second month with plus.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 27, 2011, 07:42:12 PM
Hi Jansen,
Subject:  Impossible to clear your vision back to normal?  And pass the DMV requirement.
There are quite a few people who are convinced that clearing you Snellen back to normal is ABSOLUTLY IMPOSSIBLE.  I don't agree with them, but I do agree that it is a "slow" process, and takes a wise, determined person to do it.  So a change of about +1/2 diopter is a INDICATOR, that you are doing the right thing (for yourself), and moving is the "right direction".  The "plus" is anti-prescription, as Todd states it, and the goal is to get you to a point where you pass these reasonable requirements.  I think four months to begin systematically passing the 20/50 and 20/40 line are reasonable.  You just have to continue with what you are doing -- like brushing your teeth on a "regular basis".  Keep on posting your interests, and we will help you with your scientific goal. Otis
Thank you Mr. Brown. I'm actually bordering on 20/60-20/50 as I can only make out some of the letters on the 20/50 line. In a few days, it will be the end of my second month with plus.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Patrea on February 28, 2011, 12:35:14 AM
Thanks Otis and Todd - and well done.

It is slow and does take patience - but the process really does work. I walk around without specs and without noticing it now for the first time in about 25 years. You have to get interested in the process and notice and take comfort from the small changes - and keep on challenging yourself.

I suspect that the longer the duration of your myopia the longer it takes to clear, which may be a funciotn of lens hardening, or habit. Who knows, it's all new territory.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 28, 2011, 10:39:46 AM
I have thrown out my prescription glasses away two weeks ago. I never want to wear corrected glasses again and I think my vision is good enough not to wear them at all.  

Congratulations, srlaserguy!

Just by not wearing glasses at all, and making sure to intentionally focus on objects near and far throughout the day, your eyes will continue to improve.  But I still recommend that you keep one particular pair of glasses:  a pair of weak plus lenses (+1 or +1.25) to use when you are reading for long, extended periods of time.  Use them a few times a week to keep your eyes "tuned up", or to jog them back into shape whenever you feel your eyesight could stand a little sharpening.

I see the occasional use of plus lenses not as a weakness or loss of freedom, but as a prophylatic way of staying in shape, like regular visits to the gym.

Good luck and enjoy your newfound freedom. 

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 28, 2011, 03:13:14 PM
Hello everyone,

I would like to discuss reading at the edge of blur, which I guess means reading at the point where the letters are almost unreadable. Has anyone ever tried this vs. reading at the edge of focus like normal?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 28, 2011, 09:52:29 PM
Hello everyone,

I would like to discuss reading at the edge of blur, which I guess means reading at the point where the letters are almost unreadable. Has anyone ever tried this vs. reading at the edge of focus like normal?

Hi Jansen,

Good question - a fairly sophisticated one.  So I can tell you are putting a lot of thought into this.  It might be good for you to first puzzle this out and write down your guess before you read my answer.  

Let us distinguish three distances:

D1. The 'edge of focus' which we'll define as the furthest distance for myope (or closest for a hyperope) where a printed letter is completely in focus
D2. The 'edge of blur' which we'll define as the distance just beyond the edge of focus, where a slight blur in the letter can just be detected
D3. The 'edge of readability' which we'll define as the furthest distance where you can intelligibly recognize what the letter is.

Now D1 and D2 are going to be VERY close, almost exactly the same distance. If you are reading at D1, and you push the print slightly away less than an inch, you are immediately at D2. And if you are at D2 and get the tiniest distance closer, you are back at D1 again.

But D3 (which is what I think you are calling "the edge of blur", but is really beyond that) might be a fair distance away, perhaps even several inches (for small letters) or several feet (for large letters).  And D3 will also depend on your familiarity with the letters and the language.  You can "guess" a blurry word like "eye" because you know the English language, whereas if it is a word in a different language you might not be able to read it.  So D3 depends on the size of the letters and your ability to recognize the letters and words.  D3 depends upon your brain, not your eyes. You might be able to read a very blurry version of the word "eye" and guess it, whereas a non-English speaker might guess the wrong letters.

To get the benefit of plus lenses, your eyes must be working "automatically" to try to focus, so they must be able to detect the direction of defocus, that is, whether the blur is caused by being too close or too far.  Your eyes detect this defocus right within the retina -- the back of your eye.  This detection process does not involve your higher brain functions that are involved in word recognition or trying to guess what a word means.  So you must allow the eye itself to detect the defocus.

Therefore, ideally your focal distance should be at D2 -- the edge of blur. This should be the slightest blur detectable, and it is even OK to move back and forth between D1 and D2 to keep "testing" this distance.  If you go beyond D2 to D3 (the edge of readability), you are now at a place where your brain is doing the work of guessing, but the focus detection system in your retina is no longer able to detect the direction of defocus. It's not just that the eye muscles and lens "give up" trying to focus, its also that you lose any stimulus for change of the structural tissue around the focal plane at the back of your eye (the retina).  So your eye gets no information about how it needs to change.

I hope this explanation makes sense and is not too complex. Let me know if it does not seem clear to you and I'll try to do better.  But it is an excellent question you asked, because to answer the question you really have to understand what is happening in the eye.

Todd


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on March 01, 2011, 04:50:40 AM
Hello,

That was a very good explanation by Todd of distinction between edge of focus, blur and edge of readability. 

Since I started this plus lens therapy i have been occasionally reading at D3 and i would like to share my experience. 
I had a power of -4.5R/-3.75L and the current power of glasses is -4R/-3.25L.  I have reduced minus glasses (-2.5R/-1.75L) for reading, with which i read at D1 to D2.  However, occasionally i do read without my glasses at D2 and sometimes D3.  But I would like to say that the bluriness i see is not simple as was simulated in the site Jansen had put up in the earlier posts.  It just doesnt diffuse out till i cannot see, it blurs and then creates a couple of images on top of each other some of which are sharper.  At some right distance just less than D3 i can see a sharper image of letters on a blury background, as was first pointed out by Todd.  I read looking at these. These images of letters appear real and it doesnt seem that my brain is interpreting them and i am imagining it.  However this could be possible as Todd points out.
Reading at just less than D3 cannot be done for a long time, maybe a couple of minutes, after which it becomes difficult.
BTW, the tight blinking does suddenly clear up letters for a few seconds.

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 01, 2011, 08:59:28 AM
If i read at edge of blur (we discussed this earlier too) i can see a clear image over a diffuse image. blinking moves this clear image around and sometimes it vanishes and then reappears. this does not happen if i am just near focus.

Since I started this plus lens therapy i have been occasionally reading at D3 and i would like to share my experience. 
I had a power of -4.5R/-3.75L and the current power of glasses is -4R/-3.25L.  I have reduced minus glasses (-2.5R/-1.75L) for reading, with which i read at D1 to D2.  However, occasionally i do read without my glasses at D2 and sometimes D3.  But I would like to say that the bluriness i see is not simple as was simulated in the site Jansen had put up in the earlier posts.  It just doesnt diffuse out till i cannot see, it blurs and then creates a couple of images on top of each other some of which are sharper.  At some right distance just less than D3 i can see a sharper image of letters on a blury background, as was first pointed out by Todd.  I read looking at these. These images of letters appear real and it doesnt seem that my brain is interpreting them and i am imagining it.  However this could be possible as Todd points out.
Reading at just less than D3 cannot be done for a long time, maybe a couple of minutes, after which it becomes difficult.
BTW, the tight blinking does suddenly clear up letters for a few seconds.

Thanks,
Rajeev

Rajeev,

Congratulations - your progress so far is impressive, and you've got the dedication it takes to make this work!

I'm also excited to see you are experiencing the same exact phenomenon I experienced: the superposition of a distinct, clear image over a blurry one.  For me, this was an "eye opening" insight (no pun intended). I saw this combined image separately in each eye, so I know that it was not caused by one eye being in focus and the other blurred.  And I assume this is the same thing you are finding, Rajeev.

This is an important observation, because it cannot be explained merely by change in the eye muscles or the ability of the eye to accomodate.  It means that the eye must be detecting focus in different planes within the retina; in other words, the light sensitive cells in the retina are not all contained within a very narrow plane, but distribute themselves over a certain distance or thickness.  According to the IRDT theory, when stimulated by an in-focus image, the eye will grow and change shape in order to bring more of the retina's photosensitive cells (rods and cones) into the well-focused zone.  If this theory is correct, it predicts that the more you look at this combined sharp-blurry double image, the stronger the sharp image will become, and the weaker the blurry image will become.  And that is exactly what happened to me.  Eventually the blurry image faded away and I saw only the sharp image.  This happened over a matter of months.

So I think this is exciting for you, Rajeev.  Stick with it and see if you find the sharp image getting stronger with time.

In the case of these double images, it gets trickier to interpret what we mean by D1, D2 and D3.  When you are in fact getting double images where you can clearly and sharply make out the letters, and you are not guessing, I would use those sharp images to define D1 and D2, and ignore the blurry double image.  Again, so long as this is comfortable and you don't feel you are straining, I see no reason not to do this...and it may actually speed up your progress.

I'd be interested to hear whether anyone else out that has experience the double images and the progressive improvement in sharpening that Rajeev and I have described.  This may be something we need to think more about.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 01, 2011, 10:11:47 AM
For Janesn who is working with the plus, and others who are interested in Engineering/Science.
I like to review and summarize a method that is being used by parents to help their children avoid entry into "negative status" for their natural eyes.  Todd and I both believe in this concept, but it is well to re-state the concept this way, specifically for parents.
You can select the "slow-speed" version, or the animation discussion.  This was created by an engineer, but is it identical to the judgment and opinion of an ophthalmologist.  Success does depend, hoever, on the motivation of the person himself (working with his own Snellen) to get his visual acuity back to normal.
http://www.preventmyopia.org/animation.html
Thanks for taking the time to review this "new" concept of true-prevention.  If you have some additional suggestions or commentary to help Jansen with this work, and with this video, feel free to add them to this post.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on March 01, 2011, 04:08:58 PM
Thank you for the explanation! I would like to note that I too have experienced the sharp-blurry double image when reading at the "edge of readability." I have noticed that if I blink hard at D3, I sometimes experience this phenomenon. 
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 02, 2011, 05:29:29 AM
Hi Jansen,
I am pleased that you are able to identify these "focus" points, and use them as you systematically use the plus to gradually clear your Snellen under your control.
++++++++++
D1. The 'edge of focus' which we'll define as the furthest distance for myope (or closest for a hyperope) where a printed letter is completely in focus
D2. The 'edge of blur' which we'll define as the distance just beyond the edge of focus, where a slight blur in the letter can just be detected
D3. The 'edge of readability' which we'll define as the furthest distance where you can intelligibly recognize what the letter is.
+++++++++
I think it is great that, starting at the 20/80 to 20/70 range (about -1.5 diopters), you are now able to read some letters on the 20/50 line -- after about two months of work, using the plus for maximum effectiveness.  I am certain we will all learn from your experience and success.  I hope others can follow your leadership with this difficult work.  Otis


Thank you for the explanation! I would like to note that I too have experienced the sharp-blurry double image when reading at the "edge of readability." I have noticed that if I blink hard at D3, I sometimes experience this phenomenon. 
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on March 03, 2011, 04:46:45 AM

Hello Todd,

I had a few questions for you.

I had read earlier that you reduced your number from -3D.  Could you specifically tell me

1.  while you were using the plus lens did you wear glasses of reduced power?
2.  if so, by how much did you undercorrect each time?
3.  how much time did it take to see improvement and for you to move on to the next lower power of glasses?
4.  at what age did you start this?
5.  after how many months/years did you come to 20/20 vision?

If anyone who had a higher power could also answer these questions for their condition it would help.

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: srlaserguy on March 03, 2011, 09:06:42 PM
Todd thanks for your reply. 

Yes, I plan to use my +1 glasses for my 8 hours of computer work I do each day. I see the use of the +1 lenses as the same as using braces to straighten teeth.  Both applied apply mild stress to improve the body. So anti-corrected lenses are braces for the eyes and a valuable tool.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on March 04, 2011, 07:26:58 PM
Hi Another question,

Todd had earlier mentioned the hard blinking technique.
When I blink hard (squeeze eye and open),  i sometimes suddenly see the letters on the snellen chart very clearly for a few seconds and then goes away.
This is a very interesting phenomenon.  Also sometimes after few such hard blinks, if i stare at the chart for about 10 seconds the letters clear up and then becomes blurred after next blink.
why does this happen?  do the cilliary muscles stretch the lens and reduce its curvature or does the eye ball change shape momentarily?
why i ask is this, if the myopia is due to eyeball elongation then the momentary flattening of the lens is beyond what the relaxed state of the lens is. 
I fear this hard blinking may be harmful?   
Otis / Todd any hints?

Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 05, 2011, 05:09:36 AM
Hi Rajeev,
Subject:  WHY the minus is a "poor idea", and WHY "self-experimentation" is necessary
Re:  The natural eye is RESPONSIVE to changes in its average value of accommodation.
You "fear" that "hard blinking" will hurt your eyes.  I fear that if I start wearing a minus lens -- that will destroy my vision.  We all have fears, but here is the scientific reason why I fear the minus lens, when used in an "office".

This is proven by the effect of a -3 diopter lens on the natural eye:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf

AFTER a child CREATES a negative STATE for his natural eyes, a minus lens is applied (with the best of intentions), this is the result --
as described by Optometrist Soon See.

Everyone can learn and understand this (un-desired) secondary effect.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html
I know it is hard to accept PERSONAL responsibility to clear yoiur Snellen to normal, but if you wish to avoid the minus, then that is what is necessary in my opinion.  Otis


Hi Another question,

Todd had earlier mentioned the hard blinking technique.
When I blink hard (squeeze eye and open),  i sometimes suddenly see the letters on the snellen chart very clearly for a few seconds and then goes away.
This is a very interesting phenomenon.  Also sometimes after few such hard blinks, if i stare at the chart for about 10 seconds the letters clear up and then becomes blurred after next blink.
why does this happen?  do the cilliary muscles stretch the lens and reduce its curvature or does the eye ball change shape momentarily?
why i ask is this, if the myopia is due to eyeball elongation then the momentary flattening of the lens is beyond what the relaxed state of the lens is. 
I fear this hard blinking may be harmful?   
Otis / Todd any hints?

Rajeev

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 05, 2011, 11:33:41 AM

Hello Todd,

I had a few questions for you.

I had read earlier that you reduced your number from -3D.  Could you specifically tell me

1.  while you were using the plus lens did you wear glasses of reduced power?
2.  if so, by how much did you undercorrect each time?
3.  how much time did it take to see improvement and for you to move on to the next lower power of glasses?
4.  at what age did you start this?
5.  after how many months/years did you come to 20/20 vision?

If anyone who had a higher power could also answer these questions for their condition it would help.

Thanks,
Rajeev

Hi Rajeev,

What I did is not necessarily what I would advise others to do.  But since you asked:

I started wearing glasses when I was 16 and my prescriptions kept increasing through college and my 20's.  I'm now 54 years old.  About ten years ago, I just stopped using my -3D glass cold turkey, except for driving.  Initially, my eyesight began to improve just by the mere fact of not using glasses at all for reading or safe activities around the house.  Then I discovered plus lenses by reading Brian Severson's booklet "Vision Freedom".  I bought some +1.5 lenses and worked tirelessly at improving by vision by using them religiously while reading, using the "print pushing" methods I advocate here, and that Otis and Brian developed.  I also practiced a lot just seeing how far I could focus on common objects in the house or on walks around the neighborhood without ANY glasses.  After about six months of this, I stopped wearing glasses when driving on the open road, where there was not a lot of traffic and I found this extremely helpful in improving my vision.  After a year, my vision was good enough to read license plates ten car lengths ahead and see distant road signs. I went to the DMV and got my optical restriction removed.  I do not know exactly what my Snellen was back then, but I passed.  Today I'm 20/20 in the right eye and 20/40 in the left -- which allows me to see 20/20 in both eyes.  On a really good day, I can see 20/15, but not consistently.  I'm still working on improving the left eye.

I'm not recommending the cold turkey approach or driving with less than perfect eyesight. For anyone trying this, I would recommend a more gradual approach, unless you are hard headed and extremely determined and disciplined.  But I'm telling you that this is the way I did it.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: tyse on March 05, 2011, 02:38:30 PM
Hello there,                                                                                                                                                                                        I have been wearing glasses for over 20 years now my current prescription is :

R-4.50 -0.50x170 
L-4.75-0.50x005

If undercorrecting this prescription what would you suggest?

Also my 6 yr old daughter's eyes are getting a little weaker. What can I do to prevent her from having to wear glasses.

Thanks
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 05, 2011, 04:47:35 PM
Hello there,                                                                                                                                                                                        I have been wearing glasses for over 20 years now my current prescription is :

R-4.50 -0.50x170  
L-4.75-0.50x005

If undercorrecting this prescription what would you suggest?

Also my 6 yr old daughter's eyes are getting a little weaker. What can I do to prevent her from having to wear glasses.

Thanks

tyse,

Your myopia is quite strong, so realize that it will take significant time and effort to see improvement.  You have to make a commitment.

I would suggest reducing your prescription by either 0.25 diopters; leave the astigmatism correction alone for now. So you could start with

-4.25 -0.50x170  
L-4.50-0.50x005

When you are at the computer or reading, you won't need any plus lenses with your strong prescription; just try sitting as far away from the book or computer as you can while reading sharp text, just on the "edge of blur".  If that term is unfamiliar, read through the past several pages of posts on this forum and I think you'll get the idea.

Once you can read sharp text on the 20/20 line of a Snellen chart with your undercorrected glasses, you can reduce by another 0.25 to 0.5 diopters off each lens and continue reductions as you progress.

Regarding your daughter, read comments #85 and #86 after my article on plus lenses:
http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/improve-eyesight-and-throw-away-your-glasses/comment-page-1/#comment-1808

Good luck,

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 05, 2011, 04:48:11 PM
Hi Tyse,
Subject: Helping your child use the preventive plus.
Re: The failure of (most) ODs to help us with this issue.
Most ODs think that you want your child's vision to be very, very sharp.  That is "standard orthodoxy".  Most people and their parents can not be "bothered" with the concept of plus-prevention, nor actually having their child read a Snellen eye-chart at home.  That is the issue that needs to be addressed and understood by the parent -- that "conventional" minus, not only does not "help", but probably makes matters worse in the long-run.  Here is a short article on this issue prepared by Dr. Colgate and Dr. Rollo for background on this subject.
http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/newday/
I wish there were more doctors who were "helpful" on this subject, but I am sad to say that they are very few in number.  Here is one who has accepted the concept, and has his own children wearing the preventive plus -- before they "need" a minus.
http://www.chinamyopia.org/
I would give this a lot of  thought.  I am not that much of a "critic", since I judge that prevention is difficult.  But I use the term "second-opinion" for all people who will spell out the necessity of prevention before your child's Snellen goes below 20/60.  Otis


Hello there,                                                                                                                                                                                        I have been wearing glasses for over 20 years now my current prescription is :

R-4.50 -0.50x170 
L-4.75-0.50x005

If undercorrecting this prescription what would you suggest?

Also my 6 yr old daughter's eyes are getting a little weaker. What can I do to prevent her from having to wear glasses.

Thanks
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 06, 2011, 10:33:52 AM
Subject: A scientist supports Todds thesis of successful prevention
I think that it is important to realize that only majority-opinion ODs and MDs (in their office) think that prevention is impossible.
For those people who wish to clear their Snellens from 20/60 to normal -- it is possible to do so.  This man's conclusions is that the "plus" is the right way to do it.
http://sites.google.com/site/myopiaorg/intro
No one here can tell you "perfectly" what you should do.  But it helps to realize that people are successful, if they do it under their personal control.  We may argue the "details", but in broad-scope prevention is indeed possible.  Otis 
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: tyse on March 06, 2011, 04:41:30 PM
Thank you all for the info.                                                                                                                                                                      This will be the start of my seeing clearer journey. I also don't want my daughter to go through many years with glasses and the prescription getting stronger every year.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 06, 2011, 04:59:35 PM
Hi Tyse,
Subject: Even the optometrists "make themselves myopic" by their "reading habits".
I had the excellent luck to talk to an OD who realized the bitter truth of this situation. He recognized that he had "induced" negative status in his natural eyes of about -2.5 diotpers, due to his "close reading" habit.  But reason, logic and science, he recognized that the "real cause" was "himself" and his own habits.  He then became and optometrist, and helped his own three girls by insisting that the AWAYS HAVE A PLUS ON FOR ALL READING.  He wrote a book about this issue.  When he attempted to "help" the "public", he found out that the opinion of all his friends was that the "public", would not "stand for" the use of the plus when on the threshold.  I think we must truly understand the issue of "public rejection" of prevention, because it is "not medicine".  Here it his commentary on this issue:

http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/parents_wont/
When I "argue for" prevention, i recognize that is must be the parent who insists that the child wear the plus (how ever "different") this must be for the child.  I wish you good wisdom about this, but this explains TO ME, why I will never get any "help" from an OD.  I will also post remarks by a "Ron" who INSISTED that his child "start" with the plus -- because he knew HE ALONE HAD TO HELP.  Otis


Thank you all for the info.                                                                                                                                                                      This will be the start of my seeing clearer journey. I also don't want my daughter to go through many years with glasses and the prescription getting stronger every year.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 06, 2011, 05:04:44 PM
Hi Tyse,
Subject: The parent who "did prevention himself" -- because he knew there was no other way.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/year8.txt

Remember I accept the "dicipline" of passing the 20/40 line (the DMV requirement) myself.  In my personal opinion, I think a parent should not put his child into a minus, as long as the child passes that line with both eyes open.  I use a "weak" minus to check to see if my eyes (retina) is healthy, and don't require "medical attention".  I always check my Snellen before I go for an "eye exam" -- to avoid any use of a minus. 
I know this is a lot of "material" to go through, but I think protecting your child's distant vision for life -- is worth is.
Best,  Otis

Thank you all for the info.                                                                                                                                                                      This will be the start of my seeing clearer journey. I also don't want my daughter to go through many years with glasses and the prescription getting stronger every year.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 07, 2011, 07:25:11 AM
Hi Jansen,
I hope you are "following" the discussion about "self-empowerment" to use the plus "correctly".  I know you are using the plus at in the correct "distance", or "just clear" point.  That is very important, as well as maintining the resolve to continue to wear the plus for the next two months to pass the required "DMV Line" -- which is the standard that I test my eyes to.  You are doing excellent work to clear your vision.  Otis


Thank you for the explanation! I would like to note that I too have experienced the sharp-blurry double image when reading at the "edge of readability." I have noticed that if I blink hard at D3, I sometimes experience this phenomenon. 
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Andrew on March 08, 2011, 07:52:42 PM
Hi Everyone,

The posts on this thread have been informative and inspirational to say the least!

Personally, my vision improvement journey began about a year ago, but I only started working with "plus lenses" about 5 months ago. Here were my stats at that time, for my contacts:

Power: -5.00 L,  -5.25 R
Cyl:     -1.00 L,  -1.00 R
Axis:        80 L,      90 R

As you might expect, I was wearing my contacts all the time. I could (and still can) just barely make out the 20/200 line on the Snell chart...at 10 feet away, not 20 feet. Not the worst case of myopia every, but pretty bad. Bad enough in fact, that at my last visit to the optometrist (about 1 and half years ago) I was informed that "complications" can arise from the elongation that my eyes have undergone, which could require me to undergo some sort of special treatment (I'm not certain if it was surgical in nature or not). This potential threat really motivated me to find a way to stop my eyes from continuing to become more myopic, as they have been for the last 18 years.

My current regime:

I use glasses for most distance activities, which under-correct my eyes to 20/50 R and 20/40 L

I use contacts for sports, current corrective factor of -4.75 R and -4.50 L This was a first attempt at self prescribing, and for my purposes it was an over correction, the next batch I order will at least another 0.25D more positive in each eye. (Please note that self prescribing is something I am doing at my own risk! It was not recommended to me by anyone.)

I read most print at about 6 inches from my eye with no correction, however most of the time I use a +1.25 lens for each eye when reading, resulting in a distance of about 5.5 inches.

When using the computer I put the +1.25 lenses in front of my distance glasses (I'm sure this looks really classy, but I'm interested in improving how I see, not how I look). This results in my reading the monitor clearly at about 19".

My goal was originally to stop the progression of myopia, but now that I know it's possible, I want to improve my vision so that it is 20/20 unaided. And I want to do this in less than a third of the time it took me to make my vision this blurred: 6 years.

So that's my long winded intro. I will keep you all posted on my progress, which I'm planning to measure both at 20ft using my corrective lenses, and without them measured at 5 ft. on a weekly basis.

Any advice and encouragement is welcome!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 08, 2011, 08:20:19 PM
I was wearing my contacts all the time. I could (and still can) just barely make out the 20/200 line on the Snell chart...at 10 feet away, not 20 feet. Not the worst case of myopia every, but pretty bad...current corrective factor of -4.75 R and -4.50 L... I read most print at about 6 inches from my eye with no correction, however most of the time I use a +1.25 lens for each eye when reading, resulting in a distance of about 5.5 inches....My goal was originally to stop the progression of myopia, but now that I know it's possible, I want to improve my vision so that it is 20/20 unaided. And I want to do this in less than a third of the time it took me to make my vision this blurred: 6 years....Any advice and encouragement is welcome!

Andrew,

I'm very impressed by your ambition and determination.  You have quite a severe case of myopia, so getting to 20/20 is kind of like a person who weighs 350 pounds getting down to 150 pounds.  It can be done, but it takes real dedication and discipline.  If you can accomplish this, you will be the poster child for myopia reversal!

You asked for some advice, so here it comes:

1.  Be persistent, and do not expect rapid progress. Take things one step at a time. Set your initial goal at reducing your prescription by 1 diopter.  One you achieve that, then go for another diopter.  I'm not saying to forget your long term goal of 20/20, but do not focus on that or get obsessed with it.

2.  Be consistent in using the plus lens approach. Do it every day for 1-2 hours minimum and take plenty of breaks to give the eyes some rest.  Measure your Snellen score every week and track your progress.

3.  Consider how you got to -4.75 diopters in the first place.  Was it due to habits of reading too close up?  What can you do to reverse those habits and avoid such close reading going forward?

4. Does myopia run in your family?  Do you think there is a genetic contribution, or is this mostly habit and environment?

5. Consider that perhaps there is a dietary component? This is somewhat speculative, but there is some evidence to support this. Do you eat or drink a lot of sugary or starchy foods an beverages?  Loren Cordain (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/myopia-is-linked-to-refined-starch-in-diet-656381.html) has cited research showing that a diet high in sugar and carbohydrates may accelaerate myopia, and eleliminating sugar, carbs, grains, and dairy, may hasten its reversal.  Consider a low carb or "Paleo" diet cutting out sweets, sodas, starchy carbs and the like.  I don't have proof for the diet connection, but my own improvement coincided not only with the use of plus lenses and stopping my reliance on minus lenses, but also on adopting a low carb diet and supplementation with fish oil for the omega 3 fatty acids. (I take orange flavored emulsified Cod Liver oil from Twin Labs). 

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Andrew on March 14, 2011, 09:18:09 PM
You asked for some advice, so here it comes:

1.  Be persistent, and do not expect rapid progress.

2.  Be consistent in using the plus lens approach. Do it every day for 1-2 hours minimum

3.  Consider how you got to -4.75 diopters in the first place.

4. Does myopia run in your family?  Do you think there is a genetic contribution, or is this mostly habit and environment?

5. Consider that perhaps there is a dietary component?

Todd

Thanks for the response Todd!

1. I like your advice to break up my long term objective into smaller, more manageable chunks. Because this will likely be a very long term project keeping motivated will crucial, and it will be more motivating to stay focused on small incremental successes rather than on how much further I still have to go.

2. When you say 1-2 hours per day minimum, does using plus lenses to under-correct my regular prescription count (i.e. wearing plus lenses on top of my contacts or my regular minus lenses while working at the computer) Or should I be shooting for 1-2 hours minimum with just my eyes plus lenses?

3. I have been thinking a lot about how I got to be so myopic. It started in about 3rd grade, and gradually got worse over time. I was changing prescriptions about every 1.5 years. I have basically been in school for my whole life up until 5 months ago, when I finished grad school. So I’ve spent a lot of time “buried in books” while wearing strong corrective lenses for myopia. Tack on to that too much time spent playing video games as kid, perhaps some effects from genetic predisposition (myopia runs my family) being on the “Standard America Diet” (SAD) and perhaps some other variables such as poor posture all have likely contributed to my current state of myopia.

4. I am not an expert in genetics, perhaps there is a genetic component, perhaps I learned the same behaviours as my parents so that became myopic just like them, it could be a combination, or be completely unrelated. I do know that I used to have perfect vision so my “myopia gene” (if such a thing exists) wasn’t always manifesting itself. As far as I’m concerned if it could be inactive for the first 8 years of my life, it can be inactive again.

5. Thanks for the heads up on the diet research! As I said in point 3, I do think diet may have played a role in my vision deterioration, plus I am constantly looking for the latest research connecting diet to long term health. (I am proud to say that my diet resembles the SAD less and less every week) I will incorporate diet elements into my journal to see if find any potential correlations.

Update: I tested my eyes with my current correction (old glasses of unknown corrective factor) on Wednesday March 9th, 2011 and found to my delight that what I reported in my first post was no longer accurate! I said that they “under-correct my eyes to 20/50 R and 20/40 L” This was a measurement from 5 months ago, now I have 20/30 R and 20/20 L! Looks like I need some new lenses for distance!

Andrew
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 17, 2011, 11:37:12 AM
2. When you say 1-2 hours per day minimum, does using plus lenses to under-correct my regular prescription count (i.e. wearing plus lenses on top of my contacts or my regular minus lenses while working at the computer) Or should I be shooting for 1-2 hours minimum with just my eyes plus lenses?

I think there are two very different strategies here, Andrew. For ordinary distance vision (walking around or driving) use weak undercorrection (or weak plus lenses over contacts, which is basically the same thing).  For focused periods of near work (reading or computers), use either stronger plus lenses, or remove your contacts or minus lenses altogether -- whatever it takes to change the limit of your focal distance to about 16 inches.  Reading "at the edge of focus" is work for your eyes, so I'd limit that to 1 hour a day at first (with breaks every 15 minutes); if it gets comfortable, you can lengthen this to several hours and move to stronger plus lenses as your eyes improve.

3. I have been thinking a lot about how I got to be so myopic. It started in about 3rd grade, and gradually got worse over time. I was changing prescriptions about every 1.5 years. I have basically been in school for my whole life up until 5 months ago, when I finished grad school. So I’ve spent a lot of time “buried in books” while wearing strong corrective lenses for myopia. Tack on to that too much time spent playing video games as kid, perhaps some effects from genetic predisposition (myopia runs my family) being on the “Standard America Diet” (SAD) and perhaps some other variables such as poor posture all have likely contributed to my current state of myopia.

4. I am not an expert in genetics, perhaps there is a genetic component, perhaps I learned the same behaviours as my parents so that became myopic just like them, it could be a combination, or be completely unrelated. I do know that I used to have perfect vision so my “myopia gene” (if such a thing exists) wasn’t always manifesting itself. As far as I’m concerned if it could be inactive for the first 8 years of my life, it can be inactive again.

5. Thanks for the heads up on the diet research! As I said in point 3, I do think diet may have played a role in my vision deterioration, plus I am constantly looking for the latest research connecting diet to long term health. (I am proud to say that my diet resembles the SAD less and less every week) I will incorporate diet elements into my journal to see if find any potential correlations.

That explains it!

Update: I tested my eyes with my current correction (old glasses of unknown corrective factor) on Wednesday March 9th, 2011 and found to my delight that what I reported in my first post was no longer accurate! I said that they “under-correct my eyes to 20/50 R and 20/40 L” This was a measurement from 5 months ago, now I have 20/30 R and 20/20 L! Looks like I need some new lenses for distance!

That's great to hear, Andrew.  You are doing what few people actually get around to doing -- measuring your Snellen rating. So many people try this method but don't keep records of their progress.  Without measuring progress, you are flying blind.  So good job!

Keep us posted...

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 17, 2011, 12:53:30 PM
Hi Andrew and Todd,
Subject:  Futher help, if you choose to get "reduced" glasses.
I have found it almost impossible to get glasses that are "different" from what the ODs wants to "prescribe".  Each OD is "different", but all I get is an "argument" about prevention not being possible.  This is why I think Todd was successful.  He just had reason to believe that he could do it -- and, went cold-turkey, and was successful.  But if you are "deeper" that Todd, then you will have to get some glasses.  The last OD visit cost me $400.  The medical part (check for detached retina, etc.) is fine, but the glasses cost $200.  I can not afford that, if I am going to be changing my glasses myself.  You can get "prescription" glasses here, for about $10.
http://www.zennioptical.com/
I know this is a "bold step", but I have ordered glasses from Zenni, and they were of good quality (for $10).  I only wish I had had the help I needed for prevention when I was "getting in to it".  We are here to help you.  Otis 
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 17, 2011, 04:49:11 PM
Otis brings up some excellent points here. It is indeed possible to prevent and reverse myopia without using underprescription. It's relatively easy to do that if your myopia is mild, so you can go cold turkey like I did.  When you watch a lecture or TV, just sit far enough back that the image or slides are right at the edge of focus.  But for those with strong myopia, it may be less convenient to do that, so underprescription can help.  On the other hand, those with strong myopia can dispense with plus lenses and just sit far enough back from the computer or book.

I also like Otis's suggestion of Zenni Optical -- both to save money and stay in control of your eyes.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 26, 2011, 10:50:30 AM
I have been reading this thread for a while and finally decided to post because I need some suggestions. Here is my story. When I wore my glasses, I remember testing myself 20/60 in the left eye and 20/40 in the right. Now, since doing Bates for a while (which included distance gazing) and more recently plus lenses for reading, I have come to about 20/30 in both eyes. I believe that I no longer have any myopia, but that there is a slight bit of astigmatism in both eyes which is causing the blur. I think this because of the slight double image I see when I look in the distance with one eye covered. I haven't really improved much recently and appear to have leveled off. I can see clearly 99% of things I want to see, so there is no stress to improve. The only realistic stress I can give my eyes is to use the plus lenses. So, here is my question. How do you suggest I might go about improving to 20/20 and breaking through my plateau? Should I aggressively use the plus lenses? Is it possible that this could simply give me hyperopia with astigmatism? Should I train only one eye at a time? Thank you for any suggestions you have.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 26, 2011, 11:55:13 AM
Hi Shadow,
No one can answer all your questions -- to YOUR satisfaction.  Further, no one can tell you exactly how to do "prevention".  I am very pleased you read your own Snellen.  Let me add that SUCCESS to me, is that I personally verify that I pass the DMV line (read the 20/40 correctly at 20 feet).  That to me is true success.  Now if you wish to do BETTER than normal, then you can do some additional work.  But here, I would set 20/25 as a final goal.  I read 20/25, and am very happy with it. As an engineer I believe in meeting requirements, which is the 20/40 line.  To me "perfect" is the enemy of "best".  I only give "advice" with the idea "if it were me".  "Hyperopia" is a terrible word -- since to have excellent and very clear vision, it is essential that your refractive STATE be slightly positive.  My state is +3/4 diopter (measured with a simple plus lens).  You should have no fear of going to +1/4 to +1/2 diotper, in which case, I have no doubt that you would be reading in the 20/25 to 20/20 range.  But that will mean continued use of the plus (about +2.5 diopters in your case).  You have already achieved your IMPORTANT goal in my opinion.  That is my goal, and I think Todd's goal also.  If you wish furter Snellen clearing, it will require truly dedicated use of a strong plus.  Best,  Otis


I have been reading this thread for a while and finally decided to post because I need some suggestions. Here is my story. When I wore my glasses, I remember testing myself 20/60 in the left eye and 20/40 in the right. Now, since doing Bates for a while (which included distance gazing) and more recently plus lenses for reading, I have come to about 20/30 in both eyes. I believe that I no longer have any myopia, but that there is a slight bit of astigmatism in both eyes which is causing the blur. I think this because of the slight double image I see when I look in the distance with one eye covered. I haven't really improved much recently and appear to have leveled off. I can see clearly 99% of things I want to see, so there is no stress to improve. The only realistic stress I can give my eyes is to use the plus lenses. So, here is my question. How do you suggest I might go about improving to 20/20 and breaking through my plateau? Should I aggressively use the plus lenses? Is it possible that this could simply give me hyperopia with astigmatism? Should I train only one eye at a time? Thank you for any suggestions you have.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 27, 2011, 06:07:54 AM
Otis,

Thank you for your reply. My life is very livable right now and I agree with your estimation that anything under 20/40 is good enough for everyday life. I would, however, like to go beyond that for two reasons. First, I like to be the best that I can be. That might not mean perfection, but it does mean that I desire for further improvement. Second, 20/40 to 20/30 is not very far to go. I do not think it is enough to placate naysayers. There are a few members of my family who are interested in this, but who I think need a little bit more "proof." By getting to 20/20 I can give that to them.

And one final question, do you, now that you are not trying to improve but are at maintenance, still use the plus lenses for reading? I assume that once your eyes have been in the minus they have a tendency to go that way with close work, and that you can't become like some people I know who do close work all the time and have 20/20.

Regards,
shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 27, 2011, 07:00:27 AM
For ShadowFoot,
Subject:  What YOU want in this life.  That is what is very important.
As an engineer, I believe in "doing it myself" if I can.  You raise a number of valuable questions, and they deserve detailed answers.  (That are never easy.)  So I will take some time to reply in detail.

Shadow>Otis,
Thank you for your reply. My life is very livable right now and I agree with your estimation that anything under 20/40 is good enough for everyday life. I would, however, like to go beyond that for two reasons. First, I like to be the best that I can be. That might not mean perfection, but it does mean that I desire for further improvement.
Otis>  A lot of people have the "desire" -- but lack the "motivation" -- with all due respect.  That will be the issue for you to face.  I estimate that you are about -1/2 to -3/4 diotpers "away" from 20/25 to 20/20.  I would suggest you THINK about checking this by getting two "minus" lenses to satify your curiosity.  That would help my "engineering" interest, and would help you with your general curiosity.  These two lenses would cost about $10.
Second, 20/40 to 20/30 is not very far to go.
Otis>  That "change" could take about six to nine months -- maybe faster.  But it will be under YOUR TOTAL CONTROL.  You know your "Snellen".  Now measure your refractive STATE.


 I do not think it is enough to placate naysayers. There are a few members of my family who are interested in this, but who I think need a little bit more "proof." By getting to 20/20 I can give that to them.

Otis> No one will belive your success -- BUT YOU.
More later.


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 27, 2011, 09:30:16 AM
Dear ShadowFoot,
Subject: Make measurements yourself -- and you will believe in your results.
You can use the plus (intensively) and clear your Snellen further.  But if you want a more "organized" and convincing method (that others will believe) then I suggest getting two lenses from Zennioptical (for about $14).  it is money well-spent -- just for the "learning" part of it.  Since my refractive state is positive, I use a plus lens to "incrementally" blur the 20/25 to 20/30 line (it takes some practice to do this accurately.  You will have a -1/2 and a -1 diopter lens in your hand.  You will be reading at 20/30.  You will then hold a -1/2 diopter up, and see if that clears the 20/20 line.  If it does -- that is your refractive state.   I is possible that a -1 will clear the 20/15 for your -- but that is optional.  You (and I) need to know if a -1/2 will clear the 20/20 line -- VERY IMPORTANT.  Once you prove this, you can then work with you (with you as the leader) to get that change so that you will get naked eye 20/20 with both eyes open, on a Snellen like the one I use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i8n7rh7lso
If you wish to communicate privately, my email is otisbrown@embarqmail.com
Best, Otis


Otis,

Thank you for your reply. My life is very livable right now and I agree with your estimation that anything under 20/40 is good enough for everyday life. I would, however, like to go beyond that for two reasons. First, I like to be the best that I can be. That might not mean perfection, but it does mean that I desire for further improvement. Second, 20/40 to 20/30 is not very far to go. I do not think it is enough to placate naysayers. There are a few members of my family who are interested in this, but who I think need a little bit more "proof." By getting to 20/20 I can give that to them.

And one final question, do you, now that you are not trying to improve but are at maintenance, still use the plus lenses for reading? I assume that once your eyes have been in the minus they have a tendency to go that way with close work, and that you can't become like some people I know who do close work all the time and have 20/20.

Regards,
shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 27, 2011, 10:23:26 AM
Otis,

Wow. You're incredibly fast.

I think your estimation of six months is potentially accurate, as I have been trying to improve for about that long. The 20/40 to 20/30 step was, however, often staggered and inconsistent and I was not using plus lenses then.

I understand what you are saying about not being able to placate all naysayers. However, there are two members of my family who would believe me and who would be encouraged by my "complete" success. One brother is at about 20/40 and has refused to get glasses. He would like to improve a little bit, anything is better than nothing. And another brother has done a lot of research with me, but has not attempted anything because of the complete necessity of his glasses and lack of motivation. It is them who I want to "prove" myself to.

And this brings up two more questions. First, who much do you think someone could realistically improve given enough time? If someone was at, say, 20/200, would they be able to get farther than 20/100? Or could they get all the way with enough motivation even if it took them five years?

And second, is the astigmatism something that should mostly correct itself with use of the plus, or is there something more that would be helpful there?

-shadowfoot

Edit: You posted while I was writing this. If I have any more specific (meaning more personal) questions, I will use your email. However, for now I would like to continue on the forum. It was reading discussions like this (although few and far between) that originally convinced me that an improvement was possible. It is a small gift I can give someone else looking for clarity. Also, I think other people would be interested in your answers to a few of my questions.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 27, 2011, 11:36:27 AM
I believe that I no longer have any myopia, but that there is a slight bit of astigmatism in both eyes which is causing the blur. I think this because of the slight double image I see when I look in the distance with one eye covered. I haven't really improved much recently and appear to have leveled off. I can see clearly 99% of things I want to see, so there is no stress to improve. The only realistic stress I can give my eyes is to use the plus lenses. So, here is my question. How do you suggest I might go about improving to 20/20 and breaking through my plateau? Should I aggressively use the plus lenses? Is it possible that this could simply give me hyperopia with astigmatism? Should I train only one eye at a time? Thank you for any suggestions you have.

Hi shadowfoot, and welcome to this forum.

I think that Otis's comments above are wise ones.  I'll add a few comments of my own here:
1. A Snellen rating of 20/20 is in fact arbitrary to some extent.  It means only that your visual acuity at 20 feet is comparable to that for "standard vision" as determined by the Dutch opthamologist Hermann Snellen in 1862.  But what is standard is to some extent a statistical artifact or a judgement about normality.  It is a fact that many people have vision that is better than 20/20. Having 20/15 vision is not uncommon.  Most sources put the limit of visual acuity at 20/10, based upon resolution of the receptor cells in the retina.
2. Just as you can improve your strength beyond that of the average human by lifting weights, you can improve beyond 20/20 by using plus lenses and distance viewing exercises.  This is not a matter of using the plus lenses more frequently or "aggressively", but rather of using stronger plus lenses and/or sitting back further away from your reading material.  The principle for getting from 20/20 to 20/15 is exactly the same as that you use in getting from 20/30 to 20/20:  the application of controlled, progressive stress, at the edge of your current ability, with adequate amounts of rest and variation in viewing distances.
3. If your eyes have different acuity (called anisometropia) you are actually like most people, including myself.  I've been asked this question many times, so I may have to write a new post about it.  It's not necessarily a bad thing, as having one eye with a shorter focal distance than the other allows you to "cover more ground" between fine print close up and distance vision.  However, if you want to strengthen your weaker eye, just cover the stronger eye with your hand while reading and force the weaker eye to do more of the work.  You can also tape a patch over the "strong  eye" lens of your plus lenses.  Looks strange, but who cares, right?
4. If you spend all day wearing plus lenses, you could get hyperopia. But if you follow my advice to use plus lenses no more than 2 hours a day, and you vary your vision and practice reading fine print during the time you are not using plus lenses, you should have no problems.

And this brings up two more questions. First, who much do you think someone could realistically improve given enough time? If someone was at, say, 20/200, would they be able to get farther than 20/100? Or could they get all the way with enough motivation even if it took them five years?

And second, is the astigmatism something that should mostly correct itself with use of the plus, or is there something more that would be helpful there?

5.  There is no limit to how much you can improve your vision. There are reports of people with -6 diopter myopia who totally reversed it.  But the rate of improvement is highly dependent on your physical condition (age, diet, etc.), motivation and persistence.  It can take years, and only the rare individual will persist that long.  And the improvement is reversible if you fall back into bad habits.
6.  Regarding astigmatism, I would not worry about it and there is no specific exercise for correcting it.  It tends to diminish by itself if you succeed in reversing the myopia.

Good luck.  Keep posting your progress (and questions) here and we'll be cheering you on.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on March 27, 2011, 01:12:01 PM
Hello,
I have not posted in a while because of sickness, but my vision has been on the 20/50-20/60 line for quite a while now. I have been following the earlier discussion, and I was wondering if I should do the same thing, that is covering my stronger eye with a patch to strengthen my weaker eye. If I do this, will the overall visual acuity improve?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 27, 2011, 01:51:54 PM
Hi Todd,

Thank you for your response. I love your site and have found a lot of ideas that I really like and agree with here. I think I got here via your cold showers post, which I have been taking, and loving, since the summer.

In response to your points. When I say aggressively I mean pushing the material farther away. What has often happened in the past is that I have simply read with the plus at the point of comfort without really pushing it away. Aggressively using the plus for me is pushing the material far enough away that it needs to clear and the strain is noticeable. I am almost forced to take breaks when doing this as I can't keep it up. I have noticed that when I really do this I get a noticeable improvement that lasts up to a few hours afterwards depending on what else I am doing with my eyes.

When you talk about 20/10 vision, I am reminded of the Australian aborigines. When early explorers asked them to draw one star cluster (sister something), they drew it with 10 stars. Most people can only see 7 stars. They reportedly could see prey at a mile away.

Have you ever tried to improve your own vision beyond 20/20? Or have you just accepted it as good enough as is? As has been said, being able to function and drive is really the primary goal. Most people don't care as much once they get past that point.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 27, 2011, 02:51:41 PM
When you talk about 20/10 vision, I am reminded of the Australian aborigines. When early explorers asked them to draw one star cluster (sister something), they drew it with 10 stars. Most people can only see 7 stars. They reportedly could see prey at a mile away.

Have you ever tried to improve your own vision beyond 20/20? Or have you just accepted it as good enough as is? As has been said, being able to function and drive is really the primary goal. Most people don't care as much once they get past that point.

shadowfoot,

I do try to keep improving my vision, even beyond 20/20. With both eyes or my right eye, I'm at 20/20 and can make out part of the 20/15 line.  My left eye is the laggard, at 20/40, though sometimes I can read the 20/30 line with it.  I'm also working on being able to read fine print close up.

I'd like to be able to see like the aborigines you mention some day.  I really enjoy being able to see exquisite detail when I'm out hiking in nature or even driving to work.  If we have the ability to keep improving, why should we stop?

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 27, 2011, 02:57:47 PM
Hello,
I have not posted in a while because of sickness, but my vision has been on the 20/50-20/60 line for quite a while now. I have been following the earlier discussion, and I was wondering if I should do the same thing, that is covering my stronger eye with a patch to strengthen my weaker eye. If I do this, will the overall visual acuity improve?

jansen,

Nice to hear from you.  I hope you are feeling better.

To answer you question, I do think it helps to spend some of your time working to improve your weaker eye by covering the stronger eye or patching that lens. It will tend  to give you more consistent improvement. But to get past 20/50 you'll still need to work on both eyes.

What is your current practice of using plus lenses?  How much time per day do you read with the lenses, and what strength do you use?

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 27, 2011, 03:39:29 PM
Hi ShadowFoot,
Subject: What I will NOT DO.  Claims that I will never make.
With deep respect to Todd and many others, my judgmetn is this:
We almost ALWAYS have a postive refractive state at age five (about +1/2 diopter) and effectively 20/25 vision.  Our eyes "go down" because of our 'nose on book' habits.  IF AN EMPOWERED PERSON AND PARENTS were to start at that time with a full-strength plus lens, then no eyes would go below 20/40.  There would be no "nearsighedness", and no "progressive myopia" caused (as far as I am concerned) by the prescription of an over-prescribed minus lens.  I find I "fight" with ODs when I make that statement -- but that is the way it is.  For those who "wake up" and are prepared to make very heavy use of a plus (while their Snellen is still at 20/60) then very slow return to 20/40 (or better) is possible.  I know it is very hard to "convince" a parent and child of the absolute necessity to BEGIN use of the plus -- as a habit -- when the child's vision is at 20/50.  Efforts to do that are "fought" by almot all parents and children.  For this reason, I just present the scientific facts as I know them, and hope the person can "figure out" that you must do "prevention" yourself.  For me, that also includes getting low-cost lenses from Zennioptical, and as necessary, will "prescribe" for myself -- since I simply don't trust any OD to make these refractive status measurement.  I will post the lenses (glasses) I optained from Zeenioptical -- to show how to do it.  You are right in this.  You must do this successfully FIRST, before you talk to anyone.  Even then, with your previous refractive state measured by you, and your "hopful" postive state, and 20/20 vision (both eye open) no one, except for your family will believe you.  That is my "attitude".  I will help you and Todd as much as possible, and will learn FROM YOU if you go through this experience.  I will "imply" some of the answers to your questions as you go through this personal effort.  Best, Otis

Shadow> And this brings up two more questions. First, who much do you think someone could realistically improve given enough time? If someone was at, say, 20/200, would they be able to get farther than 20/100? Or could they get all the way with enough motivation even if it took them five years?

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 27, 2011, 04:03:55 PM
Hi Prevention friends,
Here is the order to Zenni for "test" lenses (in 2 frames) for your interest:
Subject: Obtaining lenses (glasses) with no prescription.
These glasses were excellent.  The total cost for four lenses (for test purposes) as $21.00. 
http://www.zennioptical.com/

Measuring my refractive STATE myself (as I show on my video) gives me confidence in myself and

my results.  Here is the order to Zenni. 
++++++
Invoice

 zennioptical.com27 SunnyOaks Drive, San Rafael, 94903,
 California, United States , 1-800-211-2105
 Invoice#128547028/08/2010Otis Brown

 Products ordered
 1, 2  Two glasses, four lenses.

 Frame+Lens419011 Metal Alloy Full-Rim Frame with Spring Hinge$8.00419011 Metal Alloy Full-Rim

Frame with Spring Hinge$8.00
 Color11 Silver 11 Silver  Lens Shape Mag CO
 
 Clip On0$0.000$0.00
 AR Coat $0.00 $0.00
 Lens TintNo Tint$0.00No Tint$0.00
 Pres. Type1.57 Mid-Index Single-Vision, No
 Charge$0.001.57 Mid-Index Single-Vision, No
 Charge$0.00

 OD-Sph-0.50 +0.50

 OD-Cyl0.00 0.00

 OD-Axis0 0
 OS-Sph-1.00 +1.00
 OS-Cyl0.00 0.00
 OS-Axis0 0
 NV-Add0.00 0.00
 Pupil-Dist62 60
 XS-Charge $0.00 $0.00
 Sub Total @1 frame(s)$8.00 1 frame(s)$8.00
 # Frames2Sub Total$16.00Ship. &
 H.$4.95Total$20.95

 Thank you for your order. Generally we start processing your order in 24 hours after which we
cannot make any changes, so please double check all of the details of your order and call us

immediately if there are to be  any changes.You should receive your order about one to two and

a half weeks after the order date depending on  the type of prescription and your location.

 Confirmation

 Congratulations! Your order has been successfully placed.
 Thank you for using our store. An order notification has been sent to your e-mail address.

Your order will be processed according to the delivery details.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on March 27, 2011, 04:37:21 PM
Hello,

The amount of time I spend using plus lenses somewhat varies from 2-5 hours a day depending on how much homework I have. I read at the edge of focus most of the time, but in the morning I will occasionally read at the edge of blur, and open my eyes wide, then relax.

