Author Topic: Video and slides from my talk on myopia at the Ancestral Health Symposium  (Read 11656 times)

Offline ZC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Todd,

I applaud the conceptual clarity of your analysis and agree with it.

To reiterate, my post concludes with:

Quote
When confronted with these apparently contradictory positions, he responded here:

http://frauenfeldclinic.com/myopia-forums/topic/confused-about-blog-post-axial-elongation/


His response: "It’s usually a mix of both. I am saying that you *can* show no signs of axial elongation up to 6 diopters of correction." So, here he appears to say that the two-stage, "Four Pillars" explanation does not hold universally. By using the word "usually," he seems to be saying that although there are hundreds of myopes with no AL, there are more of them with AL.

 . . .

If we assume that his more recent claims are more accurate than the older ones, we can conclude that there is a significant minority of myopes up to 6D or so who have no AL, as determined by actual measurements.

So, my conclusion was not that he was hopelessly contradictory but that the apparent contradiction could be resolved.

That is:

1. Most myopes have ciliary spasm and axial elongation.
2. A minority of myopes have ciliary spasm and no axial elongation.

In your post you claim that in those myopes who do have axial elongation, that elongation was CAUSED by prolonged hyperopic defocus during close work. This is where apparent contradictions creep in. Presumably all those -5D myopes with normal axes were once -2D myopes. When they were -2D myopes, didn't they experience prolonged hyperopic defocus during close work? Presumably they did, yet that prolonged hyperopic defocus was not succeeded by axial elongation. So, in one sense, we are not justified in claiming that prolonged hyperopic defocus during close work causes axial elongation because there are substantial numbers of myopes who had the hyperopic defocus and did not get axial elongation.

It sounds like you are saying that the hyperopic defocus causes axial elongation in those who get axial elongation and it does not cause axial elongation in those who do not get axial elongation. So, it sounds like hyperopic defocus is (in most cases) a necessary but not sufficient condition for axial elongation. Some other factor (genetics, diet, mental state) must be present if hyperopic defocus is going to bring about axial elongation.

So, prolonged hyperopic defocus during close work (typically the result of wearing minus lenses) combined with at least one other (as yet to be determined) factor causes axial elongation.

Is that a fair representation of your position?

If it is, can we agree on the following theses?

1. Ciliary spasm of sufficient intensity causes myopia in short timeframes.
2. Prolonged hyperopic defocus during close work, combined with other factors, causes myopia over longer timeframes.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1751
Hi ZC,

I think we all agree with you - including some very wise optometrists.  Here is the analysis that answers your question.

ZC> If it is, can we agree on the following theses?
1. Ciliary spasm of sufficient intensity causes myopia in short timeframes.
2. Prolonged hyperopic defocus during close work, combined with other factors, causes myopia over longer time-frames.

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

So yes, long-term near creates "ciliary spasm", or pseudo-myopia, which if not "checked" with

1)  the wise wearing of a plus lens (when you are at 20/50) will lead to ...
2)  proloinged ciliary spasm (20/50) will lead to axial myopia (going deeper than 20/100),
3) The above graph shows how completely this is true - as fundamental science.

But the real issue is this.  Unless the person truly takes prevention seriously, (and wears the plus at that point), he is certain to develop axial myopia, and go down to -8 diopters.

I suggest, a stitch in time - saves nine.

ZC, you have caught the idea of prevention correctly!

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1751
Hi Jim,

In optometry, the tool used to measure a person's refractive state - is called either a Phoropter, or a "Trial Lens Set".

http://www.refractometer.com/

I enjoyed your review.


Todd,

have you taken any refractometer readings after you went back to 20/20? If you present such data, it would put a lot of debate to bed.

« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 04:58:17 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1751
Hi Jim,

Subject: Should a wise person be taught how to measure his own refraction.

Item: I do it - to avoid being over-prescribed.

Item: Is making your self expert - also "practicing medicine on yourself".

Item: I separate my measurements, from all medical procedures - and have confidence in my measurements.  I suggest others do what I am doing, to always get accurate results.

Thanks for your review.

Actually, Todd had his eye's refracted, BEFORE he started with his recovery routine, as advised and suggested by Brian Severson.

His refraction was -1.25 diopters.

[Correction from Todd:  My prescription was OD -1.00D, OS -1.75D.  I'm not sure where you got the -1.25D]

   Virtually all "final" reactions are done with a Phoropter.  As to the issue of, "... what is Todd's refraction today..", that is something that Todd could measure himself - I he wishes to do so.  But, in reality, all he has to do is to check his visual acuity himself.  I would never require him to pay $300 to be "refracted" by a technician.