Just to clarify, If I patch my strong eye, then I will notice better vision with both eyes? I've been suspecting this has been the problem, because I've been around 20/60-20/50 for quite a while.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 27, 2011, 04:50:28 PM
Todd:

Hopefully my age and health will be of use in getting the best vision I can. I eat a very nutritious paleo/WAPF diet and am still in my teens.

Otis:

My family will believe me because they will have witnessed what my vision was and what it (hopefully) will be. And example of this happened a few weeks ago when I read something that my mother was shocked that I could read. As for anyone else, I don't really care that they don't believe it. The only people I care to convince are the people who believe in the impossible. There are people who do things that "cannot" be done. People who cure diabetes, cure autism, deal with blindness by learning to echolocate, etc. Most do not believe them, but some are inspired by their success, and that is what matters. For those people, seeing that something is possible is all the inspiration they need.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 27, 2011, 06:24:25 PM
Just to clarify, If I patch my strong eye, then I will notice better vision with both eyes? I've been suspecting this has been the problem, because I've been around 20/60-20/50 for quite a while.

Jansen,

Yes, patching the strong eye will help not only your weak eye but also your binocular (two eye) vision, but only to a point.  You'll be able to read the letters on the Snellen chart more consistently, and with less strain, on a given line.  But to advance futher, you'll still have to improve both eyes.

It's like weight lifting.  If one arm is weaker than the other, your ability to lift a barbell is uneven, so your weight lifting will be tentative and uneven with one weak arm.  But to advance to the next level, you need both arms to get stronger.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 27, 2011, 06:30:30 PM
Hopefully my age and health will be of use in getting the best vision I can. I eat a very nutritious paleo/WAPF diet and am still in my teens.

shadowfoot,

I'm so glad to hear you are eating a paleo diet. Cordain cites some research connecting diet with myopia and recommending a low-sugar paleo diet:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/12/short-sightedness-myopia

I'm impressed to learn that you are thinking and reading about this while you are still in your teens.  From your articulate writing, I had supposed that you were much older.  Your maturity shines through well beyond your years.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 28, 2011, 09:50:04 AM
Todd,

Thank you for your kind words. I saw that study to linked to and find it intriguing. While I find carbohydrates to be an unlikely culprit considering the number of indigenous peoples with perfect sight consuming a carb heavy diet, it seems entirely possible that there is a factor in our western diet (possibly the source of carbohydrate = wheat) that could be a factor in inducing myopia.

I looked up the indigenous Australians that I mentioned, and most sources but their eyesight at 20/10 or better, some going as far as 20/5. One theory is that they actually have more ancient genetics, as evidenced by various features (e.g. larger than normal brow ridge) that allows them to have such superior eyesight.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 28, 2011, 12:53:32 PM
Hi Shadow,
Subject: The "natural eye" in an open (not 'reading' environment) or life style.
I have been through a number of these studies.  They are very convincing that our "reading" habit, results in our natural eye changing their refractive state from "plus" to "minus".  (Everything being equal, a natural eye with a postive state -- will have very clear distant vision, i.e., 20/25 to 20/20 vision).  This was confirmed by a study done in Alaska.  The gradparents (who never read, and could not read) has excellent distant vision, almost to a man (or woman).  There refractive state was postive from zero to +2 diopters -- totally normal.  The grandchildren, who were placed in 12 year schools, and "picked up" this nose-on-page you see in so many children developed serious negative status for their natural eyes.  About 86 percent of them were myopic (i.e., has Snellens less than 20/40, and refractive states from -3/4 to -5 diopters.  It is the "dynamic" nature of the eye that results in our negative status.  Get our eyes looking in the "distance" (as the plus will do it), and you can avoid entry, or if at 20/50, can slowly clear your Snellen under your personal control.  But it takes a very strong "will" to do it -- and that is why no one can ever "prescribe" it.  I like your commentary -- you have the same "research" mind that I and Todd have.  Otis


Todd,

Thank you for your kind words. I saw that study to linked to and find it intriguing. While I find carbohydrates to be an unlikely culprit considering the number of indigenous peoples with perfect sight consuming a carb heavy diet, it seems entirely possible that there is a factor in our western diet (possibly the source of carbohydrate = wheat) that could be a factor in inducing myopia.

I looked up the indigenous Australians that I mentioned, and most sources but their eyesight at 20/10 or better, some going as far as 20/5. One theory is that they actually have more ancient genetics, as evidenced by various features (e.g. larger than normal brow ridge) that allows them to have such superior eyesight.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 28, 2011, 03:49:02 PM
I have been thinking about how close reading might mechanistically cause the eye to become negative. Here are two possibilities.

The first mechanism is that close reading causes the lenses to flatten due to tension of the cilliary muscles. This tension becomes "stuck" and when the person tries to look in the distance does not relax. This casts light behind the retina, causing the eye to grow in length. I have heard this idea before and seems to be the view of most Bates followers.

The second mechanism, which I just thought of, is that during close reading, the cilliary muscles must be contracted for the light to fall on the retina correctly. During long term reading these muscles become "tired" and begin to release a little bit out their tension. As the muscle relaxes in spite of strain to keep it tense, light occasionally falls behind the retina. This serves as the stimulus for the eye to grow in length.

The second mechanism is more appealing to me, as very long periods of time reading have, in the past, resulted in a lasting decrease in vision that, at least to me, cannot be explained by the cilliary muscles continuing to be strained. What do you guys think?

Oh, and in response to Otis, I can easily see why there haven't been convincing studies to show that an improvement is possible. It requires a real personal dedication that goes beyond the rigorous discipline of science.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on March 28, 2011, 03:52:12 PM
Hello,

I have a question for Todd about patching one eye while reading. How often should I switch eyes? One of eyes can read with +1.75 lenses, while the other can get the blur point without the use of lenses.
Also, will patching eyes cause a switch in eye dominance?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 28, 2011, 04:19:42 PM
Hi ShadowFoot,
Subject: What actually happens when:
1) You place the NATURAL EYE in a long-term near situation -- versus the "open" situation.
2) When you place a "minus" on the NATURAL EYE, to find out how the natural eye responds.
3) Can you "pull together" this science and these facts, and apply them to yourself as "personal defense" of your distant vision -- for life.
I was certainly "troubled" by the questions you asked.  I asked the ODs and MDs.  All I got was a combination of insults (to my intelligence) and a lost of "false facts" to justify their statements.  Fortunately, objective science finally establishes the answer (in my opinion) to both questions.  (The question came from a "liberated" optometrist.)  But the answer is in objective (engineering) science.  The simplified answer to question 2 is this:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf
Thus, however "well intended", and how ever "impressive" in making your vision very sharp in an office -- in the long run, the minus can only exacerbate your "situation".  This is why I think the minus should be avoided.  But to honestly avoid it -- you must pass the 20/40 line.  I don't have to know the "intermediate" mechanism of HOW the NATURAL EYE does this (changes its refractive STATE in this manner),  I just must understand that long-term near will result in my refractive STATE (self measured) will move from postive to negative from long-term near.  I know my "explanation" might not satisfy most -- but it is a scientific way to look at the natural eye's proven behavior.  In fact people are not "convinced" by me.  Like Brian Severson, he was "convinced" by himself, and to total dedication made heavy use of a strong plus for six to nine months under HIS control, until his refractive STATE went from a negative value to a postive value and he passed the FAA exam with 20/20 vision.  What confirms this truth for me, is not only the fact of his success (with totally depended on hihim) but by this dynamic eye cconcept.  But that is how I believe it is true. Otis

I have been thinking about how close reading might mechanistically cause the eye to become negative. Here are two possibilities.

The first mechanism is that close reading causes the lenses to flatten due to tension of the cilliary muscles. This tension becomes "stuck" and when the person tries to look in the distance does not relax. This casts light behind the retina, causing the eye to grow in length. I have heard this idea before and seems to be the view of most Bates followers.

The second mechanism, which I just thought of, is that during close reading, the cilliary muscles must be contracted for the light to fall on the retina correctly. During long term reading these muscles become "tired" and begin to release a little bit out their tension. As the muscle relaxes in spite of strain to keep it tense, light occasionally falls behind the retina. This serves as the stimulus for the eye to grow in length.

The second mechanism is more appealing to me, as very long periods of time reading have, in the past, resulted in a lasting decrease in vision that, at least to me, cannot be explained by the cilliary muscles continuing to be strained. What do you guys think?

Oh, and in response to Otis, I can easily see why there haven't been convincing studies to show that an improvement is possible. It requires a real personal dedication that goes beyond the rigorous discipline of science.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 28, 2011, 04:29:42 PM
Hi Shadow,
Subject:  With respect -- people confabulate "pure medicine" with pure SCIENCE.
In my opinion, these ODs MEMEORIZE their "science".  The ingnore critical SCIENTIFIC FACTS about prevention.  They are arrogant.  There are many other possibilities.  But I do simpathize with them, in that the great mass of humanaty does not want an OD to "explain" anything. They just want a doctor who "quick fixes" their distant vision, and sends them out the door "happy".  There title of "doctor" is directly dependent on their doing that.  So, to avoid "medical" issues, You mention (with due respect) that advocacy goes beyond the rigorous discipline of science".  If you would change this and say "rigorous discipline of MEDICINE", then you would be understanding of a deep issue in medicine.  In fact, given a "wise mind" I think a rigorous disciplined case can be made for pure scientific prevention.  But to keep everyone happy, I call a measured refractive STATE of the natural eye -- exactly that.  In a true scientific study, consisting of engineers,  I think successful prevention could be achieved, provided the person is "in" no deeper than 20/60 (and about -1.0 diopters). That remains an "open" issue since the "medical" people feel that I am totally WRONG about prevention.  It is up to you to decide this issue -- as Todd decided this issue.  Otis
Shadow>  Oh, and in response to Otis, I can easily see why there haven't been convincing studies to show that an improvement is possible. It requires a real personal dedication that goes beyond the rigorous discipline of science.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 29, 2011, 03:54:00 PM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: Your continued systematic work with the preventive plus.
As always, the advice I provide -- is the advice and support that I wish I had when I was young.
I am pleased that you 1) Take responsibility for yourself 2) Follow Todd's advice. 3) Accept that clearing your Snellen will take about six months. When you were at 20/70 to 20/80, I knew it would be tough.  I know that at first, it is hard to avoid the use of a minus, and at 20/80, it is very difficult.  I don't know how old you are, but the idea was to get to reasonable 20/40 -- totally on your own.  When you get there, then you can avoid the minus and do everything you wish with no minus.  If you continue with the plus (for all reasonable close work) then I believe that you will begin to verify 20/40.  I think the only way a person will "believe" Todd, if he does all of this himself.  That is indeed a 'tall order', but when you are successful, you can "look back", and realize that you did the right thing for yourself.  I will continue to add commentary to support you, but the true scientific leader -- is yourself.  Best, Otis

Hello,

The amount of time I spend using plus lenses somewhat varies from 2-5 hours a day depending on how much homework I have. I read at the edge of focus most of the time, but in the morning I will occasionally read at the edge of blur, and open my eyes wide, then relax.

Just to clarify, If I patch my strong eye, then I will notice better vision with both eyes? I've been suspecting this has been the problem, because I've been around 20/60-20/50 for quite a while.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 29, 2011, 07:12:10 PM
Otis,

When I talk about the "rigorousness" of science, I am talking about what it takes for something to be "credible." Under current methods, something showing that plus lenses "worked" would need a control group, a big enough sample size, etc. These factors are very useful for weeding out statistical abnormalities. The problem is that there are some things that we observe and think to be true, but later turn out not to be. This seems to be the origin of superstition. And this is what science tries to avoid. However, in doing so it often (as a necessity) removes emotion and dedication from the formula. As you say, in order to succeed in "curing" vision, one must be persistent and use the proper habits, etc.These are things that modern science often does not look for.

I have another question for you, for which I don't know if you have an answer. I will, however, ask it nonetheless because I am curious. I have read that myopia progresses rapidly until the early twenties and then slows down. Apparently the eye is much more dynamic in the early years and teens. This would imply to me that someone within that threshold would have faster and greater success. What do you think?

And just to keep you posted on any progress, here is my latest. I tested today at 20/30 with both eyes open in a poorly lit room. Well, you must understand that poorly lit does not mean dusk, but it does mean significantly darker than the last time I tested at 20/30.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 29, 2011, 07:34:55 PM
Hi Shadow,
You raise some excellent questions.  No one will have a "perfect" answer, and I have thought of many myself.  My interest is in "pure science", where "I" ask the questions, "I" run the experimental study, and "I", (and perhaps you) reach a conclusion about the FUNDAMENTAL EYE, where all measurements are OBJECTIVE.  By this, I mean that you have the training and ability to measure the natural eye's refractive STATE, and YOU can apply the "test" conditions -- yourself.  This means both education and control for you.  I just your intelligence to be good, and given time -- you would understand both the arguments, the measurements and the conclusions.  One question you raised (that troubled me the most) -- is this.  Are there not some WISE ODs, who, while FORCED to use the "minus" on the general public (beacuse they "don't understand") have with scientific intuition, realized that absolute necessity of INSISTING that there own children ALWAYS use the plus -- not to "cure" at all, but to keep the child's refractive STATE postive, and therefore the child's distant vision clear though the school years.  That to me was a very important issue.  To briefly answer your quesiton, which is what happens if a person is SLIGHLY nearsighted at age seven, (say 20/50) and received an full-strength minus -- that he wears all the time?  The answer it that the child's refractive STATE will move "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per each year in school -- though college.  There are so-called "bi-focal" studies that stongly back this statement up.  This is why I argue that it must be the "insight" of the person himself (with this confirmed knowlege) that he must START the use of the plus at that "threshold" level -- and totally under his wise control.  Let me furter respond to your questions:
Shadow>  I have another question for you, for which I don't know if you have an answer. I will, however, ask it nonetheless because I am curious. I have read that myopia progresses rapidly until the early twenties and then slows down.

Yes -- see above
Apparently the eye is much more dynamic in the early years and teens. This would imply to me that someone within that threshold would have faster and greater success. What do you think?


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 29, 2011, 07:43:19 PM
Hi Shadow,
Continued:  Here is a graph of the natural eye's responsiveness to 1) a long-term "near" enviroment.  (This means kids who put there nose on the page as a habit)  2) Then when there refractive STATE moves negative, by about -1.0 diopter (20/60) some OD will put a -1 diopter on the child -- with, if not properly infomred of the danger of it -- the child will wear all the time.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html

This is done in "good faith" because the medical community believes that even ENTRY into nearsightedness is ABSOLUTLY NOT PREVENTABLE.  But there is no "absolute science" here, and the best idea is to describe this as an issue of the "majority-opinion" versus the "second-opinion", and not demand "absolute science" from this subject.  This is why I argue that a person should 1) Look at his own Snellen 2) Understand the consequences of neglect -- in refusal to use the "plus" while your Snellen is 20/60 -- and you have a chance to get to 20/40 under your wise control, and 3) Recognize that once you get to 20/40 or better -- as long as you are in school, you must understand that you must contue this "checking" process, and re-start with the plus if you are in a long-term near "situation". I hope you understand the above graph.  If you have any questions about it -- let me know.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 29, 2011, 07:50:49 PM
Hi Shadow,
Because you have an active interest and are thoughtful about this issue of prevention, I have posted some videos, and a "WebMD" review here, under, "New Applications", with the title of, "Watching Kids Induce Myopia".  I would point out that I can not "follow" a person around, and pry his nose off the page (see the video), nor can I FORCE a person to both "sit up" and read at 20 inches through a 2 diopter lens.  This is why "wise intelligence" must be in the person himself -- in my opinion.  But that is what Todd and Brian developed in themselves -- and that is why they were successful -- in my opinion.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 30, 2011, 10:10:48 AM
Otis and Todd,

I totally agree that many members of the medial field are, pardon the pun, quite myopic. They see only what is in front of them and cannot manage to think outside the box. Thank you for all of the links you have been posting. They are quite interesting. But as you say, personal experience convinces, and the proof is in the pudding.

Speaking of, I can add a success to the use of plus lenses. I checked my vision today in a bright room (where you are supposed to check it) and with both eyes open I was able to make out the 20/20 line. It was just at the edge of blur and came into focus after a few seconds. There isn't a 20/25 line on the chart I use, so I have been been closer than I thought. Thank you Todd for the plus lenses idea, and Otis for your help, I'm not sure I would have done it without you. Or if I did it would have taken a lot longer. And now, into the future and a new goal, the 20/15 line.

-shadowfoot

Edited to add a question -
What positive refraction would you recommend for trying to get to 20/15 and 20/10? I find that my strongest reading glasses are currently weak for me and I have to be WAY back (like at least two feet, depending on the size of the text) which is pretty annoying when trying to read a book.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 30, 2011, 01:59:08 PM
Hi Shadow,
I don't "pry"  into a person's life -- if I can avoid it.  But if you read the remarks and graph of Soon See, I think you can "see" the problem.  Part of the "problem" is us (meaning you and I) and our "reading habits" in our modern society.  I never deny this responsiblity -- but the majority-opinin OD in his office, insists that 1) Long-term close work has NO EFFECT on the natural eyes' refractive STATE, and futher 2) A minus lens also has no effect on the eye's refractive state.  Since I will not "argue" with them in their office (that is a waste of time), I must take wise control of my life, and my distant vision by wise use of the preventive plus.  My(brightly lit) Snellen is 20/25 (that I pass consistently).  About half the time I read the 20/20 line.  But the line that is "golden" for me is the 20/40 line.  I believe that "perfect" is the enemy of "best" -- so that is success for me. But since I "gave up"  on these majority-opinion ODs a long time ago, I also developed a low-cost trial lens kit.  (I think this is an additional step that would be wise for engineers and pilots.) With it I can determine the "sharpest" vision possible for me.  For most people the limit is 20/20.  If you had a minus 3/4 diopter lens, and looked through it at your chart, and could see 20/15 -- then that would be your "potential" visual acuity.  If a minus would not clear the 20/15 vision, then no amount of plus lens use would do it either.  As always, I am practical.  That is why I help people work to clear the 20/40 line, and if possible, obtain some simple "test" lenses from Zenniopical if they would like to learn the "engineering_science" that supports the concept of threshold prevention.  For the group, here is the best FREE SNELLEN, that you should use for this type of personal checking.  It does have a 20/25 line.  It is the "Schneider" chart.  Just click no the "PDF" and print it out.  Best, Otis
http://www.i-see.org/eyecharts.html

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 30, 2011, 03:04:32 PM
Otis,

I just put on my old glasses to see how well I could see through them. I think they are about minus one diopter, but I plan to check that next time I have a chance. Anyway, the visual acuity they gave me was phenomenal, I estimate about twice as good as without them. Just a few seconds made my head hurt, which is a good sign, but they told what I need to know. And that is that my potential acuity is very great. Thus, I will continue my use of the plus to try and obtain that level.

I do, however, find you use of the negative to find "potential acuity" to be slightly flawed, because your lenses to not take a degree of astigmatism into account. If my potential was 20/10 and the minus corrected for that but did not correct an astigmatism, I might only be able to see 20/15, which would give me a false impression of my potential.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 30, 2011, 03:29:37 PM
Otis,

I feel that I need to explain something about myself. You say that perfect is the enemy of the good, and I totally agree with that . . . to a point. If your attitude is that only perfection will be acceptable then you are bound to be disappointed. That is not my attitude, but I nevertheless still try to be "perfect." I always try to improve myself physically. I always try to have the best diet I can. But, and here is the very, very important part, I do not get disappointed when I fail sometimes. I deal with it. I find that shooting for the best enables me to do more than I could if I shot for "reasonable". I always try to get all the questions right on tests in school, but I don't worry about it when I only get 95% of them correct. And so, I want to make it abundantly clear how I see the future of my vision. I would very much like to have 20/10 or 20/15 vision, and I will do everything in my power to try to get there. But if I cannot do better than 20/20, I can be perfectly happy with that.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 31, 2011, 08:59:06 AM
Encouragedment for Jansen:
I think you are doing prevention correctly.  I know you cleared your Snellen from 20/80 to 20/70 -- to about 20/60 and 20/50 in about two months with heavy use of the plus.  That is a very strong indication that you are doing the "right thing" for yourself and your long-term visual future.  As I suggested to Shadow, getting to normal in six months is a very valuable goal to reach.  I think Todd was about 20/80 when he started with the plus -- and it took him a full year to get back to normal with the plus.  So if the progress you posted seems "slow", then please understand that is how it is done.  As always, post your questions and Todd and I will do everything in our power to help you.  Best,  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on April 01, 2011, 05:07:04 AM
Otis,

I said that I think the lenses I have are about -1 diopter, but I do not know for sure. I want to go check that out today. Also, I do not have a Snellen chart at my house, so it might be a few days before I can test that for you.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 01, 2011, 05:17:53 AM
Hi Shadow,
Thanks for your commentary.  You know that as an engineer, I do all my own self-checking.  I find I have no choice but to develop that type of scientific competence.  Here is a simplified trial-lens set that I use with my Snellen to establish my refractive status:

http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/trial-lens/
Here is an excellent Snellen you can down-load for free:

http://www.i-see.org/eyecharts.html

Just seclect the "Joel Schneider" chart and click on "PDF".
A complete chart will be on your screen.  Then print it out.
With 20/20 confirmed, you don't have a "conventional problem".  It is the "habit" of ODs to prescribe, not for 20/20 but "best visual acuity".


Otis,

I said that I think the lenses I have are about -1 diopter, but I do not know for sure. I want to go check that out today. Also, I do not have a Snellen chart at my house, so it might be a few days before I can test that for you. THis thus you were over-prescribed in my opinion.


-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on April 01, 2011, 06:50:50 AM
Hello, Just to update on my progress, it has been 3 months now of using plus lenses, and I've been able to read 1/2 the 20/50 letters on my eye chart in direct sunlight. I have periodically started to cover my stronger eye with my hand and train the weaker eye as well, which has seemed to help my overall acuity with two eyes.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on April 01, 2011, 09:27:47 AM
Hello,

I have a question for Todd about patching one eye while reading. How often should I switch eyes? One of eyes can read with +1.75 lenses, while the other can get the blur point without the use of lenses.
Also, will patching eyes cause a switch in eye dominance?

Hello, Just to update on my progress, it has been 3 months now of using plus lenses, and I've been able to read 1/2 the 20/50 letters on my eye chart in direct sunlight. I have periodically started to cover my stronger eye with my hand and train the weaker eye as well, which has seemed to help my overall acuity with two eyes.

Hi jansen,

I'm very happy to hear of your progress.  Getting to 20/50 is a big milestone and you are almost there.  I'm confident you'll make 20/40 before too long, if you stick with it.  And that's a big improvement from where you started.   

It's good to check your Snellen for each eye separately, by covering the opposite eye with your hand or blinking it shut.  What I find it that the Snellen for your stonger eye typically matches or is close to the Snellen for the combination of both eyes.

I would suggest alternating about equally between using the weak eye and both eyes.  As your weak eye gets stronger, you can then spend proportionately more time using both eyes with the plus lenses.

I would not worry about causing a switch in dominance.  Your eyes don't change that quickly.  Once you get to the point where the two eyes are even, you should make steady progress using equal plus lenses on both eyes.

Todd

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on April 02, 2011, 12:53:58 PM
Otis,

I know that there is a distance where the lens no longer has to flatten in order to see clearly. Do you know what that distance is? And how strong of plus lenses would one need to be able to do close work without needing to flatten the lens at all? Or to put it another way, how strong of a plus do you use to keep your vision where it is despite doing close work?

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: tyse on April 04, 2011, 10:36:56 AM
Hello there,

I took my 6 year old daughter to get her eyes tested and her eyes are at -1. I was thinking of doing plus lense therapy for her as I am doing plus lense therapy myself. What number plus glasses should I order for her +3 or lower I am not sure.

Thanks for any info.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on April 05, 2011, 06:53:56 AM
Hello there,

I took my 6 year old daughter to get her eyes tested and her eyes are at -1. I was thinking of doing plus lense therapy for her as I am doing plus lense therapy myself. What number plus glasses should I order for her +3 or lower I am not sure.

Thanks for any info.

tyse,

If your daughter's eyes are at -1, then weak +1 or +1.25 glasses should be sufficient to counteract this.  You should be able to find those at any pharmacy.  Just have her use those when reading.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 06, 2011, 07:50:43 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: ENCOURAGEMENT for you and others who are working to clear their "golden" line of 20/40.
There are no doubt doctors who do not support prevention with the plus.  That I do understand.  But equally, there are doctors who have "reasoned out" the need for the plus for threshold prevention.
Thus they point out the need to start wearing the plus in school.  But indeed it takes an "independent" mind and strong personal resolve to use the plus as necessary.
http://www.i-see.org/otis_brown/chapter_03.html

Even Johann Kepler, (developer of the ray-trace model of the eye in this chapter)
who did 16 years of intesive "close work" estimated that his negative state was "self induced".

But he lacked the knowledge that he had to begin prevention before he got 'too deep" into it -- in my opinion.
Jansen -- keep up the excellent work.  We are all supporting you.  Otis


So let us call this discussion an honest disagreement of scientific
fact, and understand it that way.


Kepler's second-opinion SCIENCE best
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on April 06, 2011, 03:36:35 PM
I went to my local target the other day, and they have a snellen chart with a 20 feet marking line. I was surprised that i was able to read all the letters of the 20/50 line in Room Lighting! I guess covering the stronger eye and training the weaker one helped.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on April 06, 2011, 07:23:20 PM
I went to my local target the other day, and they have a snellen chart with a 20 feet marking line. I was surprised that i was able to read all the letters of the 20/50 line in Room Lighting! I guess covering the stronger eye and training the weaker one helped.

Fantastic news, jansen! Keep up the good work!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Sutefeni on April 06, 2011, 09:55:27 PM
Hello!  I noticed that my dominant eye had brighter vision than my weak eye.  Will doing this exercise correct the brightness issue?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 07, 2011, 12:34:38 PM
Subject: Excellent work -- tending toward even more success in the next three months.
I know how hard it is to "get started" -- to use the plus and monitor your Snellen.  As always, getting back to DMV normal (20/40 or better) is critical for you to keep your distant vision clear in the future.  Otis
I went to my local target the other day, and they have a snellen chart with a 20 feet marking line. I was surprised that i was able to read all the letters of the 20/50 line in Room Lighting! I guess covering the stronger eye and training the weaker one helped.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Abner55 on April 08, 2011, 02:57:01 AM
Hi,,,
   Can you please share how to get rid of glasses.I want 6 by 6 eye side...
Any remedy or suggestion shall be appreciated...
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 08, 2011, 06:25:19 AM
Hi Abner,
Subject: Avoiding "glasses" means clearing your Snellen to DMV normal.
I check my Snellen each week to make certain I pass the DMV requirement.  For some States is it 20/50, and others it is 20/40 with both eyes open.  Here is how I have my Snellen set up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgUkoSSgVOs
HOW DO YOU OBTAINS YOUR OWN SNELLEN FOR CHECKING?
Just click here and print it out.
http://www.i-see.org/block_letter_eye_chart.pdf
We can't help you until you take these steps.  Let us know what line you can read.





Hi,,,
   Can you please share how to get rid of glasses.I want 6 by 6 eye side...
Any remedy or suggestion shall be appreciated...
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on April 08, 2011, 07:55:30 AM
Hello Abner55, on the gettingstronger website, the rehabilitation part of the website should contain a link to the plus lens therapy for myopia. First, we need to know your current refractive status, or your last eye exam results.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on April 08, 2011, 10:25:43 AM
@Abner55

http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/improve-eyesight-and-throw-away-your-glasses/

Reading through this thread is very helpful too to understand the theory.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Sutefeni on April 11, 2011, 09:56:52 AM
Hello!  I noticed that my dominant eye had brighter vision than my weak eye.  Will doing this exercise correct the brightness issue?

Well I figured out it was just that I had one eye patched up and the other eye working so the brightness varied because my left eye was covered from light.  So of course everything is a lot brighter at first.

I have another question though:
My eyesight is bad enough that I can't see the words on a computer screen when I'm a little more than a foot away from it.  Would I still need anti-corrective lenses to do work on the computer?  or can I just do distance focusing exercises even though this isn't really distant work?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 11, 2011, 03:20:36 PM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: Your progress with your Snellen (and refractive status).
I appreciate your efforts, to clear your vision from 20/80 -- 20/70, to now 20/50.  That is a major step forward.  I post these remarks to help you continue.  You probably will hit a "plateau", were you use the plus, and don't see any change for awhile.  But hang in there!  In recent conversations with one man (who was at -1.0 diopters), and "worked" with the plus -- he now reports 20/20.  It just takes a lot of persistence and fortitude.  We all wish you success.  Otis

Hello Abner55, on the gettingstronger website, the rehabilitation part of the website should contain a link to the plus lens therapy for myopia. First, we need to know your current refractive status, or your last eye exam results.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on April 11, 2011, 07:48:55 PM
sutenfi,

Welcome to this forum.  Glad to hear you figured out the problem with brightness due to covering your eye.  You might try covering with a thin diffuse white paper, or just hold your hand at a 45 degree angle to let light in but block the view, when trying to strengthen your weaker eye.

If your myopia is as strong as you indicate, you can start out without any plus lenses.  Just use the same procedure of keeping the computer or book right at "the edge of focus"  (still in focus, but right at the point where a very slight blur can be detected).  Gradually increase the distance as your vision improves.  And  then, when the distance becomes impractical or uncomfortable, add a pair of weak plus lenses, perhaps a +1.00 or +1.25 strength, to bring the edge of focus back to about 16 inches, or a comfortable distance.

Keep us posted!

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Sutefeni on April 11, 2011, 09:30:12 PM
Thank you, Todd.
I wish I had found out about this method sooner.

I've worn minus lenses since I was in 4th grade and I'm 25 now.  I just tested my eyesight with the Snellen chart.  My right eye is 10/200 (or even worse) and my left eye is 10/100 (is that 20/400 and 20/200?).  Is there still hope for me?  I'm super motivated to see some improvement though I'm assuming it will take me a lot longer.

I will definitely keep everyone posted on my progress!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on April 11, 2011, 10:05:25 PM
My right eye is 10/200 (or even worse) and my left eye is 10/100 (is that 20/400 and 20/200?).  Is there still hope for me? 

There is definitely hope for you, sutenfeni! It will take you a while, but don't fret about it. Just like a 300 pound person deciding to slim down, getting from 20/200 to 20/20 takes time and persistence. But you may progress faster than you might guess. Stick with it, the reward is very large: freedom to see!

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 12, 2011, 06:48:18 PM
Hi Sutefeni,
We are here to help you as much as possible.  I always like to double check my Snellen, by use of my own chart and 20 feet, but I also have an electronic Snellen (neat) that I can use at 10 feet.  Just click here, and then on "Display" several times:
http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html
Some letters for 20/60 will be presented.  You should experiment (for fun) and adjust it for 10 feet.  I select, "H. O. T. V" and do my testing that way.
MEANING OF YOUR READINGS:
Left eye 10/100 is equal to 20/200.  Right eye at 10/200 would be 20/400.
To make this easy, the IVAC can be set to 10 feet (as described) and the size of the letters will change as required.  You don't have t be "exact", but you should have a general idea of your visual acuity by this checking method.  Good luck! Otis


Thank you, Todd.
I wish I had found out about this method sooner.

I've worn minus lenses since I was in 4th grade and I'm 25 now.  I just tested my eyesight with the Snellen chart.  My right eye is 10/200 (or even worse) and my left eye is 10/100 (is that 20/400 and 20/200?).  Is there still hope for me?  I'm super motivated to see some improvement though I'm assuming it will take me a lot longer.

I will definitely keep everyone posted on my progress!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Sutefeni on April 12, 2011, 09:01:02 PM
Hi Sutefeni,
We are here to help you as much as possible.  I always like to double check my Snellen, by use of my own chart and 20 feet, but I also have an electronic Snellen (neat) that I can use at 10 feet.  Just click here, and then on "Display" several times:
http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html
Some letters for 20/60 will be presented.  You should experiment (for fun) and adjust it for 10 feet.  I select, "H. O. T. V" and do my testing that way.
MEANING OF YOUR READINGS:
Left eye 10/100 is equal to 20/200.  Right eye at 10/200 would be 20/400.

Thanks, Otis

I tried it out the electronic Snellen (it IS neat) and my right eye is worse than I thought!  It's at 20/800 and even then, it's still a little blurry.
It's a bit discouraging, but at the same time when I get better, the victory would be even sweeter!  I'm also inspired by the people in this thread

Also thanks Todd for the metaphor.  It really puts things into perspective.  I also didn't see glasses as crutches until I read your article.  These are really expensive crutches!

Another couple questions:
My job involves me sitting at the computer for 8 hours.  I'm pretty much forced into training my eyes.  Is it ok to keep my patch on my left (strong) eye for the whole 8 hours to train my right (weak) eye?  Or will it be too much of a strain on my right eye to do all the work?  And will my left eye get lazy and become more myopic?

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on April 13, 2011, 03:40:59 AM
My job involves me sitting at the computer for 8 hours.  I'm pretty much forced into training my eyes.  Is it ok to keep my patch on my left (strong) eye for the whole 8 hours to train my right (weak) eye?  Or will it be too much of a strain on my right eye to do all the work?  And will my left eye get lazy and become more myopic?

Sutenfi,

I would definitely not patch your strong eye for 8 hours straight!  Thhere are two reasons for this: First, as you say, that would over tire your weaker eye. Second, it would unnecessarily weaken your patched eye.

Keep in mind two key principles of Hormetism: gradualism and intermittency (allowing time for rest and recovery). The amount and frequency of applying a stressor is situational and depends on your individual strength at any task, so you'll have to experiment and use your own insight as to what works for you. But at first I would suggest frequent breaks, patching for no more than about 30 minutes straight, then taking short breaks of 5 minutes or so. If that is tolerable, consider going for longer. You might also consider a "patch" that is not a total block but rather a diffuser, like tissue paper, so your patched eye gets continual light stimulus, but just can't focus.

Good luck. Test your Snellen after a week at this and let us know of your progress.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 13, 2011, 07:54:49 AM
Subject:  Support for Shadow and Jansen.
I know it is difficult to keep yourself motivated to continue to use the plus correctly.  I know that a "plateau" occurs, but you must keep working to clear the 20/40 line (for all of us).  To continue I post this link by a pilot who "cleared" from -1.25 diopters.  His remarks should be a "learning" for all of us.  I think he is now flying 747's at this time.  But prevention does take strong personal wisdom an motivation.  See:
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/natvizim.html
I concluded that he was right -- that the only person who will ever help YOU -- is yourself.  Better -- that self-help is free.  Keep up your excellent learning and persistence with this scientific work.  Otis 
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on April 13, 2011, 09:41:46 AM
Todd,

Going back to our discussion of astigmatism, I find it is interesting that I now have solid 20/20 vision with both eyes open and 20/25 individually yet I still have an astigmatism in each eye. If I can clear that up, it is promising to get better than 20/20 vision.

A personal experience to add to the discussion with Sutefeni. Yesterday, I used the plus for close work, constantly pushing text, for like four hours straight without adequate breaks. Afterwards, my vision was actually worse. However, this morning it was better than it has been yet. Has anyone had that experience? In that case, if might be best, if doing long periods of close work (4-8 hours), to keep the text clear and only occasionally go into the blur and definitely take as my breaks as possible.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on April 13, 2011, 04:30:11 PM
Hello,

I've been reading about 1/2-3/4 of the 20/50 line so far in bright day light and bright room lighting. I reread Todd's post about plus lenses and I found out I haven't been doing the focusing exercises. Am I supposed to look at a near object, and then look at the chosen object in the distance?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Sutefeni on April 14, 2011, 05:56:12 AM
Actually, Shadowfoot, before I asked that question of Todd, I did wear a patch all day.  My eye also felt considerably worse afterwards, but when I gave it rest, it also seemed to have gotten better.  But I'm definitely taking the safer way and taking many breaks in between which was what I did yesterday.

Jansen, I'm assuming it's something like this gif, except for you it would be with powerlines or other objects in the distance.  Or if you want to use it with your plus lenses, you'd do it with the book.  You just stare at it and focus until the image gets sharper.
For me, since the computer screen is the furthest i can go without glasses, I basically stare at the words (without squinting) while they're just out of focus range and then I could feel and see my eye lens trying to re-focus and make the words readable.  Sometimes my eye gets a little watery which is a sign the distance may be too far, so I stop and can only do a few at a time. I want to call them "eye-pushups".  and right now my right eye really is like a 300 pound man trying to do pushups.  :D

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljn9y7eCjQ1qeqogb.gif
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 14, 2011, 09:03:39 AM
Hi Shadow,
Subject: The quality of your vision -- PASSES the European Professional pilot's requirement!!
Shadow> Going back to our discussion of astigmatism, I find it is interesting that I now have solid 20/20 vision with both eyes open and 20/25 individually yet I still have an astigmatism in each eye. If I can clear that up, it is promising to get better than 20/20 vision.
Otis> The EAA standard is that bothe eyes open have 20/20.  Each eye separately must have 20/30 or better.  So you qualify.  That is quite an improvement from -1.0 diopters (about 20/60 -- as you stated) to highly qualified pilot certification.  I make this statement to encourage Jansen with his work with the plus.  It is clear that some people respond more rapidly than others, and that some "plateau" at 20/50 for some time.  But I like to emphasize your and Todds SUCCESS.  I will post a separate thread on "astigmatism" in due course.  Congratulations!  Otis

Todd,

Going back to our discussion of astigmatism, I find it is interesting that I now have solid 20/20 vision with both eyes open and 20/25 individually yet I still have an astigmatism in each eye. If I can clear that up, it is promising to get better than 20/20 vision.

A personal experience to add to the discussion with Sutefeni. Yesterday, I used the plus for close work, constantly pushing text, for like four hours straight without adequate breaks. Afterwards, my vision was actually worse. However, this morning it was better than it has been yet. Has anyone had that experience? In that case, if might be best, if doing long periods of close work (4-8 hours), to keep the text clear and only occasionally go into the blur and definitely take as my breaks as possible.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 14, 2011, 09:09:13 AM
Hi Jansen,
First let me congratulate on your success thus far.  Getting to 20/50 passes a number of the DMV requirements.  Remeber you started at 20/80 and 20/70 -- wich would not have passed any DMV requirement.  From my conversations with Brian Severson, he saw the same thing happen.  He "hit" 20/50, and stayed there for a month or so.  I just insisted that he continue wearing the plus for all computer an other close work -- to "stick" with that use of the plus as a habit.  That, to me is the hardest part of prevention.  But read Shadow's results, and the fact that you are on a path to normal vision -- and that you can then AVOID any use of a "prescription"  (minus) lens for all time into the future.  Keep up the wise and excellent work.  Otis

Hello,

I've been reading about 1/2-3/4 of the 20/50 line so far in bright day light and bright room lighting. I reread Todd's post about plus lenses and I found out I haven't been doing the focusing exercises. Am I supposed to look at a near object, and then look at the chosen object in the distance?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on April 14, 2011, 10:44:01 AM
Yesterday, I used the plus for close work, constantly pushing text, for like four hours straight without adequate breaks. Afterwards, my vision was actually worse. However, this morning it was better than it has been yet. Has anyone had that experience? In that case, if might be best, if doing long periods of close work (4-8 hours), to keep the text clear and only occasionally go into the blur and definitely take as my breaks as possible.

I've experienced the same thing you describe here, shadowfoot.  I find that weightlifting is one of the best analogies there is for thinking about plus lens therapy.  While the precise mechanisms are not the same, the principle of applied stress and recovery are very similar.  Just as intense weight lifting leaves you spent and weak in the immediate aftermath, but stronger two days later, heavy use of plus lenses or threshold focusing may tire you in the short term but lead to longer term positive changes in the eye's ability to accommodate.   Nevertheless, I would exercise caution to not overwork your eyes and take frequent breaks.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on April 14, 2011, 10:52:12 AM
Hello,

I've been reading about 1/2-3/4 of the 20/50 line so far in bright day light and bright room lighting. I reread Todd's post about plus lenses and I found out I haven't been doing the focusing exercises. Am I supposed to look at a near object, and then look at the chosen object in the distance?

You have that correct, jansen.  You want to be focusing your eyes at varying distances from near to far throughout the day, to prevent your eye from getting overly used to a fixed distance, and to promote flexibility in accommodation or focusing range. When you do this, pause on different objects and really try to see them in focus.  If a particular object is "out of reach" for your focus, keep looking around to find something you can focus on.  Objects with clearly defined or high contrast edges work best -- overhead telephone wires or telephone polls, edges of windows, doors or buildings, crisp black-and-white text or signs.  If you see a double image when you look at a line or edge, focus as much on the crisper of the two images to really see it.  Shift back and forth between the closest objects you can see and the farthest.  After a while, this becomes an almost unconscious "game" that you can do when walking around, socializing, or doing many other activities.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on April 14, 2011, 10:56:53 AM
For me, since the computer screen is the furthest i can go without glasses, I basically stare at the words (without squinting) while they're just out of focus range and then I could feel and see my eye lens trying to re-focus and make the words readable.  Sometimes my eye gets a little watery which is a sign the distance may be too far, so I stop and can only do a few at a time. I want to call them "eye-pushups".  and right now my right eye really is like a 300 pound man trying to do pushups. 

I like your metaphor of "eye push-ups".  With push-ups, its best to start with modified push-ups (with knees on the ground or even doing wall push-ups) and progress to regular Marine-style push-ups only when you are in shape.  Gradualism is the key.  Similarly, with "eye push-ups", you start at whatever distance works for you and gradually increase as you become able.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on April 14, 2011, 11:30:58 AM
Todd,

I agree with you about not overworking the eyes. That leads me to a question though. When doing close work for long periods of time, other than taking breaks, how should one proceed? Should one wear the plus and have the text within clarity most of the time and only put it into "blur" for a total of an hour or two total each day?

Otis tells me that +2.5 or stronger lenses refract light enough so that you might as well be looking into the distance. So for me simply using a plus of that strength and practicing good eye habits would not really spur my eyes to grow in any particular way, which is what I want. I want to be able to do close work without overworking my eyes and also without regressing in my efforts.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 14, 2011, 12:22:21 PM
Hi Shadow,
I am pleased that you now have excellent vision.  This in the face of the "medical opinion" that "recovery" is never going to be possible.  But, as we discussed (and is my opinion), I would continue to wear the plus 2.5 (this effectively has you living in an open environment -- from my point-of-view), with the goal of getting your refractive status slighly postive.  (As we reviewed the concept.)  One think I think would be very wise (for the science of it) would be to get two weak minus lenses, one of -1/2, the other -1.0 from Zennioptical.  If you do that, I can help you check to see whether that 20/25 is due to 'astmatism', or is due to slight negative status.  Please think it over -- the cost to you would be about $11 -- and we would both learn from that experience.  But I would strongly recommend your continued use of the comfortable +2.5 as a habit.  Best,  Otis

Todd,

I agree with you about not overworking the eyes. That leads me to a question though. When doing close work for long periods of time, other than taking breaks, how should one proceed? Should one wear the plus and have the text within clarity most of the time and only put it into "blur" for a total of an hour or two total each day?

Otis tells me that +2.5 or stronger lenses refract light enough so that you might as well be looking into the distance. So for me simply using a plus of that strength and practicing good eye habits would not really spur my eyes to grow in any particular way, which is what I want. I want to be able to do close work without overworking my eyes and also without regressing in my efforts.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on April 14, 2011, 12:57:51 PM
Otis,

I plan on getting a few lenses in the future, both positive and negative. Did you see that ability to buy individual lenses, or would I have to buy them with frames as well?


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on April 14, 2011, 03:33:23 PM
Todd,

I agree with you about not overworking the eyes. That leads me to a question though. When doing close work for long periods of time, other than taking breaks, how should one proceed? Should one wear the plus and have the text within clarity most of the time and only put it into "blur" for a total of an hour or two total each day?

Otis tells me that +2.5 or stronger lenses refract light enough so that you might as well be looking into the distance. So for me simply using a plus of that strength and practicing good eye habits would not really spur my eyes to grow in any particular way, which is what I want. I want to be able to do close work without overworking my eyes and also without regressing in my efforts.

-shadowfoot

shadowfoot,

You should never be reading print that is blurry for extended periods of time.  It is alright to start out with a slight blur, as long as it "clears" with time or occasionally blinking.  If it stays blurry, that's not doing you any good, so move a little close until it just barely clears up.  Again, think of this like weight lifting or playing the piano.  You always want to practice in good form and never "cheat".  That way, your body learns good form.

There is nothing magic about +2.5 diopters or any particular strength of lenses.  The strength needed depends on your individual state of myopia.  The stronger the myopia, the weaker the plus lenses (or no plus lenses) you need to cause your eyes to shift to distant focusing.  As your myopia weakens, you can move to stronger plus lenses.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 14, 2011, 03:41:11 PM
Hi Shadow,
Subject: In my opinion, "organized optometry" has made it very difficult to get simple "check" lenses.
But -- there should be no "law" that ever prevents you from obtaining simple "spherical" lenses to personally measure, or determine your refractive state.
That being said, the only way you can get lenses at a reasonable price is from Zennioptical, so you must buy the frame and lenses together.  You just remove the lens from the frame, and hold the lens up to determine (for instance) if a -1/2 diopter will "clear" the 20/18 or 20/15 line for you.  With your 20/25 eye, if it clears your 20/18 or 20/15 line (assuming you have the lens), then that tells you that your retina is capable of 20/15 vision.  It then (in my opinion) suggests that more use of the plus 2.5, will slowly clear your naked eye towards 20/20 (each eye).  I consider that a lot of "learing" is part of this process -- so it is optional.  For the others reading this, here is my low-cost (home) trial lens kit:
http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/trial-lens/
You have in fact achieved an amazing success.  So this would just further enhance your successful "learning process".  I also believe that your success will help Jansen continue with the plus -- and that is a major reason why I post here.  Thanks, Otis


Otis,

I plan on getting a few lenses in the future, both positive and negative. Did you see that ability to buy individual lenses, or would I have to buy them with frames as well?



Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on April 14, 2011, 05:06:48 PM
Thank you Sutefani! I'm reading with plus lenses right now, but I usually just trace my eyes from one side of a powerline to the other over and over until it clears as a focusing exercise. It seems to make my eyes see 2 powerlines, which is quite strange. However, this effect goes away after blinking.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on April 14, 2011, 05:45:33 PM
Todd,

I have not been reading in the "blur" per se. What happens is that when I push print my vision clears. Over time, maintaining that level of pushed print will occasionally blur and clear again. If I maintain that level, which is not blur, but where my eyes have had to clear the blur, my eyes will tire after a while. What I am learning is that for extended periods of time I should keep the text within pre-blur levels most of the time, and only occasionally move into the blur to let it clear. I have found/discovered today that this allows my eyes not to fatigue so much.

Otis,

We truly are a little community of revolutionaries here. I continue to, and will continue to post for three reasons. First, it allows me to understand the theories better. Second, you guys are almost like a support group. You're presence and encouragement are just the thing to keep me working every day. And thirdly, I know that for anyone skeptical but interested, the more people promoting a thing and talking about it and offering advice the better. I hope I can provide support for other people just as you provide support for me.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 15, 2011, 03:43:57 PM
Hi Jansen,
We are always pleased to hear of your progress.  I know we talked about this -- but what strengt plus are you now reading most of the time?  Thanks, Otis

Thank you Sutefani! I'm reading with plus lenses right now, but I usually just trace my eyes from one side of a powerline to the other over and over until it clears as a focusing exercise. It seems to make my eyes see 2 powerlines, which is quite strange. However, this effect goes away after blinking.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on April 15, 2011, 04:32:24 PM
Hello,

I'm currently using +1.75 lenses when reading both at school and at home.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 17, 2011, 06:03:44 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: Some suggestions and congratulations.
First -- you have cleared your Snellen from 20/80 to 20/50.  That is excellent, using anti-prescription glasses.
Second -- that means a refractive change of your natural eyes by about +3/4 diotpers (since you started with a refractive status of -1.5 diopters.
Third -- because of this successful change (necessary for a clear Snellen) I would recommend using a plus that is stronger by +1/2 to +3/4 diopters, or a plus of about +2.25 to +2.5 diopters.  That should accellerate your Snellen clearing to a stronger extent.
I believe with this change, and your continued systematic use of the plus, you will begin passing the 20/40 line on your own Snellen.  Would this bo OK?  What are your thoughts on this subject?  Thanks, Otis

Hello,

I'm currently using +1.75 lenses when reading both at school and at home.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on April 17, 2011, 02:38:47 PM
Thank you,

I'll definitely take that into consideration. I think i'll stick with +1.75 for about another month before moving onto +2.25. Even though I can read the letters on the 20/50 line, it isn't very clear, is that okay?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 19, 2011, 06:28:51 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: My question for you -- that helps me.
You have confirmed 20/50 on your Snellen -- and that is great!
You should be able to see clearly through that +1.75 diopters at 20 inches (about two out-stretched hands length).  Could you do this test for me.  Reading "clear" through the +1.75 diopter at 20 inches, now push yourself away from the computer, until it is "blurry" so you can't read the screen.  This will be about 30 inches.  Now, move forward an find were you can read the screen with slight (but comfortable) blur.  What is that distance in inches?   Estimates are OK here, and that information will help me (and others reading this).  Thanks for your help!  Otis

Thank you,

I'll definitely take that into consideration. I think i'll stick with +1.75 for about another month before moving onto +2.25. Even though I can read the letters on the 20/50 line, it isn't very clear, is that okay?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Sutefeni on April 19, 2011, 01:14:50 PM
hi everyone!

it's been about a week and I haven't used my minus lenses at all except for the occasional driving and one hour of playing a video game with some friends.
i don't have exact measurements as to how much better my eyes are since they're still pretty bad, but i've noticed that I've been able to sit a little more comfortably when using my computer at work and at home.  I still have to hunch over a little bit so the words would be sharper but not as much so it's progress.  All this without the help of my minus lenses!

I also accidentally bought a pair of +2.50 glasses (i misread that you need glasses that are +2.50 your own diopters).  I use those to read books which is alright...I'm used to holding books pretty close to my face.  I just cover the left lens with a tissue so that I can train my right eye.  Sometimes I try to use it for the computer, but it's hard when you have to have the screen about 3 inches from you! I might just go out to buy +1 lenses, or whatever the lowest is at my nearest drugstore, just to take it easy.

The eyepatch hasn't had much use since I think the book and plus lens would be enough to train my right eye for about an hour or two each day.

I also do the paleo/slow-carb diet, so hopefully that helps out a little. I'll be calling my optometrist for the measurements she has for me to keep better track of my progress.

Thanks everyone!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on April 19, 2011, 03:06:42 PM
Hello,

I don't think i'm at the point of being able to read clearly at arms length using +1.75. I can read clearly at about 14 inches, but I can still read 1/4-1/2 of the 20/50 letters on my 10 feet chart. I should be able to clearly read all the letters of the 20/50 line by the end of april/middle of may.

My blur point is at around 16-17 inches right now.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 19, 2011, 04:17:39 PM
Hi Jansen,
Thanks for checking an reporting on yor "just blur" or "comfortable" reading distance of 17 inches.  That information is of considerable value to me -- and to you also.
With that infomration, I agree totally that the +1.75 diopter is the right choice at this time.  Since you are passing the 20/50 line (based on OD standard) you can avoid the minus -- for amost all things.  That is a very important goal -- in my judgment.  At this point the -1.5 diopter is vastly over-prescribed.  One suggestion:  If you need a temporary low-cost "minus", (of -0.75 diopters) you could get it from Zenniopical for use until you get start getting the 20/40 line clear.  In my judgment, personally confirming your success with the wise use of the plus -- is the most important part of this work.  I truly know how difficult it is -- and how much personal commitment it takes to succeed.  Keep up this high-quality work, and I believe you will succeed.  As always, post your thoughts on your work and this subject.  Otis

Hello,

I don't think i'm at the point of being able to read clearly at arms length using +1.75. I can read clearly at about 14 inches, but I can still read 1/4-1/2 of the 20/50 letters on my 10 feet chart. I should be able to clearly read all the letters of the 20/50 line by the end of april/middle of may.

My blur point is at around 16-17 inches right now.


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on April 21, 2011, 10:14:34 AM
I am wondering what you guys think about something I have been experiencing -- if you have experienced it yourself, etc. I notice that my vision can, based on what I am doing, fluctuate greatly very rapidly. For example, if I do too much close work my vision will quickly drop to 20/30, but 10-15 minutes of using the plus or looking in the distance will restore it to 20/20. I have read about pseudomyopia (temporary myopia due to strain on the cilliary muscles). Do you think it is possible the during close work by eyes can tend to "spasm" causing a temporary decrease in visual acuity that is restored by forcing them took look in the distance and "loosen up" again? Do you have any suggestions for fixing this?

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 22, 2011, 10:20:00 AM
Shadow,
Thanks for your report.  I hope others working to clear their Snellens from 20/80 to nomral understand this issue.  Otis

I am wondering what you guys think about something I have been experiencing -- if you have experienced it yourself, etc. I notice that my vision can, based on what I am doing, fluctuate greatly very rapidly. For example, if I do too much close work my vision will quickly drop to 20/30, but 10-15 minutes of using the plus or looking in the distance will restore it to 20/20. I have read about pseudomyopia (temporary myopia due to strain on the cilliary muscles). Do you think it is possible the during close work by eyes can tend to "spasm" causing a temporary decrease in visual acuity that is restored by forcing them took look in the distance and "loosen up" again? Do you have any suggestions for fixing this?

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on April 22, 2011, 10:29:30 AM
Otis,

I hope others understand it better than I do, because I don't understand it very well. I am just reporting on my findings.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 22, 2011, 11:28:36 AM
Shadow,
With deep respect -- you don't have to understand "perfectly", but I would hope you understand the concept of "doing plus-prevention" yourself.  I know we expect "third parties" to help us -- but the sad truth is that they do not.  I know how difficult it is to sustain the use of the plus and am very pleased that Todd was successul and devoted part of his site to help otheres.  I also post here to help Jansen, who seems to be getting the idea, and working with the plus to get that 20/40 line clear (that I consider critical).  So keep on posting what you see and what you think -- and we will help each other.  Otis
Otis,

I hope others understand it better than I do, because I don't understand it very well. I am just reporting on my findings.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on April 22, 2011, 12:37:28 PM
Otis,

I have said this before, but I will say it again. I have no need to wear glasses and I never will. Even before I discovered the plus-lens method I was able to improve my vision the little bit I needed to be able to drive, etc. I would never have worn them again even if I had never discovered this method. I hated using glasses for activities like running, playing, etc.

So for me, unlike the other posters here who have much worse vision than I ever have had and whose primary goal is to be able to function without glasses, my primary goal is to dig deeper. My goal is to have the best vision that I possibly can. My goal is to understand the mechanics of vision as well as I can. My goal is to "hack" my body and do the impossible. I do not accept things as "good enough." I do not simply accept the fact that I can run a 5:30 mile, but rather try to cut it down to 5:00, etc.

So when I post about some issue I am having, I serves a dual purpose. First, it serves to show all of you what my experiences have been so that we can all learn about it. And second, it allows me access to any theories you may have on how to "fix" the issue, which saves me the time of trying to figure it out myself. I think we can all learn from each other.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 22, 2011, 03:46:55 PM
Hi Shadow,
Thanks for your review.  My interest is in "pure science" -- of the proven behavhior of the natural eye.  This was promoted and developed from my review of an optometrist who wished to help "the public" with a preventive plus.  The "short" of that story is that the "ignorant public", not only would not listen, but would effectively put him "out of business" if he attempted to help "the public' with ths plus -- always used before the minus.  Whether you are successful (you have to define that for yourself), I take success to be 1) My checking my Snellen and always pass the 20/40 line.  2) My checking my refractive state, using my own trial lens kit (knowing how to use it -- to avoid any OD -- who are no help at all) and 3)  Helping people who (at 20/80) are willing to accept the difficult challenge of working with the plus, to reach a point where they PERSONALLY VERIFY they pass the 20/40 line with naked-eye vision.  From long experience, I agree that this is difficult, because most people have difficult with the logical consistency required.  In fact Jansen has gone from 20/80 to 20/50, and if he will continue, will (in my judgment) begin getting to normal vision in about two more months.  If he continues, there is a lot more I can "explain".  So, by all means, post your own thoughts on this difficult subject -- as I post my ideas to help Jansen with this long-term personal challenge.  Otis

Otis,

I have said this before, but I will say it again. I have no need to wear glasses and I never will. Even before I discovered the plus-lens method I was able to improve my vision the little bit I needed to be able to drive, etc. I would never have worn them again even if I had never discovered this method. I hated using glasses for activities like running, playing, etc.

So for me, unlike the other posters here who have much worse vision than I ever have had and whose primary goal is to be able to function without glasses, my primary goal is to dig deeper. My goal is to have the best vision that I possibly can. My goal is to understand the mechanics of vision as well as I can. My goal is to "hack" my body and do the impossible. I do not accept things as "good enough." I do not simply accept the fact that I can run a 5:30 mile, but rather try to cut it down to 5:00, etc.

So when I post about some issue I am having, I serves a dual purpose. First, it serves to show all of you what my experiences have been so that we can all learn about it. And second, it allows me access to any theories you may have on how to "fix" the issue, which saves me the time of trying to figure it out myself. I think we can all learn from each other.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on April 22, 2011, 04:04:05 PM
Otis,

The public not wanting to accept an alternative is not new to me. I have said that my interest is in nutrition and this has been my experience. People are very willing to listen to your ideas, just as long as they do not directly contrast with the ones they already have. And even if you introduce ideas that are not all that radical but would be very beneficial (like eating something other than cardboard cereal for breakfast) people will rarely actually change their habits in any way. They will say they agree, and then continue doing exactly what they have always done. I takes a strong and determined person to really take matters into their own hands. And even then there is a strong social pressure from family and friends who want you to keep doing what is "normal."

I think that even if using plus lenses ever became socially understood to work, few people would use them due to the work required and break from "normal." Think about how hard it is for many people to do things that are accepted by every single dietitian under the planet to improve your health like giving up soda or smoking. Improving and maintaining your vision is a lot harder than either of those.

-shadowfoot

Edit: I think I may have used this analogy before in this forum. If I have, sorry for the repetition. But I am too lazy to go and check so I will leave this here.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 22, 2011, 05:25:31 PM
Shadow,
Well said!  I could not say it better myself.  But some people do 'over-come" their resistance to change.  This is what Brian Severson did.  It did not matter that ODs insisted that even "prevention" was impossible.  He just loved to be a pilot, and THAT motivation and strong persistence -- created his own success.  In a very similar way, Todd "got the idea", and cleared his vision from what I think was about 20/80 or so.  He did not check this but his prescription was -3 diopters.  It took him a year to 'clear' to normal.  But I deeply respect this situation.  It does not matter what I think (so much) it matters greatly that the person like Jansen BELIEVE that Todd was successful.  Like many bad habits (obesity for one) we create some of these problems because we lack motivation.  It is true that I "push" people to use the plus.  But that only "works" if the person can "get the idea", and "push himself".  He can learn later -- why it worked for him.  I like the science that supports effective prevention.  I like that it is "FREE".  But I do respect how difficult it is to inspire yourself to do it with long-term consistency.  That is the true "difficulty" as you so accuratly described it.  Otis

Otis,

The public not wanting to accept an alternative is not new to me. I have said that my interest is in nutrition and this has been my experience. People are very willing to listen to your ideas, just as long as they do not directly contrast with the ones they already have. And even if you introduce ideas that are not all that radical but would be very beneficial (like eating something other than cardboard cereal for breakfast) people will rarely actually change their habits in any way. They will say they agree, and then continue doing exactly what they have always done. I takes a strong and determined person to really take matters into their own hands. And even then there is a strong social pressure from family and friends who want you to keep doing what is "normal."

I think that even if using plus lenses ever became socially understood to work, few people would use them due to the work required and break from "normal." Think about how hard it is for many people to do things that are accepted by every single dietitian under the planet to improve your health like giving up soda or smoking. Improving and maintaining your vision is a lot harder than either of those.

-shadowfoot

Edit: I think I may have used this analogy before in this forum. If I have, sorry for the repetition. But I am too lazy to go and check so I will leave this here.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on April 23, 2011, 10:33:16 AM
Up until now I had two things to put on the "improves eyesight" list. These are plus-lens and distance gazing. As it has been getting warmer recently I have been playing tennis more and it has been very beneficial. It basically consists of continuously changing focus on an object that is moving away from and towards you. I remember that Otis put up a link about the development of myopia and children. It was a study that found that outdoor sports were very protective. In light of my own experience, that makes a lot of sense.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 24, 2011, 04:09:10 AM
Hi Jansen and Shadow,
Subject: Statement of our goal.
This thread is about the self-determination it takes, using anti-prescription lenses, to restore our vision to nomral.  I am pleased that Todd did it, and for that reason, I think other people who will "work at it" (monitor your Snellen, wear the plus in a systematic manner) can clear their Snellen, and have "Normal Eyesight Without (minus) Glasses".  I always enjoy working with people who have that hoest goal, and the resolve to get the concept to "work" for their own personal benifit.  A life with clear vision (kept that way by you) is better than wearing a minus lens (and having your vision get worse) because you started wearing a minus lens.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on April 24, 2011, 09:48:41 AM
hi everyone!

it's been about a week and I haven't used my minus lenses at all except for the occasional driving and one hour of playing a video game with some friends.
i don't have exact measurements as to how much better my eyes are since they're still pretty bad, but i've noticed that I've been able to sit a little more comfortably when using my computer at work and at home.  I still have to hunch over a little bit so the words would be sharper but not as much so it's progress.  All this without the help of my minus lenses!

I also accidentally bought a pair of +2.50 glasses (i misread that you need glasses that are +2.50 your own diopters).  I use those to read books which is alright...I'm used to holding books pretty close to my face.  I just cover the left lens with a tissue so that I can train my right eye.  Sometimes I try to use it for the computer, but it's hard when you have to have the screen about 3 inches from you! I might just go out to buy +1 lenses, or whatever the lowest is at my nearest drugstore, just to take it easy.

The eyepatch hasn't had much use since I think the book and plus lens would be enough to train my right eye for about an hour or two each day.

I also do the paleo/slow-carb diet, so hopefully that helps out a little. I'll be calling my optometrist for the measurements she has for me to keep better track of my progress.

Thanks everyone!

Sutenfi, if plus lenses have you reading 3 inches from the screen that is far too close! As I mentioned in my previous post to you, I'm not sure why you are wearing any plus lenses whatsoever, since your myopia is so strong.  I'd suggest working with your "naked eyes" and doing what you called "eye push-ups" as much as you can.

Glad to hear you are at least starting to be able to sit more comfortably when reading.  And I think that cutting back on sugars and glycemic carbs can only help.

Good luck!

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on April 24, 2011, 09:56:25 AM
Hello,

I don't think i'm at the point of being able to read clearly at arms length using +1.75. I can read clearly at about 14 inches, but I can still read 1/4-1/2 of the 20/50 letters on my 10 feet chart. I should be able to clearly read all the letters of the 20/50 line by the end of april/middle of may.

My blur point is at around 16-17 inches right now.

Jansen,

It's great that you are making such good progress with plus lenses and print-pushing at your threshold.  You've been extremely consistent and persistent with your effort over many months.  Few people are willing to stick with this as you are, which is probably why natural myopia reversal is not more widely recognized.  But seeing your progress reported here regularly serves as a model and inspiration for many others who read this forum. It defeats claims by those who say it is impossible.  I can tell you that those who post here are only the tip of the iceberg, as I received many private notes by those who are a bit shy about posting on public forums.  So you are not only helping yourself, you are helping many others.

Consistently clearing your vision to 20/50 by May is a great goal.  We are here cheering from the sidelines!

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on April 30, 2011, 06:42:54 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject:  You current successful work -- and your commentary.
First, I am very pleased with your success -- to go from 20/80 to 20/50.  But I also know how difficult it is to "stay motivated", because the eye is slow to clear.
Second, whatever you choose to do, could you post your choice.  If for some reason you decide to discontinue the use of the plus (which can be reasonable), could you let us know.  This would be very helpful as I attempt to help a number of people with this issue.  Thanks for your help.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on April 30, 2011, 07:00:17 AM
Hello,

Yes, I'm going to persist in my use of plus lenses until i reach 20/40. I would like to thank everyone including Otis and Todd for motivating me to continue using the lenses and for their helpful advice.
One thing to note is that I actually have a small amount of astigmatism. I would like to know how to get rid of it.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 03, 2011, 05:52:25 AM
Subject: Encouragement for Jason.
People do develop the "gumption" to systematically wear anti-prescription glasses (and pass the DMV).  But it takes both a "wise mind", and the knowledge that others have done it successfully.  Here are the remarks of my nephew, Keith, on his use of the plus -- to encourage you to continue.
+++++
FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE WEARING A PLUS LENS
Dear Uncle,          February 19,

     Thank you very much for the book, "How to Avoid
Nearsightedness".  I got it yesterday after I came back from the
weekend.  I am looking forward to reading it soon, but for now I
have a great deal of school work to read.

     I would imagine you'll be pleased to have me tell you that
one of the first things I did after opening your book was to check
my eyes with the eye chart.  I am able to read the 20/20 line on
the eye-chart. I have been using my drug store plus lenses most
of the time now.  I have always passed the driver's license eye
test.

     I use these glasses nearly 100 percent of the time when I
read text books and use them for about 70 percent of the total
reading I do.  I started using them as much as possible again
because, at the end of last semester my sight was pretty bad (I
didn't check them on a chart).  I am lucky to have an uncle who
showed me back in eighth grade that I could prevent my
nearsightedness.

     One thing college has taught me is to listen to others and
then use or adapt methods to work for me.  In the last few years I
have had a great deal more reading work to do. If I don't use the
magnifying lenses I notice fairly quickly that my sight starts to
deteriorate.  Then I realize it's time to do something to stop
that process.

     At the moment, I am wearing the magnifying lens because I
know what it does for my vision.  Thanks for taking the time to
tell me how to avoid a situation, wearing glasses at all times for
the rest of my life, that I would find unpleasant, and for sending
me a copy of your book so I can learn more in-depth about the
methods I am using.


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on May 03, 2011, 06:05:04 AM
jansen,

Regarding astigmatism -- a few people, including myself, have asked about this. Todd said that astigmatism should reduce as myopia reduces. Now, I currently see 20/20 and I still have an astigmatism. I am currently trying to eradicate it. If/when I am successful I will let you know and offer any tips I have come up with to fix it.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on May 03, 2011, 09:15:37 PM
Thank you Otis and ShadowFoot! I think stretching the eye muscles might help the ocular muscles pull back into the normal shape to help astigmatism. I'm doing circular rotations with my eyes.
I would like to note that there is an additional exercise from the Power Vision System by David De Angelis that helps with myopia and astigmatism. If you look in a certain direction, you might find that you can no longer fuse the image into one. I just hold my eyes in a position in which I cannot fuse into one image, and it seems to help both myopia and astigmatism. It can only be done once a day, every other day depending on how long it takes for your eyes to recover afterwards.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: BeckVik on May 04, 2011, 12:32:40 AM
Hi Todd

I'm new to the forum and the topic but very much interested to try. And because I'm new and want to do things right for them to work I've got few questions I hope you will be able to help me with.
My latest lenses presction read right -7.25, left -5. So it is quite strong. I got my first glasses with 13 starting at -1/-1.25 and it went steadily downhill since then (over 17 years).
I am an accountant so spending a huge amount of time at the computer and books is a necessity. Average good 10-12 hours.

Where would you recommend I should start? I've got weaker glasses with ca. -5 in both lenses. So I thought to use those while doing computer work and using my full strengh lenses while driving and doing other similar important things.
Should I be using plus lenses with my strong myopia?
If it is ok to start witht he weaker lenses instead of plus ones and how long shall I wear them? I can manage for ca 10 hours being in the office, then need to swith to full strength for driving and can then switch to the weaker ones again. Or do you thing this is too much?
the weaker lenses allow me to see my computer at just about the focal point at ca. 20 inches distance.
I appreciate your input very much.

Viktoria Becker
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 04, 2011, 04:58:47 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject:  Supporting methods when using the plus.
I know that each one of us must keep an open mind towards the various "techniques" of threshold prevention.  I am pleased you got your Snellen to change from 20/80 to 20/50, by use of the plus and other methods.  As per my nephew, Keith, he choose the plus and my recommendation, but I don't discount other methods.  For me, I truly detest the minus lens, and will take responsibility to always verify that I pass the 20/40 line.  I know David De Angelis used the plus, and, for me that is the "core" method, as long as it is connected with your verification with confirming success with your own Snellen.  It truly does take very strong resolve and long-term persistence to be effective and successful.  I post this to continue to encourage you with these successful methods.  Otis


Thank you Otis and ShadowFoot! I think stretching the eye muscles might help the ocular muscles pull back into the normal shape to help astigmatism. I'm doing circular rotations with my eyes.
I would like to note that there is an additional exercise from the Power Vision System by David De Angelis that helps with myopia and astigmatism. If you look in a certain direction, you might find that you can no longer fuse the image into one. I just hold my eyes in a position in which I cannot fuse into one image, and it seems to help both myopia and astigmatism. It can only be done once a day, every other day depending on how long it takes for your eyes to recover afterwards.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 04, 2011, 07:09:36 AM
Hi Jansen and Shadow,
Subject: Why I seek to always pass the 20/40 line -- and to avoid any use of the minus.  Here are the reasons why!
There are people who wish to impress me with the "safety" of the minus lens, and ask why I work with the plus (to keep my vision clear with the plus).  Certainly I know that the minus is "imressive".  I know that very few people have the "motivation" to get the "intensity" to use the (preventive) plus correctly.  But over the years, the science of the eye has demonstrated the (secondary) effect of a strong minus on an eye with 20/50 vision.  Here is the scientific effect:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf
In other words, the following happens.
1)  The accommodation system "adjusts" to the applied -3.0 diopter lens, then
2)  The eye, using that "signal", proceeds to change its refractive state by about -2.2 diopters in less than a year.
3)  The natural eye does the same thing -- when placed in a long-term "near" environment.
For me this is "pure science".  It suggest that, however "well intended", the minus is truly an "exacerbating" agent, and should be avoided -- consistent with passing the 20/40 line -- under YOUR control.
This is why I taught, and advocated that my nephew consider long-term (effective) use of the plus.

Best, Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on May 04, 2011, 09:09:19 AM
Thank you Otis and ShadowFoot! I think stretching the eye muscles might help the ocular muscles pull back into the normal shape to help astigmatism. I'm doing circular rotations with my eyes.
I would like to note that there is an additional exercise from the Power Vision System by David De Angelis that helps with myopia and astigmatism. If you look in a certain direction, you might find that you can no longer fuse the image into one. I just hold my eyes in a position in which I cannot fuse into one image, and it seems to help both myopia and astigmatism. It can only be done once a day, every other day depending on how long it takes for your eyes to recover afterwards.

These ideas from DeAngelis sound interesting and make sense.  Let us know if they help your astigmatism.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on May 04, 2011, 09:20:44 AM
Hi Todd

I'm new to the forum and the topic but very much interested to try. And because I'm new and want to do things right for them to work I've got few questions I hope you will be able to help me with.
My latest lenses presction read right -7.25, left -5. So it is quite strong. I got my first glasses with 13 starting at -1/-1.25 and it went steadily downhill since then (over 17 years).
I am an accountant so spending a huge amount of time at the computer and books is a necessity. Average good 10-12 hours.

Where would you recommend I should start? I've got weaker glasses with ca. -5 in both lenses. So I thought to use those while doing computer work and using my full strengh lenses while driving and doing other similar important things.
Should I be using plus lenses with my strong myopia?
If it is ok to start witht he weaker lenses instead of plus ones and how long shall I wear them? I can manage for ca 10 hours being in the office, then need to swith to full strength for driving and can then switch to the weaker ones again. Or do you thing this is too much?
the weaker lenses allow me to see my computer at just about the focal point at ca. 20 inches distance.
I appreciate your input very much.

Viktoria Becker

Welcome to the forum, Viktoria!  And nice to meet another Becker online -- perhaps a long-lost relative?

I agree that your myopia is quite strong.  If you read through the posts on this topic, you'll see that the advice I've given to those with very strong myopia is to start out reading without any plus lenses or minus lenses -- just your naked eyes, sitting several inches back from the computer or book that you are reading, but pushing back as far as possible while keeping the print "at the edge of focus".  You can read steadily this way for a few hours a day, but take breaks every 15-30 minutes.  If you feel you are too close to the computer, you can try using your undercorrected lenses. However, a 20 inch focal distance is a bit far back for most people to read comforably.  And if you do this, you'll need to keep pushing even farther away, day by day.

Some have expressed concern about holding your face only a few inches from a monitor.  But if you are really doing the pushing exercises, you'll find this should last at most a few weeks before you can push back to a more comfortable distance of at least 12-16 inches.   And your desire not to sit so close will serve as a useful and constant motivation to keep moving farther away.  Also, you will only do this for a few hours a day at first, then switch back to your normal lenses for relief.  If you find you are not getting tired, then try it for longer periods of time.

Good luck and let us know how it goes.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: BeckVik on May 04, 2011, 10:01:46 AM
Thanks a lot Todd :-)
I'll certainly will report on my progress now that I've got more direction.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 05, 2011, 08:58:41 AM
For Janesn and the group,
Subject: What is the medical opinion on the reason a plus is wise.
I know that each day you must "re-commit" to wearing the plus.  I know you will get "hostile" opinions from some people with a medical title.  That is tragic, but that is also the truth of some of these issues.  It does help to know that some very wise medical people have "hit" on the need for the plus for prevention.  Here is a statement that is very helpful to me:
THE HISTORICAL OPINION OF THE USE OF A NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE LENS FOR NEARSIGHTEDNESS
Over the past eighty years, eye doctors have become increasingly suspicious of negative-lens use for nearsightedness. While the immediate effect is instant clarity of vision, the long-term effect has been recognized to be bad. For instance Dr. Samuel Drucker said:
The suspicion began to dawn on me slowly that among the causes of progressive myopia it might be necessary to list concave lenses themselves. From many articles that have appeared in the past on the subject of 'Optical Poison', a familiar term a decade ago, many other optometrists appear to have the same idea.
An optometrist in Ontario says that, "...he would like to have a law established and enforced that would make it a misdemeanor for any refractionist (optometrist) to prescribe minus glasses for any child unless under very extenuating circumstances."

These are strong opinions by individuals who have had direct and prolonged experience with the use of a negative lens and the effect that this lens has on the normal eye.

Doctors, some time ago, have correctly deduced the nature of the problem and suggested the correct solution. For example, Chalmers Prentice, wrote the following in 1895:

In the nomad, who is reared out of doors, and who follows such pursuits that his vision is mostly used at twenty feet and greater distances, the nerve-impulses to the ciliary (lens) muscle become established so that the easiest vision is for the far point, and in many years of such use, these impulses become more or less fixed; while the child of a higher civilization spends his life within doors, amuses himself with toys, picture books, kindergarten amusements and learning to read.
We will assume that such a child generally holds his book or toy 10 inches (4 diopters) from his eyes, in which case the crystalline lens requires a much greater convexity, or higher state of refraction to bring about perfect vision; and this is brought about by an increase in the ciliary nerve-impulse which changes the shape of the ciliary lens. Through long continued use, this impulse becomes comparatively fixed, and in some instances refuses to suspend itself sufficiently to bring about distant vision again, and so myopia has set in. The regular work of the student and those other pursuits which require the use of the eye at the near point, tend to perpetuate this condition and make it progressive.
...Again, the important question, 'How are the advantages of a high civilization to be attained without the foregoing disadvantages?' If the eyes are to be used at a distance of ten inches, aid them artificially by a ten inch magnifying glass; then the nerve-impulses to the ciliary muscle will be no more than if the patient were leading an outdoor life and viewing objects at twenty feet or more.
It is clear that the collective common sense of the profession has indicated the type of problem they face and the nature of the expected solution. In the article "Trying to Get Myopia into Focus", (1987) Dr. Theodore Grosvenor of the Houston College of Optometry, insists that persistent close work causes myopia. He also states that; "Once the eye has started to stretch, it may be too late to keep it from stretching. The ultimate study would be to put reading glasses on first-graders, before anyone has developed myopia."

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on May 06, 2011, 12:13:52 AM
Hi All,

an update from my side.
It has been about 3 and half months from the time i started wearing lower prescription glasses (by 0.5 D) and putting on the (effective) plus.  Last week i had checked my eyesight myself and found that i could read 20/20 line with the reduced power glasses.  I must say that the changes over the months were subtle.  There were days when things were very clear and then days when things got blurred again.  With time, the days when things were clearer became more frequent.    Now i feel i need to drop another 0.5D off my glasses and get stronger reading effective plus glasses.
A 0.5D drop every 4 months is very good, if it continues !!  However, i must remind you all that i am 42 years and i have often heard doctors say that " ... after 40 eyes have a tendency to go towards plus power naturally."

I any case I must thank, Todd, Otis and all the other members who shared their experience.
I will write more later,

Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on May 06, 2011, 05:54:16 AM
Hi All,

an update from my side.
It has been about 3 and half months from the time i started wearing lower prescription glasses (by 0.5 D) and putting on the (effective) plus.  Last week i had checked my eyesight myself and found that i could read 20/20 line with the reduced power glasses.  I must say that the changes over the months were subtle.  There were days when things were very clear and then days when things got blurred again.  With time, the days when things were clearer became more frequent.    Now i feel i need to drop another 0.5D off my glasses and get stronger reading effective plus glasses.
A 0.5D drop every 4 months is very good, if it continues !!  However, i must remind you all that i am 42 years and i have often heard doctors say that " ... after 40 eyes have a tendency to go towards plus power naturally."

I any case I must thank, Todd, Otis and all the other members who shared their experience.
I will write more later,

Rajeev

Rajeev,

You are doing an excellent job!  To drop 0.5 diopters in 4 months is very good. I agree that it is time to further weaken your minus prescription.  Your experience of "good days and bad days" parallels my own experience.  Improvement is not a straight line, but a rocky road, with long plateaus and sudden improvements.  That's why it takes persistence and commitment

I've also heard that claim that myopia "naturally" weakens as we age.  But how many of the same doctors who say that will advise their patients to move to weaker lenses, and how many do this "naturally"?  I think that without some effort -- either using plus lenses or even print-pushing without lenses -- you don't see this so-called natural reversion happening very often.

Keep posting and let us know of your further progress.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on May 08, 2011, 02:47:32 AM
Todd,
You are right, a drop in minus power occurs only by making an active attempt.  This includes both wearing lower powered glasses and reading with plus (effective plus in my case). The eyes have an amazing power to accommodate, particularly at younger age, and so if we dont wear undercorrected glasses the eyes will never adjust to the lower power.  Reading with plus lens actively helps this drop.  I am convinced about it now.  On the other hand, if we use plus lens for reading but do not undercorrect for long distance, the eyes will be in an accommodative state and we wont realize the drop in power.

Update:
Today i went to optometrist where i could only read half of the 20/20 line with my current glasses (-4Left/-3.25Right), so he agreed to give me a further undercorrection of only 0.25D and not 0.5D.  So now I will be getting -3.75L/-3R.   It is difficult to bargain much with optometrist, as the prescription is in their hands.
In Jan I was wearing -4.5L/-3.75R and now in May i will start wearing -3.75L/-3R, with which i expect to see 20/20 by in a couple of months.  After that i will have to find another optometrist. 

BTW I am in Mumbai, India.

Thanks again for all the help.  I will keep you posted.
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on May 08, 2011, 07:34:41 PM
Hello everyone,

I have once again plateau'd to about 20/50 these past few weeks. I however have not covered by left eye to train the weaker eye, so I'll will have to start this again.
Does anyone have suggestions on how much time I should train the weaker eye in comparison to the stronger eye?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 09, 2011, 06:06:09 AM
Hi Janesn,
First, congratulations on improving your Snellen from 20/80 to 20/50.  That means that you can avoid the use of a minus lens -- for almost everything you are doing.  From the experience of others -- working with the plus -- it is clear that the eye does indeed "plateau", for some time.  Brian Severson noticed the same effect.  He then got a stronger plus, and cleared his Snellen past the plateau.  If it were me, I would obtain a low-cost plus of about 2.25 to 2.5 diopters, and start wearing that lens for all close work -- reading and the computer and pusihg-print.  Here is a "accommodation" exercise, or Snellen-clearing exercise that I would suggest read for several minutes at 20 inches through a +2.25 diopter, then
1)  Have your Snellen set up as shown:
http://www.youtube.com/user/otissumnerbrown#p/u/6/BgUkoSSgVOs
2) Then start read through the +2.25 diopter lens for several minutes.
3) Then look over the "top" of your plus, and read your Snellen.  (This can clear a line on your Snellen after about 40 minutes.)
4) Do this for about 10 minutes.  Then look over the "top" of your plus and check the Snellen againt.
5) I hope you play tennis or other out-side sports.  That is of great value in getting your Snellen back to normal and your accommodation system relaxed.
Keep up this excellent work -- you have seen success -- so now it the time to re-dedicate yourself to these efforts. 
Otis

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on May 09, 2011, 02:55:11 PM
Thank you,

Are indoor sports okay as well? I play badminton once a week indoors. I think this can help the eye muscles because you are looking overhead constantly and in many different directions. I also have sharper vision after playing and can read almost all the letters of the 20/50 line, however this effect doesn't last the entire day.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on May 09, 2011, 03:24:28 PM
jansen,

I think any sports that involve continuously tracking a moving object will be helpful. The faster it is moving and the more you interact with it the more helpful it is So for me tennis is a lot more effective than throwing a baseball, but they are both helpful. I also notice that it doesn't last the whole day, but then, what does? I can use the plus for a while and improve my vision but it wears down back to normal after an half-hour to an hour. It's only in the long term that those results get made permanent.

Todd and Otis,

Have you noticed that the closer you get to absolutely perfect sight the harder it gets to improve? Or have I just hit a plateau again?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 09, 2011, 04:25:59 PM
Hi Jansen,
I think that physical activity -- like badminton -- is very good.  But it is always good to get outdoors -- with no glasses!  You are correct, the physical motion is very good.  But in my opinion, very dedicated use of a convenient (and easy-to-use) +2.25 to +2.5 is the best.  Truly this takes time.  What you need is a "change" of about +1/2 diopter in your refractive status -- that will give you 20/30 t0 20/20 vision.  The eye has a power of about 60 diopters, so that is a change of less than one percent of the eye's total power.  But even so, it does take time -- and that is what is "difficult" for most people.  So keep up the persistent use of the plus, and remember it took Todd one year to get back to visual-normal.  Keep on wearing that plus for all close work!  Otis

Thank you,

Are indoor sports okay as well? I play badminton once a week indoors. I think this can help the eye muscles because you are looking overhead constantly and in many different directions. I also have sharper vision after playing and can read almost all the letters of the 20/50 line, however this effect doesn't last the entire day.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 09, 2011, 04:39:09 PM
Hi Shadow,
Subject: "Perfect" is the enemy of "best".
If you mean by "perfect" -- how sharp I can make my Snellen with a minus -- they you are talking about what ODs call, "Best Visual Acuity".  For me, I truly detest that idea.  I see children with 20/40, vision (passes the DMV, and should not wear ANY MINUS LENS), prescribed a -3.75 diotper lens!!!  What this -3.75 diopter does to that child, it move the "world" into 11 inches -- 16 hourse a day, seven days a week!!!  So yes, you can give "perfect" vision with a strong minus, but the secondary effect is this:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf
This is crucial knowledge -- about why I think personally passing the DMV line of 20/40 is so crucial.  The very-wise ODs describe the minus as "poison glasses for children".  But they are "stuck".  If the parents demand "perfect vision" they they will not allow for the time it takes to clear vision back to normal with a preventive plus.  I know your Snellen is 20/25 to 20/20.  That far exceeds the 20/40 that I personally verify each week.  In fact I "do better", and check with a "test" minus lens.  But that is why I look for "best" vision.  Futher, in fact my Snellen does "vary" between 20/25 to 20/20 -- but I consider this totally normal.  I know each of us will have our own ideas -- and I respect your concept.  But that is why I have my own trial-lens kit, and "work" to pass the 20/40 with naked-eye vision.  Also, you are correct.  Once you reach 20/40, the "rate" at which your Snellen clears does "slow down", and discovered by Brian Severson.  But he just kept at it, and got a stronger plus.  Otis

+++++
Todd and Otis,
Have you noticed that the closer you get to absolutely perfect sight the harder it gets to improve? Or have I just hit a plateau again
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on May 09, 2011, 05:35:19 PM
Otis,

I have discussed my relationship with perfect here on this thread before so I will not repeat myself. I do not see any reason why I should not strive to become better and settle for mediocrity. My biggest goal right now is 20/15, because that will enable me to see as well as everyone I know who wears glasses. It really frustrates me that in a situation where I am the only one with "perfect" vision, I see the worst. A friend of mine, for example, tested at 20/13 with his glasses on.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Soylent Red on May 10, 2011, 09:16:04 AM
Hi all,

I'd like to give this anti-prescription glasses theory a shot and was wondering if you could point me in the right direction. My contact lens strengths are -4.00 (left) and -2.75 (right) and my eyes generally seem to be worsening over time. I know the contact lens prescription is different to glasses prescription due to the distance of the lens from the eye - but would you be able to recommend me a pair of positive lens glasses on this information?

Many thanks for your time in advance
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 10, 2011, 09:19:09 AM
Subject: If you need 20/25 to 20/15 vision.
I have transferred this discussion to the thread:
"Is better-than 20/20 possible".
This is very important for pilots.  For a pilot entering a four-year college with 20/20 vision (but refractive state of zero), his vision will "go down" by about -1.3 diopters in four years, giving him about 20/60 vision.  So Shadow's concern is very important for all of us.  Otis

Otis,

I have discussed my relationship with perfect here on this thread before so I will not repeat myself. I do not see any reason why I should not strive to become better and settle for mediocrity. My biggest goal right now is 20/15, because that will enable me to see as well as everyone I know who wears glasses. It really frustrates me that in a situation where I am the only one with "perfect" vision, I see the worst. A friend of mine, for example, tested at 20/13 with his glasses on.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 10, 2011, 09:25:05 AM
Hi Soylent,
There is no doubt that prevention is difficult.
But I have seen some "poor" prescriptions for some time.  I would suggest checking your Snellen yourself -- just to find out.  Try this easy-to-use Snellen and find out what line you can read 1/2 the letters correctly. That would be a start.  Click here:

http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html
And then on "Display" several times.  Read at 20 feet.  If you can not get 20 feet from your screen, then choos 10 feet -- and read at that distance.  There are many "ideas" here -- but we know that Todd was truly successful, and his "starting prescription" was -3 diopters as I remember it.  Otis

Hi all,

I'd like to give this anti-prescription glasses theory a shot and was wondering if you could point me in the right direction. My contact lens strengths are -4.00 (left) and -2.75 (right) and my eyes generally seem to be worsening over time. I know the contact lens prescription is different to glasses prescription due to the distance of the lens from the eye - but would you be able to recommend me a pair of positive lens glasses on this information?

Many thanks for your time in advance
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Soylent Red on May 10, 2011, 09:41:18 AM
Judging by the Snellen at 10ft I'm about 20/100, since that's the point where I can make out the letters without having to squint. They are very blurry though.

Hi Soylent,
There is no doubt that prevention is difficult.
But I have seen some "poor" prescriptions for some time.  I would suggest checking your Snellen yourself -- just to find out.  Try this easy-to-use Snellen and find out what line you can read 1/2 the letters correctly. That would be a start.  Click here:

http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html
And then on "Display" several times.  Read at 20 feet.  If you can not get 20 feet from your screen, then choos 10 feet -- and read at that distance.  There are many "ideas" here -- but we know that Todd was truly successful, and his "starting prescription" was -3 diopters as I remember it.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on May 10, 2011, 05:43:05 PM
Soylent,

It is difficult to match up diopters with the 20/x reading. There is an estimation on this page http://www.improve-vision-naturally.com/20-20-vision.html for you to check out.

Considering that your present prescription has two dissimilar powers for each eye "-4.00 (left) and -2.75 (right)," you should probably take your Snellen with each eye individually. That way you can get lenses that are appropriately under-prescribed for each eye. As far as I can tell, people here have been under-correcting by 0.5 - 0.75 diopters at a time.

Good luck.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 10, 2011, 07:11:35 PM
Hi Soylent,
Thanks for checking your Snellen at 20/100.  The normal test for the DMV is with both eyes open -- so that is a good starting measurement.  If you have not done so, please read of Todd's experience here:
http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/improve-eyesight-and-throw-away-your-glasses/
I think Todd has a -3 diopter, which is comparable to your vision at this time.  The true leader for all of this is the man who made this work a success -- even though it took him a full year to clear his vision to normal.  Best, Otis

Judging by the Snellen at 10ft I'm about 20/100, since that's the point where I can make out the letters without having to squint. They are very blurry though.

Hi Soylent,
There is no doubt that prevention is difficult.
But I have seen some "poor" prescriptions for some time.  I would suggest checking your Snellen yourself -- just to find out.  Try this easy-to-use Snellen and find out what line you can read 1/2 the letters correctly. That would be a start.  Click here:

http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html
And then on "Display" several times.  Read at 20 feet.  If you can not get 20 feet from your screen, then choos 10 feet -- and read at that distance.  There are many "ideas" here -- but we know that Todd was truly successful, and his "starting prescription" was -3 diopters as I remember it.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Soylent Red on May 12, 2011, 07:15:16 AM
Hi Otis,

Would you be able to make a recommendation in terms of plus lenses for my own situation? I'm guessing it would be something like +2/2.5 for my worse eye (-4.00) and +1/0.5 for my better eye (-2.75)?

When I checked my vision with glasses, it sits at 20/15 quite happily. The more you think about it.. the more you realise that this is exactly like using a crutch, 8-10 hours a day every day. It's no wonder the eyesight deteriorates further.

Thanks to both you and shadow for your help so far!

Hi Soylent,
Thanks for checking your Snellen at 20/100.  The normal test for the DMV is with both eyes open -- so that is a good starting measurement.  If you have not done so, please read of Todd's experience here:
http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/improve-eyesight-and-throw-away-your-glasses/
I think Todd has a -3 diopter, which is comparable to your vision at this time.  The true leader for all of this is the man who made this work a success -- even though it took him a full year to clear his vision to normal.  Best, Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on May 12, 2011, 07:31:56 AM
Soylent,

You can order a plus that is different in both eyes so that you would work each eye individually. The other thing you could do, which appears to be the more common tactic, is just to get a cheap plus (at the pharmacy or elsewhere) that allows you to read at a comfortable distance. Assuming that your eyes are not too different, depending on how far away you are you should be able to push the print in the blur. What I think other people have done is to cover their stronger eye and work the weaker one more until they are roughly equal. Todd has posted a few times about strategies for doing that.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 12, 2011, 09:04:53 AM
Hi Soylent,
Subject:  The standard recommendation -- to prevent more negative change in your refractive status.
COMMENTARY:  I know we all love 20/15 vision from a minus lens.  That is what all ODs think that we "want", and indeed demand.  This is called there "Best Visual Acuity" policy.  They also believe that a minus has no adverse effect on the natual eye's refractive state, and over-prescription does not create (secondary) stair-case myopia.  From a pure-scientific point-of-view, I think they are tragically wrong.  But I will not "argue" with them.  You can get low-cost temporary glasses from Zennioptical for about $10 if you wish.  The "standard" way to use the plus, is just to reduce your current prescription by 2 to 2.5 diotpers.  That will prevent your vision from going down any more.  The forward-looking ODs will prescribe a "bi-focal" for children, to prevent further "down" movement for exactly that reason.  Best,  Otis


Hi Otis,

Would you be able to make a recommendation in terms of plus lenses for my own situation? I'm guessing it would be something like +2/2.5 for my worse eye (-4.00) and +1/0.5 for my better eye (-2.75)?

When I checked my vision with glasses, it sits at 20/15 quite happily. The more you think about it.. the more you realise that this is exactly like using a crutch, 8-10 hours a day every day. It's no wonder the eyesight deteriorates further.

Thanks to both you and shadow for your help so far!

Hi Soylent,
Thanks for checking your Snellen at 20/100.  The normal test for the DMV is with both eyes open -- so that is a good starting measurement.  If you have not done so, please read of Todd's experience here:
http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/improve-eyesight-and-throw-away-your-glasses/
I think Todd has a -3 diopter, which is comparable to your vision at this time.  The true leader for all of this is the man who made this work a success -- even though it took him a full year to clear his vision to normal.  Best, Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on May 13, 2011, 04:46:48 AM
Todd,

I posted a link to your page on eyesight without glasses on John Durant's site (http://www.hunter-gatherer.com/ (http://www.hunter-gatherer.com/)) in the comments of his post today on "irreversible" injuries (cannot be fixed without surgery). I'm not expecting many to believe it and I'm not sure how many click-throughs it will get, but hopefully it will inspire a few souls with the motivation to do something who just needed to see a viable method. I now have not only seen the method work for myself but for others (it is also beginning to work for my brother), and there is something very solid about seeing someone else (not over the internet) improve their eyesight.

So I will probably be doing that more linking in the future. I think this is a very worthwhile cause and if it can move beyond this tiny corner of the internet I think it could help a lot of people. I don't expect doctors to recognize it anytime soon, but there are a lot of desperate, open-minded people out there who don't want, or can't pay for, laser eye surgery who just need to be reached. It took me a whole year of searching to find this method. I hope it is easier for others in the future.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 14, 2011, 06:01:33 AM
Hi Shadow,
Subject: Were these primitive people myopic.  If so, what was the percentage?
I get this type of question -- a lot.
The correct answer (from Francis Young's study) is that virtually none were. They (almost) all had a postive refractive states -- and clear distant vision.  (A postive refractive status is necessary for clear distant vision.)  I know we will get many arguments about this specific issue -- but this is a "starting pont" for a preventive discussion.  You have a good mind for this subject -- and we can, and should, all learn together about this topic.  Otis

Todd,

I posted a link to your page on eyesight without glasses on John Durant's site (http://www.hunter-gatherer.com/ (http://www.hunter-gatherer.com/)) in the comments of his post today on "irreversible" injuries (cannot be fixed without surgery). I'm not expecting many to believe it and I'm not sure how many click-throughs it will get, but hopefully it will inspire a few souls with the motivation to do something who just needed to see a viable method. I now have not only seen the method work for myself but for others (it is also beginning to work for my brother), and there is something very solid about seeing someone else (not over the internet) improve their eyesight.

So I will probably be doing that more linking in the future. I think this is a very worthwhile cause and if it can move beyond this tiny corner of the internet I think it could help a lot of people. I don't expect doctors to recognize it anytime soon, but there are a lot of desperate, open-minded people out there who don't want, or can't pay for, laser eye surgery who just need to be reached. It took me a whole year of searching to find this method. I hope it is easier for others in the future.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on May 14, 2011, 07:06:09 AM
Otis,

Humans, just like any other animal, function best when placed in their natural environment (meaning the one that they adapted to evolutionarily). Staring at a computer screen for ten hours a day is not our natural environment. I imagine that even if some of our ancestors didn't have "perfect" vision, it probably never went below 20/40.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on May 14, 2011, 07:27:22 AM
Todd,

I posted a link to your page on eyesight without glasses on John Durant's site (http://www.hunter-gatherer.com/ (http://www.hunter-gatherer.com/)) in the comments of his post today on "irreversible" injuries (cannot be fixed without surgery). I'm not expecting many to believe it and I'm not sure how many click-throughs it will get, but hopefully it will inspire a few souls with the motivation to do something who just needed to see a viable method. I now have not only seen the method work for myself but for others (it is also beginning to work for my brother), and there is something very solid about seeing someone else (not over the internet) improve their eyesight.

So I will probably be doing that more linking in the future. I think this is a very worthwhile cause and if it can move beyond this tiny corner of the internet I think it could help a lot of people. I don't expect doctors to recognize it anytime soon, but there are a lot of desperate, open-minded people out there who don't want, or can't pay for, laser eye surgery who just need to be reached. It took me a whole year of searching to find this method. I hope it is easier for others in the future.

-shadowfoot

Thanks, Shadowfoot.  :)

I did see some traffic coming from "Hunter-Gatherer", so now I know who the good samaratan was.  You are right that most people are skeptical and will look at you quizzically when told that eyesight can be improved significantly without surgery.  They haven't heard this or read this anywhere -- therefore it must be impossible, right?  That's why it's important for those of us who've had success to document our progress here. There are so many who stand to improve their lives, so anything you can do to spread the message will help others.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 14, 2011, 09:43:53 AM

Shadow,
Subject: You are correct again.
Graph:

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/DynamicEye.html
But for me, I like to look at SCIENTIFIC PROOF -- MYSELF.  Remember, a postive refractive state means (generally) good distant vision, of 20/40 or better) and in almost all cases, 20/20.  Look at the bottom Gaussian distribution.  This is science, not medicine, where a person's intellectual judgment must play a role.  In a true PREVENTIVE EFFORT, this data would be presented to each student for his reviw.  THERE WOULD BE NO "BIND" STUDY, and this would not be medicine at all.  There is a big difference.  Otis




Otis,

Humans, just like any other animal, function best when placed in their natural environment (meaning the one that they adapted to evolutionarily). Staring at a computer screen for ten hours a day is not our natural environment. I imagine that even if some of our ancestors didn't have "perfect" vision, it probably never went below 20/40.


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on May 16, 2011, 06:29:58 PM
Hello,

I'm currently trying to break the plateau of improvement. School is about to end for me, so I hope I'll be able to make maximum improvements over the summer.
I'm actually eating more blueberries, as I heard bilberries (european cousin of blueberries) helps treat nearsightedness. Can anyone confirm this for me?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 16, 2011, 07:19:36 PM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: Your progress thus far.
I am very pleased that you got your refractive status (Snellen) to change from 20/80 to 20/50 -- in the last several months.  With 20/50 naked eye -- you can avoid the use of a lens for almost all practical things that you do.  I don't know if you will believe me, but if you did not do this, your Snellen would have stayed at 20/80, and kept on going down for each year you spend in school.  Against this KNOWN background, you got your vision to begin to clear.  That to me is excellent success.  Now that school is "out", and you are not doing any reading or close-work -- you can avoid the use of any "prescription" glasses.  I know most people will not even "start" with the plus, so they never see any results.  But you did, and got results.  The real knowledge, is to have the fortitude to continue with the plus.  This is like me knowing that I had to use "protective" ear-plugs in a high-noise enviroment.  It is wise to know what is going to happen -- if you do not 1) Wear ear plugs for prevention, or 2) Plus lenses for preventing loss of you distant vision -- as long as you are in a "school" situation.  This issue was confirmed by the Eskimos who did 12 years in school.  Here is the sketch of this issue and problem.
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/DynamicEye.html
There is no "perfect" way to tell you to continue -- but it is very wise to continue.  We all support you here -- and Todd's success is the best recommendation we all can have.  Otis

Hello,

I'm currently trying to break the plateau of improvement. School is about to end for me, so I hope I'll be able to make maximum improvements over the summer.
I'm actually eating more blueberries, as I heard bilberries (european cousin of blueberries) helps treat nearsightedness. Can anyone confirm this for me?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on May 16, 2011, 08:59:32 PM
I'm actually eating more blueberries, as I heard bilberries (european cousin of blueberries) helps treat nearsightedness. Can anyone confirm this for me?

Jansen,

Good to hear from you.  I can understand that plateaus can be frustrating.  But hang in there...plateaus can break suddenly and at seemingly random times, so long as you are continuing to make the effort.

I had not heard of bilberries for reducing myopia, but there are a number of references that support this idea.  Probably the benefits come from a potent a bioflavonoid called anthocyanin, which protects the fine blood vessels in the eye and doubles as a visual pigment:
http://maculardegenerationtreatmenttips.com/bilberry-vitamins-among-top-eyesight-vitamins
http://www.ehow.com/how_2119548_use-bilberry-improve-eyesight.html

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on May 21, 2011, 05:32:59 AM
Have any of you ever experienced any red eye when using plus lenses? I have a pretty chronic case of very mild red eye that I am probably going to go get checked. Sometimes it disappears, sometimes its evident to people around me. I'm thinking that maybe its an infection made worse by strain (it gets worse during long periods of reading too much, either without the plus or with the plus pushed too far).
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 21, 2011, 05:42:12 AM
Hi Shadow,
Subject: The need to separate a "medical issue" from the use of the plus.
In general a 'red eye" would not be associated with wearing a plus.  But as good general advice, I would quit wearing the plus until you get this medical issue resolved.  That is what I would do.  Personally I have not experienced any problem using the plus.  I am using it now as I type this up on my computer.  But I also check my vision with my own trial-lens kit.  "Red eye" can nave many causes -- but I doubt that it is caused by use  of a relaxing plus.  Otis

Have any of you ever experienced any red eye when using plus lenses? I have a pretty chronic case of very mild red eye that I am probably going to go get checked. Sometimes it disappears, sometimes its evident to people around me. I'm thinking that maybe its an infection made worse by strain (it gets worse during long periods of reading too much, either without the plus or with the plus pushed too far).
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on May 21, 2011, 07:46:50 AM
Have any of you ever experienced any red eye when using plus lenses? I have a pretty chronic case of very mild red eye that I am probably going to go get checked. Sometimes it disappears, sometimes its evident to people around me. I'm thinking that maybe its an infection made worse by strain (it gets worse during long periods of reading too much, either without the plus or with the plus pushed too far).

Shadowfoot,

The medical term for red eye is asthenopia.  According to Wikipedia, a common cause is eye strain after close work like reading or using a computer, and it comes about due to tightening of the ciliary muscle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asthenopia

The usual recommendation is rest, and periodic focusing on distant objects.

If you are using plus lenses correctly, at the edge of focus or blur, you should actually be achieving the opposite of close work, because your eye is now focusing as if it were looking into the distance.  So I'm not sure how use of plus lenses would cause a tightening of the ciliary muscle.  The opposite should be occurring.  But perhaps you are using the plus lenses at too far a distance and too far into the blur zone?  If so, I'd suggest either reading closer (within your range of focus) or using weaker plus lenses.  

In any case, adding in more periods of rest between plus lens sessions, or just cutting back on their use, should help resolve things.  More is always a good idea for reversing inflammation. Also consider also eating foods that are less inflammatory (fewer sugars) or adding omega fatty acids like flax or fish oil.

If the condition persists or becomes serious, I agree with Otis that you should see a doctor.

Todd

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on May 21, 2011, 01:42:11 PM
Thank you for both of your replies.

The situation is slightly annoying, but only sometimes (once a week or so) even becomes actually noticeable. That is why I have not contacted a doctor before this. Even before I started using the plus, I noticed it most during long periods of close reading. Now, with the plus, I only get it when I work too hard and push too far or simply when I use the computer for too long without a break (something I did when I needed to finish assignments for class).

I will follow your recommendations and see what happens.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 21, 2011, 03:34:49 PM
Hi Shadow,
Subject: You are very lucky -- for these reasons.
1)  You have confirmed 20/20 on your Snellen.  So you can "slack off" for some time.  I don't know if you are in school, but at 20/20 I consider the plus a wise precaution.  Since I don't know how many years you will spend in school, let me state what Bates could never say.  Each year is school, your status will "go down" by -1/2 diopter.  But you now have a "buffer" with your 20/20 (and a postive refractive status).
2)  I indeed did have a "blur problem" about one year ago. (I could not read the 20/60 line on my Snellen.)  That could have been a "light transmission" problem, or a "retina" problem.  But what was it?  I was indeed "concerned" as anyone would be.  So, I used my Snellen and trial lens kit.  What that check (low-cost optometry) showed was that I could not clear the 20/60 with a minus or plus lens.  That meant that I had to go to a ophthalmolgist for MEDICAL checking.  His checks showed some "clouding" in the lens of my eye.  He cleared it with a laser -- with no difficulty.
That is why I include the need for engineering training (in a formalized study) so no one will panic if he has 20/60 vision -- if he knows how to check himself.  I am a great believer in personal empowerment on this subject.
3) That is how I am both cautious -- and work with medical people.  Otis


Thank you for both of your replies.

The situation is slightly annoying, but only sometimes (once a week or so) even becomes actually noticeable. That is why I have not contacted a doctor before this. Even before I started using the plus, I noticed it most during long periods of close reading. Now, with the plus, I only get it when I work too hard and push too far or simply when I use the computer for too long without a break (something I did when I needed to finish assignments for class).

I will follow your recommendations and see what happens.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on May 21, 2011, 04:47:49 PM
Otis,

I am currently out of school for the summer. However, I do still do a lot of computer work working on websites for people. That, however, is a lot easier to moderate and take breaks from.

I like Todd's analogy of using the plus to weightlifting in regards to plateaus. That is, there are two obvious reasons why you might not be improving. First, you are not training hard enough. Second, you are training too hard and not giving your eyes enough time to heal. So I will try an experiment. I will try using the plus less often, but use it a lot more intensively when I do use it (really pushing into the blur), kind of like HIIT (high intensity interval training) which has proved to be very effective in terms of strength building.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on May 24, 2011, 06:46:43 AM
Hi guys,

First of all Thanks Todd for the great blog.
I just stumbled into it yesterday (coming from some paleo blog most likely) and haven't read all your articles yet but from first impression I like it a lot.

Also a big thank you to all of the others contributing to the discussion here!

I would like to give this method a try however I think I am in need of a little guidance.

I am currently wearing overnight vision correction contacts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthokeratology

I had these for about 8 months. I am very happy with the results although they are not 100%. I still worry though because of daily fluctuations in vision and excessive protein deposits in the morning. Adding to that, you guys are making me worry that I am making my eyes even lazier with these corrections.

I don't have the exact numbers here, but when not corrected my eyes are between -3 and -4 for myopia, with some astigmatism as well.

My questions are:
- What are your opinions on these contacts? The trials I have seen were positive, but am I potentially damaging my eyes?

- Can I incorporate the plus lens therapy by gradually reducing my prescription and buying seperate plus glasses? Or is that combination not advised?

- Alternatively, are (undercorrected) daytime contacts advisable while strengthening with plus therapy?

- Or should I just leave my vanity and convenience at the door and just go for various strength glasses?

- I do a LOT of computer work and reading during the day. Should I use a full correction for that kind of work (with some plus lenses mixed in), and only 'undercorrect' when away from the computer/not reading? (This question based on the children whose myopia worsened while undercorrecting and reading).

- When not wearing my contacts for a night my sight is a lot worse he next day. From other users I have heard they can skip 2 (sometimes 3) nights with okay vision, so my eyes seem to differ from the norm. Could that have some influence on the effectiveness of using the plus lens method?

I'm very sorry for all the questions!

I hope somebody can provide some insight...
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on May 24, 2011, 06:59:52 AM
Welcome, Rudy.

My suggestion is to start out wearing your contacts, but gradually reduce the need for them by wearing plus lenses over your contacts when you are reading or at the computer for long hours.  This concept is explained on this thread:

http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php/topic,74.0.html

If that doesn't answer your questions, then do come back to ask them.  Good luck, and please post your progress.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on May 24, 2011, 07:21:23 AM
Hi Todd, thanks for the quick reply!

I'm not sure if you caught on that these aren't regular contacts?
I wear them at night but never in the day. During the night they reshape the cornea.

Does that change anything? Any insights?

I have to buy these contacts for a full year at 500€ a pair, so thinking about it gradually undercorrecting with them is probably not realistic. I will consider switching to regular contacts.

Do you think using the plus-lenses at work (and no undercorrection otherwise) will help enough to give me an idea of effectiveness before I buy out and shell out for regular contacts?

Thanks!
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 24, 2011, 04:40:40 PM
Hi Rudy,
Subject: Let me "butt in" since I an familiar with some of the Ortho-K issues.
The purpose of Ortho-K is to get your "day" Snellen to 20/20, or at least 20/40 or better.  Pilots at -1 diopter have some success with Ortho-K.
Rudy>  I'm very sorry for all the questions!
Otis> Not at all -- if you don't mind me responding and suggesting some ideas.
Rudy> I hope somebody can provide some insight...
Otis> Orthok-K is indeed expensive!  But let me ask you to take these steps:
1)  Download this Snellen:
http://www.i-see.org/block_letter_eye_chart.pdf
2) After you print it out -- put it at 20 feet with a bright light on it.
3) Determine which line you can read 1/2 the letters correctly on.
If it is 20/40 or better -- that is indeed good.  Let us know.
Thanks, Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on May 24, 2011, 07:20:20 PM
Ruby,

Welcome to the forum! Good luck on your mission. We are here for support and encouragement.

I do not think the fact that they reshape the cornea at night should matter. If your cornea is reshaped it will have the same impact as wearing contact lenses. Then you can use the plus as easily as if you were wearing them as Todd discussed in the other thread. What you are trying to change it not the shape of the cornea -- that shouldn't be impacted by your efforts at all -- but the shape of the eyeball itself.

-shadowfoot

P.S. I should have said "Welcome to the matrix."
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on May 24, 2011, 07:42:57 PM
Rudy,

Thanks for clarifying that you are using Ortho-K, somehow I had glossed over that.  I need to slow down and read more carefully sometimes!

Otis and Shawdowfoot are right that your use of Ortho-K at night should not preclude using of plus lenses during the day.  But obviously, because you won't be wearing the Ortho-K contacts at the same time as the plus lenses, the link I sent you to the other thread is not particularly relevant.

I've corresponded privately with another user of Ortho-K who had a similar experience to yours -- significant initial improvement, but not "all the way" to 20/20.  In addition, my correspondent complained that Ortho-K did not fully address night vision, which is still somewhat blurry.  So I've recommended using either plus lenses or the technique of trying to focus on the sharper facets of a double image that sometimes occurs in the process of the eye changing shape.  This tends to reinforce crisper vision at night, which is key if you want to be able to drive at night without glasses.

In short, I think the Ortho-K and plus lens methods are complementary.  As Shadowfoot indicates, Ortho-K addresses refractive myopia (due to the shape of the cornea/lens), while plus lens therapy addresses axial myopia by stimulating a foreshortening of the length of the eye.  If you find that the combination gets you to 20/20, you can then gradually reduce your dependence on the contact lens by continuing with the plus lenses, perhaps just using them for an occasional boost or "tune up".

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on May 25, 2011, 01:36:44 AM
Otis,

Of course I don't mind, I appreciate it greatly!

I should have also mentioned that my eyes on OrthoK are a little "unstable"- one day is better or worse then the last.

I printed your chart and will test myself at home this evening.


Shadowfoot,

Thanks! It sure feels like the matrix.
As I programmer I usually follow the science but through my research on diabetes/diet/etc I came to realize there is plenty wrong in science. Though unproven the plus lens method sure has logical appeal...

Worst case, I am out a some of my time and a little money, right?
No rabbit hole or anything?


Todd,

I have similar issues with OrthoK in the dark; halo's around bright lights and some ghosting (a transparent double image). It has lessened over time though.

Still all these issues with OrthoK make me wonder if I should look for a better solution.

I think I may start trying to improve my OrthoK vision with plus lenses -reading glasses- and see where I go from there.

I still have 6 months left on these OrthoK lenses so I have some time to consider going to regular (and undercorrected) contacts. Even if plus lens therapy has limited benefit I figure with regular contacts at least I have the option of letting my eyes recuperate some days by not wearing contacts.

I wonder though, let's say if I can get a significant improvement over some years, would it still require great effort maintaining that improvement? As my myopia is pretty bad I figure it would cost me significantly more work maintaining my altered eye shape/muscles as compared to a -1 diopter?

If so, would it be better for me to consider doing something like LASIK first and use the plus lens technique only to improve the remaining correction?

I guess what I wouldn't want is to be stuck with having to take hours out of my day for eye training everyday for the rest of my life? An training period is fine, but how intensive would just maintenance be for me?

Thanks for the help guys!
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on May 25, 2011, 05:13:36 AM
Ruby,

No rabbit hole :) If it doesn't work you can go back to your old life and conclude that we are all a bunch of liars who cost you a couple of dollars. But if it does, well, I don't think I need to convince you how nice perfect vision is.

You mention the topic of maintenance, which needs some clarification. As far as we can tell, you are not strengthening the muscles of the eye so that you have to keep them "in shape" to maintain vision. You are actually changing the shape of your eye. As such, once you have obtained your goal, it really only should require proper habits (taking breaks, etc) and some moderate use of the plus to keep your vision where it is.

I know a lot of people who have perfect vision who do a lot of close work that does not impact their eyes. I would say that these people do not have a very strong tendency to become myopic. People like us do have a tendency and if old habits are resumed, myopic will slowly return. Any change in the focal length of the eye, however, is very gradual and if you keep your eye on it (no pun intended) maintaining your vision should be pretty easy. If I find that my vision has gotten worse, twenty minutes with the plus will return it to normal.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 25, 2011, 05:41:38 AM
Hi Rudy,
Subject:  How I check my Snellen -- and additional ideas.
Here is how I have my Snellen set up.  I mark the lines with a felt-tip pen -- that way I know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgUkoSSgVOs
ADDITIONAL REMARKS:
Personally I work to the "golden line" of 20/40.  If I pass that, then I can pass all the DMV tests.  Your Snellen will "vary" as you go through this process -- that is expected.  When you are on your computer, 20/60 is "acceptable" --as you work your way out of this problem.  I always thought that, anyone selling Ortho-K, should also suggest using the plus in daytime to assist with this process.  I am pleased you can learn from Todd's success.
PLANNING AND RESOLVE:
This does take personal resolve.  When you do any close work, you should be able to use a +2.0 to +2.5 diopter lens (assuming you readin the 20/40 to 20/50 line on your Snellen.  So for the next several weeks, you will get up, remove your Ortho-K lenses, and look at your Snellen.  Then just let us know your thoughts and ideas for improving this process.  I am pleased you are interested in this scientific work.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on May 25, 2011, 05:47:41 AM
I wonder though, let's say if I can get a significant improvement over some years, would it still require great effort maintaining that improvement? As my myopia is pretty bad I figure it would cost me significantly more work maintaining my altered eye shape/muscles as compared to a -1 diopter?

Rudy,

Just to be clear, I do very little "maintenance" with plus lenses.  I might use them for a "tune up" of an hour or so once or twice a month!  My main mode of prevention is to observe good habits.  I take frequent breaks from reading and am sure to push my eyes every day to focus on distant objects like transmission wires, tree limbs or (at night) car taillights, in order to keep them sharp.  I also read fine print and periodically read with my stronger right eye winked shut to give my left eye a little workout.

The main effort is in climbing to the top of the hill.  Once you are there, staying there is not terribly hard as long as you don't fall into bad habits.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on May 25, 2011, 06:03:30 AM
All,

FYI I have noticed, which is pretty hilarious and awesome, that whenever anyone new posts on this thread they are immediately inundated with replies from Todd, Otis, and myself. We are a little bit like vultures. I like it.

Edited for grammar.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on May 25, 2011, 02:29:26 PM

Shadowfoot,

I don't think you are liars  ;) It is probably wise though to assume the method may not work for everyone. If it works for a few, that's amazing. If it works for many then it's a stunning game changing strategy!

It is very nice to hear maintenance will be a breeze, that's a great motivator!

Otis,

I just did an evening test and I could read the 20/40 line.
A few caveats: I had to strain a little, and my largest printed E was only 82mm instead of 88mm (A4 print).
I'll make a better print tomorrow.
Further, this is an evening test and my eyes tend to get worse during the day.
In the future I will use morning tests as a benchmark.

Perhaps I should try out a variety of plus lenses to compensate for my rigid contact lens situation?
A small correction for some farsight training and a larger correction for nearsight training?

Todd,

It may be a mountain in my case  ;D
No worries though, I don't expect instant results.

Thank you guys for your continued assistance!
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 25, 2011, 03:48:09 PM
Hi Rudy,
Subject:  Keeping 20/40 during the day.
Re: How that affects the choice of a "plus" for all close work.
With that level of visual acuity, and a typical reading distance of 1/2 meter, you could use a +2.0 diotpers.  Your "just blur" distance would about 20 to 25 inches.  (Basic physics.)  My habitual reading distance is about 20 inches.  The plus can be obtained in the USA for about $5 to $10.  Just buy a pair and get comfortable with them.  When this works, (which will take time), your Snellen will stay at 20/40 for longer periods of time, and you can reduce and then end the use of the "retainer" Ortho-K contacts -- in my opinion.  Very few people have attempted to do this.  More commentary:
Rudy> I just did an evening test and I could read the 20/40 line.
Otis> This is being objective about what you are doing.  The first step.
Rudy> A few caveats: I had to strain a little, and my largest printed E was only 82mm instead of 88mm (A4 print).
Otis> At this point, making a "habit" of reading your Snellen is very important.  Slight in-accuracy is not too critical.  This will take time -- and a true "learning process".
Rudy>I'll make a better print tomorrow.
Rudy>Further, this is an evening test and my eyes tend to get worse during the day. In the future I will use morning tests as a benchmark.
Otis>  Getting started -- is most critical.  These issues can be worked out over time.
Rudy> Perhaps I should try out a variety of plus lenses to compensate for my rigid contact lens situation?  A small correction for some farsight training and a larger correction for nearsight training?
Otis> One small systematic  step at a time.  A +2 and getting used to it is what is required -- in my opinion.  Let us know how you judge your use of the plus 2.


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on May 26, 2011, 02:10:43 PM
Hi Otis,

There are a few places here I can buy them cheap as well. I'll buy one for each work/reading location.
My training will start on Sunday. I'll keep you updated regularly.

I followed some of your links but I don't have the time to read it all yet.
I figure I might as well dive right in!

Thanks for the help,
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 28, 2011, 06:49:53 AM
Remarks by an Ophthalmologist -- that supports the need to wear the plus for the purpose of prevention. This is a medical issue, and this recommendation has been made for the last 100 years. Statement by Dr. Prentice -- EXAMPLE CASES

     Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye
-1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space of
two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point.   I
recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.

     After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes.  This patient
was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
the effort.  In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient.  After using the +4
D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision,
while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was
just perceptibly less.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

     Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;

     ...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 29, 2011, 03:59:24 AM
Subject:  FROM "BETTER VISION" -- DOCTORS NOW SUPPORT THE NEED FOR PLUS-
PREVENTION BEFORE ANY MINUS IS APPLIED   See:

The Power of Plus Lens TherapyTM
with Dr. Larry Jebrock and Martin Sussman
It seems to defy common sense... Use reading glasses to re-train your
eyes - so you can see better in the DISTANCE? Yet, it's a remarkably
effective method, practiced only by a select group of eye doctors.

Dr. Larry Jebrock is one of them. He's been teaching this method to
his patients for years. In fact, he's such a master at it that he also
trains other eye doctors in this specialized approach called "plus
lens therapy."

Normally, Dr. Jebrock charges $150 per hour in his private practice
(and probably much more when he's teaching other doctors!)

But all you need is a $5.00 pair of drugstore reading glasses - and
what you'll learn in this program.
______

Dr. Jebrock will take you step by step through the process of using
reading glasses to remarkably sharpen your distance vision.

Learn the "insider" tips and secrets to make this extremely powerful
process work for you. He'll tell you everyting you need to know so you
can start benefiting right away.


Even if you've heard of plus lenses before...even if you might have
tried something similar....


You'll be surprised at what a real expert can show you - and how much
sharper your distance vision can become!


Learn this remarkable process - and see it work wonders for your
vision with one of the leading experts in the field.


More About Dr. Larry Jebrock: Dr. Larry Jebrock entered private
practice in 1971, emphasizing preventive and corrective eye care. He
has also been an instructor for the California Optometric Association
in the fields of orthokeratology, vision therapy, and nutrition.
Additionally, Dr. Jebrock has made over 50 guest appearances on radio
and television as a vision care expert. He has also been a consultant
for companies on the effects of prolonged computer use on the eyes and
visual system.


Dr. Jebrock's professional affiliations include:


American Optometric Association
California Optometric Association
Marin County Optometric Society
National Eye Research Foundation
International Orthokeratology Society
Optometric Extension Program Foundation
International Myopia Prevention Association
Academy of Corrective Optometry
International College of Applied Nutrition
College of Syntonic Optometry
College of Optometrists in Vision Development
International Academy of Preventive Medicine


+++++++
So this is indeed the wise second-opinionby HIGHLY QUALIFIED
PROFESSIONALS.


Make your choice with wisdom:


http://www.bettervision.com/pr-plus-lens-1.html


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Andrew D on May 29, 2011, 04:11:45 AM
Hi guys. I had never heard of non-surgical ways of treating myopia until I stumbled across this blog. While I admit I'm still a bit skeptical, I'm willing to give the method a try. One thing is I want to do is track my results, and I was hoping you can advise me on how to this self-experiment as scientifically as possible so that I can be sure that my vision is actually improving and I'm not just fooling myself. I was thinking of taking weekly Snellen measurements, should I be doing anything else?
I can't remember my prescription, but to give you an idea of where I'm at at arms length away from my computer monitor most text is readable but quite blurry (I usually lean forward a bit at my desk). I can't read the whiteboard at uni without sitting really close ( a couple of metres away), unless I wear my glasses. I also have terrible night vision. Do I even need plus lenses if text is already blurry at arms length?
I thought I would get my eyes tested at an optometrist first. Should I ask for anything in particular?
Sorry if these questions have already been covered. I'm really grateful to you guys for being so knowledgeable, and thanks for the information you've provided so far.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 29, 2011, 05:52:48 AM
Hi Andrew,
Subject:  Read as much as you can about the difficulty of prevention.
As an engineer, I don't make any claims.  There are too many people who expect a "magic pill", and reject a preventve approach.  Read the previous by Dr. Pretice.  The "problem" with plus-prevention is the lack of persistent motivation in the person himself -- as Prentice described it.  Todd over-came this "natrual rejection" of prevention, by his own wisdom.  I agree there are "limits" to this, and from what I have personlly seen, prevention must start before your Snellen goes below about 20/60.  One person here, Janson, started at 20/80, and worked with the plus until he got to 20/50 in about six months.  But then we think he quit.  If you are interested in this issue please read this site:
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/
The reason it is for pilots -- is because most people don't see the long-term goal a "valuable enough" -- in my opionion.  The first step, for you is to determine your visual acuity.  If you post that, then perhaps you might "accept" this challenge.  But no one ever says this is "easy" or "quick".  Otis

Hi guys. I had never heard of non-surgical ways of treating myopia until I stumbled across this blog. While I admit I'm still a bit skeptical, I'm willing to give the method a try. One thing is I want to do is track my results, and I was hoping you can advise me on how to this self-experiment as scientifically as possible so that I can be sure that my vision is actually improving and I'm not just fooling myself. I was thinking of taking weekly Snellen measurements, should I be doing anything else?
I can't remember my prescription, but to give you an idea of where I'm at at arms length away from my computer monitor most text is readable but quite blurry (I usually lean forward a bit at my desk). I can't read the whiteboard at uni without sitting really close ( a couple of metres away), unless I wear my glasses. I also have terrible night vision. Do I even need plus lenses if text is already blurry at arms length?
I thought I would get my eyes tested at an optometrist first. Should I ask for anything in particular?
Sorry if these questions have already been covered. I'm really grateful to you guys for being so knowledgeable, and thanks for the information you've provided so far.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 29, 2011, 07:14:58 AM
Hi Andrew,
Subject: You ask about "prue science" and the opinion of an OD in his office.
Here is the difference:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Myopiafree2/message/5124
You can make your own judgment about whether an intelligent conversation is possible with such people -- DEFENDING THEIR PRACTICE.
I truly "gave up" a long time ago.  So I read my own Snellen and make certain I pass the legal line required of me.  There is another issue that is very important -- that is "dealing" with the "general public" and thair "anti-scientific attitude.  This is how I separate science from ODs -- who are FORCE TO DEAL WITH THESE PEOPLE.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Myopiafree2/message/5121
I am very sympathetic with an OD who "explains" that prevention is IMPOSSIBLE.  He is correct -- with this type of "mentality".
Science and prevention best, Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on May 29, 2011, 07:39:10 AM
Hi guys. I had never heard of non-surgical ways of treating myopia until I stumbled across this blog. While I admit I'm still a bit skeptical, I'm willing to give the method a try. One thing is I want to do is track my results, and I was hoping you can advise me on how to this self-experiment as scientifically as possible so that I can be sure that my vision is actually improving and I'm not just fooling myself. I was thinking of taking weekly Snellen measurements, should I be doing anything else?
I can't remember my prescription, but to give you an idea of where I'm at at arms length away from my computer monitor most text is readable but quite blurry (I usually lean forward a bit at my desk). I can't read the whiteboard at uni without sitting really close ( a couple of metres away), unless I wear my glasses. I also have terrible night vision. Do I even need plus lenses if text is already blurry at arms length?
I thought I would get my eyes tested at an optometrist first. Should I ask for anything in particular?
Sorry if these questions have already been covered. I'm really grateful to you guys for being so knowledgeable, and thanks for the information you've provided so far.

Welcome to this forum, Andrew.

If you read through the comments, you'll see in several places what is advised for people like yourself who have very strong myopia.  As you surmised in your note, you don't need to start out with plus lenses if text is already blurred at normal reading distances.  The key is not the plus lenses themselves but how you use your eyes to continually read right at the edge of blur, just as you would lift weights that are right at the edge of overload -- neither too light, nor too heavy to lift.  The eyes have an "auto focus" mechanism that will stimulate remodelling when slightly stimulated to focus, but will give up when the blur is too strong. So this technique is an art that requires conscious awareness, not an automatic process.

You don't need to visit an optometrist to use this technique. Best is to print out a Snellen chart like those that Otis has linked several times previously in this thread, hang it on a wall 20 feet away, and score yourself.  Then check your progress weekly.

It's fair to be skeptical.  But you'll notice one thing if you read through the comments here.  A small number (myself and about 5 others) have had major success, while the majority "give it a try" for about a week, see no progress, and give up.  The difference is that those who succeed understand that, like lifting weights to gain muscle mass, or running sprints to improve running speed, any natural adaptation of the body takes months to see real progress.  If you commit for 6 months, your eyesight WILL improve noticeably.  To sustain motivation, you really need to measure your progress with the Snellen, or you won't notice the continual small improvements.  Posting on a forum like this can also help motivation by being able to share your challenges and progress with others.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on May 29, 2011, 12:06:41 PM
Hi guys,


So I just started the therapy today, and have a few more questions:

- While wearing the plus, the "blurry but readable" range is fairly big; should I keep my head away as far as I can for maximum blur? Just a little blur? Or something in between? Sorry if I'm nitpicking here.

- Is straining helpful to modeling of the eye or possibly counterproductive?

- Todd states 1-3 hrs a day, some other sources state always during "near" work/reading? How much is too much?

- I have had myopia since I was a child. Not sure if I was born with it. If that were to be the case, can it still be reversed, in full or in part? Just curious, I'm giving it a shot either way.

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 29, 2011, 12:38:08 PM
Hi Rudy,
I am pleased you are wearing the plus.  What power of plus did you choose?  Also, do you have a prescription -- before you started with Ortho-K.  That is of interest to me.  Todd stated with a -3 diopter prescription.  Also, judgment of success.  For me, I judge passing the required DMV legal requirment to be very important -- even if I did not drive a car.  Some states it is 20/50, but most 20/40 or better WITH BOTH EYES OPEN.  I would suggest call it a success to get to that sustained level of vision.  For now, work with "blurry by reasonable -- with your +2 or +2.5.  It is always good to use "stronger" if you can.  "Taking prevnetive action" -- is it wise??  Is it "dangerous".  If you think it is -- then stop right now.  No one can tell you what you should do.  I don't strain when I read through a plus.  But if you call my reading through a plus "straining" then I "strain".  For me, how much you wear the plus.  For me, any work closer than one meter -- always, until I pass the 20/40 line. For me,  I think that the "minus" is well intended -- but harmful.  I think we should all be informed of the proven effect of a minus on ths natural eye (in science).  We should be warned about the danger of it.  Then we should make our choice before our Snellen goes belwo 20/50 to 20/60.  I WOULD PAY FOR THIS SERVICE.  But nothing like that has developed -- sorry to say.  Let us know what plus you are using, and your last prescription.  Very valuable for us to know.  Thanks!

Hi guys,


So I just started the therapy today, and have a few more questions:

- While wearing the plus, the "blurry but readable" range is fairly big; should I keep my head away as far as I can for maximum blur? Just a little blur? Or something in between? Sorry if I'm nitpicking here.

- Is straining helpful to modeling of the eye or possibly counterproductive?

- Todd states 1-3 hrs a day, some other sources state always during "near" work/reading? How much is too much?

- I have had myopia since I was a child. Not sure if I was born with it. If that were to be the case, can it still be reversed, in full or in part? Just curious, I'm giving it a shot either way.

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on May 29, 2011, 01:50:18 PM
Otis,

I bought the +2 as you suggested. 15€ for 3, no big deal if I have to go buy some stronger ones later on!

I don't have a prescription on paper -- not sure if I ever had it.
I do however have my old glasses which I could get rated.
My optician probably has a record too.
Both eyes beyond -3 though.

As for the straining, I didn't express myself properly. My native language is not English.
Whenever I said "straining" I meant "squinting".
Is squinting a good or a bad thing? Should I keep my eyes open wide or not?

As for the amount; I am often behind the computer for 12 hours a day.
I assumed that would be considered too much?

Thanks for the followup,
Rudy
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 29, 2011, 02:38:37 PM
Hi Rudy,
Subject: Always good to know where you started from.
If I am at 20/40, and need to "narrow" my eyes by "squinting" then I have no problem doing that.  For all distance closer than 20 feet or six meters, I don't have to squint.  But if I "squint" -- for me that is never a problem.  The data that I work with shows that the eye can change -- but it is indeed slow.  But the real issue is to keep the 20/40 you now have, by gradual "transition" to a low-cost plus -- to avoid that Ortho-K contact.  Personally I had a hard time with contact.  So anything I could do to avoid them -- was worth it -- meaning wearing the plus for all close work.  You mention doing 12 hours on the computer (close work).  THAT IS EXACTLY HOW AND WHY OUR REFRACTIVE STATE CHANGES FROM "PLUS" TO MINUS -- in the first place.  Some people would think that wearing a anti-prescribion +2.5 diotpers is "too much".  I love my distant vision clear -- and will pay that "price" to keep my eyes normal.  With a minus YOU ARE DEPENDENT ON IT.  With the plus, you are never dependent on it.  That is the real "trade off" of this trasition to wise use of the plus.  Here is a statement by a wise man who at age 14 wore the plus -- forever if necessary.  All preventoin is self-inspired.  YOu can not "impose" it on anyone -- because they will "fight" you if you attempt to do that.  Here is Colgate's statement:
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/AboutUs.txt
But like "fasting" it is clearly a matter of wise personal choice.  Best, Otis

Otis,

I bought the +2 as you suggested. 15€ for 3, no big deal if I have to go buy some stronger ones later on!

I don't have a prescription on paper -- not sure if I ever had it.
I do however have my old glasses which I could get rated.
My optician probably has a record too.
Both eyes beyond -3 though.

As for the straining, I didn't express myself properly. My native language is not English.
Whenever I said "straining" I meant "squinting".
Is squinting a good or a bad thing? Should I keep my eyes open wide or not?

As for the amount; I am often behind the computer for 12 hours a day.
I assumed that would be considered too much?

Thanks for the followup,
Rudy
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on May 29, 2011, 07:36:25 PM
- While wearing the plus, the "blurry but readable" range is fairly big; should I keep my head away as far as I can for maximum blur? Just a little blur? Or something in between? Sorry if I'm nitpicking here.

I read only at the edge of blur, which means at the very first detectable degree of blur, nothing more.  I define this as distance D2, as outlined on this thread: http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php/topic,8.msg781/topicseen.html#msg781

Is straining helpful to modeling of the eye or possibly counterproductive?  Todd states 1-3 hrs a day, some other sources state always during "near" work/reading? How much is too much?

The best analogy here is weightlifting. In weight lifting there is a tradeoff between how heavy the weight is and how many reps you should do. The best is to choose a weight that induces a slight "overload" but not too much, and lift it for a moderate number of reps, so that at the end of the set you are tired.  

In any activity, you should never "strain", if that means pushing yourself to be sore. You should always maintain "good form".  So applying this to plus lens therapy, that means reading right on the edge of blur (distance D2) for a moderate amount of time, which I consider to be a few hours per day at first.  If you can tolerate that without strain, soreness or tiredness, then by all means increase the time.  You have to be sensitive to your own eyes and how they feel.  Learn to pay attention to this.  So don't read with anything beyond barely noticeable blur, and gradually increase your distance or the strength of your plus lenses as your eyes strengthen.

On the other extreme, if you are reading with plus lenses all day long, you are probably not reading at the edge of blur, because if you were you would tire your eyes.

Some people think that plus lens therapy just means wearing plus lenses.  That is a serious misunderstanding!!  The technique only works if you understand the concept of progressive hormesis -- always pushing the edge, never overdoing it and never underdoing it.  It is really an art, like sailing a boat.  You cannot do this on autopilot.  If there is anything exhausting about it, it is the mental concentration and discipline required, not the physical effort.

I have had myopia since I was a child. Not sure if I was born with it. If that were to be the case, can it still be reversed, in full or in part? Just curious, I'm giving it a shot either way.

I don't know what it means to be "born with myopia".  There are genetic tendencies to myopia, but alcoholism is also a genetic tendency. Both can develop only by means of behavior.  There is no reason that you cannot reverse it.  It will be more difficult if you have strong myopia (higher than -4 or -5), but I had -3 and I eliminated my myopia.  So don't let anyone tell you can't do it.  

"Giving it a shot"...for how long?  It will take you several weeks of diligent effort to begin to see progress, and you'll only know if you are making progress if you measure your Snellen score.  At best you may progress one line on the chart in a few weeks. But to make substantial progress will take you months.  It's just like weight lifting...giving it a "shot" won't work...but hitting the gym regularly several times a week for several months will show progress.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on May 29, 2011, 08:32:07 PM
Hey everyone,

Sorry about not posting for a while. I have continued to press on with this method, even though I'm still continuing to plateau at 20/50. As of now, I won't have school for a while, so I should be free of prescription lenses. I hope to get to 20/40 by August.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on May 30, 2011, 02:41:54 AM
Hi guys,

I mentioned before how unstable my OrthoK was, one day is great and the other is poor... I am attributing today's result to that for the time being. I was (almost) 20/20 this morning, but it was all due to my right eye. Separately the right was about 20/20 and the left one had difficulty with the 20/40!

This variance will complicate both training and checking for results.
I think I will use the 1-wk or 2-wk average for determining progress in the future.

On days like today I guess I better cover up the 'good' eye and let the slacker work.

I made a very worrying observation yesterday. While wearing the OrthoK in bed right before sleeping I usually read a little while to clear my head and relax. Yesterday I wore the +2 glasses while doing it and noticed my sight was almost perfect... even in the distance. That means the OrthoK is giving me a massive overcorrection at night so my daytime sight will be optimal.

The problem I have with it is that I have been reading every most nights with this overcorrection and probably making my eyes worse while doing it. I think I will buy a +4 lens for reading while wearing the OrthoK. That should turn the overcorrection into an undercorrection.

Otis,

The cost isn't that bad for OrthoK, but that cost prevents me from progressively reducing my OrthoK prescription. I don't want to shell out a few hundred bucks every time I want to reduce by -0.25 diopters.

The issues I have with OrthoK are nightly protein buildup, infection worries, unstability, total dependence, and sleep interference. Once or more every week I wake up in the middle of the night to pain or discomfort in one of my eyes. A speck of dust on the lens is enough to force me to go wash my hands, take out the lens, clean and re-insert it.

Overall I still like the OthoK but it has some downsides.

Todd,

That distance explanation helps a lot, thanks! I will strive for 'D2' from now on.

As for straining -  I meant squinting, sorry.

But about your comparison to weight lifting, I definately go for soreness when weightlifting (to failure on every set). Short but intense and the results over 3 months are great!

As for "giving it a shot", you're reading too much into that. To me that means I will make a real effort. If it means less then that then I blame it on my lousy English, sorry about that!

As long as I see some medium term (months) progress I am willing to stick with it long term (years/decades). At least, as far as I know at this time. On the other hand if in six months I see no change I can't see myself sticking with it long term.

Does that seem reasonable?

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on May 30, 2011, 04:12:45 AM
Hi Rudy,
Subject: The power of self-measurement.
I know how difficult it is to do this self-measurement.  But, if you were at -3 diopters, then the process of Snellen clearing will be slow (in my judgment).  I know this is going to take some time to accomplish.  I do enjoy reading your commentary, since I have not seen a person (with Ortho-K) teach himself how to wear a plus.  I certainly recommend "stronger" plus if you can do it.  The idea is to get you were you can see your Snellen at 20/50 -20/40 through a fairly strong plus.  For instance, if you can read the Snellen through a +3, you can probably stop wearing the Ortho-K at night.  Then, your non-Ortho-K eyes will probably be at 20/70 to 20/60, and stabilize (or plateau) there.  It is valuable to know that others have done this work successfully.  I don't mind the "cost" but I realze that it takes an "independent mind" with resolve to do this work on your own.  I had all kinds of problems with any contacts (although the newer ones "wear better".  But still, I prefer that I keep my Snellen clear with my use of a plus.  There is obviously will be a period of months where you struggle with this work -- but I enjoy reviewing the concept with you.  I am hopeing that you can reach a point where your Snellen is clear enough -- so you can discard the Ortho-K lenses -- and not change their power at all.  Otis
++++
The cost isn't that bad for OrthoK, but that cost prevents me from progressively reducing my OrthoK prescription. I don't want to shell out a few hundred bucks every time I want to reduce by -0.25 diopters.

The issues I have with OrthoK are nightly protein buildup, infection worries, unstability, total dependence, and sleep interference. Once or more every week I wake up in the middle of the night to pain or discomfort in one of my eyes. A speck of dust on the lens is enough to force me to go wash my hands, take out the lens, clean and re-insert it.

Overall I still like the OthoK but it has some downsides.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Andrew D on May 30, 2011, 07:45:09 AM
Thanks Otis and Todd for your patient replies.

I generally have no problem keeping motivated with things if I see unmistakable improvement. For me, the improvement has to be objective and measurable it can't be just a 'feeling', which is why I want to be careful with my measurements.

I wanted to see an optometrist first because they will measure my acuity and I can compare this result to my own measurement to make sure I'm basically doing the right thing. The second reason is, they usually measure a few other things relating to eye health, and it would be good to know what condition my eyes are in  before I start so I can see if other issues get better or worse during the myopia treatment. Eye testing is covered by Medicare in Australia so is no financial cost to me.

Another thing relating to motivation is routine. Would it be possible to turn the treatment into an exercise I could do every night before I go to bed? Would something like 20 minutes of 'autofocus' exercises of the type described in the blog post be sufficient to see improvement?

Sorry if all this has been covered before, I know you are probably getting sick of answering the same questions over and over. I'm very eager to try the treatment and share my results.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on June 02, 2011, 01:44:55 AM
Hi guys,

My right eye is consistently much better then the left (today R20/20 L20/60), but possibly more because of double lines then regular blurryness.

I just noticed today on my snellen that my right eye can read the 20/60 better then the left eye, EVEN when the right eyes wears a +2 and the left does not! That means there is at least a 2 diopter difference between both?

I will do the same test coming days, but I am really thinking if I should quit my OrthoK sooner rather then later.

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on June 02, 2011, 02:18:07 AM
Hi Rudy,
Subject: I am IMPRESSED.
You must understand that you are working on long-term success -- and stabilization.  There is a nomral difference between the two eyes of about 3/4 to 1 diotpers.  Most DMV tests are done WITH BOTH EYES OPEN.  They specify what you read WITH THE BETTER EYE.  I don't know if you drive a car, but even I did not -- I would still work to pass the DMV level test.  It is wonderful that you can work with both Ortho-K and a plus lens.  I think we all enjoy hearing about the success of BOTH.  For the future, I would continue your work with the plus, and perhaps omit the wearing of Ortho-K for one night -- and see what happens.  (Your Snellen level will come down a bit.)  If it does, just continue with Ortho-K.  Eventually you will stablize at about 20/40 with both eyes.  To get to naked-eye 20/20, with then just take continued use of the anti-prescription (plus) lenses.  Typical real clearing takes about four to six months.  But congratulations on the personal experiment and work.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Sutefeni on June 02, 2011, 10:39:29 AM
Hi everyone!

It's been a while!

Per Todd's advice, I stopped using plus lenses for the computer and have been working glasses free.  Though when it comes to reading books or the ipad, I've been wearing plus lenses just because I have a habit of reading things up close and my eyes feel a bit more relaxed than without the plus lenses.

Is it ok to put plus lenses on top of minus lenses? Kind of the same idea as wearing plus lenses with contacts?  I know I look completely ridiculous, but I'm in a bit of a pinch and can't get lower prescription lenses yet.  So I've just been experimenting.  My minus lenses have gotten a little too strong for me (good sign??), but when I put the plus lenses ontop of them, it feels more comfortable.  I do this when I watch movies at the theater or at home at a far distance.

Thanks!  I'm happy to see everyone's improvement and learning more about different methods like the ortho-k contacts
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on June 02, 2011, 11:48:19 AM
I generally have no problem keeping motivated with things if I see unmistakable improvement. For me, the improvement has to be objective and measurable it can't be just a 'feeling', which is why I want to be careful with my measurements.

I wanted to see an optometrist first because they will measure my acuity and I can compare this result to my own measurement to make sure I'm basically doing the right thing. The second reason is, they usually measure a few other things relating to eye health, and it would be good to know what condition my eyes are in  before I start so I can see if other issues get better or worse during the myopia treatment. Eye testing is covered by Medicare in Australia so is no financial cost to me.

Another thing relating to motivation is routine. Would it be possible to turn the treatment into an exercise I could do every night before I go to bed? Would something like 20 minutes of 'autofocus' exercises of the type described in the blog post be sufficient to see improvement?

Andrew:  I think you are right that objective measurements of progress are more useful than subjective feelings, which can lead to self-deception.  I also think you are right about seeing an eye doctor, but probably an opthamologist is more qualified to assess general eye health than is an optometrist, who is mainly interested in selling you a new pair of glasses or contacts.  Finally, routines are certainly good way to stay motivated.  But rather than adding a separate set of "eye exercises", I find that it is best to integrate the use of plus lenses or print-pushing into your existing reading habits.  Whenever you read a book or sit at the computer, read at the edge of blur for stretches of 30 minutes.  When you attend a presentation or movie, sit as far back as you can.  When you go for a walk, look at objects near and far.  Integrating into an existing routine is more sustainable than an artificial add-on to your day.

My right eye is consistently much better then the left (today R20/20 L20/60), but possibly more because of double lines then regular blurryness.

I just noticed today on my snellen that my right eye can read the 20/60 better then the left eye, EVEN when the right eyes wears a +2 and the left does not! That means there is at least a 2 diopter difference between both?

I will do the same test coming days, but I am really thinking if I should quit my OrthoK sooner rather then later.

Rudy:  It is not unusual to have a strong eye and a weak eye, and a difference of more than 2 diopters is certainly possible.  In most activities where you use both eyes, the stronger eye will take over, so its not a problem.  However, you may want to work on strengthening your weak left eye, by using a patch or a diffuser over your stronger right eye (or by periodically winking it shut) to allow the left eye to carry more of the burden and get stronger.  I've written about that at several places on this thread, for example:

http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php/topic,8.msg386.html#msg386
http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php/topic,8.msg337/topicseen.html#msg337

I agree with Otis that you may want to take a short break from Ortho K and see whether you can benefit from the slower, but more permanent, benefits of using plus lenses to remodel your eyes.

Per Todd's advice, I stopped using plus lenses for the computer and have been working glasses free.  Though when it comes to reading books or the ipad, I've been wearing plus lenses just because I have a habit of reading things up close and my eyes feel a bit more relaxed than without the plus lenses.

Is it ok to put plus lenses on top of minus lenses? Kind of the same idea as wearing plus lenses with contacts?  I know I look completely ridiculous, but I'm in a bit of a pinch and can't get lower prescription lenses yet.  So I've just been experimenting.  My minus lenses have gotten a little too strong for me (good sign??), but when I put the plus lenses ontop of them, it feels more comfortable.  I do this when I watch movies at the theater or at home at a far distance.

Thanks!  I'm happy to see everyone's improvement and learning more about different methods like the ortho-k contacts

Sutefeni: Double-stacking plus and minus lens (to achieve the effect of undercorrection) may look a bit odd, but it is not at all a silly idea.  I actually tried the same myself early on in my progress, and my wife sometimes does this.  Its actually a good way to figure out what degree of undercorrection will work for you -- and it might be different for each eye.  That way, when you do eventually order weaker minus lenses, you will do so with the confidence that you'll have a comfortable, well-tested solution.  My advice would be to go for slightly more undercorrection than is initially comfortable, on the assumption that you will be improving soon enough and don't want to spend more than necessary on "transitional" glasses.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on June 03, 2011, 03:29:22 PM
Hi Andrew and Todd,
Subject: As an engineer -- I am indeed objective in making my own measurements.
Further, I trust Todd's statement of success to change his refractive STATE from -3 diopters to normal (in about one year).  But I trust his statements because 1) ODs agree with hims -- specifically a Dr. Arnold Sherman, and 2) Todd checks his own Snellen and make certain he OBJECTIVELY passes the required line -- of the DMV.  I have mailed a copy of Dr. Sherman's objective analysis, and success -- and will will review it here for your benifit.  He should have it by next week.  I has also intensively interviewed those objective optometrists who have relaized that they were "empowered" to help their own children in the use of the plus.  For me, objective testing means confirming the "bad effect" of a minus lens on the eye.  I present it here:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf
Thus you can indeed "cause myopia" in all natural eyes -- just by forced wearing of a minus lens.  This convinces me that the few ODs, calling the minus "poision glasses for children" --are indeed correct in terms of objective-science.  I know that no OD INTENDS to induce stair-case myopia -- because their argument is that the public "expects" the minus, and they have no obligation to tell you about objective science, and its implication to your long-term visual welfare.  I also argue for OBJECTIVE checking of your own Snellen -- because just "feeling better" about your vision -- does not "count".  Tha is why I post a copy of a Snellen -- and ask the person to objectively read it.  Very few people seem to be able to take that step -- for reasons that I simply do not understand.  I wish you great success with your work to clear your vision.  Otis

Andrew:  I think you are right that objective measurements of progress are more useful than subjective feelings, which can lead to self-deception.  I also think you are right about seeing an eye doctor, but probably an opthamologist is more qualified to assess general eye health than is an optometrist, who is mainly interested in selling you a new pair of glasses or contacts.  Finally, routines are certainly good way to stay motivated.  But rather than adding a separate set of "eye exercises", I find that it is best to integrate the use of plus lenses or print-pushing into your existing reading habits.  Whenever you read a book or sit at the computer, read at the edge of blur for stretches of 30 minutes.  When you attend a presentation or movie, sit as far back as you can.  When you go for a walk, look at objects near and far.  Integrating into an existing routine is more sustainable than an artificial add-on to your day.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on June 03, 2011, 07:04:42 PM
Hi Andrew and Todd,
Tragically "medicine" is simply not "objective science".  It is often "cut and try" where something that works instantly and sells -- becomes "standard practice".  It is very hard for anyone "in practice" to deviate from that basic philosophy, and the concept of "anti-prescription" gasses that don't produce any "instant effect" -- are rejected for exactly that reason.  It takes a wise person to figure that truth out -- it seems.  But there are now "brave" objective optometrists who will tell you the same truth that Todd discovered.  Here is the second-opinion of a highly qualified professional, Dr. Arnold Sherman. He paper:  "Myopia can often be PREVENTED, CONTROLLED or ELIMINATED" is objective science.  If you are not driving a car -- you not have to pass the 20/40 line on that electronic Snellen. Dr. Sherman states:
"My approach for adaptive un-compensated myopes is as follows"
1. No distance lens "correction"
2. Nearpoint lens prescription (he means plus lens. OSB) for prolonged reading
(more than 20 mintes) in single vision form. etc.
While some ODs will disparage this type of preventive approach -- it is wise to
understand it.  It is wise to understand that the standard "down" rate for the average normal
eye is about -1/2 diopter per year for each kid at grade 1 through grade 12.
This is part of the reason Dr. Sherman makes this stark statment to avoid the
minus and habitually wear the plus for prevention.
I know that the concept is perhaps "difficult", but I personally wish that I had
a wise optometrist helping me with prevention -- when it could have been
effective. Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Andrew D on June 04, 2011, 09:05:34 AM
Thanks Otis and Todd for your replies,
I also argue for OBJECTIVE checking of your own Snellen -- because just "feeling better" about your vision -- does not "count".  Tha is why I post a copy of a Snellen -- and ask the person to objectively read it.  Very few people seem to be able to take that step -- for reasons that I simply do not understand.  I wish you great success with your work to clear your vision.  Otis
Regarding that first step, at the moment my room is in a state where it is actually impossible for me to be safely 20 feet away from my monitor and still see it. Fortunately, that link you sent me allowed me to adjust the viewing distance and with that I got about 20/80 in my right eye and 20/70 with my left.

I understand what you're saying about ODs, they probably wouldn't support this kind of treatment. I don't want to go there to discuss this treatment though, just to get some measurements. Most ophthalmologists nearby are laser eye surgery businesses, so there may be some conflict of interest there too. I don't know where to look for 'good' ODs.

Todd, I will try the method you suggest of reading for 30 mins just out of focus. I didn't know you could do this while reading (I thought you had to just stare at one point on the page), so thanks for clearing that up that will be a lot easier.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on June 05, 2011, 07:35:05 AM
Hi Andrew,
I will not presume to tell you what you should do.  But you should know that there are plus-prevention doctors who help their own cihldren -- by insisting they wear the plus for "preventive" purposes.  Here are the ones who I have had personal communication with over the last thirty years:  Steve Leung OD
http://www.chinamyopia.org/
Kaisu -- Ophthalmologist:
http://www.kaisuviikari.com/book/index.htm
Brumer -- in Austrailia:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~brumermaurice/
Feel free to contact them if you wish.  I think Maurice would be very interested in helping you.
Otis



Thanks Otis and Todd for your replies,
I also argue for OBJECTIVE checking of your own Snellen -- because just "feeling better" about your vision -- does not "count".  Tha is why I post a copy of a Snellen -- and ask the person to objectively read it.  Very few people seem to be able to take that step -- for reasons that I simply do not understand.  I wish you great success with your work to clear your vision.  Otis
Regarding that first step, at the moment my room is in a state where it is actually impossible for me to be safely 20 feet away from my monitor and still see it. Fortunately, that link you sent me allowed me to adjust the viewing distance and with that I got about 20/80 in my right eye and 20/70 with my left.

I understand what you're saying about ODs, they probably wouldn't support this kind of treatment. I don't want to go there to discuss this treatment though, just to get some measurements. Most ophthalmologists nearby are laser eye surgery businesses, so there may be some conflict of interest there too. I don't know where to look for 'good' ODs.

Todd, I will try the method you suggest of reading for 30 mins just out of focus. I didn't know you could do this while reading (I thought you had to just stare at one point on the page), so thanks for clearing that up that will be a lot easier.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: karim1986 on June 05, 2011, 02:20:34 PM
Hi everyone,

first, thanks to you (firstly to you, Todd, for your blog) for giving advice on improving eyesight and sharing your experiences.
I'd like to ask a question: will the plus lens technique be effective even if I'm not able to really clear the text? Maybe it's due to my astigmatism if there is a bit of blur left, especially as horizontal lines seem to remain blurry as opposed to vertical ones (my most recent Rx gives cylinders of R -0.5/L -0.75, both at 0°)?

Karim
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on June 05, 2011, 02:51:44 PM
Hi everyone,

first, thanks to you (firstly to you, Todd, for your blog) for giving advice on improving eyesight and sharing your experiences.
I'd like to ask a question: will the plus lens technique be effective even if I'm not able to really clear the text? Maybe it's due to my astigmatism if there is a bit of blur left, especially as horizontal lines seem to remain blurry as opposed to vertical ones (my most recent Rx gives cylinders of R -0.5/L -0.75, both at 0°)?

Karim

Hi Karim, and welcome.  Yes, the plus lenses or print pushing will work even if you have some residual blur and not total clarity.  You may also find that as you get closer to 20/20 the astigmatism resolves on its own.  But first focus on increasing the distance away from print that you can read, using plus lenses whenever it gets "too easy" to read using your unaided eyes, or practice by sitting as far back as possible from the TV, lectures, or more distant objects of interest.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: karim1986 on June 05, 2011, 11:27:15 PM

Hi Karim, and welcome.  Yes, the plus lenses or print pushing will work even if you have some residual blur and not total clarity.  You may also find that as you get closer to 20/20 the astigmatism resolves on its own.  But first focus on increasing the distance away from print that you can read, using plus lenses whenever it gets "too easy" to read using your unaided eyes, or practice by sitting as far back as possible from the TV, lectures, or more distant objects of interest.

Thank you so much! So I'll patiently keep on reading at the blur point, moving the print closer and further in order to increase my reading distance.

I use undercorrection (except for driving) because no correction at all is too blurry for me; I can't see people's faces from a reasonable distance. My Rx is/was R -2.5 -0.5*0/L -2.75 -0.75*0. At home or in the computer lab I use -1, for leaving the house/lectures I use -2. I've found I can reasonably use the latter ones for driving, and soon try moving to -0.5/-1.5. I've not reliably measured my Snellen index, but I've got a chart converted for 3m/10ft that the other morning gave me 1.0 through my -2 lenses.

So, I'll keep on posting about further advances and results.

Karim
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on June 06, 2011, 05:51:55 AM
Hi Karim and Todd,
Subject: Review of paper on prevention by Dr. Sherman (optometrist).
Dr. Sherman publised a paper on "plus-prevention" that I sent to Todd for his review.  I believe that we should all be aware of this change in attitude about prevention that must be developed in the future.  Here are my commentary on this semminal scientific paper supporting plus-prevention.
+++++++++
Subject: The “Sherman” paper corrects some false impressions.

If you advocate “change” – (use of the plus at the threshold for the purpose of prevention) you are called a “crack-pot, idiot, anti-science, etc.).  Dr. Sherman states the concept of prevention accurately.

I think that the Sherman paper should go along way to correcting that impression.

1)       Optometry is not monolithic  (i.e., there is a second-opinion that objects to the minus lens).
2)       Second-opinion ODs strongly support the idea that a plus should be stated, before a person’s refractive state goes below -1.5 diopters. (about 20/60 on Snellen).
3)       Success is claimed for this type of work – provided the person will take it seriously, and actually make dedicated use of a plus (and other “therapy” at that point.

Thus your success to get your Snellen back to normal – is very reasonable – even though it took a year to do it.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on June 06, 2011, 06:37:36 AM
As Otis notes, Alan Sherman's paper is excellent, and it demonstrates support from a prominent professor of optometry for the use of plus lenses to "prevent, control or eliminate" myopia.  I've uploaded it under the Rehabilitation links on the front page of my blog, but you can also just click HERE (http://gettingstronger.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Sherman-Myopia-JBH-1993.pdf) to read it.  It was published as part of a "debate", jointly with another paper by Theodore Grosvenor arguing the contrary position.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on June 12, 2011, 07:20:31 PM
I know that some people "take to" the plus, and clear their vision back to normal.  Other people hate the idea, and will not stick with ths plus to see the desired results.  But it is always a pleasure when a very bright student does it -- becasue of a strong personal desire to succeed.  It seems you can not "prescribe" this -- but rather the "force of will" MUST come from the person himself.  This is no different that "weight loss" or "health training".  This is why this is not medical in nature or effect.  Here is August's statement of his success for your encouragement.

http://schwerdfeger.name/articles/pluslens.shtml

Enjoy your success!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on June 13, 2011, 07:12:11 AM
Hi guys,

Just a quick update. Considering the great variance that I have with my eyes on OrthoK I really couldn't say if I had any progress so far. I expect this to remain difficult for the short to medium term.

Most days my right eye is significantly better then the left, but when I tried covering up the strong eye to train the weak one it really interfered with my work, so that is not an option. Maybe glasses with a stronger plus on the right side but I'll have to do some DIY for that.

Otis, you suggest continuing to use OrthoK even after I succeed correcting part of my myopia. However, that would result in OthoK overcorrecting, which I am not really comfortable with. After all when overcorrected and not wearing the plus, won't the eyes just try to increase the myopia again?

I bought a +3 as well however that's the maximum the cheaper stores carry around here. I need stronger to compensate the overcorrection during the wearing of the OrthoK (eg for nighttime reading).

There's a good chance I'll switch to regular contacts soon for decent plus lens training, however for the time being I'll give OthoK a little longer...

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on June 24, 2011, 10:52:04 AM
Remarks about our friend Jansen.
If he is still reading this -- then I hope he will respond.
1) I am very pleased you followed Todd's advice, and began reading your Snellen, wearing the plus, and clearing your Snellen from 20/80 to 20/50.  (His previous refractive state was -1.5 diotpers, which corresponds to about 20/80).
2) Your use of the plus (about +1.5 diopters) got you to 20/50, which allows you to function with no minus lens.  That is a major success.
3) I think you are in high school.  What we know is that our eyes go down about -1/2 diopter each year in school, and continues in college.
4) Thus success in getting a change of +3/4 diopters in five months, indicates that if you continue to use the plus, and "move" to a +2.5 diopter -- you could get to 20/20 in about another five months.
5) I advocate that pilots do this (and have done it) because the "tedious" nature of wearing a plus systematically, is indeed difficult.  But, for me it is worth it.
Thanks for staying with us long enough to get to 20/50.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on June 25, 2011, 12:35:24 PM

Hi Otis,

Sorry for the late update. I saw a reply from you a week ago and meant to answer it later, but now it's disappeared. I do remember though that you couldn't understand why I want to drop OrthoK while doing the plus lens therapy.

Since you are so convinced this may work with OrthoK maybe some of my reasons are based on mistaken beliefs of how OrthoK or plus lens works, so I'll detail my reasoning and you can tell me if I got something wrong here:

1) My eyes are myopic; the axial length is too long resulting in the focus point falling in front of the retina - causing blur.

2) OrthoK remodels my cornea overnight so that in the daytime the light entering my eyes is refracted and the focus point is back on the retina. The axial length is still too long though - one effect cancels out the other. This is the same as wearing daytime contacts or glasses.

3) A plus lens over the (corrected) eye refracts the light so the focus point goes back in front the retina. The idea is to to train the eyes at the point of blur during close work/reading - effectively trying to trick the eyes into making the axial length shorter again.

4) Let's hypothetically say I train with OrthoK & plus lens for some months and my eyes improve 1 diopters. Let's say I went from -3 to -2 diopters. This should mean the axial length of my eyes got SHORTER. Great, this is what we're looking for. However...

5) At night my CORNEA is still being corrected for a -3 diopters, even though my excessive axial length only causes a -2 diopters vision loss. My eyes are now overcorrected to +1 diopters.

6) The overcorrection means that whenever I am not using a plus lens, the focus point lies behind the retina and my eyes will be trying to increase the axial length again - meaning they will try to go back to the -3 diopters.

7) I could wear +1 reading glasses during all far viewing to compensate - resulting in no overcorrection - BUT that means I wear a +3 during close work (plus lens therapy) and a +1 during far viewing (compensating the overcorrection). If I am wearing glasses all the time anyway, then whats the point of OrthoK? I could just as well wear regular (slightly undercorrected) glasses or contacts which can be progressively decreased unlike OrthoK.

8 ) The strategy of occasionally skipping the wearing of the OrthoK lenses doesn't work for me. When I skip one night my eyes are really bad the day after - not just a slight undercorrection. Whenever I wear them again the correction is for the full -3, not that sight is perfect but it's not like putting in the OrthoK corrects a certain percentage of diopters a night, the full correction is attempted.

Another big problem I experience is the big difference in sight between my corrected left & right eyes. My right eye is usually at 20/20 or 30/20 and basically does all the work while the lazy left just sits at 50/20 or worse basically doing nothing, not being trained by the plus lens and making vision somewhat uncomfortable. I don't want to cover up the right eye because it interferes with my work.

Yet another worry is that the poor vision in the left eye is not really caused by regular blur. If I look at the snellen with a plus lens over my right I get the expected blur, just a loss of sharpness really. With the OrthoK corrected left eye though, all letters on the Snellen - even 60/20 - have a strange ghosting effect, where several images of the same letter make it unreadable. I'm heading to my optician soon to check this out but first I would have liked to make the decision on whether to drop the OrthoK or not.

So that's my take, Otis.
I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter?

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on June 25, 2011, 04:17:38 PM
Hi Rudy,
What ever your analysis -- you must decide this issue.  I would be interested to hear what your optometrist has to say about both Ortho-K and the plus.  For me the "end result" must be that I can pass the required DMV, on my "home" Snellen.  To encourage you in your use of the plus, let me post these remarks from an engineer, who cleared off about -5 diopters by using methods advocated by Professor Kaisu Viikari. 
http://pluslens.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/testimony_brief_v13_160511.pdf
The amount of clearing is indeed incredible, and he did not use Ortho-K to achieve it.  So perhaps you can reduce Ortho-K and concentrate more time on "just the plus".  We are all here to help you -- but you must be the leader in this effort.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on June 26, 2011, 01:49:36 AM

Hi Otis,

Does that mean I'm not misunderstanding anything about OrthoK/plus?
I just want to make sure my reasoning hold water...
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on June 26, 2011, 03:50:25 AM
Rudy,
I think each of us must "reason out" -- why it would be a good idea to use the plus!  I don't give ODs a "hard time" about these issues, nor you either.  Some people, like Todd, read about Brian Severson useing a plus, take up the challenge, wear it, and slowly clear their Snellen to normal.  For many other people, that does not make "sense".  You have provided an anlaysis of a "camera".  But the natural eye is far more than that.  How do I know?  Because if you place a strong minus on the eye, you "cause myopia".  That means that these camera analysis (that we go though in high school) are simply not accurate or correct.  They are misleading.  Rather that attempt to "argue" too much about this, I will provide this site to read so YOU can judge:
http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/newday/
The data in this paper convinces me that Todd is correct and, as objective science -- successful.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on June 26, 2011, 08:31:55 AM
Ruby,

It sounds like the use of the OrthoK is really complicating this whole issue. Given the cost, it is unfeasible to get new ones in .5 diopter increments. My advice is simply to return to wearing glasses for the time it takes to correct your vision. This is, even under good circumstances, a long process,  but seems worth the time and effort to me. Wearing glasses (or even contacts -- you might be able to get those in reduced prescription), as annoying as it might be in comparison to your OrthoK, seems like the best option by far.

Regarding the ghosting effect, that could be from an astigmatism. But I would still advice seeing someone about it if it worries you.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on June 26, 2011, 09:00:21 AM
Here are my responses to your questions, Rudy:

... I'll detail my reasoning and you can tell me if I got something wrong here:

1) My eyes are myopic; the axial length is too long resulting in the focus point falling in front of the retina - causing blur.

2) OrthoK remodels my cornea overnight so that in the daytime the light entering my eyes is refracted and the focus point is back on the retina. The axial length is still too long though - one effect cancels out the other. This is the same as wearing daytime contacts or glasses.
Correct so far.

Quote
3) A plus lens over the (corrected) eye refracts the light so the focus point goes back in front the retina. The idea is to to train the eyes at the point of blur during close work/reading - effectively trying to trick the eyes into making the axial length shorter again.
OK, but I would not call this a "trick".  Plus lenses stimulate a permanent remodeling in the eye that shortens axial length.

Quote
4) Let's hypothetically say I train with OrthoK & plus lens for some months and my eyes improve 1 diopters. Let's say I went from -3 to -2 diopters. This should mean the axial length of my eyes got SHORTER. Great, this is what we're looking for. However...

5) At night my CORNEA is still being corrected for a -3 diopters, even though my excessive axial length only causes a -2 diopters vision loss. My eyes are now overcorrected to +1 diopters.
If that is the case, why wouldn't you then switch to using weaker Ortho K lenses to induce a -2 correction?  If the reason is cost, then I would just stop using the Ortho K lenses and go with the plus lenses, which are very inexpensive.  At any rate, unless you want to continue using the Ortho K crutch for the rest of your life, you have to make a decision at some point to get rid of them.  I see Ortho K as at best a temporary expedient.

Quote
6) The overcorrection means that whenever I am not using a plus lens, the focus point lies behind the retina and my eyes will be trying to increase the axial length again - meaning they will try to go back to the -3 diopters.

7) I could wear +1 reading glasses during all far viewing to compensate - resulting in no overcorrection - BUT that means I wear a +3 during close work (plus lens therapy) and a +1 during far viewing (compensating the overcorrection). If I am wearing glasses all the time anyway, then whats the point of OrthoK? I could just as well wear regular (slightly undercorrected) glasses or contacts which can be progressively decreased unlike OrthoK.

8 ) The strategy of occasionally skipping the wearing of the OrthoK lenses doesn't work for me. When I skip one night my eyes are really bad the day after - not just a slight undercorrection. Whenever I wear them again the correction is for the full -3, not that sight is perfect but it's not like putting in the OrthoK corrects a certain percentage of diopters a night, the full correction is attempted.
Yes, you make a good argument for not using Ortho K.  I never used them and never will.  They are just another crutch that creates dependence. Perhaps a bit more convenient than glasses or daytime contacts.  But if they stand in the way of permanent vision freedom, why use them?  It's like heroin addicts turning to methadone to get off the heroin.  At some point, you still have to wean yourself off the drugs -- either rapidly or slowly.

Quote
Another big problem I experience is the big difference in sight between my corrected left & right eyes. My right eye is usually at 20/20 or 30/20 and basically does all the work while the lazy left just sits at 50/20 or worse basically doing nothing, not being trained by the plus lens and making vision somewhat uncomfortable. I don't want to cover up the right eye because it interferes with my work.
If you read through the threads on this forum and blog, you will see several times my recommendations for how to deal with uneven eye strength by using patches, diffusers, or your hand.

Quote
Yet another worry is that the poor vision in the left eye is not really caused by regular blur. If I look at the snellen with a plus lens over my right I get the expected blur, just a loss of sharpness really. With the OrthoK corrected left eye though, all letters on the Snellen - even 60/20 - have a strange ghosting effect, where several images of the same letter make it unreadable. I'm heading to my optician soon to check this out but first I would have liked to make the decision on whether to drop the OrthoK or not.
My advice:  Drop the Ortho K and try plus lenses and threshold focusing.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on June 28, 2011, 07:57:17 AM
Hi Todd,

Progressively reducing OrthoK as you would with regular contacts isn't as straightforward. A specific curvature doesn't result in the same correction for everybody. For this reason there is sort of a 'titration' period where you try out several lenses over a period of a few months (this period, including a pair of OrthoK contacts that you can wear for 1 year costs me €500).

So yes I imagine this would be very expensive and very unpractical, significantly complicating and lengthening plus lens therapy even if successful.

I tried covering up my right eye but found it to interfere with my work. Instead I'll try rigging a L-2 and R-3 pair of glasses.

Thanks for your take Todd, I am also heavily leaning towards dropping the OrthoK while doing the plus lens therapy. If I can find a decent daytime contact that works for me that's precisely what I'll do.

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on July 01, 2011, 05:15:27 AM
Hi Rudy and Todd,
Here is a video on Ortho-K in the USA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuqqgbxnZ8A&feature=feedrec_grec_index

They truly say -- it will NEVER stop your vision from "getting worse".  Thus, Todd's skill in "getting out of it", or the price of his motivation is very important.  I personally object to "open-ended" treatments that do not envision me "getting out of it".  Otis


Hi Todd,

Progressively reducing OrthoK as you would with regular contacts isn't as straightforward. A specific curvature doesn't result in the same correction for everybody. For this reason there is sort of a 'titration' period where you try out several lenses over a period of a few months (this period, including a pair of OrthoK contacts that you can wear for 1 year costs me €500).

So yes I imagine this would be very expensive and very unpractical, significantly complicating and lengthening plus lens therapy even if successful.

I tried covering up my right eye but found it to interfere with my work. Instead I'll try rigging a L-2 and R-3 pair of glasses.

Thanks for your take Todd, I am also heavily leaning towards dropping the OrthoK while doing the plus lens therapy. If I can find a decent daytime contact that works for me that's precisely what I'll do.

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on July 02, 2011, 04:24:14 AM
Hi Otis & Todd,

So yesterday was a little strange for my right eye - in the morning my right eye saw sharper with the plus on then without it (I'd guesstimate I was at +1.5 overcorrection). It normalized over the course of the day, with perfect vision in the right by the evening. My eyes on OrthoK always fluctuate and the right is back to normal today (no overcorrection in the morning, about R30/20 L50/20).

Still; yesterday I figured was a good time to get a checkup so I went to my optician.
He doesn't seem concerned about the difference in right/left (though it is still unconfortable to me).
It is quite uncommon though for eyes to deteriorate as fast as mine during a single day after a night of OrthoK.

So I explained the plus lens thing, which he is somewhat familiar with. He doesn't really believe in it but is willing to accomodate me as I try it out (undercorrecting a little etc).

As I can't wear soft lenses very well (dry eyes in the evening) I'm going for rigid contacts to start with. I wouldn't want to switch them out very frequently considering their expense, so what maximum undercorrection would be advisable? I guess the standard undercorrection would be around -0.5 diopters? Would it still be acceptable to undercorrect -0.75, or would that be unhealthy for my eyes?

That way I could keep one pair of contacts for longer as my eyes improve, assuming that they do ofcourse.

The OrthoK needs a run-out period of about 4 weeks (= 4 weeks of poor vision) before starting new contacts so I've decided to keep OrthoK for a little while longer to enjoy the summer months, and then start rigid contacts in September. I'll keep plus training in the mean time but I'm not expecting much out of it during OrthoK. It's only a 2 month delay though.

When I get a measurement after the OrthoK run-out period I'll ask for something on paper, which we can use as a baseline - and perhaps if successful add it to the existing volume of evidence.

Thanks for your help so far guys, I'll keep you up to date.

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on July 03, 2011, 07:39:04 AM
As I can't wear soft lenses very well (dry eyes in the evening) I'm going for rigid contacts to start with. I wouldn't want to switch them out very frequently considering their expense, so what maximum undercorrection would be advisable? I guess the standard undercorrection would be around -0.5 diopters? Would it still be acceptable to undercorrect -0.75, or would that be unhealthy for my eyes?

That way I could keep one pair of contacts for longer as my eyes improve, assuming that they do ofcourse.

The OrthoK needs a run-out period of about 4 weeks (= 4 weeks of poor vision) before starting new contacts so I've decided to keep OrthoK for a little while longer to enjoy the summer months, and then start rigid contacts in September. I'll keep plus training in the mean time but I'm not expecting much out of it during OrthoK. It's only a 2 month delay though.

When I get a measurement after the OrthoK run-out period I'll ask for something on paper, which we can use as a baseline - and perhaps if successful add it to the existing volume of evidence.

Hi Rudy,

I would usually undercorrect by no more than -0.50 to avoid discomfort, but if you can tolerate -0.75 you may do fine. My concern would be that your eyes would "give up" trying to focus if the undercorrection is too strong.  However, if you work diligently with plus lenses, you may improve sufficiently to make the -0.75 workable.  If you are young and healthy, and eat a diet low in sugar and higher in omega-3 fatty acids and beta carotene, your eyes may adapt faster too.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about a 4-week "run-out period" for OrthoK.  What does this mean and where does such a requirement come from?  I'm not sure what the point is of using Ortho K and plus lenses at the same time, since they seem to be "fighting" each other, based on your earlier posts.  Kind of like hitting the accelerator and the brakes at the same time.

Glad to hear your O.D. will at least begrudgingly cooperate with undercorrection.  I think that more and more doctors are realizing that their patients are starting to think for themselves, and that a certain degree of accommodation is necessary or these patients will take their business elsewhere. I've found this to be true with my own general practitioner, whose understanding of diet and cardiovascular disease is somewhat old school; he sees that my low carb / Paleo approach has improved my blood lipids, inflammatory markers, and insulin despite my defiance of his "low fat" dietary advice.  So old dogs can learn new tricks.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on July 05, 2011, 12:43:29 AM
Todd,

Thanks, I think I'll keep it in the -.5 range as you recommend. I'm 33 and my diet is semi-paleo (once or twice a week wheat, restaurant food and a few daily sweets are my most important sins).

I do have a feeling my eyes adapt fast - in the past this meant they got worse fast but now that I'm re-educated it may also mean they improve fast. In fact Ive noticed being slightly OrthoK-overcorrected for the last 4 days in a row. Could still be coincidence but the odds of a real improvement are pretty good I would say.

About the run-out period: the OrthoK reshapes my cornea and some of that remodeling takes longer to disappear. Apparently this usually takes 4 to 6 weeks. As we've established my cornea does revert back faster then normal, but my optician doesn't want to go below 4 weeks.

You're right, I am hitting both the accelerator and the brakes right now. For my eyes it would be better to cold turkey OrthoK right now. Last few days I started occasionally wearing a +2 even for far viewing - to compensate for the overcorrection. I'm keeping OrthoK a little longer though, it gives me the chance to enjoy the summer and allows me the time to compose a trial lens kit - more on that below.

Yes I think doctors are making allowances for the increased profileration of information sharing over the internet. I have a feeling my optician is even cautious making absolutio statements about the plus lens, maybe so he doesn't run the risk of being proven wrong?

Otis,

I've been thinking more about the contacts and reading some more of your posts/info on the web and realized that you are right: I should indeed give the contact-lens free approach a chance first.
During my run-out period I will have 4 weeks without contacts anyway - I might as well extend that a little longer and see what kind of progression I make without a contact lens crutch. If my progression is rapid I won't switch back to contacts if I can avoid it.

As a general guideline let's call a 0.25 diopters/month very rapid. If I can get close to that I'll go with just Zennioptical glasses while progressing. On the other hand if my progression is on the slow side (0.25 diopters/quarter or slower) then I will probably seek the contact lens crutch for using some of the time (leisure time, going out, etc...).

Don't get me wrong, even if I get only 0.25 a quarter it would be a huge success to me.

I read somewhere that you recommended to just ignore the astigmatism while plus lens training - is that the case for everybody or does it depend on the severity of astigmatism? As you suggest I will compose a trial lens kit from Zennioptical and wonder if I should get some astigmatism lenses as well.

Thanks for all the help guys,
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on July 05, 2011, 03:10:44 AM
Hi Rudy. 
I know that plus-prevention is the (personal) goal of a few optometrists.  They recognize the widsom of it, and insist that their own chilren start wearing the plus as soon as their refractive status goes below zero.  (Measured with a trial lens kit and the Snellen.)  But they have "control" over their own children, and no "control" over people walking in "off the street".  Thus true prevention is indeed personal.  These children are successful -- and always pass the required line on the Snellen.  But the "average person" does not understand the necessity of wearing the plus at the 20/40 level, so that is indeed a profound problem.  I strongly recommend that, consistent with passing the 20/40 to 20/50 line on your Snellen -- you avoid any use of a minus lens.  (Except for driving a car.)  I would read my two sites about these subjects for your own benifit. 
Rudy> I've been thinking more about the contacts and reading some more of your posts/info on the web and realized that you are right: I should indeed give the contact-lens free approach a chance first.
Otis> Consistent with personally verifying your Snellen at 20/50 or better.
Rudy> During my run-out period I will have 4 weeks without contacts anyway - I might as well extend that a little longer and see what kind of progression I make without a contact lens crutch. If my progression is rapid I won't switch back to contacts if I can avoid it.
Otis> Again, making certain you pass the 20/50 line and ALWAYS WER A PLUS FOR ALL CLOSE WORK.  This DOES TAKE TIME -- SO BE PREPARED.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on July 05, 2011, 03:18:29 AM
For Rudy, Part 2:
Rudy> As a general guideline let's call a 0.25 diopters/month very rapid. If I can get close to that I'll go with just Zennioptical glasses while progressing. On the other hand if my progression is on the slow side (0.25 diopters/quarter or slower) then I will probably seek the contact lens crutch for using some of the time (leisure time, going out, etc...).
Otis>  I would put strong emphasis on personal checking of your Snellen.  The broad "general rate" of change can be about +1 diopter per year, so "change" is indeed slow.  But your Snellen can change faster than that -- and that is the real goal -- to have a reasonable objective that you can check yourself.
Rudy> Don't get me wrong, even if I get only 0.25 a quarter it would be a huge success to me.
Otis>  Getting to 20/40 with no Ortho-K would be the most important objective to achieve -- but that is just "my" opinion.  You get there, and then you can continue with the plus and gradually get to 20/25 and 20/20 -- in my opinion.  Any use of the minus simply "inhibits" that process, and since you can not take a minus-contact in an out -- that rules out the contact.  That is why  I get my lenses from Zennioptical.
Rudy>I read somewhere that you recommended to just ignore the astigmatism while plus lens training - is that the case for everybody or does it depend on the severity of astigmatism?
Otis>  I check with spherial lenses from Zenni -- No need for cyl (astig) at all.
As you suggest I will compose a trial lens kit from Zennioptical and wonder if I should get some astigmatism lenses as well.
Otis> Don't need astig lenses.  Just check to see that a  "spherial" will clear the 20/20 line.


Otis> As always -- this is not easy.  Have a goal that is reasonable  and accept that it will take some time to achieve your goal.
Best, Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on July 05, 2011, 06:58:48 PM
Hi Rudy,
Subject: How and why I "gave up" on ODs, and now make my own measurements.
There are some truly fine ODs who support this preventive concept.  But, I finally realized that I had to make these (refractive) measurements myself.  Here is a summary of the trial lenses I obtained from "InFocus" and Zennioptical for my own use.  I beleve that if a person makes these measurements -- he will truly believe in his own results. See:

http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/trial-lens/
A further major advantage to doing these measurements is that you can "prescribe for yourself" -- thus saving a massive amount of money.  This is truly the "independent mind" of an engineer at work.
Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on July 06, 2011, 02:16:10 AM
Hi Otis,

Thanks for your insights!

Now when you say avoiding a minus lens consistent with clearing the 20/50 line - you do mean ONLY avoid the minus (for far viewing) if you can clear the 20/50 line, right?

Right now, without OrthoK I think even the 20/200 line will give me trouble in the beginning. So, I will self-prescribe a Zennioptical lens that gets me to the 20/50 line, and lower the correction as my eyesight gets better until no correction is needed to clear the 20/50 line. In the meantime I do close work at the point of blur as much as possible (using whatever +lens i need). Is that about right?

I agree that getting to the the 20/40 snellen is a better goal then the actual refractive state.

Rest assured - I am committed. As long as I see at least some progress I will keep 'training'. Sure I would prefer to achieve somewhat decent vision in a year, but if it takes five years that's good too.

Thanks again,
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on July 06, 2011, 02:44:32 AM
Hi Rudy,
In many ways, I describe what "I" would do, if:
1)  Ortho-K gave me 20/30 or so by wearing it at night as you are doing it.
2)  Your visual acuity when you stop wearing Ortho-K is about 20/200 -- as you say.  That is about -3 diopters -- if you had your own trial lens kit to verify it.
What "I" would do if I were you?
1) I would continue to wear that Ortho-K at night.
2) I would wear a strong plus for all close work.
3) I would continue doing this for about two or three months -- since you are comfortable with Ortho-K.
4) Then I would "quit" Ortho-K for about a week, and see how my vision "rebounded" in a negative direction, and check both visual acuity and refractive status myself.
The "rate" at which our eyes "go down" in a school environment is about -1/2 diopter per year.  Obviously I think we should "stop it" before we wear even that first minus lens.  I think that "first minus" simply accellerates" the rate at which our eyes "go down".  But equally, then the rate at which our eyes could "go up" (in the early stage) would be +1/2 diopter per year.  Those numbers are not "perfect" but they do indicate the difficulties of prevention in "my" judgment.  As an engineer, I do face "hard facts", and that is how I consider the problem.  But equally, I see that Todd was able to "clear off" -3 diopters -- and I have great appreciation of that fact also.  So please continue, and see what you can accomplish.  I take this as a scientific challenge and I think you will also.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on July 07, 2011, 03:02:11 AM
Hi Otis,

By the time I quit OrthoK I will have combined plus therapy with OrthoK for at least 10 weeks (June, Juli, part of August) - I'll let you know what happens.

I already have a feeling I am getting some benefit though. In the past I had good eye days and bad ones, last few days have all been good ones. It could be a statistical anomaly, but it could be real improvement.

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on July 14, 2011, 07:03:39 PM
Hi Rudy,
I am pleased you are going to continue with the plus.  Eventually with Ortho-K and the plus you should get to about 20/40, in the time-frame you state.  Here is a site that argues that a "minus" is a poor idea, and we should all seek to avoid it, consistent with passing the reasonable DMV test.

http://knol.google.com/k/advisory-on-eyeglasses-for-myopia#

This is to encourage you to continue with this work.
Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on July 15, 2011, 01:54:51 AM
Hi Otis,

Where I used to have good eyesight days and bad eyesight days, I now have good eyesight days and overcorrected eyesight days (for the right eye, at least).

So I am pretty confident I am already seeing a benefit.
That's a pretty good encouragement in itself!

As I become overcorrected though, the +3 becomes less powerful for me.
That means the plus training won't be as effective.
I will have to look for a stronger plus to bridge the next few weeks...

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on July 19, 2011, 06:59:55 AM
Hi Rudy,
I have a considerable interest in Todd's success with the plus.  I know it does take long-term systematic motivation to use the plus, so I advocate this type of prevention for those whose life-time career can not permit vision less than 20/40 (refractive status of about -3/4 diotper).  I get a lot of questions about how to "select" the best plus for prevention.  Here is how I do it, and pilots like Brian Severson have done it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nvRCGWX1cI

I wish you the best success possible.  Otis

Hi Otis,

Where I used to have good eyesight days and bad eyesight days, I now have good eyesight days and overcorrected eyesight days (for the right eye, at least).

So I am pretty confident I am already seeing a benefit.
That's a pretty good encouragement in itself!

As I become overcorrected though, the +3 becomes less powerful for me.
That means the plus training won't be as effective.
I will have to look for a stronger plus to bridge the next few weeks...

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on July 23, 2011, 12:07:52 PM
Hi Otis,

Just a short update; still getting good results. Most days my eyes seem overcorrected and some days I can get 40/20 wearing a +2, often after a long night sleep which means I wore the OrthoK for longer.

My right is still usually better then the left but on occasion the left is better now. This probably has to do with my sleeping position; as my pillow pushes on the eye it may affect the OrthoK considerably. I'm working on a better position as well which may explain the occasional left/right changes.

Notably though in the past on OrthoK my left had usually bad vision and my right had usually okay vision with the occasional good and bad days. Last few weeks however, my left has been consistently 'good' and my right has consistently been 'stellar'; and probably even overcorrected.

Ghosting is still an issue though, complicating my efforts in reading the Snellen with a plus, making my readings unreliable and hopefully underestimating my real results though that is uncertain to say the least.

I just ordered various strength glasses from Zennioptical which should be arriving in 2 to 3 weeks, which is around the time I will drop OrthoK cold turkey. A few weeks after that I should finally be able to determine my true refrective state without the OrthoK crutch complicating matters.

In any case, my thanks go out to you guys because I already experience a real benefit.
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on July 23, 2011, 01:52:33 PM
Great to hear of your encouraging results, Rudy.  Keep up the good work!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on July 31, 2011, 08:45:16 PM
Hi Rudy and Todd,
No one can read all the "literature" in optometry.  I personally don't make "claims" since success completely depends on personal motivation and insight.  Here is some commentary from an optometrist about all people who suggest that "even prevention" is impossible.

http://www.myopiaprevention.org/pseudo_science.html

I take prevention like preventing "weight gain".  No doctor can "prescribe" prevention of obesity in children -- or anyone.  Basic physics will tell you that prevention of "weight gain", is entirely in the hands of the person himself.  I think Todd has this idea correctly.  I "gave up" on going to an OD or MD to help me clear my Snellen.  I do that myself -- because now one is ever going to do it for me.  Best, Otis


Great to hear of your encouraging results, Rudy.  Keep up the good work!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: dsilva on August 09, 2011, 06:05:54 PM
Hi! I finally made my way here since first having a short discussion on the main blog about my plans to finally get an eye test and find out where my vision is before starting this plus lens method. (I have been wearing my 2008 glasses prescription, and my 2009 contact lens prescription -slightly stronger, since that time till now). I did the eye test last week and my vision is now:
R -3.00 (Sphere)  -1.00 (Cylinder)    180 (Axis)   20/20 VA
L -3.25 (Sphere)   -0.25 (Cylinder)     15 (Axis)   20/20 VA

My vision was similar from what the 2009 test showed. The biggest change is that my left eye now shows an astigmatism - never had one before. I have been wearing glasses since I was 12 and here I am almost 18 years later and ready to ditch them. I am glad I found this website and information.

I am puzzled about the fact that my vision tests so poorly, yet my VA is 20/20 in the eye test results.

Also, my first attempt at the Snellen chart was very bad (at 10 feet, I could only make out the very first large E). I do intend to re-test myself under better lighting.

In my blog comment/query, Todd recommended I use a plus lens and read my computer screen at the edge of focus, taking breaks at 15-30 min intervals. I haven't got a plus lens glasses yet, but I have been wearing my glasses only when seeing details are necessary. My edge of focus/blur is about 12 inches right now. I'm guessing I should start with a +1.00 lens so I'll try to get a pair and be back to chart my experience/progress alongside everyone here!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on August 10, 2011, 08:43:18 AM
Hi Dsilva,
First, let me say that no one can predict results.  However, you know that Todd was able to clear his Snellen from -3 diopters (with is about 20/200 -- estimated).  But it is indeed a slow process.  I only WISH that I HAS BEEN INFORMED of this alternative when I was seven years old, (and 20/50) and it could have been most effective for me.  What the "20/20" as published, is the RESULT of wearing a minus lens.  Your naked eye is 20/200 (the big "E" as you state.) Some ODs "over prescribe" (I hope that is the case), and the prescription MIGHT be stronger than necessary.  But I think Todd is correct, that avoiding the minus as much as possible is a good idea.  I use some low-cost "minus" if necessary for driving (from Zennioptical).  You must always be safe, so you must always pass the 20/40 line on your Snellen -- with the minus you choose.  I NEVER use "astigmatism" or "Cyl" -- if less than -1 diopter.  What I do is simply take 1/2 the "astig" value and add it to the "spherical value".  This is called "Spherical equivalent.  Thus your right eye would be -3.5 Spherical Equivalent.   There is a great deal more to be "learned" here, so keep on posting and keep on learing.  Best, Otis
Hi! I finally made my way here since first having a short discussion on the main blog about my plans to finally get an eye test and find out where my vision is before starting this plus lens method. (I have been wearing my 2008 glasses prescription, and my 2009 contact lens prescription -slightly stronger, since that time till now). I did the eye test last week and my vision is now:
R -3.00 (Sphere)  -1.00 (Cylinder)    180 (Axis)   20/20 VA
L -3.25 (Sphere)   -0.25 (Cylinder)     15 (Axis)   20/20 VA

My vision was similar from what the 2009 test showed. The biggest change is that my left eye now shows an astigmatism - never had one before. I have been wearing glasses since I was 12 and here I am almost 18 years later and ready to ditch them. I am glad I found this website and information.

I am puzzled about the fact that my vision tests so poorly, yet my VA is 20/20 in the eye test results.

Also, my first attempt at the Snellen chart was very bad (at 10 feet, I could only make out the very first large E). I do intend to re-test myself under better lighting.

In my blog comment/query, Todd recommended I use a plus lens and read my computer screen at the edge of focus, taking breaks at 15-30 min intervals. I haven't got a plus lens glasses yet, but I have been wearing my glasses only when seeing details are necessary. My edge of focus/blur is about 12 inches right now. I'm guessing I should start with a +1.00 lens so I'll try to get a pair and be back to chart my experience/progress alongside everyone here!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on August 10, 2011, 08:13:58 PM
Dear Friends,
Subject: The incredible "conflicted" optometrist.
If you go to an OD -- you get a strong minus lens.  I attempt to "avoid" and OD for exactly that reason.  I also read my Snellen, and check my refractive status myself.  In this video this OD states that he had an "epiphany" about science and research.  He is "concerned" about 1.4 billion myopes.  But his actions, to put a child in a strong minus, not only does not help -- but makes the eye more negative.  Some ODs has said this explicit.  Yet no OD in his office will tell you to "avoid the minus" -- except when necessary. The reference in this video is about Earl Smith and his "expriment" proving the "bad effect" (how ever well-indended) of any minus lens used on you.
http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=10938257
Here is tie video of the effect of a minus on the natural eye.  They natural eye becomes MYOPIC from just a minus lens.  The next post will show this to be the case.  ( I don't "complain" -- but I do expect to be told about this problem.)
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on August 10, 2011, 08:18:27 PM
Here is the proven effect of the minus on the eye.  It took me YEARS to find this evidence.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf
Yet it is indeed very difficult to persuade a person (at 20/40 and -3/4 diopters) that he should NOT wear the minus, but instead wear a strong plus for all close work -- and monitor his Snellen until he clears it.  But people don't make a choice based on this science, nope, they make it the way that Severson and Todd made it.  But it always a "do it yourself" proposition.  Enjoy, Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: gustav on August 12, 2011, 03:58:15 AM
Hi Todd

I'm interested in trying this therapy to hopefully get rid of my slight myopia (I've had -1.00 to -1.25 prescription lenses since I was 9, am 25 now). I've got +1 and +2 diopter reading glasses and have been using them for 2-5 hours per day for the past two weeks while doing close work. I believe I saw some improvement in the first three days but since then have not noticed any change.

Anyway I'm still confused about what you mean by reading at the edge of focus but not at the edge of blurriness. I would say that there is an interval of absolute focus when the text is at both maximum sharpness and maximum fullness/intensity. But as I increase my reading distance there is also an interval where I don't think the sharpness of the text is declining significantly (that is I can still clearly make out the contours of even small print and easily read it), but its fullness and intensity is diminished, then I pass to a third distance interval where the text also starts to become increasingly blurry and its harder to read and make out individual letters. Would you say that the "edge of focus" corresponds better to the passage from interval 1 to 2, or from 2 to 3.

Or to put it another way, when I use my reading glasses, would the edge of focus be the distance at which my eyesight (with respect to what I'm focusing on) is not improved in any aspect by removing the glasses?

I'm also wondering why you differ on this point from David De Angelis, since he does seem to recommend reading at a distance where your vision is slightly blurred?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on August 12, 2011, 08:17:41 AM
Hi Todd

I'm interested in trying this therapy to hopefully get rid of my slight myopia (I've had -1.00 to -1.25 prescription lenses since I was 9, am 25 now). I've got +1 and +2 diopter reading glasses and have been using them for 2-5 hours per day for the past two weeks while doing close work. I believe I saw some improvement in the first three days but since then have not noticed any change.

Your experience is quite typical, gustav.  Rapid progress at first, followed by long plateaus where nothing seems to happen.  But if you persist with the plus lens therapy, you'll likely find that you improve in sudden steps or spurts.  By the way, that pattern seems to occur in so many realms of human adaptation -- including weight loss, enhanced fitness, and even learning languages or musical instruments.  What this means is that a lot is happening "behind the scenes" to get you ready for the big steps.  I've written about strategies for dealing with this in my blog article on How to break through a plateau (http://gettingstronger.org/2010/09/how-to-break-through-a-plateau/), if you are interested.

Quote
Anyway I'm still confused about what you mean by reading at the edge of focus but not at the edge of blurriness. I would say that there is an interval of absolute focus when the text is at both maximum sharpness and maximum fullness/intensity. But as I increase my reading distance there is also an interval where I don't think the sharpness of the text is declining significantly (that is I can still clearly make out the contours of even small print and easily read it), but its fullness and intensity is diminished, then I pass to a third distance interval where the text also starts to become increasingly blurry and its harder to read and make out individual letters. Would you say that the "edge of focus" corresponds better to the passage from interval 1 to 2, or from 2 to 3.

Or to put it another way, when I use my reading glasses, would the edge of focus be the distance at which my eyesight (with respect to what I'm focusing on) is not improved in any aspect by removing the glasses?

gustav, when I'm writing more precisely, my advice is to read at what I call "the edge of blur" or D2, which is just beyond "the edge of focus" or D1 where everything is crystal clear.  You want to have just the slightest degree of defocus working on your eyes as a "stimulus" to change. If you are reading purely at the edge of focus, there will be no stimulus to remodelling of the eye.

I've tried to define these concepts more precisely in this earlier post:

http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php/topic,8.msg781.html#msg781

Let me know if that post helps clarify things.  Based on what you wrote above, I would strive to read at this middle distance where you say the "fullness and intensity" is starting to diminish.  Actually, what you'll find is that when you read at D2 for a while, it starts to become D1 as the eyes work to focus.  So the preferred practice is to dynamically oscillate between D1 and D2, to keep "testing" your focal range, and provide a stimulus but also allow for periodic relaxation.  If you play with this, you'll see what I mean.

Quote
I'm also wondering why you differ on this point from David De Angelis, since he does seem to recommend reading at a distance where your vision is slightly blurred?

On this point I agree with DeAngelis.  His book, The Secret of Perfect Vision, is excellent.  I differ from him only in certain details regarding the underlying mechanism of how our eyesight improves, and in the role of muscular tension, where I think he is influenced by the older perspective of Bates.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on August 12, 2011, 10:20:44 AM
Hi Gustav,
Subject: Giving you total responsiblity.
I hope you don't mind me adding my "thoughts".  At about -1.0 diopters, you can probably read the 20/60 line on the Snellen.  I think it is very important that you measure this yourself.  It is also good to have a "success" indicator.  For me it is that I pass the 20/40 line -- not that you "stop" there, but that it encourages you to continue.  Here is how I have my Snellen set up to use.  I will post a FREE Snellen that you can down-load yourself to do what I am doing.  I also use my own minus to check my refractive status -- to save a great deal of money to avoid involvement of an OD.  I am in the USA, but the "metric" chart would be for 6 meters.  The letter size would be 0.9 cm for 20/20 and 1.8 cm for 20/40.  Click:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgUkoSSgVOs&feature=related

This work is indeed like "losing weight".  Everyone wants to do it, but few will actually "weigh" themselves to verify progress -- sorry to say.  My thanks to Todd for having the courage to do this "right" and to help others when he can.  Otis

Hi Todd

I'm interested in trying this therapy to hopefully get rid of my slight myopia (I've had -1.00 to -1.25 prescription lenses since I was 9, am 25 now). I've got +1 and +2 diopter reading glasses and have been using them for 2-5 hours per day for the past two weeks while doing close work. I believe I saw some improvement in the first three days but since then have not noticed any change.

Anyway I'm still confused about what you mean by reading at the edge of focus but not at the edge of blurriness. I would say that there is an interval of absolute focus when the text is at both maximum sharpness and maximum fullness/intensity. But as I increase my reading distance there is also an interval where I don't think the sharpness of the text is declining significantly (that is I can still clearly make out the contours of even small print and easily read it), but its fullness and intensity is diminished, then I pass to a third distance interval where the text also starts to become increasingly blurry and its harder to read and make out individual letters. Would you say that the "edge of focus" corresponds better to the passage from interval 1 to 2, or from 2 to 3.

Or to put it another way, when I use my reading glasses, would the edge of focus be the distance at which my eyesight (with respect to what I'm focusing on) is not improved in any aspect by removing the glasses?

I'm also wondering why you differ on this point from David De Angelis, since he does seem to recommend reading at a distance where your vision is slightly blurred?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on August 12, 2011, 10:35:38 AM
Hi Gustav,
To help you along, here is a Snellen you should use to check your progress.

http://www.i-see.org/block_letter_eye_chart.pdf

It truly takes a lot of determination to clear your Snellen back to reasonable-normal.  When you get close to 20/20, you will see much more variation.  I check my Snellen once a week, and will see changes from 20/20 to 20/25, and sometimes to better-than 20/20.

It is very important to be CONSISTENT with a bright light as I demonstrate.  Please be "prepared".  It will take from three to eight months to "get there".  To many people want "success" in a week or two.  This is simply not possible.  Massive studies show that slow clearing is possible -- if you stick with it.  More power to you my friend.  It all depends on how strongly you value your distant vision. Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: dsilva on August 12, 2011, 07:46:41 PM
Hi Dsilva,
First, let me say that no one can predict results.  However, you know that Todd was able to clear his Snellen from -3 diopters (with is about 20/200 -- estimated).  But it is indeed a slow process.  I only WISH that I HAS BEEN INFORMED of this alternative when I was seven years old, (and 20/50) and it could have been most effective for me.  What the "20/20" as published, is the RESULT of wearing a minus lens.  Your naked eye is 20/200 (the big "E" as you state.) Some ODs "over prescribe" (I hope that is the case), and the prescription MIGHT be stronger than necessary.  But I think Todd is correct, that avoiding the minus as much as possible is a good idea.  I use some low-cost "minus" if necessary for driving (from Zennioptical).  You must always be safe, so you must always pass the 20/40 line on your Snellen -- with the minus you choose.  I NEVER use "astigmatism" or "Cyl" -- if less than -1 diopter.  What I do is simply take 1/2 the "astig" value and add it to the "spherical value".  This is called "Spherical equivalent.  Thus your right eye would be -3.5 Spherical Equivalent.   There is a great deal more to be "learned" here, so keep on posting and keep on learing.  Best, Otis
Hi! I finally made my way here since first having a short discussion on the main blog about my plans to finally get an eye test and find out where my vision is before starting this plus lens method. (I have been wearing my 2008 glasses prescription, and my 2009 contact lens prescription -slightly stronger, since that time till now). I did the eye test last week and my vision is now:
R -3.00 (Sphere)  -1.00 (Cylinder)    180 (Axis)   20/20 VA
L -3.25 (Sphere)   -0.25 (Cylinder)     15 (Axis)   20/20 VA

My vision was similar from what the 2009 test showed. The biggest change is that my left eye now shows an astigmatism - never had one before. I have been wearing glasses since I was 12 and here I am almost 18 years later and ready to ditch them. I am glad I found this website and information.

I am puzzled about the fact that my vision tests so poorly, yet my VA is 20/20 in the eye test results.

Also, my first attempt at the Snellen chart was very bad (at 10 feet, I could only make out the very first large E). I do intend to re-test myself under better lighting.

In my blog comment/query, Todd recommended I use a plus lens and read my computer screen at the edge of focus, taking breaks at 15-30 min intervals. I haven't got a plus lens glasses yet, but I have been wearing my glasses only when seeing details are necessary. My edge of focus/blur is about 12 inches right now. I'm guessing I should start with a +1.00 lens so I'll try to get a pair and be back to chart my experience/progress alongside everyone here!

Thank you for that info Otis about the VA on my prescription - that explains it! I got a plus lens today. Started with +1.00. I feel like I have to be quite close to see. Vision with these plus lenses gets blurry right after approx 8 inches away from my computer screen so I'm guessing I need to read at about 8.5-9inches where the blur begins...I will make some time this weekend to read through these forum posts to learn more about how I should be using them.

One interesting tidbit to share: I bought my plus lenses today from an optometrists office and when I asked for them, the sales clerk asked me jokingly why I needed them, that I'm not even over 40yrs yet. She proceeded to tell me that they are not for me and I would be wearing them at my own risk. Needless to say I didn't see anything I liked there so stepped into another optometrists office  (right next door) and got a nice pair, no questions asked and no 'advice' as to the risks of wearing reading glasses without actually needing 'reading glasses'!! (I'm in the Caribbean right now)
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on August 20, 2011, 06:06:38 AM
I would like to make an update on my progress with vision improvement. You may remember that a few months back I had posted a question about the red-eye that I had been experiencing. On Todd's suggestion I ceased my use of the plus lenses and noticed that the problem went away. Since then I have been able to replicate the effects to myself several times [It is also important to state that I tried varying distances, times, and break periods. However, I seem to be unable to use the plus effectively without losing control and stressing my eyes again}. So, with diminished use of the plus and less need to see into the distance (I no longer need to drive to school every day and see across the room) I let my vision slide into the 20/25-30 range. Over the past two weeks, I have gotten my vision back to 20/20 without the use of plus lenses and the negative side effects associated with them.

How did I do this? I would first like to share a few observations that I have made in the scientific literature. First, it is well established that populations moving from a traditional lifestyle to a modern one experience increasing rates of myopia along with every other disease of civilization. This has often been credited to increased close work. Second, population studies have failed repeatedly to find an association between close work and myopia progression. However, just because something does not show up in a study does not mean it cannot exist. Thirdly, what population studies have found an association for is time spend outside and time spend in the sun with resistance to myopia. There has been an explanation having to do with growth proteins in the retina, which may well have an impact, but I think I have a simpler explanation that fits with the rest of our observations.

I have noticed that depending on what I am doing outside, my vision can either get better or get worse. If I am staring at the ground all day, it will get worse. If I am staring at the trees all day, it will get better. In light of this, I am not inclined to be too terribly infatuated with the sunlight hypothesis. But what I do like is idea that sports (aka distance focusing) is good for vision. In light of Todd's theories on blur adaptation, I hypothesize that it is not close work that causes myopia, but the loss of distance work that close work often displaces. I have personally observed that by increasing my distance work (looking at leaves on trees 100 feet away, etc) I have been able to improve my vision without much change in my close work habits. In fact, I am still doing 7-8 hours of close work a day (with good habits such as looking at the window). I will update further if I manage to move my vision past 20/20 (which has been my plateau for a while).

There is another topic I would like to discuss. Why do people who start vision improvement see an initial improvement followed by a much slower progression? I liken it to the initial weight loss observed by low-carbohydrate dieters caused by loss of water. I think this has to do with a change in the dark focus of the eye, i.e. where baseline focus returns to in the absence of stimuli. When we do mostly close work, the dark focus of the eye will reset to a closer range so that doing more close work does not require as much effort. When we start vision improvement (stretching our vision outwards either with plus lenses or distance gazing) we move the focus outwards and reduce stress on the ciliary muscles. Thus visual acuity improves initially, but it is not do to a change in the structure of the eye, which takes time and comes later. Thoughts?

Goodness gracious! I don't think I have ever been a part of any other forum where four solid paragraphs seemed like an average post.

-shadowfoot
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on August 20, 2011, 11:03:08 AM
...I hypothesize that it is not close work that causes myopia, but the loss of distance work that close work often displaces. I have personally observed that by increasing my distance work (looking at leaves on trees 100 feet away, etc) I have been able to improve my vision without much change in my close work habits. In fact, I am still doing 7-8 hours of close work a day (with good habits such as looking at the window). I will update further if I manage to move my vision past 20/20 (which has been my plateau for a while).

That's a very interesting distinction, shadowfoot. You may be right that myopia is caused more by lack of distance gazing than by time spent with close work.  At first, the distinction seems subtle because those two behaviors seem to be opposite sides of the same coin, describing the same thing.  But its quite plausible that what the eye needs is more time spent viewing at very long distances.  If I reflect upon my own experience, it was by spending time looking a distant objects -- trees, electrical wires, birds, etc. -- that I made the biggest initial improvement in visual acuity. And you and others have reported the same thing.

I'm still not sure how this explains why plus lens therapy, but not distance gazing, leads to painful eye strain and red eye.  From what I understand, looking through plus lenses at print at the edge of blur is effectively the same as looking at distant trees, without lenses, but still at the edge of blur.  In both cases, the accommodation of your eye is similar, and the stimulus of incremental defocus of images on your retina is similar.  It's hard to see any practical distinction, in terms of what the eye experiences.  Perhaps more subtle factors, such as dynamic focusing near and far (in distance gazing) vs. holding your eyes in a sustained state of defocus stress (with plus lens reading) may explain how you were able to get the benefit without the eye strain?

Quote
There is another topic I would like to discuss. Why do people who start vision improvement see an initial improvement followed by a much slower progression? I liken it to the initial weight loss observed by low-carbohydrate dieters caused by loss of water. I think this has to do with a change in the dark focus of the eye, i.e. where baseline focus returns to in the absence of stimuli. When we do mostly close work, the dark focus of the eye will reset to a closer range so that doing more close work does not require as much effort. When we start vision improvement (stretching our vision outwards either with plus lenses or distance gazing) we move the focus outwards and reduce stress on the ciliary muscles. Thus visual acuity improves initially, but it is not do to a change in the structure of the eye, which takes time and comes later. Thoughts?

Excellent observation. I think the phenomenon of initial large gains followed by much slower long term progress is common to almost any type of biological adaptation, strengthening or "learning" process:  dieting, weight training, long distance running, sprinting, team sports, learning music or foreign languages...almost anything.   The mechanistic details differ in each case, but in each case there seem to be short term vs. longer term processes at work.  In the case of myopia reversal via print pushing or defocus, I think you may be right that the short term gains involve muscular adaptations, whereas the longer term changes involve slower differential tissue growth processes that lead to remodelling the shape of the eye.  

Quote
Goodness gracious! I don't think I have ever been a part of any other forum where four solid paragraphs seemed like an average post.

I think this is wonderful.  The discussions here a generally quite intelligent. I almost always learn something in reading these posts, particularly the more thoughtful and probing ones such as yours, shadowfoot!  
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on August 20, 2011, 04:27:00 PM
Todd,

I will elaborate on why the plus lenses tend to give me red eye when I am not careful. When I am using doing close work, particularly when I am reading a good book or working on something technical like a piece of code, I tend to get very focused until everything else fades into the background, including the fact that I am using the plus. Thus, I can keep it at a place where it becomes only slightly uncomfortable without noticing. When I am distance gazing, I can only do it for so long before I have to do something else. I also tend to change my focus often, moving near to far, here to there. And thirdly, looking at natural objects allows me to "push" my range, but only up to a point, at which I enjoy the sights I am seeing. This is different from the plus lenses where I sometimes tend to move farther away, too far into the blur. Basically, the takeaway is that I can use the plus in ways that don't lead to strain (very short periods, not too much blur, etc), but I usually fail to do these things.

P.S. I also can't use the plus most of the time anymore because I have a different computer setup and the screen is now too far way for me to see it through my +2.5 lenses. I haven't bothered to buy anything less powerful or find my old pair.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on August 21, 2011, 01:01:50 AM
Shadow,

What you're saying makes sense. Our eyes didn't just get longer in axial length, they probably got lazy as well. Urban enviroments, indoor enviroments, text, computer screens, cars, almost anything that we see all day long is very easy to identify even from the corner of our eyes. Static uniform large surface areas. Almost never need our eyes do any work. Even with the plus we're still looking at a screen without much movement or detail.

In contrast the enviroment we evolved in had much more depth, detail and uncertainty. While the paleolithic man may have been watching for snakes and spiders in trees constantly, I don't think many city dwellers bother. We don't gaze in the distance to look for food, shelter or determine our location.

Uncertainty may have a significant influence over strengthening eye muscles. Maybe it's not about finding focus for a specific point in the distance, maybe it's about the eye varying the focus over a small range so the viewing target is explored more thouroughly.

I tend to look at trees often as well, just to make sure my eyes get some real world training as well.
Improving from a 20/200 to  20/20 just by distance viewing doesn't seem very realistic though, so I'm confident the plus has its place in the fight against myopia.

Guys,

Short progress update: I quit OrthoK 10 august, a little ahead of schedule. As the run-out period is supposedly 4 to 6 weeks I can't yet determine my non-OrthoK refractive state with certainty. For what it's worth my left needs a -2 to see sharply, and the right needs -1.5 or -1.75. With those strengths I can still see ghosting, consistent with my astigmatism. I don't have astig lenses to test my eyes with. If this level holds this would be a very very good result, as my old state was about ~R-3.5 ~A-1.25 ~L-3.0 ~A-0.75.
The astig still seems strong right now though.

It seems the decline in eyesight slowed significantly after the first week but it could still worsen in the following weeks, so I am not yet counting on holding at this level.

Again, thanks for your guidance and support guys...

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on August 21, 2011, 04:31:19 AM
Hi Rudy,
I know you are like me -- and do things your own way.  But I am truly curious about what you read on your Snellen.  To me that is the critical measure of success.  As you know, I personallly check both my Snellen (from 20/25 to 20/18) myself, as well as my refractive status.  For many reasons (stated elsewhere) I gave up on optometrists, or paying them to make any measurements on me.  This is not so much a matter of "dis-trust", but like in keeping the "weight off" --  I truly must do this myself.  This is of course the "core" thesis of Todd.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on August 21, 2011, 05:39:10 AM

Otis,

I read the Snellen daily; however what I see may not be what you expect.
The ghosting I experience makes reading some lines harder then others.

For example, the 20/100 is not readable using either of my eyes, but the 20/70 is, and for the right eye even the 60/20 is readable. All lines have ghosting though, readable or not.

The snellen reading experience is also a little unstable; sometimes I can read a line or two lower, but after blinking that sharpness is gone. Squinting also has a very big effect.

This is why I also test the snellen with minus lenses; my right eye reads 20/20 with a -1.75 (but still has some ghosting), and the left eye reads 20/20 with -2.0 or -2.25 (with more severe ghosting).

With the minus on the ghost letters separate more clearly from the solid letters. I'm not sure how much of the minus is compensating myopia and how much is compensating the astigmatism.

I'm also unsure if the ghosting is only astigmatism or if it is partially caused by some lingering OrthoK effects.

I guess I'll have to be patient for a few more weeks to determine my real status.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on August 21, 2011, 07:01:56 AM
Hi Rudy,
Thanks for your update.  I know that this work with the plus is indeed very frustrating.  It is very easy for "me" to suggest what "I" would do -- but of course only you can make this choice.  There is no "perfect Snellen", and no perfect (preventive) method -- and that is why "giving advice" is so difficult.  I probably do see some "ghosting", but I ignore it.  You will have to make  your own judgments about the great fortitued it takes to continue to wear the plus.  I also agree that YOUR measurement of your refractive STATE is accuate.  The reason YOU make this measurement is so you will trust your results.  If it were me, I would have a "plus" on for all close work -- always.  I would also be prepared to continue this work for AT LEAST SIX MONTHS, AND PROBABLY 12 MONTHS.  That can produce a change of about +3/4 to +1 diopter -- that should clear the 20/40 line or much better.  I study children in school (massive populations), and finally I confirm that our eyes "go down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.  That fact convinces me that "going up" will be slow -- and take great personal resolve.  The "ghosting" will eventually get less, but it take a wise person to "stick" with the plus.  Thanks for your interest -- and keep posting, talking and thinking.  NO ONE HAS THIS RIGHT -- but his is a brave first-step.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on August 21, 2011, 04:43:51 PM
Maybe it's not about finding focus for a specific point in the distance, maybe it's about the eye varying the focus over a small range so the viewing target is explored more thouroughly.

Rudy, I think your statement very well captures what I believe is the essential point in shadowfoot's argument.  Just as dynamic tension is more effective than static lifts in buildling muscle, it very well could be that the most effective preventive and rehabilitative method against myopia involves dynamic variation in focal range, not merely stimulus at the edge of capability.  It's something worth thinking about.  David DeAngelis, in his book, The Secret of Perfect Vision, advocates a number of such dynamic focusing exercises, and my own instincts have led me to similar maneuvers even when I started working with plus lenses years ago. 

Quote
Short progress update: I quit OrthoK 10 august, a little ahead of schedule....It seems the decline in eyesight slowed significantly after the first week but it could still worsen in the following weeks, so I am not yet counting on holding at this level.

Rudy, I'm not sure I understand. When you say "the decline in eyesight slowed significantly...but could still worsen", do you mean your eyesight is getting worse, or do you mean the rate of myopia reduction (i.e. improvement) is slowing down?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on August 22, 2011, 01:35:51 AM

Rudy, I'm not sure I understand. When you say "the decline in eyesight slowed significantly...but could still worsen", do you mean your eyesight is getting worse, or do you mean the rate of myopia reduction (i.e. improvement) is slowing down?

Todd,

The OrthoK correction (the remodeling of my cornea) wears off slowly. The first few days my eyesight worsened significantly and afterwards it declined more slowly. Maybe the OrthoK has fully worn off now, or maybe there is still some effect that will wear of in the next 2 to 4 weeks. There is no way to tell.

I did not mean to imply anything about my actual myopia; in fact I cannot with any certainty say what improvent I experience, until I am confident that the OrthoK is having no more effect on my refraction. That means I also don't have a clue about my rate of actual myopia reduction yet.

Although I do allow myself to hope that most effect of the OrthoK has now worn off, we'll just have to see.

On a side note I had an interesting experience whenever I wore the OrthoK lens and tried to focus no some text in the distance. As you may remember, when wearing the actual lens you're not supposed to be active because it is massively overcorrecting eyesight (not when taking out the lens, only while wearing). I'd say the overcorrection during wear is 2 or 3 diopters. Being massively overcorrected and trying to focus in the distance, my eyesight alternated rapidly between sharp vision and blurred vision, never really achieving stable focus. I think the interval was only about 1 second. Before that experience I had no idea the eye could be that fast and responsive. It also supports the idea that the eye is constantly exploring focal ranges without the watcher realizing it. Unless all there is to see are fixed distance screens and concrete slabs, the perfect environment for atrophied muscles.

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on August 23, 2011, 06:01:11 AM
Otis,

I hope you're right. Some studies seem to support a 2 week timeframe, some even shorter. Most studies focused on shorter periods of OrthoK wear though.

Another study I saw in subjects of around 24 months of OrthoK, refraction came within 0.5 diopters of original refraction after 22days on average, I believe. This was tested in children, whose eyes may be more responsive then mine at 33 years old.

Another study implied that some OrthoK effects on the cornea curvature linger even at 8 weeks, but I just saw an abstract, so I have no details and no idea how much it would affect refraction.

On the other hand OrthoK was always wearing off pretty fast for me, so maybe for me it's different.
But I really can't say for sure at this time.

Rest assured though - I don't lack motivation.

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on August 26, 2011, 03:04:08 AM
Hi Rudy,
I often get the question, "do medical people KNOW about threshold prevention with the plus?", or "Has anyone been successful by using the plus when their Snellen is about 20/70, or -1.0 diopters?"  Or, "How does a person react when he is offered the chance to clear his vision by use of a strong plus for all close work?"  Here is an honest answer from an ophthamologist who advocated prevention with a plus.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/prent.txt

I hope this helps you continue your work with the plus.  It is tedious, but, if you stick with it -- it is worth it.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on August 26, 2011, 05:44:30 AM
Otis,

According to your link this doctor seems to believe not much improvement is possible beyond -1.5 diopters. Yet, Todd and a few others recovered from -3.0.

My girlfriend has about a -8.0 and -9.0 state. She has a very high risk of retinal detachment. Do you think she can considerably lower her correction using this method (undercorrecting instead of plus in her case), thereby reducing her risk for retinal detachment?

Considering the eye has the capacity to keep lengthening into the more and more unnatural state of severe myopia, it would seem logical that it also has the capacity to shorten into the more natural non-myopic state?

Thanks,
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on August 26, 2011, 07:02:31 AM
Hi Rudy,
You raise some critical and accurate questions.
This issue is "making claims".  For the most part, I will not do that -- since I don't know the person's interests, nor of his resolve.  You will hear many stories about recovery, some very accurate, and from Todd -- I NEVER DOUBT HIS SUCCESS FROM -3.0 DIOPTERS.  So I never say "NO" to success.  But you must personally confirm results -- making you totally independent from medical control.  I personally beleive that there are gross errors made in an office every day.  I have see, or confirmed over-prescription of 1, 2 and 3 diopters!!  Optometists can be profoundly inaccurate.  This is why I have the interested person read his own Snellen, to establish that independence.  What this Dr. Prentice said was that most people can not "self-motivate" for the five to ten months it will take to clear your Snellen from 20/70 to normal.  But who is responsible for doing this.  Is a "medical person" responsible?  Or are you responsible?
Almost all of us (if we were normal at age five) go though this 20/40 stage. It is my thesis that YOU SHOULD BE INFORMED OF THIS CHOICE AT THAT TIME.  Tragically, no "medical person" fees he has any obligation to inform you of this choice -- because of the judgment implied by Dr. Prentice.
I accept that Prentice is correct, and the prevention requires long-term use of the plus, and checking your own Snellen yourself.  I am strongly against claims for that reason alone -- but I have no objection if anyone wishes to make them.  I encourage ALL TO ATTEMPT PREVENTION, but greater success will exist for those who are not below 20/70.  In fact only you alone will see your own success.
Otis,

According to your link this doctor seems to believe not much improvement is possible beyond -1.5 diopters. Yet, Todd and a few others recovered from -3.0.

My girlfriend has about a -8.0 and -9.0 state. She has a very high risk of retinal detachment. Do you think she can considerably lower her correction using this method (undercorrecting instead of plus in her case), thereby reducing her risk for retinal detachment?

Considering the eye has the capacity to keep lengthening into the more and more unnatural state of severe myopia, it would seem logical that it also has the capacity to shorten into the more natural non-myopic state?

Thanks,
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on August 26, 2011, 02:59:58 PM
Hi Rudy,
Yes there are people who will want me to "claim" that you can get yourself out of -9 diopters of myopia -- in a few weeks.  I don't do that becuase, 1) what I advocate is totally FREE. 2) I suggest getting your own trial-lenses so you can 'prescribed' for yourself if you wish and 3) So you are aware of what (second-opinion) people say about the need for prevention.  Here is the statement of recovery from -1 diopter (assuming that the person is totally commited to a plus) and will avoid the minus.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html

Please note that, unlike most medical people, Soon See states that it is possible to clear your Snellen from -1 diopter.  This is exactly what Dr. Prentice stated.  But the real issue that this is like helping a child avoid entry into obesity -- or anyone for that matter.  A very serious issue is this: 1)  The minus is applied to a person after HE induces a slight negative status.  2) The "public" only "understands" the minus.  3)  The minus has a proven adverse effect on the refractive status of all natural eyes.  See:

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html
I think that all of us should understand this issue with scientific clarity.  This is all free, and prevention costs nothing at all -- if you understand and act on these scientific principles.  Rudy -- the rest is up to you, as it was for Todd.  Otis
Otis,

According to your link this doctor seems to believe not much improvement is possible beyond -1.5 diopters. Yet, Todd and a few others recovered from -3.0.

My girlfriend has about a -8.0 and -9.0 state. She has a very high risk of retinal detachment. Do you think she can considerably lower her correction using this method (undercorrecting instead of plus in her case), thereby reducing her risk for retinal detachment?

Considering the eye has the capacity to keep lengthening into the more and more unnatural state of severe myopia, it would seem logical that it also has the capacity to shorten into the more natural non-myopic state?

Thanks,
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on August 26, 2011, 03:02:57 PM
Rudy,
Here is the second post for the PROVEN effect of a minus on the eye. There is no way that a "minus" can be "helpful".  But it is so very, very easy, and prevention is indeed difficult.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf

Thanks for looking at this correction.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on August 27, 2011, 01:36:03 AM

Thanks Otis, I understand your reasoning.
Making indefensible claims might damage your credibility & cause.

I figure even a few diopter improvement would significantly lower her risk of retinal detachment, so it certainly is worth trying...

Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on August 31, 2011, 04:22:06 AM
Hi Rudy,
Let me answer the questions you ask.
[author=Rudy link=topic=8.msg1686#msg1686 date=1314366270]
Otis,

According to your link this doctor seems to believe not much improvement is possible beyond -1.5 diopters. Yet, Todd and a few others recovered from -3.0.
Otis>  I think it takes strong personal resolve to clear your Snellen by using the plus.  I can never predict results, because I don't know you or how much resovle you can bring to the effort.  I have no doubt that 1)  Todd had a prescription for a -3 diopter lens, and that 2) He now passes the visual acuity test required of  him.  I believe this also, that many people are mindly to vastly over-prescribed.  To avoid frustration, I llimit what I will say to about 20/60, which is about -1 to -1.5 diopter on your Snellen.

Rudy> My girlfriend has about a -8.0 and -9.0 state. She has a very high risk of retinal detachment. Do you think she can considerably lower her correction using this method (undercorrecting instead of plus in her case), thereby reducing her risk for retinal detachment?
Otis> Rudy -- why not concentrate on YOURSELF.  If you can clear your Snellen to 20/40 or better by your efforts FIRST, then than fact might help her make a choice of this nature.  Todd did it -- why not you?

Considering the eye has the capacity to keep lengthening into the more and more unnatural state of severe myopia, it would seem logical that it also has the capacity to shorten into the more natural non-myopic state?
Otis> I prefer to say "clear your Snellen", and change in a postive direction.  But, having examined an exhaustive study of the effect of a plus on the NATURAL EYE, I must honestly say that Snellen clearing is a slow process.  We get into negative status at a slow rate of -1/2 diopter per year.  Thus getting the natural eye to "change postive" must also be a slow process.  That much is established by fundamental science.  One man, Jansen, posting here, got his Snellen to clear from 20/80 to almost DMV normal in about three months.  We all encouraged him, and suggested he "move" to a +2.5 diopter lens.  We said that it would take another three months to get his Snellen clear as Severson did it.  He then simply quit.  Most people will not even make an attempt.  But then you can never predict how people will react to a "better choice", when you admit to the difficuties of prevention.  It takes truly strong resolve to do it.  Todd had it, but that type of resolve in indeed self-generated and personal.  You either decide you can do it, or you don't do it.  Otis

Thanks,
Rudy
[/quote]
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on August 31, 2011, 10:25:05 AM
Hi Rudy and Todd,

A new scientific paper suggests that prevention is possible.  You might wish to add your own commentary.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/correcting-peripheral-vision-may-help-slow-progression-of-myopia

i always review this literature for ideas on how to prevent at the threshold, under my control.

Otis


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on August 31, 2011, 11:12:27 AM
Otis

Thanks for posting the link to this article, Otis.  It makes sense that going beyond a concern with central (foveal) vision, and emphasizing the improvement of peripheral vision would help prevent myopia.  I think this also coheres with shadowfoot's point that myopia prevention or reversal works best by making efforts to focus at varied distances, particularly far distance vision -- rather than merely avoiding close work.   Exercises, like those of David DeAngelis, which encourage focusing at the 8 extreme directions of the "visual compass" or clock positions, and which encourage alternating near and far vision throughout the day, are helpful in encouraging not only ocular flexibility, but also the growth of the eye to be able to handle dynamic focusing.

Glad to see research like this being posted.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on September 05, 2011, 02:13:58 AM
Hi guys,

Today it has been 4 weeks since quitting OrthoK. This morning I could read the 20/20 line using L-2.25 R-1.75,which is about the same correction I needed two weeks ago.

Considering I had stable vision over these last two weeks, I think it may be safe to say that the improvement is now due to the plus lens rather then the OrthoK. This is more then a diopter improvement from my old prescription. Very nice!

I know- in the beginning sight improvement is always faster so I won't assume the rate of improvement will stay that good.

In two weeks I'l have my cornea's curvature measured to make sure the OrthoK is completely gone. At that time I'll have my correction measured so I can get an objective reading.

Thanks again for the help guys,
Rudy
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on September 07, 2011, 08:06:29 AM
Hi Rudy,
I am pleased you are now working with the plus and have "cleared off" the effect of Ortho-K.
I personally do not ask a person to make a commitment to prevention -- unless I have done it myself, and show exactly how I measure my refractive status.
As an engineer, I am willing to do this myself, if I have a person who encourages me, and shows me how to make these measurement.  The lenses I use were a -1/2 and a -1 diopter obtained from Zennioptical for about $10.  I aways judge that if I want somthing done right -- I must do it myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWqsnIYsLQ8&feature=related

It is very important that you have a bright light on that Snellen.  I makes a big difference.  This is necessary for your abity to repeat the measurement yourself.  Also, in monitoring my Snellen, please remember that I must only pass the 20/40 line (or better).  My vision varies between 20/25, to 20/20, and sometimes better than 20/20. 
Todd got the idea, and was successful. Best, Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on September 07, 2011, 12:44:30 PM
Today it has been 4 weeks since quitting OrthoK. This morning I could read the 20/20 line using L-2.25 R-1.75,which is about the same correction I needed two weeks ago....

Considering I had stable vision over these last two weeks, I think it may be safe to say that the improvement is now due to the plus lens rather then the OrthoK. This is more then a diopter improvement from my old prescription. Very nice!

I know- in the beginning sight improvement is always faster so I won't assume the rate of improvement will stay that good.

Awesome news, Rudy!  Great job with this accomplishment.  While the plus lens therapy is slow, I think it gives a more stable improvement than alternate methods such as Ortho K, because it is remodelling the eye itself, not merely deforming the cornea.

You are wise in your recognition that it will take patience during the next phase, where progress tends to be slow.  But your goal is really not so far in the future.

Pretty exciting.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on September 09, 2011, 05:36:14 AM
Hi Rudy,
The most important issue is this -- people who have made themselves successful in the use of the plus -- as Todd had done it.

Here is a man who was able to "follow the science" of prevention, and worked hard with the plus can cleared his distant vision to normal:

http://schwerdfeger.name/articles/pluslens.shtml

But prevention does require great persistence to make it effective for yourself.  We are all here to support you in your goal.
Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: gustav on September 11, 2011, 05:47:17 AM
Hi again

Its now been 6 weeks of using the plus lenses and I can't say whether I have made any clear progress yet. I unfortunately have very variable lighting conditions where I keep my snellen chart and there's not much I can do about this, and as the days have been getting shorter and more cloudy recently its difficult to ascertain progress. I will say that it appears that the distance at which I can still somewhat clearly read my computer screen wearing the +2 lenses has increased, but I'm still not at the point where I can say my vision has definitely improved overall from where I started. I've read that at least 6-12 months is a minimum time-frame for recovering from a -1 diopter myopia, so I guess its reasonable not to expect too much after 6 weeks.

I'm also finding that I can use the 2+ lenses more or less indefinitely without getting achy or irritated eyes, though my vision sometimes get worse after a while, would I benefit from wearing the plus lenses as often as possible while doing close work, or is it better to stick with just 1-2 hours per day?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on September 11, 2011, 07:01:46 AM
Hi Gustav,
I am pleased you have started work to clear your distant Snellen with by using a plus "at near".
I think it is VERY IMPORTANT that you put a bright light on that Snellen -- for CONSISTENCY.  It is also important that you begin to PASS the 20/40 line on that chart.  (That is the best indicator of success -- for the long term.)  In my opinion, it is also important that you get a few lenses from Zennioptical, to do your own vision checking as you see in this video.  That "saves" you the problem of "arguments" with an optometrist.  it is also "empowering" because you learn a great deal from doing this type of self-learning and self-checking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKGMmpPQcCQ&feature=related

I check my Snellen each week, as per above.  I can tell a "medical" problem from a refractive status problem -- as I describe it.  Also, in very poor light, I read the 20/40 to 20/50 line -- so you MUST get a bright light on that Snellen if you are very serious about this issue.  Probably the last several issues are these; 1) How important is passing the DMV (20/40 line) to you. 2) Assuming you get to 20/40, are you willing to continue to wear that +2 until you begin to get to 20/30, and then 20/25?   Only you can answer these questions.  We can help you -- but I always ASSUME the person has a very powerful "will" to do this.  You age is important, and where you are in school.  If in high school, your vision goes down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.  Thus "clearing" is very important, as is "doing it yourself" -- at no cost to you is important.  Best, Otis



Hi again

Its now been 6 weeks of using the plus lenses and I can't say whether I have made any clear progress yet. I unfortunately have very variable lighting conditions where I keep my snellen chart and there's not much I can do about this, and as the days have been getting shorter and more cloudy recently its difficult to ascertain progress. I will say that it appears that the distance at which I can still somewhat clearly read my computer screen wearing the +2 lenses has increased, but I'm still not at the point where I can say my vision has definitely improved overall from where I started. I've read that at least 6-12 months is a minimum time-frame for recovering from a -1 diopter myopia, so I guess its reasonable not to expect too much after 6 weeks.

I'm also finding that I can use the 2+ lenses more or less indefinitely without getting achy or irritated eyes, though my vision sometimes get worse after a while, would I benefit from wearing the plus lenses as often as possible while doing close work, or is it better to stick with just 1-2 hours per day?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on September 11, 2011, 04:32:53 PM
I will say that it appears that the distance at which I can still somewhat clearly read my computer screen wearing the +2 lenses has increased, but I'm still not at the point where I can say my vision has definitely improved overall from where I started. I've read that at least 6-12 months is a minimum time-frame for recovering from a -1 diopter myopia, so I guess its reasonable not to expect too much after 6 weeks.

I'm also finding that I can use the 2+ lenses more or less indefinitely without getting achy or irritated eyes, though my vision sometimes get worse after a while, would I benefit from wearing the plus lenses as often as possible while doing close work, or is it better to stick with just 1-2 hours per day?

gustav,

Besides Otis's good advice about shining a consistent light on the Snellen chart, I have some additional suggestions.  From your comments, it appears that you may not be applying a sufficient degree of defocus when using the plus lenses.  If the strength and distance are comfortable enough to read for hours each day, I would suggest either:

1.  Increase the distance between you and your book or computer.  Push back until the print is very slightly out of focus.  If it clears spontaneously, push back again.  Occasionally, blink to see if it clears up.

2. If doing this causes your reading distance to be uncomfortable, it's time to progress to stronger plus lenses.  In your case, that means +2.25 or +2.5 strength.

There is no problem using plus lenses for more than 2 hours a day, but you also want to be pushing yourself right to the edge of your comfort zone.  

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on September 15, 2011, 11:13:02 AM
I would like to make an update on my progress. Despite vision fluctuations, I have verified 20/18 on my Snellen three times now. This is a huge breakthrough for me, because it is the first time I have ever had better than 20/20 naturally. When I look around at the world, I am continually amazed at how well I can see everything. One thing I would like to point out that has been very instrumental in my recent progress is relaxation. This may not be so crucial for everyone, but for me I think that I have a tendency towards pseudomyopia,defined as tension of the cilliary bodies that worsens vision in the absence of axial overgrowth. Now, I also have a little bit of true myopia left, but controlling my tendency to hold tension in my eyes through relaxation has been essential for further progress.

I should add that I have added something to my distance-viewing. The use of my +2.5 lenses during a 5-10 minute walk through the forest has been very helpful. You might say that this goes against Todd's "edge of focus" theory, but I think that that only really applies to text. If I am in the woods, I can still "see" a leaf, albeit not as well, and my eyes will try to focus as much as they can.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on September 15, 2011, 11:40:30 AM
Congratulations, Shadowfoot!! Your achievement is truly exciting, and is just the sort of news that makes writing this blog personally rewarding.

Your quest for supernormal (but not "supranormal") vision, among other senses, has paid off.  In fact, there is no reason to think of 20/20 as some kind of biological limit; it only means that at 20 feet you can see as well as some average, opthamologically healthy person.  But just as sports athletes can exceed the norms of performance fitness, you can become an "eye athlete".

In your note above, you said one thing that expressed precisely the feeling I had when I finally reached 20/20 and could drive and walk around without glasses:

Quote
When I look around at the world, I am continually amazed at how well I can see everything.

It is indeed a glorious feeling, a reward that should motivate everyone reading these posts.  Believe me, the detail and nuance one sees with good eyes, in total surround,  is something far superior to what one sees by wearing the most perfect "corrective" lenses, which distort the world.

I also do concur with what you say about relaxation.  As with any therapy based upon stress stimulus -- weight lifting or whatever -- plus lens therapy works best when combined with relaxation.  Keeping the muscles in perpetual tension is counterproductive.  I often find that looking around while intentionally avoiding any effort to focus will paradoxically allow my eyes to focus better!

Finally, your use of plus lenses while walking around and looking at more distant objects seems like a great idea, especially since your vision has already improved so much.  Your focal distance is already pretty far, so the plus lenses will just extend your focal range even further.  The perception of "edges" may not be so conscious as it is when reading text, but your eye-brain circuit is always working, even subconsciously, to make the best sense of the world.  So I have no doubt that's a useful exercise you are engaged in while walking.

I'm always grateful that I can see as well as I can, especially when I think of everyone who has impaired vision or even blindness. I hope that examples like yours will inspire others to make the investment of time needed to reach the same goal of perfect visual clarity, or at least to reduce their dependence on glasses and contact lenses.  And that's without resorting to dangerous surgery.

If you care to, it might be useful in a separate post if you could encapsulate your experience: when you started, what was your initial correction and Snellen score, what your routine was with plus lenses, etc., and how you progressed over time.  It's sometimes hard when reading through this long thread to piece it together so that new people get an idea of what worked.

Again, congratulations!

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on September 15, 2011, 12:11:26 PM
Todd,

This is exactly why I try to tell people about this site whenever I think they might be receptive. I think a lot of people can benefit from vision improvement. Sure, many will not care to take the effort and time. But I know that there are a lot of people who would desperately like to improve their vision, but have always been told that it is impossible.

Your site really is a rare gem. You and Otis are some of the only people promoting the idea that vision can be improved who don't either demand payment for the "secret" or simply parrot the Bates Method. I hope to start my own blog in the next few months and join your ranks by providing legitimate and free ideas for vision improvement, among other things.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on September 15, 2011, 06:18:49 PM
Dear Shadow,
Subject: Always listen to Todd first -- he is indeed the expert.
But let me add this -- if a person is at 20/70, then the major goal must be to get his Snellen to 20/40, and 20/30.  You were not that "deep" at any point is my understanding.  This does take TIME.  Becuase of our long-term study habits (for many years) our eyes go down that way.  Then we "wake up" and want out if it very quickly.  We forget how long it took to get down to 20/50 to 20/70.  But you have become "master" of the art of clearing your vision.  What I do recommend for those who have gotten to 20/30, 20/25 and 20/20 -- is that they do exactly what you have done.  It is true that, with 20/20 a +2.0 worn when walking will create "blur" for distance.  But they relax and "get used to it".  You will be able to see good enough to walk.  After several hours you take those +2 off, and the clarity is incredible.  But what is important is that you have verified on your Snellen.  No one can tell you that this was "fraud" or "fake".  Nope, you see it yourself.  That will always be your "ownership" of you distant vision.  I suspect you are in school (and for those who are).  Our vision simply goes down when we put ourselves in that "required" nose-down environment. But once YOU have seen the results, you will always "re-start" with the plus -- since you know for certain it works.  It is wonderful that Todd has taken so much of his time to help all of us.  Thanks Todd!

I would like to make an update on my progress. Despite vision fluctuations, I have verified 20/18 on my Snellen three times now. This is a huge breakthrough for me, because it is the first time I have ever had better than 20/20 naturally. When I look around at the world, I am continually amazed at how well I can see everything. One thing I would like to point out that has been very instrumental in my recent progress is relaxation. This may not be so crucial for everyone, but for me I think that I have a tendency towards pseudomyopia,defined as tension of the cilliary bodies that worsens vision in the absence of axial overgrowth. Now, I also have a little bit of true myopia left, but controlling my tendency to hold tension in my eyes through relaxation has been essential for further progress.

I should add that I have added something to my distance-viewing. The use of my +2.5 lenses during a 5-10 minute walk through the forest has been very helpful. You might say that this goes against Todd's "edge of focus" theory, but I think that that only really applies to text. If I am in the woods, I can still "see" a leaf, albeit not as well, and my eyes will try to focus as much as they can.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on September 17, 2011, 07:44:39 AM
Another progress update -- when plateaus break, they break. I went into town today and was amazed at how well I could see; it felt almost as good as when I wore glasses. I could read all the signs from very far away and could detect very little blur. When I got home, I tested my Snellen. I was able to read the 20/15 line with complete clarity and the 20/13 line with significant blur, but enough to read through. I cannot convey in words how ecstatic this makes me to have vision that is this close to perfect (max visual acuity)! If I was commenting in my last post about how good my vision was, it is now in the realm of phenomenal. Thank you Todd, Otis, and everyone here for helping my to achieve my dream and do the impossible.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on September 17, 2011, 09:07:22 AM
Hi Shadow,
I think there are two types of people.  A very rare person is like Todd, Severson, Colgate, etc., who can take the ideas of other "leaders" and can make themselves a scientific leader.  You can not push "responsilbity" onto a person.  No!  The person must take responsiblity.  As you know, I am very happy to 1) always pass the 20/40 line 2) Use my two minus lenses to check for a true-medical issue 3) Help others who are very wise to learn and to understand this issue of threshold prevention.

The "other type", are the ones who hear of Todd's success, and then think, "no, that can't be right".  Or, that sounds too difficult.  Or, my doctor told me that "would not work", or I would "hurt my eyes if I wore the plus for preveniton".  I know most people can be intimidated by a doctor in his office who says that.

I am very impressed with both you efforts and success.  You must be very young, because your retina is so good.  You have become master of a difficult subject.  Keep posting your thoughts, and maybe others can learn from both your success and leadership.  I am certain that is Todd's goal also.  Congratulations!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on September 17, 2011, 09:57:14 AM
You are correct in saying that I am young enough to have such good retinas. My brother, who is very similar to be physically, and six years my elder, was capable of reading the 20/13 line clearly with his corrective lenses. I am confident that in a few more weeks I will be at the level. On a side note, he has recently starting improving his eyesight, following my success, and is currently wearing reduced prescription -3.5 lenses.

I would like to make a few comments on relaxation, which has been so essential for me, and the Bates Method. The Bates Method is designed to relax the eyes in a number of ways: palming, sunning, etc. As I have stated before, these, along with simply not wearing my glasses, allowed me to clear my Snellen from 20/40 to 20/30. I had a tendency to hold a lot of tension in my eyes then, and remember on a few occasions, having been studying for a few hours, having my vision deteriorate to what must have been about 20/50. The Bates Method is designed to relax the eyes, just as some kinds of mediation (all kinds?) are designed to relax the body and the mind. In both cases, the effort, or anti-effort, is mental, not physical. You can sit quietly for twenty minutes and not get any of the benefits of meditation. Similarly, you can "practice" the Bates Method without actually reducing eyestrain noticeably. With that understanding, that strain is mental, I am able to keep my eyes relaxed enough so that my vision no longer deteriorates during long periods of reading. This involves keeping very close mental attention to any strain, and if it starts to develope, to erradicate it by closing my eyes, relaxing (a mental tecnique that I'm not really sure I can describe -- you have to figure it out yourself), and then looking out the window. I do this without hardly giving it any of my attention. It takes anywhere from 5-10 seconds.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on September 18, 2011, 02:02:16 PM

Shadow> You are correct in saying that I am young enough to have such good retinas. My brother, who is very similar to be physically, and six years my elder, was capable of reading the 20/13 line clearly with his corrective lenses. I am confident that in a few more weeks I will be at the level. On a side note, he has recently starting improving his eyesight, following my success, and is currently wearing reduced prescription -3.5 lenses.

Otis> I wish your brother the best of success.  I strongly recommend that he read a bright Snellen, and determine his visual acuity.  I hope he can read the 20/60 line at this time.  It is truly impossible to "estimate" or "judge" vision until he takes that step -- in my opinion.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on September 18, 2011, 06:12:02 PM
Otis,

He is wearing REDUCED prescription -3.5 lenses. His OD prescribed lenses that he had were a little stronger than -4, I think. So no, he can't read the 20/60 line. He can just barely read the 20/200 line at this point. He is currently fluctuating between 20/30 and 20/25 with the -3.5 lenses, and will be getting a weaker pair soon.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on September 18, 2011, 07:19:07 PM
Hi Shadow,
Remember when we first talked -- and I stated that I would be very happy with 20/20 on my Snellen?  And you said you wanted "better".  I admire you for your persistence and getting "all you could get" from your use of the plus.  This is why I have a "test minus" to see if I can make my retina "better".  But I can not -- so I can not get to SYSTEMATICALLY better than 20/20 -- although I read all the 20/20 letters, and suspect I could read the 20/18 line -- if that were my need.

The reason I am so reluctant to make "claims" of recovery is because of this graph -- see the first graph, "How Myopia Progresses".  I think we all should be presented with this graph as soon as our Snellen is at 20/40.  THIS IS A VERY ACCURATE GRAPH.  The reason for that "stair-case" -- confirmed in science -- is that first minus that is worn all the time -- because virtually no OD trusts your intelligence to understand this issue.  Again, by acting in an intellligent manner, and following Todd's leadership, you have gotten your distant vision at its ultimate "sharpness", and far more important you have proved this to yourself OBJECTIVELY.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html

I don't know why so many people have difficulty understanding this graph.  But it is very accurate.

I know you can call long-term near "stress", and say that the plus plus "relieves stress", and that is the reason why the plus is effective.  That concept "works" for you -- and that is all that matters in the long run.  I say it SLIGHLY DIFFERENTLY, but it does not matter too much.  It only is important that you are successful.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on September 19, 2011, 04:23:04 AM
I would like to make a comment on figuring out your you maximum visual acuity. Otis has posted several times about how he uses minus lenses incrementally (-.25, -.5, -.75, -1.0 . . .) to judge how good his retina is. I have always thought that, while this is a good metric to use when evaluating your eyes, it fails in it's inability to account for astigmatism. Thus, someone might find that they can reach 20/18 using the appropriate minus, but if they were to fix the astigmatism they might be able to read 20/15. This is of course impossible to determine without access to a profession OD's equipment. But it does serve to illustrate the difficulty in setting a goal for anyone wishing to go beyond 20/20, because it is difficult to know what is realistic.

So how does someone like me judge when maximum acuity has been reached? To me, the answer is very simple: when everything is in focus. Let me explain. The purpose of improving eyesight is to be able to see better, and the standard metric to measure this is the Snellen, but really any kind of text at a distance works. When using the Snellen, one observes that there is a distinct difference between being able to read something and that something being in perfect focus. If something is not in perfect focus, there is a kind of ghosting that appears. As the eye is still a little bit too long, this is caused by the photons striking the retina with some crossover, creating blur. For anyone with any degree of myopia, this will be what causes them not to read text at a distance. But what about someone who doesn't have any refractive error? They still can't see as well as an eagle, but this is because their resolution has maxed out, not because refractive error caused a blur. When they can't see something, like something the with book-sized font 100 feet away, there is still no blur. They simply can't see it. This is what I observed when I wore glasses -- no blur, no ghosting. And this is what I have been observing as I close in on perfect eyes -- less and less blur, less ghosting on the things I can see. So how do I now when I have reached the point where I cannot improve any more? I will use my eyes and judge the clarity of my world. I think that this will be somewhere around 20/12.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Mercurial on September 30, 2011, 11:04:11 PM
Okay, I've finally worked my way through this monster thread.  Thank you so much to everyone who contributed and continues to contribute; it's quite a bit to go through, but it's helpful too.

I have a question I didn't see raised here.  I apparently have a bit of difficulty keeping my eyes pointed at the same thing; they like to drift a bit in the "wall-eyed" direction (though not visibly noticeably).  My eye doctor suggests correcting this with a slight amount of prism for when I'm tired so that I don't get headaches.  (He warns against using prism regularly since that would make the problem worse.  This same doctor is open to plus-lens therapy.  I'm quite lucky in that regard from what I gather!)  My wife has a similar problem, only much worse than I have it.

My guess would be that the right way to correct this from a hormetic point of view would be to wear a prism in the opposite direction of the correction, and that it should be enough to induce difficulty and worn for long enough to feel the strain but not so long as to cause damage (as per the "recovery" point of hormetism).  Does that sound right?  I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on the matter, especially for my wife's sake.

Thank you,
~Mercurial
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on October 01, 2011, 05:45:13 AM
Mercurial,

Is there a term for this "drifting"? It would help if we knew exactly what was going on. I'm not really sure how the prism is supposed to help you eye from drifting.

That said, the hormetic process does not always need an anti-crutch. If the problem is serious enough, the stimulus to improve can be caused by simply removing the crutch. For example, for people with very advanced myopia, a plus lens is totally unnecessary in the beginning. Simply removing the minus lenses causes enough blur. Again, I can't really comment on this specifically without knowing more about it.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on October 03, 2011, 11:05:37 AM
Hi Shadow,
There are several terms for "Drifting".  Mostly it is called "Lazy Eye", although some will use the term "Amblyopia".  Others will call it exotropia (eye turns out)  and esotropia (eye turns in).
Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on October 03, 2011, 11:58:00 AM
I apparently have a bit of difficulty keeping my eyes pointed at the same thing; they like to drift a bit in the "wall-eyed" direction (though not visibly noticeably)...My guess would be that the right way to correct this from a hormetic point of view would be to wear a prism in the opposite direction of the correction, and that it should be enough to induce difficulty and worn for long enough to feel the strain but not so long as to cause damage (as per the "recovery" point of hormetism).  Does that sound right?  I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on the matter, especially for my wife's sake.

To answer this question and expand somewhat on the reponses of Shadowfoot and Otis, when you use the term "wall-eyed" (and which Otis rightly designates "exotropia" or turning of one eye outward), that suggests the underlying condition is strabismus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabismus). Strabismus is usually distinguished from amblyopia or "lazy" eye.  Amblyopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) is generally understood to involve a defect in the optic nerve or brain, not just the eye or its musculature. Striabismus, including exotropia, results from a lack of coordination between the extraocular muscles, which prevents bringing the gaze of each eye to the same point in space.  Thus, the eyes are not properly aligned. The two conditions are related in that striabismus (in the eye muscles) is often the underlying cause of amblyopia (in the optic nerve and brain).  

As long as the condition is relatively minor, it appears that exotropia can be corrected with use of an eyepatch worn over the dominant eye (http://www.patchpals.com/), for about 4-6 hours per day (http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20070913/briefer-dose-ok-for-lazy-eye-patch).  This allows the weaker eye to gain strength and ability to change gaze with practice.  Patching appears to be most effective when you are young, but I can't see why it should not work at any age. When the condition is more advanced, prisms, vision therapy and even surgery are sometimes used.

I'd start with patching--an excellent application of Hormetism (http://gettingstronger.org/about-this-blog/)--and see where that gets you.  

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: gustav on October 15, 2011, 07:48:10 AM
I believe I made a breakthrough today. I have over the past month been able to gradually increase the computer-screen viewing distance while wearing my 2+ lenses, but I oddly did not notice this translating into any real-world improvement in acuity, being stuck for almost 3 months at barely being able to read the 20/40 line in good light.

So today I upgraded to +3 lenses and went out in the sun to read, viewing the book at a fairly blurry distance, at first my eyes were struggling enormously to read, feeling the same kind of fatigue you get when you stare too close to the sun. Then after about 15 minutes of this I felt my eyes relaxing more and I got this kind of sharp/blurry double-vision where the print itself was sharp but surrounded by some blurry halo, and at this point I could even increase the reading distance quite a bit and the print would remain sharp. From there on I had a different sensation in my eyes, like the muscles were working hard but still sort of relaxed and pleasant-feeling. This continued until I stopped reading 30 minutes later, and when I took off the glasses and got up to walk my unaided vision was the sharpest I can ever remember it being, being able to read registration plates and street signs at 40-50 yards (without blinking or moisturizing tricks, I mean). As I walked home this gradually declined, but I was still able to almost completely make out the 20/30 line for the first time when I got home.

So this is the first time I've felt like my vision has unquestionably improved as a result of using plus lenses and that the therapy actually works. Now I'm also starting to feel as if more aggressive use of stronger lenses might be called for, since the kind of workout my eyes received today with the +3 lenses, as well as the transient vision improvement, was unlike anything I've felt in the past months even using +2 lenses for hours straight.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on October 15, 2011, 11:47:24 AM
I believe I made a breakthrough today... at first my eyes were struggling enormously to read, feeling the same kind of fatigue you get when you stare too close to the sun. Then after about 15 minutes of this I felt my eyes relaxing more and I got this kind of sharp/blurry double-vision where the print itself was sharp but surrounded by some blurry halo, and at this point I could even increase the reading distance quite a bit and the print would remain sharp. From there on I had a different sensation in my eyes, like the muscles were working hard but still sort of relaxed and pleasant-feeling... my unaided vision was the sharpest I can ever remember it being, being able to read registration plates and street signs at 40-50 yards (without blinking or moisturizing tricks, I mean). As I walked home this gradually declined, but I was still able to almost completely make out the 20/30 line for the first time when I got home....So this is the first time I've felt like my vision has unquestionably improved as a result of using plus lenses and that the therapy actually works.

Congratulations, Gustav - great progress!  Your post illustrates several points I've made here:
1. Sudden progress typically happens only after long periods of effort that seem to produce no results
2. The sharp/blurry double vision you've described -- something I experienced myself and only a few others have reported--seems to be a very good sign that your eyes have remodeled themselves.  I've postulated a mechanism for why this occurs in my posts on the blog dealing with eyesight and rehabilitation
3. The relaxation and pleasant feeling in your eyes is also a sign that eye strain has been able to decrease since your eye length has adjusted.

Excellent, excellent work, Gustav!

Quote
Now I'm also starting to feel as if more aggressive use of stronger lenses might be called for, since the kind of workout my eyes received today with the +3 lenses, as well as the transient vision improvement, was unlike anything I've felt in the past months even using +2 lenses for hours straight.

I agree that using stronger plus lenses in a more aggressive manner may be helpful.  As with weightlifting, once you gain strength, you can lift more.  Similarly, stronger eyes are capable of more!

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on October 16, 2011, 05:55:34 AM
Hi Gustav,
Let me also congratulate you on your initial success.  I think that combination of using a +2 and +3 (in sunlight) is going to work for you.  So it took two months to get the 20/30 line clear.  Passing the 20/30 line passes all the DMV tests in the USA.  That is a major success.  But the real success is sticking with the use of the plus, and not seeing results for two months -- and  then in a few days seeing 20/30.
I think that success we "see" ourselves is what is very important.  The same process that got you to 20/30, can get you to 20/25 in about two to three months -- provided you continue exactly what you are doing.  Once a person finds a solution, then is becomes just continued effort along the same lines to get to 20/25 -- in my judgment.  We are all pleased that you took this step and objectively read the 20/30 line.  Otis

I believe I made a breakthrough today. I have over the past month been able to gradually increase the computer-screen viewing distance while wearing my 2+ lenses, but I oddly did not notice this translating into any real-world improvement in acuity, being stuck for almost 3 months at barely being able to read the 20/40 line in good light.

So today I upgraded to +3 lenses and went out in the sun to read, viewing the book at a fairly blurry distance, at first my eyes were struggling enormously to read, feeling the same kind of fatigue you get when you stare too close to the sun. Then after about 15 minutes of this I felt my eyes relaxing more and I got this kind of sharp/blurry double-vision where the print itself was sharp but surrounded by some blurry halo, and at this point I could even increase the reading distance quite a bit and the print would remain sharp. From there on I had a different sensation in my eyes, like the muscles were working hard but still sort of relaxed and pleasant-feeling. This continued until I stopped reading 30 minutes later, and when I took off the glasses and got up to walk my unaided vision was the sharpest I can ever remember it being, being able to read registration plates and street signs at 40-50 yards (without blinking or moisturizing tricks, I mean). As I walked home this gradually declined, but I was still able to almost completely make out the 20/30 line for the first time when I got home.

So this is the first time I've felt like my vision has unquestionably improved as a result of using plus lenses and that the therapy actually works. Now I'm also starting to feel as if more aggressive use of stronger lenses might be called for, since the kind of workout my eyes received today with the +3 lenses, as well as the transient vision improvement, was unlike anything I've felt in the past months even using +2 lenses for hours straight.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on October 17, 2011, 06:49:49 PM
Hello,

I will continue to inform everyone of my progress here. School has started for about 3 months now, and my vision has been deteriorating a bit unfortunately because of the constant near work. I always use plus lenses at home, but at school sometimes I use it on and off depending on the duration of near work. The biggest problem for me is band class. I play the piano, and sometimes plus lenses will make it so I cannot quite read the sheet music. Yet, if I remove the plus lenses or move closer, I will strain my eyes. I'm not to sure what I can do it about this at this point but it seems to be making my eyes tired throughout the day.
Right now, I read the computer screen at the blur point around 14-15 inches w/ +1.50 and I'm forced to use my minus lenses of -1.00 at short periods of time during certain classes. I want to stop using the minus lenses  as they are inhibiting my improvement, but yet I can't see very well at the back of the classroom. I've attempted to sit closer to the board, but such accommodations are hard to make with so many students.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on October 17, 2011, 06:50:50 PM
Also,
Congratulations Gustav! Your progress of clearing your snellen to 20/30 will surely inspire others to continue with plus lenses.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on October 18, 2011, 05:20:55 AM
Thanks for the update, Jansen.  As you note, there are circumstances in life that are not always ideal, so you do the best you can.  If you are down to a minus 1 prescription, you're doing well already.  Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be:  try to get to class early enough to grab a seat as close to the front as possible, and use your minus 1 lenses when that's not possible.

I also think it is important not to tire your eyes.  Better to settle for slower progress then to end up with eye strain.  Getting proper sleep and nutrition is also something that students often skimp on -- I know because that's how I was and my kids are.  But it does make a difference.  Proper nutrition includes limiting foods high in sugar and starch, and eating lots of brightly colored vegetables that contain phytonutrients important for vision.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Sutefeni on October 18, 2011, 10:07:59 AM
Hi everyone! It's been a while! I have some awesome news
I got my eyes checked yesterday and i've gone from -4 to -3 in my right weak eye and from -3 to -2.5 in my left eye. The training has been working! Im so excited! I'm going to get some new glasses and i've asked my optometrist to make the prescription a little weaker.
Oh yah and my last check up was last year so i think this is an incredible change. Im just that more determined to heal my eyes. Ive also been eating a lot healthier as well.
Thanks so much for your help and advice!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on October 18, 2011, 04:03:41 PM
Hi everyone! It's been a while! I have some awesome news
I got my eyes checked yesterday and i've gone from -4 to -3 in my right weak eye and from -3 to -2.5 in my left eye. The training has been working! Im so excited! I'm going to get some new glasses and i've asked my optometrist to make the prescription a little weaker.
Oh yah and my last check up was last year so i think this is an incredible change. Im just that more determined to heal my eyes. Ive also been eating a lot healthier as well.
Thanks so much for your help and advice!

You are awesome, sutefeni!  That's not a small improvement...you should be proud that your dedicated effort is paying off.  Keep up the good work!  -- Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on October 18, 2011, 04:47:28 PM
Hello,

Unfortunately, we have assigned seats, and it is quite difficult to make arrangements, but I'll try my best. Is using -1.00 lenses harmful if I only use them for short periods of time like a few seconds to one or two minutes?
Also, I would like to clarify the "blur point" again. I've noticed that if I read at the point where the letters are barely legible, my vision sharpens up almost immediately. However, if I read at the point where the letters just start to blur, my vision actually worsens because I'm accommodating and straining my eyes.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on October 18, 2011, 06:21:49 PM
jansen, you are on the right path.  So anything I say here is only a suggestion.  As long as you understand the general principle of Hormetism -- gradual improvement by providing a positive stimulus to change wherever possible -- you will succeed.

Using the -1.00 lenses is fine because they are weaker than your original minus prescription.  So you are moving in the right direction.  You won't be harmed by using them for minutes, or even hours.  At worst, you'll remain static and won't progress so fast.  But at least you won't move backwards.  And the positive is that it will avoid eyestrain.  You'll still have plenty of opportunity to use your plus lenses outside of class and that will keep you moving forward.

Regarding the blur point: You say that initially you see letters that are barely legible, but then your vision clears up.  That's great!  If you can maintain that for minutes or hours then it's a positive. The key is to maintain the maximum stimulus to change without letting your eyes get strained or tired.

Trust yourself.  If you find that your experience is somewhat different that mine or that of others that you read about here, please share it with us.  I'm sure there are differences in how each of us responds to the stimulus of defocus. Some can tolerate more defocus and will see more rapid progress.  Others need a more gradual approach.  And I'm sure you'll find different tips that  work for you.  For example, shadowfoot found that focusing in the distance periodically was helpful, and he chose to share that insight.

The big thing to remember is that you are no longer giving in to stronger eyeglass prescriptions that we all know lead to stronger myopia.  You've turned the ship around and it's heading in the right direction now.  You may get there sooner or you may get their later.  There may be stalls and there will be sporadic improvements.  But you'll get there!

Best regards,

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Mercurial on October 20, 2011, 10:31:48 AM
As long as the condition is relatively minor, it appears that exotropia can be corrected with use of an eyepatch worn over the dominant eye (http://www.patchpals.com/), for about 4-6 hours per day (http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20070913/briefer-dose-ok-for-lazy-eye-patch).  This allows the weaker eye to gain strength and ability to change gaze with practice.  Patching appears to be most effective when you are young, but I can't see why it should not work at any age. When the condition is more advanced, prisms, vision therapy and even surgery are sometimes used.

I'd start with patching--an excellent application of Hormetism (http://gettingstronger.org/about-this-blog/)--and see where that gets you.

Will do, and I've passed the recommendation on to my wife.  Thank you much!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on October 20, 2011, 07:57:34 PM
Hello,

I've found that by "tracing" my eyes by moving left and right while gazing at power lines, I could really clear my vision. I think looking at distant objects is great way to relieve eye stress and also exercise the eyes. the more I trace the power line, the clearer it gets.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on October 24, 2011, 06:08:28 PM
Hello,

I'm currently using a +1.00 lenses for computer use, and the blur point is quite far, which is good. I use +1.50 for close reading.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on October 24, 2011, 07:34:47 PM
Hi Jansen,
I truly know how difficult it is the "enthuse" yourself to wear the plus.  In fact, I try to "publish" as much as I can, but equally I know that I am totally DEPENDENT on the person himself to make the difficult choice to wear (and continue to wear) the plus.  I compare this to "me" brushing my teeth on a regular basis.  From other statements, you find that a "medical person" simply can not help you with this type of effort (although some advocate it).  You seem to be willing to "stick" with the wearing of a plus, that is, in my opinion the right thing to do.  One thing that does eventually happen is this 1) Eventually you will "gain" a line on your Snellen, as Gustav did.  2) That is a change of about 1/2 diopter -- estimated.  3) When that happens, you can then increase the strength of the plus by that +1/2 diopter.  This is why Brian Severson noted, and was the best indication of "slow success".  You know that I have a Snellen set-up in bright light -- and monitor it.  For all posting here, I also find my vision varies to a considerable degree.  From 20/25 at times, then to 20/20, and then better than 20/20.  I say this so you are prepared for it -- it is normal.  That in indeed why I advocate that a person get comfortable with his own standard Snellen.  Keep up the excellent work, to be a unique person who can take on this scientific responsibility. Otis


Hello,

I'm currently using a +1.00 lenses for computer use, and the blur point is quite far, which is good. I use +1.50 for close reading.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on October 24, 2011, 07:55:21 PM
Thank you Mr. Brown,

I really do appreciate all the help you, Todd and everyone in the forum given. However, I have a pretty important question.
I sit in the back of a chemistry class, and it is not possible for me to move to the front. I've noticed my vision has been actually getting worse quite a bit, and I've been struggling to read the letters on the 20/50. I assume this is because our class has been doing a lot of work on the board which I struggle to see without lenses.
Should I wear my minus lenses in this situation? It seems that if I do, my vision actually worsens when I take them off. Yet, straining my eyes to see the board is not good either, as It has been making a vision worsen these past few days.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on October 25, 2011, 04:03:18 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject:  The "practical reality" of being at 20/50 -- and at school.
What I would do?  The "practical reality" is that I would get some low-cost minus from Zennioptical, (for about $10 ) and just have them in my pocket -- and would use them in chemistry class.  I also think you have "variable" visual acuity as I stated.  I hope your Snellen has a bright light on it, for consistency.  The reason that I would get a "minus" from Zenni is because I can truly measure my refractive status myself -- as an engineer.  I know it is extra effort to carry a minus and use it only when necessary, but that is an issue that you can only resolve that way.  Again what "I" would do, would be to promise myself that I would keep on wearing the plus for four more months.  If my Snellen STAYED at 20/50 -- then I would call it "quits".  But as always, that must be your choice.  As you know Gustav, pushed himself to a stronger plus, and saw results (20/40 to 20/30) -- and that did take a lot of time. 

Jansen>  Yet, straining my eyes to see the board is not good either, as It has been making a vision worsen these past few days.

Otis>  I don't think looking at a board (with 20/50) -- squinting slightly as necessary is "straining your eyes".  It is also true that if you put a relatively strong minus on the eye will indeed "adapt", and your naked-eye vision will "move down".  Again, if it were "me", I would agree that I am FORCED to put on the minus because of necessity -- that is just "life".

Otis>  As always, if you feel or judge that your use of the minus is "making your vision worse" -- the quit right now!!  Or for a number of months, and review all that is posted here.  You gave it an honest try, and don't see the results that Gustav and Todd had seen, so perhaps your eyes are just "different".  It is clear that this work is indeed stressful for you, do I would recommend quitting for several months.  You gave it an honest effort, and no one can ask for more than that.

Otis> Perhaps Todd can add his comments.

Otis


Thank you Mr. Brown,

I really do appreciate all the help you, Todd and everyone in the forum given. However, I have a pretty important question.
I sit in the back of a chemistry class, and it is not possible for me to move to the front. I've noticed my vision has been actually getting worse quite a bit, and I've been struggling to read the letters on the 20/50. I assume this is because our class has been doing a lot of work on the board which I struggle to see without lenses.
Should I wear my minus lenses in this situation? It seems that if I do, my vision actually worsens when I take them off. Yet, straining my eyes to see the board is not good either, as It has been making a vision worsen these past few days.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on October 25, 2011, 05:15:38 AM
Hi Jansen,

Subject: How I look at science and children in school.

I know I can not give you advice.  But before your depart, here is how I personally look at science, and the "habits" of a child in school.  By science I mean checking to find out what happens to the natural eye when you place it is a cage -- as presented here.  It is clear that it is almost impossible to insist that these children 1) SIT UP, and 2) Wear a plus when they are at 20/25 to 20/30.  This is why I suggest that negative-status is indeed "self-induced".  I also understand that AFTER a child INDUCES negative status (Snellen 20/30) it is so incredibly easy to put a minus lens on him -- and let him go.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/SaveEye.html

So we are indeed in a trap -- of sorts.  But I also ask the question, even though the minus is a solution for these kids, does it perhaps have adverse effects.  This is what the facts show:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf

So for me, that is how I look at this extremely difficult problem.  I hope you understand how and "I" think about the need for prevention -- but it is obviously very personal about what any person might choose to do about it.  Thanks for your interest.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rudy on October 25, 2011, 05:19:18 AM
Recent article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111024084639.htm

The interesting bit:

"The analysis suggests that more exposure to natural light and/or time spent looking at distant objects may be key factors."

It's only a very small step from "looking at distant objects" to using a plus lens for close work.
Or just a logical conclusion, really.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on October 26, 2011, 04:58:19 AM
That's an interesting study, Rudy.  It does make sense that more time spent viewing distant objects would tend to forestall myopia.  However, the categories of spending time outdoors vs. indoors are pretty crude.  I think a lot depends on the nature of the specific activities and how one is using one's eyes.  If you read the article closely, the conclusion is somewhat weak and leaves many questions unanswered:

Quote
[F]or each additional hour spent outdoors per week, the chance of myopia dropped by approximately two percent. Nearsighted children spent on average 3.7 fewer hours per week outdoors than those who either had normal vision or were farsighted.

A 2%-per-hour drop in the chance of myopia is a fairly weak result.  I would rather depend on a more directed, deliberate practice such as plus lens therapy!

The authors do acknowledge the imprecision of the study:

Quote
If we want to make clear recommendations, however, we'll need more precise data. Future, prospective studies will help us understand which factors, such as increased use of distance vision, reduced use of near vision, natural ultra violet light exposure or physical activity, are most important.

At least someone is studying the effect of environment and habits on eyesight, moving beyond the commonplace assumption that myopia is genetically determined.  There may be genetic predisposition, but that is not the same as genetic determinism.

Thanks for posting,

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on October 26, 2011, 05:05:53 AM
Thank you Mr. Brown,

I really do appreciate all the help you, Todd and everyone in the forum given. However, I have a pretty important question.
I sit in the back of a chemistry class, and it is not possible for me to move to the front. I've noticed my vision has been actually getting worse quite a bit, and I've been struggling to read the letters on the 20/50. I assume this is because our class has been doing a lot of work on the board which I struggle to see without lenses.
Should I wear my minus lenses in this situation? It seems that if I do, my vision actually worsens when I take them off. Yet, straining my eyes to see the board is not good either, as It has been making a vision worsen these past few days.

Hi jansen,

A few suggestions:
1.  Explain your situation to the chemistry teacher and ask him/her to reassign your seat closer to the front of the room.
2.  If that is not possible, try to obtain some weaker, under-corrected minus lenses, perhaps 1 diopter weaker than what you currently use.  Wear these whenever in a similar situation.
3.  If you can't afford or obtain the weaker minus lenses, then certainly don't strain your eyes by wearing no lenses.  A compromise may be to wear the strong minus lenses most of the time when sitting at the back of the class, but take them off every few minutes for a break, whenever the teacher is merely talking or reading your notes.  The main thing is to avoid wearing the strong minus lenses for long, uninterrupted periods.

Do any of these suggestions work for you?

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on October 26, 2011, 03:03:29 PM
Thank you Todd and Otis!

Yes, using the minus lenses and merely just looking through them, rather than wearing them has worked for me. I only use them for a few seconds to minutes. Sometimes, I just ask my classmate what is written on the board.
I have actually restarted PVS (David DeAngelis' book) and have been doing ocular rotations. I will let you guys know about my progress with stretching every other day+ reading at the blur point.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on October 28, 2011, 10:57:43 AM
jansen,

Is it possible for you to get weaker minus lenses, ones that allow you to read the board but don't overcorrect?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on October 29, 2011, 06:59:34 AM
Hello Shadow,

I'm not sure my optometrist will allow under prescription of -1.00, otherwise she would just tell me that glasses aren't needed.
I seldom use the glasses now, and I actually found out you can just poke small holes in a piece of paper to see what ever is needed.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on October 30, 2011, 09:30:40 AM
Hi Jansen,
I always want to respond to you -- to help and encourage you of course.  But the real leadership here will come from ShadowFoot and Todd, who have made the personal commitment to use the plus and succeed with it.  Otis


jansen,

Is it possible for you to get weaker minus lenses, ones that allow you to read the board but don't overcorrect?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on October 30, 2011, 10:48:52 AM
jansen,

You can get glasses on zennioptical.com in -0.25, -0.5, and -0.75 diopters.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on October 31, 2011, 07:13:29 PM
Hi Jansen and ShadowFoot,
Subject: Some BRAVE ODs support the use of the plus -- even if you have 20/20!

But the deep reality is that you must do all of this yourself, almost "alone".  I know Shadow use the plus when he had almost 20/20, so it is indeed wise.  It is good to know that professionals (second-opinion) strongly support the concept.  It just takes personal wisdom to be consistent with the plus.

http://www.chinamyopia.org/low_plus_lenses4kids.htm

Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on October 31, 2011, 08:49:08 PM
Wow, that is indeed amazing; a child being able to process information and work at a faster rate with the use of plus lenses.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on November 02, 2011, 09:20:00 AM
Hi Jansen, Todd, Shadow,
Subject:  Do other medical professionals support YOUR use of the plus for prevention?

If you are using the plus now, you will "wonder" if professionals support your use of a plus to be read at the "just blur" point, as well as checking to see if your Snellen is better-than 20/40.  You will find many "sour" MDs and ODs who do not support your preventive work with the plus.  But then you will find truly enlightened ophthalmologists who believe that the only future we can have is to wear the plus in an intelligent fashion to keep our Snellen normal for life.  Here is a book that describes this process, calling it, "Preventing Myopia, Challenge of Today".  It is just good to know that what you are doing, is right in a medical sense, and of great value to yourself and your personal visual future.

http://www.kaisuviikari.com/

Since Todd and ShadowFoot have worked themselves out of myopia by their own efforts, we all know that it is possible.  But I always like to know that highly qualified professionals believe that it is possible.

Let me add that I get incredible "abuse" from some of these ODs -- because I advocate scientific and academic freedom.  I don't like to "challenge" a man "in his office", and in fact I will not "argue" under that circumstance -- because it is a waste of my time.

But, when I find out that a percentage of ODs and MDs totally agree that the plus MUST BE STARTED under control of the person himself, then I get upset with the ODs who will not discuss prevention with me -- WHEN I NEED IT.  In effect, however, all prevention work must depend on you, your intelligence, your wisdom, your long-term resolve, and real scientific insights about the proven (and adverse) effect of a minus lens.  I consider this a necessary education that must always be part of any preventive program.  No one has the right answer here -- but I always appreciate it when some one trusts me to make this type of choice, even if I must do all of it myself.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on November 02, 2011, 06:47:47 PM
Hello Otis,

My Optometrist has seen my improvement before, and she encourages that I continue the use of plus. However, she says she has heard of preventive methods like plus before, but cannot implement it because "it doesn't work for everyone."
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on November 08, 2011, 05:25:10 PM
Hello,

I've continued doing stretches and reading w/ plus lenses. I haven't noticed many changes, but my eyes tend to be a lot less tired throughout the day.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on November 11, 2011, 06:35:19 AM
Hi Jansen,

Subjects:  What do ODs think of plus-prevention.

I think they all know it is difficult, and will always depend on the (educated) choice of the person himself.  Here is an OD who strongly argues that you SHOULD continue to wear the plus, and confirm results yourself.

http://www.chinamyopia.org/mainenglish.htm

The truly difficult issue is to get the person to consistently wear the plus, and confirm results on his own Snellen.

Otis



Hello Otis,

My Optometrist has seen my improvement before, and she encourages that I continue the use of plus. However, she says she has heard of preventive methods like plus before, but cannot implement it because "it doesn't work for everyone."
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on November 12, 2011, 04:51:37 AM
Todd, Otis and others,

I had a question regarding the link between esophoria (inward deviation of the eye) and myopia.   I had read in some scientific papers that children who are esophoric have higher instances of myopia progression.  There is some link between accommodation and convergence.  As we try to read our eyes have to converge and also accommodate, but it is not clear as to what is the cause and what is the effect.  The reason I ask this is the follows. 

A person with -4D would need to read without glasses at a distance of about 25 cm to be at edge of focus, for which the eyes need to converge a certain extent, but without any accomodation.  Now if that person wears -1D glasses his effective power is -3D and he could read at a distance of about 33 cm to be at edge of focus.  Since he holds the book at a greater distance his eyes would converge to a lesser amount.  So which is better?  In first case he wears a higher effective plus (4D without glasses) but eyes have higher convergence.  In the second case he wears a lower effective plus of 3D but also has a lower convergence.  If esophoria is the cause of myopia progression then a very high effective plus would be counterproductive as reading would need to be done at close distances.  There may be a balance distance where the results are the best.  This may also explain why wearing weakly undercorrected glasses and looking at far of distances, trees, birds, reading signs on road etc. as Todd and others have explained may be the best.

Recently bifocal glasses with added prisms in the lower section have been introduced for children.  Presumably the prisms reduce esophoria while reading.  The glass manufacturer claim that the progression of myopia is significantly reduced.

Your expert comments would help.

Thanks,
Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on November 12, 2011, 08:19:07 PM
Hello,

I would like to share that I've had a bit of improvement today. I've been rolling my eyes in circles, and concentrating on removing any "knots" in the movement and trying to roll my eyes in a perfect, fluid circle.
Also, I've started using +1.50 lenses instead of the old +1.00. The 20/50 line is becoming slowly clearer even in dim lighting.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Rajeev on November 12, 2011, 08:27:04 PM
Otis,

thanks for the clarification.
My question is the higher plus we use, the closer the reading material needs to be.  Will that be counterproductive if we read with both eyes open?
Should the reading distance greater than 14"?  As I have seen posts and suggestions on this forum that use 3D and sometimes 4D plus lens.  That would make the reading distance too close for comfort.

Rajeev
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on November 15, 2011, 09:30:08 AM
Hello,

I would like to share that I've had a bit of improvement today. I've been rolling my eyes in circles, and concentrating on removing any "knots" in the movement and trying to roll my eyes in a perfect, fluid circle.
Also, I've started using +1.50 lenses instead of the old +1.00. The 20/50 line is becoming slowly clearer even in dim lighting.

jansen, that is great news.  You are seeing some real objective improvements.  And as you see, the improvements come in sudden "jumps", not continuous smooth progress.

As you, shadowfoot, and others have found, improvement comes not from merely using plus lenses and "print pushing", but also by exercising the eyes dynamically, whether it be specific side-to-side and circular motions like those advocated by DeAngelis, or frequent near-to-far motions to keep testing the dynamic focal range.

Keep up the good work!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on November 15, 2011, 09:54:09 AM
Todd, Otis and others,

I had a question regarding the link between esophoria (inward deviation of the eye) and myopia.   I had read in some scientific papers that children who are esophoric have higher instances of myopia progression.  There is some link between accommodation and convergence.  As we try to read our eyes have to converge and also accommodate, but it is not clear as to what is the cause and what is the effect.  The reason I ask this is the follows.  

A person with -4D would need to read without glasses at a distance of about 25 cm to be at edge of focus, for which the eyes need to converge a certain extent, but without any accomodation.  Now if that person wears -1D glasses his effective power is -3D and he could read at a distance of about 33 cm to be at edge of focus.  Since he holds the book at a greater distance his eyes would converge to a lesser amount.  So which is better?  In first case he wears a higher effective plus (4D without glasses) but eyes have higher convergence.  In the second case he wears a lower effective plus of 3D but also has a lower convergence.  If esophoria is the cause of myopia progression then a very high effective plus would be counterproductive as reading would need to be done at close distances.  There may be a balance distance where the results are the best.  This may also explain why wearing weakly undercorrected glasses and looking at far of distances, trees, birds, reading signs on road etc. as Todd and others have explained may be the best.

Recently bifocal glasses with added prisms in the lower section have been introduced for children.  Presumably the prisms reduce esophoria while reading.  The glass manufacturer claim that the progression of myopia is significantly reduced.

Your expert comments would help.

Thanks,
Rajeev

My question is the higher plus we use, the closer the reading material needs to be.  Will that be counterproductive if we read with both eyes open?
Should the reading distance greater than 14"?  As I have seen posts and suggestions on this forum that use 3D and sometimes 4D plus lens.  That would make the reading distance too close for comfort.

Rajeev

Rajeev,

Very interesting question.

In your example of the person with a -4 diopter correction, I think it is very effective to wear the strongly undercorrected -1D glasses for reading at 33 cm, so long as that is comfortable and at the edge of focus. It is indeed better than reading at 25 cm with -4D lenses since (a) the convergence is less; and (b) the defocus stimulus is the same as wearing no lenses at 25 cm.  So there is no downside to making the edge of focus further away from your eyes.

It is not the absolute power of the lenses or even the delta between lens power and degree of myopia, but rather it the consistent application of retinal defocus stimulus that is important.  So in the case of esphoria, the longer the reading distance, the better, since this will help reduce convergence at the same time.  In fact, in your example, the best might be even to wear -2D lenses and read at 50 cm.  

Maybe even those of us with pretty good vision should all try reading sitting as far away from print as possible, at least some of the time!

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on November 23, 2011, 07:19:52 PM
Hello Otis,

Do you know where I can find your book "How to prevent nearsightedness" online?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on November 23, 2011, 09:15:19 PM
Hi Jansen,

Certainly!

http://www.i-see.org/otis_brown/

Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on November 27, 2011, 04:55:26 AM
Hi Jansen,
I post this to encourage you to continue wearing the plus for as long as it takes.

Todd uses the word, "hormesis", as 'getting stronger', and the wisdom to "take charge" of your own life.  He applied this "stoic" concept to himself and by great persistence, cleared his Snellen to normal.  I know there are other people who have been able to clear their vision to normal (from say, 20/60 and -1 diopter) but it indeed takes a "strong will" to do it -- in my opinion.  It is necessary for us to document success -- to help others who have that type of "will".  Here is a statement by my friend, Stirling Colgate, and his success with the 'stoic' use of the plus to clear his vision back to normal:
Stirling's reply statement:
++++++++++++++
Yes I wrote that section of the book, but I am a physicist and if I prescribe
and am not a doctor, the consequences are serious, like law-suits, jail etc.

Indeed we are locked into an ancient paradigm **. I was able to understand
about focus and eye sight when I was 13 and so could do it for myself, as using
strong plus lenses as I could use for a short while, months, and then plus
for all reading for the rest of my life, now 73.

I reversed nearsighted to normal three times during the war II, because lost
glasses several times and with reading close -- reverted to nearsightedness. I
always returned to 20-20 for distance when wearing the plus.
Dr. Stirling Colgate Ph.D.
+++++++++++

** The "paradigm" of a "ray trace" eye, versus a "dynamic natural eye" having
postive and negative refractive STATES. Only the "ray trace" model is taught to
ODs. The are in total ignorance, at this time, of ANY OTHER (PREVENTION) POSSIBLITY. OSB
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on November 27, 2011, 12:46:40 PM
Hello,

Thank you for the encouragement. I'm still using the 1.50 lenses and doing stretches, and waiting for some solid improvement. Maybe I'll have to switch to +2.00 lenses soon to see further improvement.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on December 06, 2011, 09:17:33 PM
Hello,

I'm still stuck around 20/60-20/50 now, and I'm still using 1.50 lenses. perhaps i'll be able to get a hold of +2.00 lenses soon.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on December 07, 2011, 06:35:30 AM
Hi Jansen, Shadow and Todd,

Subject: People are completely different!

For Jansen>  I would recommend the +2.  I thought you would have seen better progress by now, so I truly know how frustrating this process is for you.  Keep up the excellent work -- this does take a lot of resolve -- no doubt about it.

For Todd and Shadow>  It is amazing -- both of you used the plus and cleared your Snellen, and Shadow had an incredible success.  Yet, some people see no results.  So I just encourage people to "understand" and make the effort.

Thanks to all, Otis




Hello,

I'm still stuck around 20/60-20/50 now, and I'm still using 1.50 lenses. perhaps i'll be able to get a hold of +2.00 lenses soon.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on December 07, 2011, 11:10:33 AM
Jansen,

Everyone has a different body, different eyes, a different mind -- so we each start at a different place and progress different rates.  There's no reason to be frustrated so long as you are working on your myopia.  And you've done remarkably well getting down to 20/50 - 20/60.  Otis is right that some people see no or little progress for a while -- you can hit a plateau for months.  But then you'll make sudden and unexpected improvements.  Sometimes, you just need a little extra rest and changing up your routine to break through a plateau.  

In my post on "How to break through a plateau (http://gettingstronger.org/2010/09/how-to-break-through-a-plateau/)", I made the point that we find ourselves in plateaus because homeostasis tends to resist any changes, whether it be in losing body fat or improving eyesight:

Quote
Adaptation is typically not a smooth, continuous process, but moves from one relatively stable state to another through a series of discrete, quantum steps... if the adaptation is large enough, and if there arise new forces which act to stabilize the adaptation, then a stable change is possible.  If the stability persists long enough for the balance of forces to change, the adaptation will be “permanent”, with no easy reversion to the original state....One of the most important aspects of this strategy is to define permanent changes based upon discrete quantum steps, not tiny moves along a continuum.

What this means is that if you are seeing no improvement in your vision, and you are doing the same routine every day -- the same exact pattern of using plus lenses of a certain strength for a certain amount of time -- then you need to make a big change to disturb the equilibrium.  This could be moving to the stronger -2 plus lenses and adding an additional reading session every day.  It could be sitting farther back in the classroom.  It could be making a point to try focusing on far objects by going for a walk, adding a new walk to your daily routine.  It could be getting more sleep, or taking a supplement like Vitamin A, beta-cartonene, fish oil capsules, or cutting back on sugar.   Don't try a lot of changes at once, but pick one big significant change and experiment with adding that change.  If you make the change, stick with it for a few weeks before deciding if it is helping.

Let us know if you find a change in your routine that helps.

Keep up the good work.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on December 07, 2011, 09:46:54 PM
Thank you Todd,

I think the problem with my plateau is school-related, as i'm constantly, taking off my plus lenses- putting them on, and I never actually get any specific time to train with plus lenses at all. Perhaps I will try stronger lenses, because I broke a small plateau a month ago when upgrading from +1.00 to 1.50
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on December 08, 2011, 01:57:06 AM
jansen, Todd, and Otis,

Since we are talking about plateaus, I thought it would be appropriate to explain my success a little bit more. I would like to make it very clear that the fact that I have achieved 20/15 vision does not mean that all my troubles have gone away. In order to maintain that level, I must keep up good habits every single day. Recently, I have been very busy finishing up a few projects that require many hours of close work with little ability to take breaks. Due to this, my vision is probably around 20/25 again. Yet, given past experience, I am confident that with proper habits again, I could clear it to my old level in a week or two.

Edit: After writing this message, I have been practicing good habits and using the plus in a better manner. Turns out I can improve to where I was a lot faster than I thought. Not there yet, but probably a little better that 20/20.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on December 08, 2011, 03:36:40 PM
Hi Shadowfoot. and others working on prevention with a plus,

Subject: Todd's leadership, and your intelligence and self-motivation.

I congratulate you on your success -- and your recognition that as long as we "live" in a reading environment, it will be necessary to monitor our Snellen, and, should it get down to 20/25 to 20/30, then we must "re-start" the use of a plus lens.  We then continue to wear the plus, until we see our Snellen get "back to" 20/20. As Dr. Chalmer Prentice stated some time ago, this "works" but it is indeed tedious -- unless you understand how absolutely necessary it is to do it.

You are doing what my nephew did -- and he is a professional in physical training.  But it always takes a "spark" of insight to conduct prevention yourself.
I personally "present" the "technical reasons" for the need for a plus -- but people are inspired by a person like Todd.

I only wish that we could conduct a more "formal" study you your type of success -- but that has not happened yet. 

Thanks!
Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on December 08, 2011, 11:30:16 PM
Hello,

I have great news to share with everyone! While wearing my plus lenses today, I tried to combine relaxation with the plus lens therapy and it seemed to yield great results. When I looked into the distance, I felt as if my vision was sharper than before. While reading at the blur point, I close my eyes and take deep breathes while relaxing, and feeling the tension of my eyes release. The result is that my eyes feel a lot less stressed from the reading session.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on December 09, 2011, 08:22:31 AM
Hello,

I have great news to share with everyone! While wearing my plus lenses today, I tried to combine relaxation with the plus lens therapy and it seemed to yield great results. When I looked into the distance, I felt as if my vision was sharper than before. While reading at the blur point, I close my eyes and take deep breathes while relaxing, and feeling the tension of my eyes release. The result is that my eyes feel a lot less stressed from the reading session.

That's a great observation, jansen!   I'd be interested to hear more details and hear about whether your relaxation method leads to lasting improvement over time.  Keep us posted!

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on December 10, 2011, 08:48:04 PM
That is truly great! This is what Shadow did -- and went from 20/25 to better-than 20/20.
It takes great personal resolve and persistence to do this work successfully.  As soon as possible, and by your own judgment, try using a stronger plus, say 2.0 diopters.  Also, if you have a +1, and go outside, in sunny weather, just wear it while walking (as Shadow did) for about 10 minutes.  (You vision will be blurred.) Then take the +1 off -- and see how clear your vision is.  We are all here to help you with your vision restoration project.  Otis


Hello,

I have great news to share with everyone! While wearing my plus lenses today, I tried to combine relaxation with the plus lens therapy and it seemed to yield great results. When I looked into the distance, I felt as if my vision was sharper than before. While reading at the blur point, I close my eyes and take deep breathes while relaxing, and feeling the tension of my eyes release. The result is that my eyes feel a lot less stressed from the reading session.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on December 10, 2011, 08:56:25 PM
Hello everyone,
I got +2.00 lenses today and they are working great. I also tried wearing +1.00 lenses while in a restaurant today, and for the first time i could almost read the 20/40 line clearly!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on December 11, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
Very good, jansen!  Graduating to +2 lenses is like a weightlifter being able to lift heavier weights.  This will strengthen your focal ability. And with the glasses off, you'll be able to see better, just like the weight lifter will have an easier time lifting lighter objects after working out on heavier weights.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on December 11, 2011, 08:48:54 AM
I'm very happy to report that even after waking up this morning my vision has remained at being almost able to see the 20/40 line! I'm glad to know that breaking plateaus just requires you to relax yourself and try something new, like wearing a +1.00 lenses in the distance
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on December 12, 2011, 05:31:55 AM
Hi Jansen,

Subject: Getting to, and passing the 20/40 line -- VERY IMPORTANT!!!

I truly know how difficult this is for you!  But it is good to know that getting to, and passing the 20/40 line is PASSING ALL DMV TESTS IN THE USA.  Of course I would not "stop" wearing the plus when you begin passing the 20/40 line -- but it is a "marker" of success for you and all of us.

Please continue with the plus -- your distant vision is worth it.

Otis


I'm very happy to report that even after waking up this morning my vision has remained at being almost able to see the 20/40 line! I'm glad to know that breaking plateaus just requires you to relax yourself and try something new, like wearing a +1.00 lenses in the distance
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on December 13, 2011, 06:20:27 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: Visual requirements for flight -- third-class.
It is very important that you reach and exceed the 20/40 line.  For me, that is a "make or break" plateau.  For background, here is the FAA requirement.
++++++++
67.303 Eye.

Eye standards for a thirdclass airman medical certificate are:

(a) Distant visual acuity of 20/40 or better in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses. If corrective lenses (spectacles or contact lenses) are necessary for 20/40 vision, the person may be eligible only on the condition that corrective lenses are worn while exercising the privileges of an airman certificate.
++++++++++
Obviously, I would desire to reach 20/40.  But, being successful at that level, would encourage me to continue wearing the plus until I got to 20/30, and then 20/25, and then 20/20.  This is indeed a process that requires steady motivation, and self-insight to make it work for you.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on December 14, 2011, 03:46:40 PM
I'm currently working with my 2.00 lenses. I have finals next week, hopefully my vision won't go downhill again
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 02, 2012, 04:56:29 AM
It is funny.  If the truly want to get from 20/50 to 20/20, and will PAY and OD to help us -- then the cost would be about $1,000 or so.

But the core of the preventive method is the plus.

http://www.cookvisiontherapy.com/better_eyesight.html

As Dr. Cook states, it is possible to "improve" 3 or four lines on your Snellen by this and other techniques.  The problem with most people (with all due respect) is that they lack "sustaining motivation" for the six to nine months it takes to get there, in my opinion.

Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 02, 2012, 08:07:36 AM

Hi Jansen,
Do ODs know that your vision will go "downhill" from all the close work we are forced to do in highschool and college.

Do they know the wisdom of CONTINUED use of the plus for all reading and computer work?  The answer is that some do.  I post this to encourage you to continue with the use of the plus. 

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html

It is easy to ADVISE a person to wear the plus (much like wearing "hearing protection" in a high noise environment).  But I acknowledge how difficult it is to inspire your self to truly get that idea, and continue the use of the plus, when it is so obviously necessary.

It is truly all up to  you.

Otis



I'm currently working with my 2.00 lenses. I have finals next week, hopefully my vision won't go downhill again
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 06, 2012, 09:09:07 PM
Hello,

I can now confirm a permanent improvement to 20/40!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 07, 2012, 04:36:53 AM
Dear Jansen,
A great day!  20/40 passes the DMV in the USA.  The FAA requires 20/40 for the 3rd class FAA exam.  It does take great understanding to wear the plus properly, and consistently -- which is what success is all about.  I truly love to live with no "minus" on my face, because I hate the "dependency" on that minus.  Please continue with the plus, and we will help you in every way possible.  Keep posting your "thoughts", as you continue to wear the plus, and monitor your Snellen.  Thanks, Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 07, 2012, 07:02:07 AM
Hi Janses,
Subject: What ophthalmologists think about "near" inducing negative status in our eyes.
Here is what one man says about it.  He realizes that in fact our "long-term" near creates the negative status (i.e., 20/40 and going down) but then concludes 1) Nothing can be done about it -- ever! 2) He can provide a minus lens, Lasik, and all these things. but 3) It seems he does not feel that he has an obligation to  inform you about the wisdom to truly realize that by "preventing near" with a plus, you can always keep you vision passing the required DMV standard.  (An a lot better.)  Here is his "thinking".

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/12/walk_away_from_the_screen_your.html

For me, I want "control" of my life, and my distant vision.  I do not want my distant vision "fixed" with the "obvious minus lens".  I want to understand that it is "long-term near' and our use of our eyes in our "modern society" that creates negative status -- IN THE FIRST PLACE.  I tried to post remarks on this site -- but could not.  This is why it takes a wise person to understand this issue of "visual self-protection", and continue to do prevention yourself.  If you don't take care of your distant vision with a plus -- no one else will.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on January 07, 2012, 07:44:34 AM
Hello,

I can now confirm a permanent improvement to 20/40!

Awesome news, Jansen!

That is a great achievement, indeed.  I think the forum members would love it if you could write up a recap of your vision history:  what correction glasses you started with, at what age, how you decided to start using plus lenses and what techniques you used, and an approximate chronology of your improvement so far.   People can get this by reading through many posts, but it would be useful to have it all in one place, and in your own words.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 07, 2012, 07:54:31 AM
Thank you Todd!
I've actually been working with the Power Vision System for over 2 years now, and I started off  having a lot worse than 20/70 vision. My original prescription was -2.25 in the left eye and -4.50 in the right eye.  I have a log on their forum with my achievements: http://www.powervisionforum.com/forum/showthread.php?747-My-Improvements-in-a-Year&p=2352#post2352
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 08, 2012, 04:23:43 PM
Hi Jansen,
You are a truly impressive success.  Remember, the NEI, states and most doctors believe that EVEN PREVENTION (at 20/30 and -1/2 D) is totally, absolutely impossible, by anyone, and under any circumstance.  You two years of work, (from -4 and -2, and I suspect 20/100) it truly incredible.  I would strongly suggest that you NOT get into an argument with an OD or MD about this issue of your success.  You know what you achieved, OBJECTIVELY.  They DO NOT WANT TO KNOW that anyone is successful.  Even so, you do have some more "work" to do.  Getting to 20/30 and then 20/25, just takes more dedicated time and persistence with the plus 2.  But you have already proven you can "stick" with your own effort.  I like your idea (now you are at 20/40) of going for walks on a "bright day" and just wearing a plus 1 for several minutes.  (The eye "adusts" to that +1).  Then take the plus 1 off, and be amazied at how sharper the world looks.  I always confirm my Snellen at 20/20 BEFORE I got to the OD.  That way, when they "measure me" with their "faulty measurement system, and attempt to "prescribe" a lens for me -- I simply thank them, go home and read my Snellen as passing the required line.  Then I put the "prescription" in a book -- and forget about it.  Thanks,  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 08, 2012, 08:35:23 PM
Thank you Otis and Todd,

It has indeed been a long journey, and I hope to get to at least 20/25 by the end of this year, or better. One of the things i found helpful besides plus lenses was the stretching of the ocular muscles as stated in PVS. The ocular muscles must be trained in order for them to respond to constant blur, or reading at the blur point. Otherwise, the eye cannot adapt and will not move towards a plus direction. The muscles must be trained symmetrically, to train imbalances in the eye muscles.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 09, 2012, 08:02:43 AM
Hi Jansen,
Subject: In doing this work ... I realized that there can never be a "perfect" way, nor a perfect solution that fits everyone.

But I deeply appreciate David's personal efforts, and indeed his success.  While I will promote "the plus", I also must agree that his methods (when you call them "relaxation" or exercise) are effective also.  I do think that in the "last stage", from 20/40 to 20/25, consistent use of the plus is most effective.  (But this is my opinion).  In any event, here is David's site to support others who wish to follow this "self-protection" of you distant vision -- for life.

http://www.powervisionsystem.com/

It is obvious that because of the very dedicated physical effort required (and a belief in yourself) that this approach simply can not be called "medical" in any sense of the word.  So you have done it "right" this far, and I look for you to continue.  Please continue to post your thoughts on this very difficult subject.  Otis


Thank you Otis and Todd,

It has indeed been a long journey, and I hope to get to at least 20/25 by the end of this year, or better. One of the things i found helpful besides plus lenses was the stretching of the ocular muscles as stated in PVS. The ocular muscles must be trained in order for them to respond to constant blur, or reading at the blur point. Otherwise, the eye cannot adapt and will not move towards a plus direction. The muscles must be trained symmetrically, to train imbalances in the eye muscles.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 09, 2012, 08:22:51 AM
Hi Jansen and Todd,
I know we "trust" the NIH/NEI to protect us and our distant vision. But when you start asking pointed questions about even the POSSIBILITY of prevention (even at 20/40 an 20/50) all you get is the statement that, "prevention is impossible", even when SLIGHTLY nearsighted -- as stated in this video.  It is rater obvious, that no one is going to get ANY help with prevention. The video is 9 minutes long -- and I am certain this person is totally confused.  I have encountered this "position" endlessly.  This is why people like David and Todd are so very important.  When I argue, "be smart, do it yourself, an OD or MD will never help" -- this is what I am talking about.

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

Jansen -- continue your efforts, you are doing the "right thing", and headed in the right direction.  Don't bother attempting to 'argue" with others that you are "successful".  Only you know what you have accomplished.
Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on January 11, 2012, 05:45:41 AM
Congratulations Jansen!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 17, 2012, 10:59:24 PM
Hello Everyone,

My vision has stayed around the same, about 20/40 sometimes dipping into 20/50 when I'm tired. I'm still using +2.00 lenses and doing ocular stretching. I also moved seats in classes, so I can avoid the minus for now.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 21, 2012, 08:06:13 AM
Hi Jansen,
Some questions for you. 
I know we can't use the +2 for all close work.  Also, I know that I read a book at a different distance -- that when I work on a computer.  What I do now, is to "push" to book as far away as the computer, which is about 22 inches from my eyes.  I am wearing a +2.5 diopter as I type this into my computer.  Would you say you wear the plus, about 70 percent of the time you do all close work.  Thanks for your answer.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on January 21, 2012, 10:31:56 PM
Yes, I wear +2.00 at around 16-17 while reading, as well as for P.C work. Sometimes I won't wear it during band rehearsal which is about 50 minutes, but I look into the distance every 10 minutes or so. I also don't wear it while eating, but I'm not sure if that really counts as close work.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 22, 2012, 08:35:59 AM
Hi Jansen,
That is the right way to do it.  Obviously for short-term "near looking" you don't need to put them on.  For playing in the band, you sheet music will be easy, but you will be looking at the conductor -- a lot.  Don't need them there.  But when you are sitting at a desk, writing, computer-editing, then they must be on.  As always, I "push away" to find that "just blur point" and then lean forward for comfortable clear vision through the plus.  I am very happy you have reached the 20/40 to 20/50 level, and you can avoid that wretched minus lens.  That is always a major success.  So just "stick" with wearing the +2, and keep on going.  I like the idea that I can play tennis, swim, with no minus on my face.  I also like the idea that I will never be dependent on a lens for distant vision.  I think you are well aware, that the un-protected eye in school goes down at a steady -1/2 diopter for each year you are in school.  That would be the real "motivator" for me -- to realize that this wearing of the plus can prevent that degeneration of my vision.  Thanks for your update.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Nate on January 26, 2012, 09:32:53 AM
This is my first time posting on the rehab forum, although I have posted in the comments section of the blog post.  I started with a prescription of 6.0 R/5.25 L in August 2011.  I made rapid progress at first, but seem to have hit a plateau around 4.5 in both eyes.  I am still very determined. 

"Thanks to Jansen for publishing his success.  It is very inspiring, and also helps me understand the kind of timeline I am looking at-probably a couple of years still.

One thing I have noticed-the very strong discrepancy between my daytime vision and nighttime vision-I think I lose as much as a whole diopter at night.  Does this improve as the vision itself improves?

Thanks for all your work and inspiration.

Nate
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 26, 2012, 10:07:32 AM
Thanks for your commentary Nate,
We are all cheering for Jansen.  I have acknowledged how truly slow it is to get your refractive status to change in a positive direction, as Jansen is now doing it.  It is wonderful that he got from 20/100 to 20/40 vicinity, and can do everything he wants to do with no minus lens on his face.  But still, it will take another nine months to a year to finally get to a refractive status of zero and slightly positive, and visual acuity as good as possible.
To help with this process, I have created a series of videos about how to get and check your own Snellen, as well as your own refractive status.  This is to help all who are working on "Snellen clearing" to continue with that work.  On YouTube, type, "OtisSumnerBrown", for this type of self-checking and self-responsiblity. 
Of course we are very pleased that Todd was so successful, and I think from about -3 diopters.
To answer your question, once you begin to get the 20/50 line clear, by your own checking, your "night" vision will improve also, in my opinion.
Otis


This is my first time posting on the rehab forum, although I have posted in the comments section of the blog post.  I started with a prescription of 6.0 R/5.25 L in August 2011.  I made rapid progress at first, but seem to have hit a plateau around 4.5 in both eyes.  I am still very determined. 

"Thanks to Jansen for publishing his success.  It is very inspiring, and also helps me understand the kind of timeline I am looking at-probably a couple of years still.

One thing I have noticed-the very strong discrepancy between my daytime vision and nighttime vision-I think I lose as much as a whole diopter at night.  Does this improve as the vision itself improves?

Thanks for all your work and inspiration.

Nate
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on January 26, 2012, 03:40:00 PM
One thing I have noticed-the very strong discrepancy between my daytime vision and nighttime vision-I think I lose as much as a whole diopter at night.  Does this improve as the vision itself improves?

Glad to have you posting here, Nate.  You are quite right that nighttime vision typically suffers relative to daytime vision.  In fact, brighter light always improves vision. You can prove this to yourself by reading text (or a Snellen chart) -- you'll find that you can read smaller text more easily in brighter light.

In addition to the good points made by Otis, I would suggest doing focusing exercises at night.  I particularly like looking at distinct edges or points of light -- car tailights, neon signs -- at various distances to see what you are able to bring into focus.  If your vision is good enough, you can do this while driving; if not, while a passenger or while walking. You will often notice an apparent "double vision" of a sharp image or light next to a blurry one.  Keep focusing on the sharper part of the image until the blurry counterpart recedes in strength.

Good luck.  Stick with it and report your progress.  Like me, Otis, jansen, shadowfoot and several others who have overcome or reduced myopia, success is within the grasp of those who persist.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on January 28, 2012, 07:12:55 AM
Hi Nate and group.
Subject: Required Visual Acuity on your Snellen eye-chart.
I try to avoid wearing a minus lens, consistent with passing the required DMV test or standards.  I test at home, to make certain I will pass the DMV (brightly lit) Snellen in and office.  So, you must get a minus lens if you do not pass these standards.  They are interesting, however.  Florida reaquires 20/70 or better, Georgia and some other States, 20/60 or better,  Texas and other States, 20/50 or better, with most at 20/40 or better.  Since I have my own test lenses, I can get what I need from Zennioptical.com for $10.  I have no argument with using a minus while driving.  At $10, I just would keep the "minus" on my dash board and put it on for driving.  I obviously don't say "throw away you minus glasses".  I say, get to passing the DMV requirement, and then you can avoid wearing a minus lens.  This is why it is important to have your own Snellen on a wall, and to make your own measurements.  Here are a list of these DMV requirements.

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

If you are in the 20/50 to 20/40 range, you exceed some of these DMV requirements.  It is my belief, that if you are at 20/40, and have great dedication to wearing a plus, you can slowly get to the range of 20/25 to 20/20.  But it obviously takes very strong personal resolve to keep on wearing the plus to achieve that last goal.  Thanks, Otis





This is my first time posting on the rehab forum, although I have posted in the comments section of the blog post.  I started with a prescription of 6.0 R/5.25 L in August 2011.  I made rapid progress at first, but seem to have hit a plateau around 4.5 in both eyes.  I am still very determined. 

"Thanks to Jansen for publishing his success.  It is very inspiring, and also helps me understand the kind of timeline I am looking at-probably a couple of years still.

One thing I have noticed-the very strong discrepancy between my daytime vision and nighttime vision-I think I lose as much as a whole diopter at night.  Does this improve as the vision itself improves?

Thanks for all your work and inspiration.

Nate
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 01, 2012, 09:29:38 AM
Hi Nate and group,
I find it very difficult to obtain "support" minus lenses from an OD.  For some reason, they will not 1) Reduce a minus lens for me, or will 2) Object to my own checking of my vision using a Snellen.
Here is a discussion on how to buy supportive minus lenses for about $10.

http://tod.fm/where-to-buy-eyeglasses-and-training-lenses/

Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 01, 2012, 08:27:26 PM
Hello everyone,

It seems that my vision has dipped slightly to about 20/50 because of the amount of school work I've had to do these past few weeks. Sometimes, when i'm tired, it seems the more i read with the plus, my vision worsens and becomes blurrier.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 01, 2012, 08:56:23 PM
Hi jansen,

I wouldn't worry too much. I've had the same reaction to overworking my eyes. The best solution seems to be rest -- including enough sleep and getting some time away from reading and close work. It may help to reduce the amount of time you wear plus lenses, but use them with a greater degree of "pushing" to the edge of blur during the shorter time periods of use.

The analogy here is with weight lifting, where it is well known that overtraining leads to setbacks.  In these situations, taking a break or cutting back on frequency can be beneficial.

Todd

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on February 02, 2012, 02:36:57 AM
Jansen,

I have experienced the exact same phenomenon in the past. Essentially, that overuse of the plus lenses leads to overwork and an overall decrease in visual acuity. In my case, it also gives me red-eye, which is one of the reasons why I don't use the plus very often anymore. What you are experiencing, the drop related to too much school work, is probably stress induced pseudomyopia. I wouldn't worry too much about it, just, as Todd says, try to give your eyes as much rest as you can. I would also advise, as much as you can, to look up from your schoolwork into the distance for a minute or two. However, I am acutely aware that sometimes that minute or two is too precious to use for non-studying activities. It is for me a rather frustrating position to be in. Anyway, I wish you be best of luck in your continued efforts.

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jeremyhak2 on February 02, 2012, 09:36:23 AM
Hello, I am Jeremy and its my first time posting on this forum. There seem to be some really interesting stuff here! I'm quite amazed at how myopia can actually be reversed. Reading Jansen's posts, its astounding that such a thing is possible and I feel inspired to reduce my myopic vision as well.

Currently, I have very high myopia, with a prescription of:
R: -6.00 with very slight astigmatism of 0.25
L: -5.75

Yep, I have very bad eyes, especially since I'm 16...
What is interesting is that based on what Otis said, it seems to match my observations as well. I have been wearing glasses 24/7 except during sleep, and spend hours on the computer everyday. Yet, I find my prescription jumping about a diopter higher every year. I hope that by using a reduced prescription, I will be able to reach the goal of reducing my progression of myopia, and perhaps reverse it if possible.

I plan on using the plus lens therapy  to achieve this goal, but I have a few questions:

1. What prescription would I need when I do any close work(ie. reading, computer work etc..)? I have an old pair of L:-5.00 R:-4.75 glasses, is it fine to use those?
2. Is it fine to use my current prescription glasses/contacts during any distance related vision such as school, driving, biking etc...?
3. Will the same effect of this therapy be achieved if I use +3 diopter lens while I am on contacts?
4. Don't doctors always say that it is in fact better to keep your full prescription glasses on to reduce the effects of myopia? It seems that there was also a study done on this in 2002 by O Leary, and based on that, people with full prescription correction had a lower rate of myopic progression than the ones with undercorrection. How would the plus lens work against this?
5. Anything else I should do to further improve my vision?
6. Most important question: Are there any risks to doing this??

Thanks, I know this is a long post, but I am new at this and want to be fully sure before I attempt using plus lens.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 02, 2012, 10:23:16 AM
Hi,
My vision was basically destroyed by the process you describe.  In the early stage (of about 20/40 to 20/50) it could be "recovered", if the minus is avoided, and the plus is always used for all close work -- starting at 20/50.
Jansen's great success is that he got his refractive state to change from -2 and -4 diopters (average -3 diopters) to a point, now, where he can function with no minus at all.  I consider passing some, of the DMV test, and avoiding the minus a personal success for Jansen, since the medical community insists that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVEN AVOID ENTRY!  This is why you are never told about the absolute need to start wearing the plus when you are at -3/4 diopters.
For Jansen:  I don't think you truly understand how lucky you are to even be passing the 20/50 line at this time.  I take it that you are in high school, and plan to go to college and beyond.  On a separate thread, I will post the remarks of a would-be pilot who had 20/20 in college, but never "knew" about the need for plus-prevention.  This is what would have happened to you if you did not work your way out of -3 diopters of myopia.  Yes, I know you are frustrated, but you are successful, against the knowledge of how bad is it certain to become  -- in the future.  This is not a "threat" -- this is reality.  So, if you wish, stop wearing the plus for a period of time, but keep in mind what happens to people who never were a plus in high school and college.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 02, 2012, 10:27:36 AM
Welcome to the forum, Jeremy!

You do have very strong myopia.  Your journey will be longer, so you'll have to be persistent.  But your younger age favors success.

I'll try to answer your questions:

Quote
1. What prescription would I need when I do any close work(ie. reading, computer work etc..)? I have an old pair of L:-5.00 R:-4.75 glasses, is it fine to use those?

This is all covered in the comments of the above thread....read it through carefully.  The key is to chose a lens such that you are reading right on the edge of focus.  (Read the discussion of D1, D2 and D3...search and you will find it!).  For some people this involves a plus lens.  For others with strong myopia such as yourself, you will be able to do this either without glasses at all, or with much a much reduced prescription.  I doubt that -5/-4.75 is a sufficient undercorrection to allow you to read a computer or book at the edge of focus, without sitting too far away.


Quote
2. Is it fine to use my current prescription glasses/contacts during any distance related vision such as school, driving, biking etc...?

For distance, you should use an undercorrected set of lenses.  They should be undercorrected by about -0.5 diopters at most.  But as your vision improves, continue to substitute weaker and weaker lenses...until you are free of glasses and contacts.

Quote
3. Will the same effect of this therapy be achieved if I use +3 diopter lens while I am on contacts?

Wearing plus lenses over contacts is a good solution.  Go to the pharmacy and try on various strengths of plus lenses, trying to read print that is 18 inches away.  Choose the lens that lets you read at D2.

Quote
4. Don't doctors always say that it is in fact better to keep your full prescription glasses on to reduce the effects of myopia? It seems that there was also a study done on this in 2002 by O Leary, and based on that, people with full prescription correction had a lower rate of myopic progression than the ones with undercorrection. How would the plus lens work against this?

The doctors who say this are simply wrong.  It is this type of thinking precisely that leads to people getting prescribed stronger and stronger lenses every year.

Quote
5. Anything else I should do to further improve my vision?

Yes.  Practice looking in the distance and at objects at varying distances whenever you get a chance.  Look at objects out of the periphery of your eyes in all directions.  Go on walks and get away from your books and computer.  Get plenty of sleep and rest.  Cut back on sugars in your diet and eat more carrots and green and red colored vegetables. Eat foods with omega 3 fatty acids (fatty fish like salmon, or grass fed beef) since these build more flexible membranes in the eye.  Get a copy of The Power of Perfect Vision by DeAngelis for some good eye exercises.

Quote
6. Most important question: Are there any risks to doing this??

No risks, except that people may try to argue you out of it.  You can fight back by showing them the research on the IRDT theory, sending them to read the testimonials on this forum and -- most importantly -- tracking your own progress and proving them wrong.

Good luck.  And PLEASE continue to post your progress here, as well as any frustrations or setbacks.  If you can work your way down from -6 diopters, others want to know about that.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jeremyhak2 on February 02, 2012, 02:33:11 PM
Thanks for the reply!

I plan on beginning the therapy next month when my current pack of daily disposable contacts run out. I'll switch to undercorrected contacts (by +0.5) and begin using +2.00 reading glasses during any close up work (+2.00 seems to work best for me in order to achieve D2).

As for the glasses:

I've already placed an order to exchange my current prescription glasses for an undercorrected pair (online from Clearly Contacts, I have to admit they have great service) and I should receive them in a few weeks. For close up work, I'll use a cheap pair of L:-3.75 R:-4.00 glasses from Zenni Optical.

The slight blur in D2 should essentially disappear after a while right? I'm assuming my eyes will focus into a 'distant' mode and any text will be more in focus few moments after.

And one more thing, I am still curious how you would explain the higher myopic progression in O' Leary's 2002 study for the group that wore undercorrected lenses?

I'm hoping this therapy works, I will be quite surprised if my rate of myopic progression decreases.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 02, 2012, 04:07:46 PM
Hi Jeremy,
Subject: Very biased studies -- like O'Leary.
I have reviewed and published papers on these subjects, with a Dr. Francis Young.  His "plus" study (in the form of a bifocal) was done with great character, and correctly as science.  You can not explain to a child how to wear a plus.  So, the only alternative (for a study) is to supply a bifocal.  Francis understood this.  He prescribe a "very high, and strong plus" (so the child could not avoid looking THROUGH the plus) and a weak minus (correct for 20/40). The control group wore a strong minus.  The result?  The plus group DID NOT GO DOWN, the rate was zero diopters per year.  The pure-minus group went down at rate of -1/2 diopters per year FOR EACH YEAR IN SCHOOL.  THAT was a competent study.  When other ODs run a study, they use a SMALL SEGMENT OF A PLUS, which the child AVOIDS LOOKING THROUGH.  Thus the O'Leary study was like that.  You will have to judge the bias in doing that, to avoid showing that the plus has the desired effect.  In all cases (of the bifocal groups) the pure minus went down at the rate of -1/2 diopter per year.  This is why I state that Jansen was very lucky to get his refraction to change from -3 diopters to about -1/2 diopter.  The success far exceeds even Frank Young "plus" study.  It is also why  I suggest to Jansen that he continue with the plus, and consider these studies as an indication as to what will happen to your distant vision if you decide to quit wearing the plus for prevention.  Best, Otis



Thanks for the reply!

I plan on beginning the therapy next month when my current pack of daily disposable contacts run out. I'll switch to undercorrected contacts (by +0.5) and begin using +2.00 reading glasses during any close up work (+2.00 seems to work best for me in order to achieve D2).

As for the glasses:

I've already placed an order to exchange my current prescription glasses for an undercorrected pair (online from Clearly Contacts, I have to admit they have great service) and I should receive them in a few weeks. For close up work, I'll use a cheap pair of L:-3.75 R:-4.00 glasses from Zenni Optical.

The slight blur in D2 should essentially disappear after a while right? I'm assuming my eyes will focus into a 'distant' mode and any text will be more in focus few moments after.

And one more thing, I am still curious how you would explain the higher myopic progression in O' Leary's 2002 study for the group that wore undercorrected lenses?

I'm hoping this therapy works, I will be quite surprised if my rate of myopic progression decreases.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 02, 2012, 04:13:25 PM
Your plans for the coming month sound very good, Jeremy.

The slight blur in D2 should essentially disappear after a while right? I'm assuming my eyes will focus into a 'distant' mode and any text will be more in focus few moments after.

Yes.  You'll find that D2 keeps increasing with time.  At some point, you have to move to stronger plus lenses or a weaker undercorrection, in order to be able to read at arms length again.

Quote
And one more thing, I am still curious how you would explain the higher myopic progression in O' Leary's 2002 study for the group that wore undercorrected lenses?

There is a big difference between "just wearing" undercorrected lenses (or plus lenses) all the time, and using them strategically.  By "strategically", I meaning doing what Otis calls "threshold prevention", and others call "print pushing" and I call "reading at D2".  Strategic use cannot be done by wearing undercorrected lenses all the time.  At best, you use them for two or three 30 minute sessions a day, with adequate breaks.  I'm sure that O'Leary provided no instructions regarding strategic use.

Furthermore, undercorrected lenses are not nearly as efficient as plus lenses for those with weak myopia, because they would only work for distance viewing improvement, not for reading.  Undercorrected lenses would only work for those with very strong myopia.  Did O'Leary control for that?

Wearing plus lenses all the timing and expecting to improve myopia would be like carrying around 100 pound weights all day and expecting to improve muscular strength.  It would wear you out and make you weaker.

Quote
I'm hoping this therapy works, I will be quite surprised if my rate of myopic progression decreases.

It will  -- but only if you do it correctly.  It is essential to understand the theory, so you can adapt it to your own situation.  You can't just throw on a pair of plus lenses or undercorrected lenses and expect them to work automatically.  Success requires a conscious, intentional, and persistent approach.  You need to be stimulating the eyes at the appropriate level, neither overwhelming them, nor understimulating them.  Each eye may need different stimulus. (Which is why you'll see some discussion in the above thread about patching or use of different lenses for right and left eyes).

The same is true of weight training or any other physical therapy.  There is the mindless approach (what you see in the gym) and the intelligent approach.  The mindless approach would say -- just do 10 reps of 80 pounds in 3 sets twice a week.  Such a fixed approach would fail miserably for most people.  It is essential to constant adapt the method to where you are, so that you make steady progress. The method will change as you improve -- both the strength of lenses and frequency of therapy.  

Try to understand the theory and you'll find that will work a lot better than following a fixed protocol.

Good luck,

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 02, 2012, 05:30:48 PM
Thank you everyone,

I'm sorry if there was any misunderstanding, I still wear my plus for as much close work as I can, as I know that working without lenses on the computer would make me worse.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 03, 2012, 08:00:23 AM
Hi Jansen,
Thanks for the up-date.  I think you have achieved an incredible success in going from -2 and -4 diopters to being able to work with no minus lens on your face, and a refractive state of about -1/2 diopter. This is a change of about +2.5 diopters over a year that you have been working to get your Snellen clear.  After that amount of change, I think the eye "plateaus" for some time.  But the big thing, is that you can function with no minus, and you can use the plus for all close work.  So sustaining your current visual acuity is of great value, and knowledge of what happens (see the pilot report by Chris), to your distant vision, is critical for your continued success.  This success is totally denied by the medical community -- which is why you had to have the intelligence and motivation to do it under your wise control.  Otis


Thank you everyone,

I'm sorry if there was any misunderstanding, I still wear my plus for as much close work as I can, as I know that working without lenses on the computer would make me worse.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 05, 2012, 08:06:35 PM
Hi All,

My name is Peter, and I started somewhat haphazardly into a vision improvement attempt starting in early Decemeber 2011.   There is a longer story around this other than my own personal story, but I heaving started reading and digesting myopia.org back in November 2011. By early December, I took off my distance glasses for my daily computer work - I am in IT, and that is 7-8 hours per day I stare at the monitor.

My background:
1.  At age 13 got first pair of distance glasses.  I don't know the perscription, but I remember the doctor telling me it was 20/30 left, and 20/50 right.  It was done at an Optometry teaching university, possibly by a student under supervision.  I remember quite clearly following the which is better - #1 or #2, and getting my perscription. 
2.  Around age 15, -1.5 L, -1.75 R. (again at the university) 
3.  Around age 17, -1.75 L, -2.25 R (again at the university).
4.  Around age 19, -2L, -.2.25R (again at the university) - turns out the R lens was accidently filled at -2.5!!!
5.  Around 25 or so is my next visit at a private OD office, find out my right lens was -2.5 all these years, and that the right eye was now -2.5 anyway. perscription -2L, -2.5R
6.  3 or 4 more visits each 3-4 years, and generally same perscription.
7.  about 30 years after my first pair of glasses, in mid-December 2011 after about 2 weeks of reading the computer without any glasses at the blur, I have an OD appointment, and am tested at -2L, -2R the first OD in about 20 years to consider my right eye needing only a -2.0 in order to read the 20/15.  OD shows me that I can actually read 20/20 with -1.5L/-1.5R, and if I really try, can probably make out the 20/15 line with -1.5R/-1.5L.  OD gives suggests -1.5L/-1.5R for reading, -2L/-2R driving.
8.  about 3 weeks into my "no glasses" for computer regimen, I make out a distant sign, something that is completely blurry, but make it clear for 1-2 seconds and have my first wow moment.

My first attempts to read a snellon chart on my own, seemed to be a rather blurry big E, and also very blurry 20/100 and 20/70 lines.  Outside of the E, I couldn't with any confidence tell anyone I could see the next 2 lines and really make out the letters.

I will fill in the details later, when I have time, but to shorten the story, today, roughly 2 months later I have changed the "too blurry to make out" to actually believe it is double vision, which through various excercises I can sometimes make clear.  Today, I can always and quickly make out the 20/50 line, with a bit of training/excercises, I get the 20/40.  This past week, I can say that daily I can eliminate the double-vision for a good 10-20 seconds and be able to read down to the 20/25 line.  Two or three times I read the first 3 letters of the 20/20 line (crystal clear, pale grey, but clear) but lose my gaze as I try to get through the line.  Outside, I can repeat that same gaze (with effort), and make out things in the distance that were impossible without glasses before.

So, I am just beginning this adventure, going from barely seeing the 20/200 E and now having glimpses into what can be. I am very excited.  The past is water under the bridge, but as you can imagine I am thinking I have spent 30 years lugging around glasses I possibly never needed.

Wish me luck.  I see most of the people on this site are young, but I am hoping that I may luck out and find that I too  may be able to regain my distance vision even though I am entering middle-age (I consider 40 the start of middle-age). It will be so fulfilling to me, as on more than one occasion over the past 15 years I have thought of laser correction. I have witnessed my peers and friends go down that same path, and I have always resisted even though I always got the "you have to do this too" message as soon as they successfully had their surgery.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 06, 2012, 11:31:45 AM
Hello Peterg,

It is always great to hear another success story! Going from 20/200 to being able to make out the 20/50 line is great improvement! Can I ask you what line you can read without doing any exercises beforehand?

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 06, 2012, 11:33:00 AM
Just another update,

My eyes seem to have sprung back to 20/40 after switching from +2 back to +1.50 again. I can read more comfortably with the +1.50 lenses at around 20 inches, and can still read the 20/50-20/40 line.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 06, 2012, 12:35:27 PM
Hi Jensen,

Assume you don't mean plus therapy when you ask about excercises, as generally I spend most of my work day staring at the computer, and have been trying to do it at the point of blur.

If I just sit down at the eye chart, and try to view without any excercises, I would say 20/60 and 20/50.  Both are blurry, but I believe symptomatic of double vision.  Staring into the distance through an open window near my eye chart for 10-15 seconds, I can then return to the eye chart and make out the 20/40 line blurry again, but with just a few not too hard blinks. 

To get past that point, I have to engage my excercises, although I am finding I am having to do the excercises less and less harshly to get the effect.  My excercise at that point consists of staring into the distance through the window for 10-15 seconds, then looking at the chart, clenching fists, exhaling very hard, inhaling very hard, then closing eyes as tight as possible, then open eyes and exhale and unclench fists and relax.  I may have to repeat this 3, 4, or 5 times in order to get the lower lines in focus.

Today I was able to successfully get the 20/20 completely read (all 8 letters) for the first time doing this.  I could even hold it.

Another thing of interest.  It appears my double vision bothers me more on the bigger letters (20/40 and above), and that my brain blocks out the double vision on the lower rows.  I am not sure why this is.  Truthfully, I have never made the big E clear, wherease I've gotten 20/25 and 20/20 clear to the point I didn't see double.  It is very strange.  I am ready to actually print out the 20/15 and 20/10 lines, now that I have proven I can nail the 20/20.

My main objective now is to work on my stamina of being able to hold my clear vision (the length has been increasing), and also my ability to see without excercises.  Like I said, I think I have been exherting less in my excercises to achieve.

What has been really shocking to me was how fast this has come together.

Hello Peterg,

It is always great to hear another success story! Going from 20/200 to being able to make out the 20/50 line is great improvement! Can I ask you what line you can read without doing any exercises beforehand?


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 07, 2012, 10:28:25 AM
Hi Jansen and Peter,
Subject: Difference in people.
I am always pleased when any person gets above 20/50.  Because it means that he can avoid the minus, an use the plus.
But getting better than 20/40, can not be predicted.  Each person must keep on working with the plus, and other methods.
That is why we are posting here, to encourage success and passing the 20/40 line and better by our own wisdom and continued efforts.
Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 07, 2012, 10:51:38 AM
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....
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on February 08, 2012, 06:09:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 08, 2012, 06:47:48 AM
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).
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 09, 2012, 10:31:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 11, 2012, 07:24:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 11, 2012, 09:10:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jimnicol on February 15, 2012, 05:29:10 AM
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
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 15, 2012, 09:41:46 AM
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
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jimnicol on February 15, 2012, 11:02:57 AM
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
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 15, 2012, 09:01:27 PM
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

Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jimnicol on February 16, 2012, 08:30:59 AM
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
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 16, 2012, 10:08:28 AM
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
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 16, 2012, 10:54:58 AM
...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
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 16, 2012, 03:56:34 PM
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
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 16, 2012, 04:49:47 PM
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
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 16, 2012, 05:24:22 PM
Hi Otis,

Understood. 

For Jim given his starting perscription, I refered to Gallop's book.  Having read it, I think it is valuable from a psychological perspective.  As you know, it takes a lot of effort, dedication, and discipline to prevent myopia when your distance vision starts to go.  Just my opinion, but the effort will likely be an order of magnitude higher when you are trying to improve a nearsighted situation that is already much worse.  Just my naive, layman guess.

Peter
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jimnicol on February 16, 2012, 05:46:25 PM

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).  

Hi Todd...nope, I'm talking about my regular glasses. I'm 20/20 for distance vision with them, and can still focus at arm's length well enough to read a computer screen marginally - not clearly, but blurrily readable. If I put reading glasses on over my minus lenses, though, I can make it perfectly clear, just like someone with normal vision who has to wear reading glasses for close work. But I think I've figured it out...the blurriness I get trying to work up close with my minus lenses is not the blurriness I want because it's from overcorrection (for close work), instead of a proper undercorrection that will facilitate improvement. Make sense?

Thanks as always...
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jimnicol on February 16, 2012, 05:50:07 PM
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

That helps...I get that I can go either with undercorrected minus lenses, or plus lenses over my current prescription, whichever best gets me to the edge of focus for close work. Thanks, Todd.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jimnicol on February 16, 2012, 05:52:05 PM
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

Well, I'll hope I've been overcorrected all these years. I wouldn't be surprised if I have. Either way, it's intriguing enough to give it a try. Thanks, Otis.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jimnicol on February 16, 2012, 05:54:52 PM
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

Thanks, Peter, I'll definitely check it out.

Jim
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 16, 2012, 06:23:12 PM
Hi Jim,
From what you state here -- is sounds like you are over-prescribed. By how much I can only estimate.  If you can see "good enough" at about 1 meter, I would think you are about 20/100 to 20/80 on a Snellen. If you used your own "check lens" I think you could clear the 20/40 line with about a -1 diopter lens.  I don't know if you are "up" to do the checking, but I suggest putting up a Snellen at 20 feet, and find out what you actually do read.  You can down-load one from here:

http://www.i-see.org/block_letter_eye_chart.pdf

Put a bright light on it -- and see what line you roughly read 1/2 the letters correctly.  Some slight squinting allowed for now.

Otis


Hi Todd...nope, I'm talking about my regular glasses. I'm 20/20 for distance vision with them, and can still focus at arm's length well enough to read a computer screen marginally - not clearly, but blurrily readable. If I put reading glasses on over my minus lenses, though, I can make it perfectly clear, just like someone with normal vision who has to wear reading glasses for close work. But I think I've figured it out...the blurriness I get trying to work up close with my minus lenses is not the blurriness I want because it's from overcorrection (for close work), instead of a proper undercorrection that will facilitate improvement. Make sense?

Thanks as always...
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 16, 2012, 06:54:34 PM
Just finished reading your book Otis.  Jim - you may wish to read as well although if you read Otis' posts, it will cover most of the themes (except for all the technical diagrams).

www.myopia.org/otis_v4.doc
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 16, 2012, 07:24:51 PM
Peter -- I am in complete agreement with you on this point.

I think the person, who self-confirms 20/40, and -1/2  diopters (and wants to be a pilot) will accept the challenge of correctly wearing a plus, until he confirms that his refractive state changes in a positive direction, and he confirms his Snellen at 20/20 to 20/15.  Honestly, the problem with most of us, is that we don't have the motivation for this type of challenge!!  We might wear a plus for  a week or two, but then we will quit -- failing to understand the necessity of long-term use of a plus.  As I have shown, once you get down to 20/50, and are in high school, we know that the natural eye keeps on going down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. Thus plus-prevention is not for the short term.  Against that -1/2 diopter per year, you must monitor your Snellen and always start with the plus if it goes below 20/50. After all, if you go in  a OD's office, and you can't read the 20/50 line, he will have no choice at all but to give you a minus lens. (Too strong in most cases.)  But I am not going to "fight" with an OD about this issue.  If I can, I will always confirm 20/40 or better at home, and 20/30 if at all possible, so I am never required to wear a excessively strong minus all the time.  Otis

Hi Otis,

Understood. 

For Jim given his starting perscription, I refered to Gallop's book.  Having read it, I think it is valuable from a psychological perspective.  As you know, it takes a lot of effort, dedication, and discipline to prevent myopia when your distance vision starts to go.  Just my opinion, but the effort will likely be an order of magnitude higher when you are trying to improve a nearsighted situation that is already much worse.  Just my naive, layman guess.

Peter
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 17, 2012, 03:52:54 AM
Question for those that have done the vision improvement. 

Do you find your vision is best when you wake up?  The last week or so, I have started to be able to see my digital clock in the morning when I wake up.  I have not been able to do it at this distance for decades.  This morning was the clearest ever.  I know later in the day, if I go to my room, it is much harder to see.  It is also harder when I go to bed at night and turn off the lights.
 
Just a general test, but also about 45 minutes after getting up, I went down to look at my eyechart, without testing myself, and just had a general view of it.  It appears my first instinct is that the 20/40 and 20/30 rows were pretty clear, and less double vision.  But then efforts to "see" put my eyes this early in the morning started putting them into the current normal situation I am in.  Clearly it will be a process in patience.

In the next few days I will try to get a morning where I will measure my vision against the chart shortly after I wake up.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 17, 2012, 04:13:16 AM
Hi Peter,
Questions:  1) Do you read in bed? and 2) Do you wear a plus lens for all your reading? 3) Do you wear a plus lens for all your computer work?  I am always pleased with a person is reading the 20/40 line (I think your recent prescription was for about -2.5 diopters.)
Thanks for posting your efforts here.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 17, 2012, 05:35:14 AM
I have been using a plus lens for about a week or so essentially for my computer work.  I am also conscientiously trying to stare off into the distance unaided (a few hunderd feet) every so often.  That is my current protocol.  However, up until the plus lenses, I was just using my naked eye, using the computer at the blur that way.  I am around 18 inches from the monitor now.  It was through that initial effort (no plus lenses) that eventually I started showing signs of improvement.  I don't read in bed.  If I have a chance, I watch 30-60 minutes of television and try to concentrate on staring into the picture and making it clear.  This usually tires me out, and then I am ready for bed.   Also, should note, that I am getting occasionaly tearing of the eyes, when they try to focus.  Sometimes when on the computer, sometimes when watching the television, and sometimes when looking into the distance.  I have been told this may be evidence that my cilliary muscles are relaxing.  Peter
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 17, 2012, 05:44:57 AM
Otis, in your book you discuss that when using the plus, your accomodation is at far, but your convergence is still at near.  You make a comment in the book that this is a price you must pay.  What are some ways you think one can mitigate this.   When I stare off into distance, that is an attempt to accomdate for far and converge for far.   So during those breaks, would quick glances without lenses to some near objects be a good break?
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 17, 2012, 06:05:18 AM
Otis, another question.  Would it be fair to say that when one uses minus (distance) glasses, one is accomodating as if for near, but converging for far?  I guess that is the opposite of the reading glasses question I asked above.  So, technically, is that also the price one must pay to see in the distance with minus glasses?  Sorry for all the layman questions, I am just trying to understand some basics here.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jimnicol on February 17, 2012, 06:25:39 AM
Hi Jim,
From what you state here -- is sounds like you are over-prescribed. By how much I can only estimate.  If you can see "good enough" at about 1 meter, I would think you are about 20/100 to 20/80 on a Snellen. If you used your own "check lens" I think you could clear the 20/40 line with about a -1 diopter lens.  I don't know if you are "up" to do the checking, but I suggest putting up a Snellen at 20 feet, and find out what you actually do read.  You can down-load one from here:

http://www.i-see.org/block_letter_eye_chart.pdf

Put a bright light on it -- and see what line you roughly read 1/2 the letters correctly.  Some slight squinting allowed for now.

Otis

Hi again, Otis, and thanks. I can see "good enough" with my minus lenses on, is what I meant. So I can see well distance-vision wise, while still being <i>almost</i> able to focus for computer work at arm's length, while still wearing my minus lenses. Bare-eyed though I have to get within a foot to read a computer screen, and looking at an eye chart without glasses I can't even read the E from 20 feet.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 17, 2012, 07:03:26 AM
Hi Jim,
The reason I asked was because Dennis was able to read through a +1.5 diopter plus lens, after a few weeks.  He had a -4 diopter prescription.  They eye simply does not "change" by 3 diopters in three weeks, ergo, he was over-prescribed.  But I never know until a person actually checks.  What a -4 diopter prescription indicates is that you can not see clearly beyond 10 inches.  (Basic optics, 0.4 meters, or power of 1/.4 = 4 diopters.)  The prescription of -4 is probably correct at this time.  Otis



Hi again, Otis, and thanks. I can see "good enough" with my minus lenses on, is what I meant. So I can see well distance-vision wise, while still being <i>almost</i> able to focus for computer work at arm's length, while still wearing my minus lenses. Bare-eyed though I have to get within a foot to read a computer screen, and looking at an eye chart without glasses I can't even read the E from 20 feet.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 17, 2012, 07:06:26 AM
Hi Jim,

Let me add some context of my personal situation, which is still evolving and I have my own questions that I am still struggling to understand.

I started in early December to work without glasses at my computer.  I think I had to pull up to about 14-15 inches initially and it was a struggle to maintain it.  So, it sounds like my eyes were slightly better than your starting point, as you say 10 inches.  In the course of a month or so, I was able to get to around normal reading distance -- or about 20 inches.

Unfortunately, I can't compare the big E with your big E vision to tell you what I saw.  I did not look at an eye chart before I started naked eye computer work.  However, on Dec. 22, 2011 I did put up an eye chart, and I could only make out the big E.  It was still very blurry.  During that first view, I squinted and saw I could also make out the next line when squinting.  Then after squiniting at it for a while, I noticed I could do slightly better with that next line.  I can't say I was reading it, and I have my doubts becuase I had squinted and seen it was F & P, but i  seemed slightly better just from the squinting I had done for a few minutes.  Over the next severl days, I started making out the next row after the FP, or 20/70.   The major problem I had, was questioning whether it was at all meaningful, as it was all rather blurry, from Big E (20/200 to the 3 letters of the 20/70 line).  I had read stuff where various eye doctors suggest the person is just learning to decipher the blur.

So, keeping all that in mind, with continuous doubt in my mind (even today), I know that I have been starting to see better.  In my situation, I have come to believe I actually see double (or maybe triple) in the distance, and that over time my eye has compensated for that (along with the distance glasses, so instead of seeing double my brain would just blur it all out unless it was close enough to see.

Just my layman's feelings.

Right now, my main hope is to conquer my disability of seeing double (or triple) in the distance.  I get glimpses of being able to do that, but it takes effort.  But, if I conquer that problem, then I am fairly certain I will no longer need distance glasses for everyday life, including for driving.  Still need to figure out the night vision thing though.

I do think it is also important to note, that in my situation I got occasional sudden bursts of clear vision.  I got them without having used plus glasses but rather just using my plain old eyes at the blur along with staring into the distance unaided.  I have now moved to plus glasses, in an effort/hope to accelerate or continue with the improvement.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 17, 2012, 07:09:00 AM
Otis - your basic optics math:  0.4 meters, or power of 1/.4 = 4 diopters.  That division is 2.5 diopters.  Did you make a mistake?  Just asking so that it is clear.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 18, 2012, 06:56:19 AM
Peter -- thanks for catching the typo I made.
Further commentary on your use of the plus.

Peter> I do think it is also important to note, that in my situation I got occasional sudden bursts of clear vision.  I got them without having used plus glasses but rather just using my plain old eyes at the blur along with staring into the distance unaided.  I have now moved to plus glasses, in an effort/hope to accelerate or continue with the improvement.

Otis> When you were "deeper" into nearsightedness, and has problems with the 20/100 line -- I tend to agree with you, that just not wearing a minus is a good idea.  You also established that your self-measured refractive status is -1 diopter.  Knowing that fact is empowering in my opinion.  I personally think that if you are seeing "flashes" of 20/20, but an average of 20/60 -- you are in excellent shape.  I know you are using a +1 at this time, and I would hope you continue.
Otis


Otis - your basic optics math:  0.4 meters, or power of 1/.4 = 4 diopters.  That division is 2.5 diopters.  Did you make a mistake?  Just asking so that it is clear.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jansen on February 19, 2012, 11:11:30 PM
Hello everyone,

In my opinion, it is basically whatever you are comfortable reading with. But generally, people around 20/60 do use a +1.00-+1.50 or so. When you are around 20/40, i would recommend switching to +2.00.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 20, 2012, 07:27:52 PM
Hi Jansen,
I know that pilots who are starting with the plus (at 20/60 to 20/70) begin with a +1.5 to +1.75 for all close work.  As they "exercise" with the plus, and other methods, they notice that 1) There Snellen slowly starts to get better, i.e., they see 20/40 and 20/50 better and 2) They notice that they can begin to use a +2 to +2.25 diopter at the same distance where they could only wear the +1.75.  This is because the eye slowly changes its refractive status in a positive direction, and you measure this with you Snellen and this method.  I did the extra step of obtaining test lenses just to protect myself, to make certain that I was in full control of my vision.  Otis

Hello everyone,

In my opinion, it is basically whatever you are comfortable reading with. But generally, people around 20/60 do use a +1.00-+1.50 or so. When you are around 20/40, i would recommend switching to +2.00.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jimnicol on February 21, 2012, 12:30:05 PM
Hi Jim,

Let me add some context of my personal situation, which is still evolving and I have my own questions that I am still struggling to understand....

Thanks, Peter...I definitely see double at distance without my glasses...looking at power lines for example there are two images...one dark and a lighter one, almost like a shadow of the first. I'm sort of on hold, waiting for my Zenni glasses, which are 1/2 a diopter weaker than my current prescription, to come in. Hoping that after wearing them for a while I'll see some improvement.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on February 21, 2012, 02:57:50 PM
I definitely see double at distance without my glasses...looking at power lines for example there are two images...one dark and a lighter one, almost like a shadow of the first. I'm sort of on hold, waiting for my Zenni glasses, which are 1/2 a diopter weaker than my current prescription, to come in. Hoping that after wearing them for a while I'll see some improvement.

Jim,

The double image you are seeing is actually a good sign.  As I've described in earlier posts on this thread, the retina is not a single focal plane but has some depth.  So the darker, crisper image you see is in focus, whereas the fainter blurry secondary image is in a different focal plane, and thus out-of-focus.  

The more you practice focusing on the darker, crisper image, the more prominent it will become.  Eventually, the fainter secondary image will fade away and you'll have improved your vision! You can do this even without wearing any special lenses.

Try it and see if it works for you like it did for me and others.

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on February 21, 2012, 05:00:36 PM
Question for Peter:
You had mentioned "seeing double" -- which is an effect that some people see as they are working with the plus.  Some people simply don't see this temporary effect.

Peter obtained some low-cost test lenses from Zennioptical. 

I wonder if you could check your vision WITH a -1 diopter, and determine if you see "double" of your Snellen though that -1 to -1.25 lens.

That will be helpful for all of us to know.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on February 21, 2012, 07:41:01 PM
Hi Otis,

In fact I did this double-vision test last week.  With -1 on my eyes (both eyes), I seemed to be viewing a clear snellon chart.  When I used -.75 on both eyes, I ended up seeing double, which again I could work on fusing through in order to clear my snellon.  So it seems somewhere between -.75 and -1 is when I get the problem.  I should add, my double vision is not always in the same place.

Example, sometimes I see:
1.  A A  (side by side - I think the majority of time)
2.  A
     A  (on top of each other)
3.  A 
        A  (some sort of diagonal)

Peter
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jimnicol on February 23, 2012, 10:34:25 AM
I definitely see double at distance without my glasses...looking at power lines for example there are two images...one dark and a lighter one, almost like a shadow of the first. I'm sort of on hold, waiting for my Zenni glasses, which are 1/2 a diopter weaker than my current prescription, to come in. Hoping that after wearing them for a while I'll see some improvement.

Jim,

The double image you are seeing is actually a good sign.  As I've described in earlier posts on this thread, the retina is not a single focal plane but has some depth.  So the darker, crisper image you see is in focus, whereas the fainter blurry secondary image is in a different focal plane, and thus out-of-focus.  

The more you practice focusing on the darker, crisper image, the more prominent it will become.  Eventually, the fainter secondary image will fade away and you'll have improved your vision! You can do this even without wearing any special lenses.

Try it and see if it works for you like it did for me and others.

Todd

Thanks, Todd...I'll work on that.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on March 06, 2012, 06:30:10 AM
Update. 

I patched my right eye (dominant) for about an hour yesterday when using the computer screen, to force the left to do all the work.  The reason I did this, was that after many years of my right, dominant eye being weaker, my vision therapy over the last few months has caused my right eye to actually become stronger then the left!

This morning, I tested on my eye chart and for the first time read all 8 letters of the 20/15 line correctly.. 

I asked my behavioral OD last Sunday if it would be possible via retinoscopy to quickly measure my eyes again.  It was done and measured right eye -.5,  left eye -1 then 30 seconds later, retest via retinoscopy left eye switched to -.75.

I will continue to do some patching occasionally, to help work the left eye as I hope for big benefits to my vision with more equally capable eyes that can work together.

The other thing to note, is that contrary to the idea of poor lighting in an OD office, I actually see my OD's eye chart better than my snellon at home.  I am conservative in my assessment, but at home I am fairly certain I am 20/40.   At the ODs office, the same sort of initial self-test puts me at 20/30.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 06, 2012, 05:46:21 PM
Dear Peter,

With all due respect, it is hard to get good accuracy with a retinoscope.  You have seen a change of 1/4 diopter in a period of minutes.  Your measurement using your own Snellen at home (that can be repeated as many times as necessary) can be far more accurate (in my opinion).  In this case, monitor your Snellen, and  verify 20/40 (with you stated it is).  Then hold up a -1/4 diopter lens.  Is the 20/20 line clearer?  Then the -1/2 diopter.  Does the clear the 20/20 line?  If it does, your refractive state is -1/2 diopters.  (I know your retina is good for 20/15, but this is a good standard way to check -- as you work to get the 20/20 line clear.

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

I would also add, that since you are 20/40 to 20/30, on you "in home" Snellen, you day visual acuity will be quite a bet better in Sunlight -- probably 20/25 to 20/20.

The reason for this is that the aperture "closes", and increases depth-of-field.  But this means for all practical purposes you can drive a car in day with no lens.

Otis




Update. 

I patched my right eye (dominant) for about an hour yesterday when using the computer screen, to force the left to do all the work.  The reason I did this, was that after many years of my right, dominant eye being weaker, my vision therapy over the last few months has caused my right eye to actually become stronger then the left!

This morning, I tested on my eye chart and for the first time read all 8 letters of the 20/15 line correctly.. 

I asked my behavioral OD last Sunday if it would be possible via retinoscopy to quickly measure my eyes again.  It was done and measured right eye -.5,  left eye -1 then 30 seconds later, retest via retinoscopy left eye switched to -.75.

I will continue to do some patching occasionally, to help work the left eye as I hope for big benefits to my vision with more equally capable eyes that can work together.

The other thing to note, is that contrary to the idea of poor lighting in an OD office, I actually see my OD's eye chart better than my snellon at home.  I am conservative in my assessment, but at home I am fairly certain I am 20/40.   At the ODs office, the same sort of initial self-test puts me at 20/30.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on March 06, 2012, 09:40:49 PM
Hi Otis, the reason I asked for the retinoscopy was to see what the OD would measure that way.  This was just self-interest with me wondering.  Although I am not sure of the process, would it be safe to say in a regular exam the OD does retinoscopy, and then proceeds to test with lenses using the retinoscopy results as a starting point.  This difference in retinoscopy results may also just be showing the same thing I show when I look at the eye chart and get a variable response.  Initially I do not see 20/20, it is after a bit of work which is getting more and more minor that I begin to clear 20/30, 20/25, and 20/20. So it is all in some ways interesting to me.  I guess the main thing I am waiting for is the day I can look in the distance, and not see blur far away (even if I can't read a very distant sign) and hold it.  I think this means sight to infinity (correct me if I am wrong).  I believe I have had glimpses of that if not daily, certainly more than on one occasion.  It is sort of like the eye chart, I can't necessarily hold it long, but the length and frequency is improving.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 07, 2012, 04:13:59 AM
Hi Peter,
In my judgment learning HOW to make a measurement, and MAKING IT YOURSELF -- WITH CONFIDENCE -- is what prevention is all about.  As you know, I report "variation" in my Snellen, running from 20/25 to 20/18 to perhaps 20/15.  I think that is the variation you are seeing, and I think it is completely normal.  As your refractive state changes, you will see the AVERAGE of what you read slowly change from 20/40 to 20/30, to a more steady 20/25, 20/20, and perhaps 20/18.  I like the idea that you personally check this change in refractive state, using your own trial-lens kit.  The two measurement are very similar, but the measurement you will believe is THE MEASUREMENT YOU MADE YOURSELF -- OBJECTIVELY.

As you know, I go to an ophthalmolgist for MEDICAL checks.  They check my refractive state with the retinoscope, but I always check myself at home.  That is how I separate my personal responsiblity to myself, from a medical responsibility.  When you start getting in the range of 20/30 to 20/18, you can largely avoid wearing a minus lens.  But I also believe, that if you keep wearing the plus (increased from 2.0 to 2.5) your refractive state will become more positive, and you will begin to see in the range of 20/25 to 20/18 very consistently.

The chart you read is OBJECTIVE on your part.  Looking in the distance, while impressive, is subjective.  The goal is to, in a consistent manner, begin reading your chart at the 20/25 to 20/20 range -- however long it might take to get there.

Otis




Hi Otis, the reason I asked for the retinoscopy was to see what the OD would measure that way.  This was just self-interest with me wondering.  Although I am not sure of the process, would it be safe to say in a regular exam the OD does retinoscopy, and then proceeds to test with lenses using the retinoscopy results as a starting point.  This difference in retinoscopy results may also just be showing the same thing I show when I look at the eye chart and get a variable response.  Initially I do not see 20/20, it is after a bit of work which is getting more and more minor that I begin to clear 20/30, 20/25, and 20/20. So it is all in some ways interesting to me.  I guess the main thing I am waiting for is the day I can look in the distance, and not see blur far away (even if I can't read a very distant sign) and hold it.  I think this means sight to infinity (correct me if I am wrong).  I believe I have had glimpses of that if not daily, certainly more than on one occasion.  It is sort of like the eye chart, I can't necessarily hold it long, but the length and frequency is improving.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: jimnicol on March 07, 2012, 08:09:56 AM
Hi again, just an update from here. I got my Zenni glasses at -4.50R -4.75L (down from -5.00R -5.25L) and also picked up from eyewebcare.com contact lenses at -4.25R -4.50L. The glasses are a little uneven (L is more underpowered than R) so I'm getting another pair reducing the R lense to -4.25 to even things out and give both eyes the same room to improve. After a week I was getting along fine with the glasses, to the point where I don't really notice any deficiency with both eyes open, and only a little weakness in L eye if I close my right. And with the contacts I was reading 20:20 on the 20' eye chart after 3 days. I'm thinking I won't even get through the 1 box (6 lenses) I ordered because I'll want to reduce the prescription by another -.5 fairly soon.

Haven't done much with plus lenses yet...all they do with close work is bring things into focus; there's no plus blur for the eyes to work against.

Thanks again for all the help...it's starting off quite encouragingly for me.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 07, 2012, 01:04:00 PM
Thanks for the encouraging update, Jimnicol  :)
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Nate on March 08, 2012, 10:50:46 AM
Just a quick note.

I want to thank Todd and Otis (and everyone else who posts and is working on their eyes). I've been working on my eyes since August, and have documented improvement-although I seem to be on a little bit of a plateau right now.  I am very diligent at the exercises.

It has been a dream of mine since about third grade-when I got glasses-to see without them.  I was warned that if I didn't wear my glasses my eyes would get worse because of "eye strain".  I have always been a voracious reader, which didn't help.  In junior high, I got contact lenses, which at the time I thought were heaven sent.

In contact lenses through college and medical school, reading the entire time, I finally ended up with a prescription of -5.25/-6.0, much worse than when I started.  So much for the glasses preventing my eyes from getting worse.

Finally, I decided to risk it and get lasik surgery.  I had paid my bill, was sedated and in the operating chair, when the surgeon cancelled my surgery.  He gave two reasons-one was the shape of my cornea, apparently it wasn't optimal for lasik surgery.  The second was because of my profession.  I am a pathologist, my livelihood depends on me using my eyes to make visual diagnosis.  He didn't want to take the risk of a bad outcome with me.

So I gave up and went back to contact lenses-until I stumbled on Todd's website.  I read through the thread, and checked all the references and did some research of my own. 

I am convinced that Todd is right not only because of all of the research, but because that is the way the human body works.  It responds to imposed stress.  It just makes sense that if a 'myopic lens' is placed in front of the eye, the eye adapts by becoming more myopic.  Do that in a stepwise fashion over a period of 30 years, and you have me, basically legally blind.

In fact, as I reviewed the material, I couldn't think of a single system in the body-hormonal, muscular, skeletal, digestive, psychiatric, etc, which doesn't work and adapt in this way.

So you have given me hope for my eyes.  They have improved markedly, but I still have quite a ways to go.

Anyways, I wanted to thank you, and do what I can to help.  You are doing a great job.  I want to help you if I can.

Nate

PS.  The rest of the site is great also. 

 
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 08, 2012, 12:18:05 PM
Nate,

How much progress have you been able to make?

I know how challenging plateaus can be. Don't let it get you down! Sometimes it really helps to change up your methods a bit, so don't be afraid to ask us or experiment on your own. The techniques I used to get from 20/25 to 20/15 were different in many ways from the techniques that Todd discusses, and helped my break through my months long plateau.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 08, 2012, 12:37:33 PM
Everyone,

I am tired of this almost there business. After the last few months of hovering around 20/20 - 20/25, I have decided to finally reach 20/12 this summer. I am posting this here to give myself a little bit of accountability, and also to give the rest of you any motivation you can get from my efforts. If you have any questions about what techniques I am using, feel free to ask.

Last week I was at 20/20. Today I am at 20/18. I'll keep you posted on a weekly basis, even if I don't have any improvement to report.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 08, 2012, 02:45:39 PM
It has been a dream of mine since about third grade-when I got glasses-to see without them...I am convinced that Todd is right not only because of all of the research, but because that is the way the human body works.  It responds to imposed stress.... I couldn't think of a single system in the body-hormonal, muscular, skeletal, digestive, psychiatric, etc, which doesn't work and adapt in this way. So you have given me hope for my eyes.  They have improved markedly, but I still have quite a ways to go. Anyways, I wanted to thank you, and do what I can to help.  You are doing a great job.  I want to help you if I can.

Nate,

Thanks for your testimony. I'm glad to see that you, as a trained pathologist, understand the physiological basis of hormesis and biological adaptation to stress as as the rationale for vision improvement through the use of plus lenses and other techniques of imposed stress, via controlled retinal defocus, to remodel the eye.

It is only by understanding the science that you can truly sustain the motivation and insight to persist with these eye improvent exercises through plateaus that can challenge patience. But I sense that you will persist, and I hope you'll periodically check in here to report progress. In doing so, you will inspire the "silent majority" of lurkers who read with curiosity but are reticent to post here.

Thanks,

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 11, 2012, 09:13:37 AM
Subject: The long, confused "explanation" versus crisp science.

People prefer a long complex and inaccurate explanation, which they don't understand (and delivered by an "expert") rather than a clear rational, scientific
explanation. Here is a doctor who describes why the natural eye changes its refractive state from a positive to negative value.  Her obvious goal is to NOT help anyone avoid entry, it is, to avoid having it get extremely BAD.  There is no thought about helping a person in the use of the plus (when he is at 20/40 to 20/50 -- about -3/4 diopters), and could, with great consistency clear the 20/40 line, then 20/30 line and 20/25 line.  She obviously thinks that NO ONE HAS THAT CAPABILITY.  Here is her report:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/24856\41/Indoor-play-affects-childrens-eyesight.html

Here is the science of the natural eye's responsiveness to long-term near.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/SaveEye.html

Here is the SCIENCE, based on objective testing of the natural eye:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf

I know how difficult it is to make the commitment to wearing a plus, (when you are at 20/40) when you seen your Snellen start "going down" towards 20/50, but the reason an logic for scientific prevention is totally clear to me.

As far as I am concerned (but with deep respect), in medicine, the "blind" are indeed leading the "blind".

We talk a lot about prevention, but I truly never know who will take is seriously.  I don't make "excessive claims", and I do think that prevention is difficult, but it beats getting stair-case myopia from a minus lens.

The Chinese have a proverb, that says,

To know, and not "to do", is to not know.

Just the reasons why I judge that the person himself has a lot to learn, and a lot "to do".


Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 11, 2012, 09:16:35 AM

Ooops,

Here is the medical report.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/2485641/Indoor-play-affects-childrens-eyesight.html

Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 11, 2012, 12:10:51 PM
Thanks for posting this, Otis. I think I had seen the original study before, but not the interpretation by Dr.  Rose. It's quite odd that she speculated the reduced incidence of myopia in kids who played outside or engaged in sports resulted from the action of dopamine on the eye, in response to the more intense outdoor light. Why postulate such a circuitous explanation, when a more obvious one it at hand: namely, more time spent focusing on distant objects, thereby stimulating the eye to maintain a shorter axial length.

This accords with my personal experience, and that of others like Shadowfoot, reported here. And it makes physiological sense.

Just too simple, isn't it?

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 14, 2012, 07:34:21 AM
Todd,

It reminds me of the studies linking stunted jaw development to soft foods. Obviously not everything is so simple, and there are often other factors to consider, but it is amazing how often the answer is so right under our noses the entire time.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 17, 2012, 07:48:24 AM
Wait. I thought that there used to be a reply from Otis sitting below my post? Am I imagining it, or did he delete it? Seems strange.

Anyway, weekly update: I'm at a sharper 20/18 with, at maximum, a barely not-yet readable 20/15. It has been almost three weeks since I told Todd that I thought I could go from 20/20 to 20/15 in a few weeks. Given the vagueness of "a couple of weeks," I'll clarify and say less than one month.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 17, 2012, 10:13:13 AM
Hi Shadow,

I try to "restrict" my posts on prevention -- since I judge that Todd and you should lead the discussion. 

Remember, I recognize that "just prevention" is both difficult and slow. 

What truly impresses me is Todd's work from -3 diopters.  I don't even attempt to EXPLAIN that success. 
I also think that you are lucky to be at 20/20.  20/18 is always wonderful if you can get there and maintain it.

 I will not ask you this question, but I will say this.  If you are in school,  (high school or college) you can 100 percent EXPECT your eyes to GO DOWN by -1/2 diopter per year.   Thus just having 20/20 to 20/25 for now - does not guarantee you will keep a refractive state of zero and 20/20 through four years of college -- if you are not prepared to re-start with the plus when you seen your Snellen go down (again) to 20/30 to 20/40.

There are people who want to wear a plus for three to nine weeks -- and then figure they will never go "down" again.

As long as you are IN SCHOOL, you can expect your eyes to go down, to 20/25, 20/30, and 20/40.  This is the 'education' we all need when we are at 20/40, and entering college.

Success favors the prepared mind.  That is the value of Todd's posts and and your discussions.

These discussions  will help the many people who are prepared to learn.


Wait. I thought that there used to be a reply from Otis sitting below my post? Am I imagining it, or did he delete it? Seems strange.

Anyway, weekly update: I'm at a sharper 20/18 with, at maximum, a barely not-yet readable 20/15. It has been almost three weeks since I told Todd that I thought I could go from 20/20 to 20/15 in a few weeks. Given the vagueness of "a couple of weeks," I'll clarify and say less than one month.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: MikeCoza2012 on March 18, 2012, 02:46:22 AM
There are many ways to improve your vision (http://bit.ly/HowGetRidOfYourGlasses) with exercises for the eye(Call The Ball, Follow Your Thumb, Palming, Bead And String, Look Away), yoga, and even acupuncture, this exercises help us to strengthen the muscle of our eyes & it reduces the eyestrain. Healthy Diet (http://bit.ly/HowGetRidOfYourGlasses) is very important too, eat foods such as Carrot, Eggs, Milk, Apricots, Berries, Black Currants, Cold-water Fish, Collard Green, Grapefruits, Grapes, Lemons, Plums, Spinach, Fish Oil, Raw Garlic(fresh), this foods gives vitamins that can prevent to have a poor eyesight. If you want to know more about "how to have a better eyesight without glasses" visit at http://bit.ly/HowGetRidOfYourGlasses—Improve Eyesight Naturally (http://bit.ly/HowGetRidOfYourGlasses)
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 18, 2012, 04:00:45 AM
Hi Todd,
In doing this preventive work (as an engineer), I am often accused of 1) "practicing medicine with no license", or 2) Advocate that you "avoid doctors"  Neither statement is true.  But it is necessary to UNDERSTAND an OD eye-exam.  Here is a 9 minute exam.  Note, that the first check he makes is to have the person READ HIS SNELLEN.  (In this test, very few people know WHICH LINE they can read -- I suggest that, at home, you know EXACTLY what line you can read, so you don't fail the 20/40 line in this test.)  The next step is a "Phoropter", which is your simple two "trial lenses", you use to see if (at 20/40) a minus will "clear" the 20/20 line.  If it does, you have a self-measured refractive state.  But by doing it yourself -- you TRUST YOUR MEASUREMENT.  The rest of the video concerns checking for pressure and checking your retina.  AFTER you go though this check, and have 20/40, you can and should check your Snellen and refractive state yourself.  This is to protect YOU, and to define what you can be responsible for, versus, what the "medical" person should be responsible for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziXX6fP00-U&feature=related

So I submit myself to this type of exam.  Indeed, I have 20/20 -- and THEY ATTEMPTED TO PRESCRIBE A LENS FOR ME!!  I knew before i went for the exam that I could read the 20/20 line.  Even if I read the 20/30 line, the would have prescribed a -1, -2 and even -3 dioper lens.   In my opinion, this is how Todd wound up with a -3 diopter prescription.  No, checking your refractive state yourself (at home) does not constitute the "practice of medicine", when you understand this issue.  I resent anyone who suggests that your wise use of a  plus (to protect your personal visual welfare) is medical in nature.  Otis




Thanks for posting this, Otis. I think I had seen the original study before, but not the interpretation by Dr.  Rose. It's quite odd that she speculated the reduced incidence of myopia in kids who played outside or engaged in sports resulted from the action of dopamine on the eye, in response to the more intense outdoor light. Why postulate such a circuitous explanation, when a more obvious one it at hand: namely, more time spent focusing on distant objects, thereby stimulating the eye to maintain a shorter axial length.

This accords with my personal experience, and that of others like Shadowfoot, reported here. And it makes physiological sense.

Just too simple, isn't it?

Todd
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 18, 2012, 12:44:20 PM
Todd and everyone,

21 days ago I read my Snellen at 20/20. Today I read it at 20/15.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 18, 2012, 03:19:04 PM
Hi ShadowFoot,

Subject:  Very pleased with you success!!

History: For the last 100 years, a minority of OD and MDs have advocated that WE ALL WEAR THE PLUS for prevention (before we go below 20/40 and -3/4 diopters).  But it takes an excellent intellect and a lot of personal fortitude to do it.  I know we all want medical support, and I try to supply it.  In a few days,  I will post a supporting statement by an Ophthalmologist who advocates what you have achieved.

CONGRATULATIONS!!


Todd and everyone,

21 days ago I read my Snellen at 20/20. Today I read it at 20/15.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on March 19, 2012, 09:00:25 AM
Shadow - when you say you cleared 20/15, is that a permanent sort of thing when you look at the eye chart, or do you have to work it?  Put another way, when you just go to the eye chart without having done any sort of therapy or exercise, what line do you see?

Asking, as I am just trying to compare to my situation.  I can hit the 20/15 line but not immediately.  I think possibly can hit even20/13, but I lose my focusing before I can read much of it.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: Todd Becker on March 19, 2012, 01:13:18 PM
Todd and everyone,

21 days ago I read my Snellen at 20/20. Today I read it at 20/15.

Wahoo!  Way to go, Shadowfoot!
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 19, 2012, 06:20:34 PM
peterg,

Whenever I post a personal Snellen reading, it is always at my highest acuity, which I determine as the level I can reach fairly easily without squinting. So, if I report myself as 20/15, that means that I was able to walk up to the 20 foot mark, read through the entire chart, and determine what every single letter is, all in a less than a minute. Technically, when reading the Snellen, I believe that you are not allowed to squint or spend too long making your decision, but you only have to get half the letters to pass the line. I compromise by forcing myself to read all of the letters before I 'pass' a line, but give myself a minute to bring it into clarity if need be. It is more accurate then, to say that my maximum acuity is presently 20/15, even if it might average out during the day closer to 20/18.

When I read the 20/15 line the other day, I had just come in from being outside enjoying some nice distance gazing, at was able to read the line almost instantly, just as soon as my eyes accommodated to slightly less blinding light. If I checked now, it would probably take me a minute to clear it.

I hope that answers you question. If not, I'll be free to elaborate.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 19, 2012, 07:40:02 PM
Hi Shadow,

Your 20/15 vision is in fact objectively, superior vision.  It is obvious that you pass the required 20/20 line.
This is because of your superior retina -- and positive status of your eyes. (necessary for best vision possible.)

If you say 20/20, it is written exactly that way.  It means you read 1/2 the letters correctly.

Here is the official definition by Mike Tyner Optometrist

Tyner>  Strictly, "20/40" by itself only means you got more than half right.

Tyner> 20/40+1 means you got all the 20/40 letters right, plus one off the next  line (20/30).

I know this is technical, but very few people can read the 20/15 line.

The FAA 1st class requires 20/20.  Congratulations on your success.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on March 20, 2012, 05:36:12 AM
Shadow - thank you. 

Your explanation helps. I think we are somewhat in the same boat.  Although I suspect you "clear up" and bring into focus a little more quickly than I, and I suspect hold it longer as well (I hope for several minutes).

With respect to that, when you bring the view into focus, how long do you typically maintain it?

For example, while I can get the 20/20 line fairly quickly, usually within 30 seconds or a minute, the ability to hold it before going back out to about the 20/30 line occurs after a period of time.  This is not something I'm measuring with a watch yet, but it is this consistency, and the ability to have the vision maintained that I am trying to attain.  My ability to hold the 20/15 line, as that is the next level I'm getting to, is even shorter than the 20/20 line.

According to the definition Otis mentions, I am probably 20/15 +2 when I can hit it, but only for that short interval.  Just a few times I have hit a couple of letters on 20/13 before losing focus.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 20, 2012, 05:59:43 AM
Hi Peter and Shadow,
I have my Snellen set-up, and out of curiosity and science, I check it every few days.  The result is that I have can form and "average" judgment of my visual acuity.  It is truth that on some days, I would say 20/25, for a very short period, and then 20/20.  Most days, 20/20, and I am certain that I am better than 20/20.  I can step back to 25 to 27 feet and still read the 20/20 line.  But I work to the definition provided by Mike Tyner.   I pass the DMV line.  I pass the required FAA 1st Class line, and I measure my refractive state as +3/4 diopters.  That is VERY PROTECTIVE of me 'going down' to 20/40.

If Shadow is entering a four year college (let us assume), we know that at 20/20 to 20/15, his eyes will "adapt" to that long-term "near" of 160 academic credit hours. The rate at which the eye "changes" is about -1/2 diopter per year.  I certainly do congratulate Shadow on his obvious objective success, but I also know that, he should continue to monitor his Snellen, and expect his vision to "go down" -- not as a "failure" but as an expected natural process.  This is what Dr. Colgate said about his use of the plus.  When working long-term on Radar, and other close work, he would notice that his distance vision would get "blurry".  Then he just re-started the wise use of the plus and cleared his Snellen -- as necessary.  So be prepared to re-start the wearing of a plus as necessary.  Otis
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: shadowfoot on March 20, 2012, 06:50:03 AM
Otis,

I think I should mention that I am currently enrolled in school, do quite a bit of reading, and, until recently, worked as a web developer (more close work). While doing this, I kept my vision in the 20/20 - 20/25 range and recently moved it down to 20/15. I think if proper habits are maintained, there is no reason to assume a steady decline.

peterg,

I suspect that I could maintain focus on the 20/15 line for a while, although I have never timed myself. It does slip out of focus occasionally, but quickly comes back into focus. I think that the time it takes to clear it is inversely proportional to the time it stays clear, i.e. if it clears almost instantly, it will stay clear, but if I have to work to clear it, it will be much harder to maintain.

An additional note: I usually only claim to read a line if I can clear it and read off the letters boom, boom, boom. If I have to go back and ask myself, "Was that P really an F?" I don't count it.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: OtisBrown on March 20, 2012, 11:09:22 AM
Hi Shadow,
Subject: Providing advice -- to people on the threshold of myopia (i.e., 20/30 to 20/60, and -1/2 to -1 diopters).
In posting here we know virtually nothing of a person's motivation, interest, curiosity, goal-in-life, etc.  No one in "medicine" can read our minds about that issue either.  But, in going through an exhaustive review of the eye's behavior, it became clear that 1) The eye is dynamic (primate eye) and 2) the minus is both very impressive and easy.  This is the "world" of an OD or MD.  If you study the massive problem of school children, or pilots entering a four year college, you find out that their vision goes down at a steady rate of -1/2 diopter per year.  If I knew that, (with 20/30, and a refractive state of -1/2 diopter), I would like to be informed of my visual future -- as well as the medical communities "writing me off", or their total disinterest in my long-term visual future. 
Informed in this manner, I would take action against that -1/2 diopter/per year, by wearing the plus, and at least maintain 20/30 or better.  But each of us would have to "sit still" for that explanation.  That is my thesis, and that is why I don't consider prevention, or recovery from 20/40 to be medical in any sense of the word.  I am very pleased with your outstanding success -- and I am certain you will always retain your distant vision.  Otis



Otis,

I think I should mention that I am currently enrolled in school, do quite a bit of reading, and, until recently, worked as a web developer (more close work). While doing this, I kept my vision in the 20/20 - 20/25 range and recently moved it down to 20/15. I think if proper habits are maintained, there is no reason to assume a steady decline.
Title: Re: Eyesight without glasses
Post by: peterg on March 20, 2012, 07:45:22 PM