In fact, I have 20/20, and went for an exam, concerning "post cataract surgery".  (I had already checked my visual acuity and refraction before I went for this exam.   As I sat in the chair, a TECHNICIAN, came in an put the Phoropter in front of my face.  She started, spinning dials on the phoropter, and got a "prescription", I absolutely did not need.

For shear self-protection, I am not going to pay $300, for bogus, and un-necessary prescriptions - I will do that  myself.  I would not subject Todd to the same process.

Todd is required to read an pass the 20/40 line by the State.  He exceeds that line.

No one requires that he go back and be refractive by a technician.

The question you are asking, is this.  Is Todd technically accurate, when he reports that he improved his vision, so he no longer has to wear a -1.25 diopter lens all the time?

Or how does a person objectively verify his own success.  That is a fair question, but only Todd, or the person who is successful, can answer that specific question.

For pure scientific reasons, (but not medical reason) I trust Todd's reporting.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 09:11:01 PM by Todd Becker »

Offline Todd Becker

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 442
It sounds like you are saying that the hyperopic defocus causes axial elongation in those who get axial elongation and it does not cause axial elongation in those who do not get axial elongation. So, it sounds like hyperopic defocus is (in most cases) a necessary but not sufficient condition for axial elongation. Some other factor (genetics, diet, mental state) must be present if hyperopic defocus is going to bring about axial elongation.

So, prolonged hyperopic defocus during close work (typically the result of wearing minus lenses) combined with at least one other (as yet to be determined) factor causes axial elongation.

Is that a fair representation of your position?

If it is, can we agree on the following theses?

1. Ciliary spasm of sufficient intensity causes myopia in short timeframes.
2. Prolonged hyperopic defocus during close work, combined with other factors, causes myopia over longer timeframes.

ZC, I think that's a fair statement of my understanding.  (I say "understanding" rather than "position" because I'm not trying to win a debate but rather to make my best effort at integrating what is known from human and animal studies into a coherent position.  I'm a lifelong learner, always open to changing my mind in the face of new evidence or persuasive arguments).   In my talk, I made reference to myopia coming about as the result of environment acting on genetic predisposition.  Environment includes visual habits, but also diet.  While I think diet and genetics are important, I chose to focus on visual habits because I think this is a very powerful, yet overlooked, way out of the myopia abyss.

I would add to the above statement that, while I believe minus-lens induced axial lengthening is a major cause of myopia in our society, it is not the only possible way to enter into myopia.  And I choose to focus on this fact, because of the irony that the minus lens is advocated as way to "correct" myopia, while in reality it is actually one of it's main contributing causes (together with excessive near work without good visual hygiene)!

In your post you claim that in those myopes who do have axial elongation, that elongation was CAUSED by prolonged hyperopic defocus during close work. This is where apparent contradictions creep in. Presumably all those -5D myopes with normal axes were once -2D myopes. When they were -2D myopes, didn't they experience prolonged hyperopic defocus during close work? Presumably they did, yet that prolonged hyperopic defocus was not succeeded by axial elongation. So, in one sense, we are not justified in claiming that prolonged hyperopic defocus during close work causes axial elongation because there are substantial numbers of myopes who had the hyperopic defocus and did not get axial elongation.

My view is that myopes won't experience hyperopic defocus during close work UNLESS they are wearing minus lenses they they are wearing principally to "correct" their distance vision.  I tried to illustrate how that works in Slide 16 ("How Myopia Progresses") in the Ancestral Health Symposium talk.  The idea is that the minus optical lens -- in combination with the spasmed eye lens -- shifts the convergence point of distant images so that it now hits the retina.  But this same combination of the minus optical lens and spasmed eye lens now shifts behind the retina during close up viewing.  This results in hyperopic defocus.  But I can think of nothing that would cause such hyperopic defocus in the case of uncorrected pseudomyopia.  Can you?

Thus, those individuals with -2D myopia will experience hyperopic defocus only once they start wearing minus lenses.  If the myopia continues to wear the minus lenses during near work, the hyoperopic defocus will induce axial lengthening, and their myopia will progress.  Eventually, they'll need stronger minus lenses to "correct" their once-again blurry distance vision.

I'm not saying that myopia can't worsen without minus lenses or axial lengthening.  Prolonged nearwork can result in a high degree of pseudo myopia even without axial lengthening.  And I'm not saying that hyperopic defocus is the only cause of axial lengthening.  (There may be genetic and dietary contributors to this).  It's just that minus lenses are throwing fuel on the fire by actively promoting axial lengthening, and making myopia get worse, not better.

Todd
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 08:12:20 PM by Todd Becker »

Offline Todd Becker

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 442

By contrast, Achison et al found that the average axial length of myope is about 350 microns (0.35 mm) longer per diopter than that of emmetropes. 
...So someone with mild myopia of -3D would have an eye that is about a full millimeter (1000 microns) longer than someone with normal vision.  Thats an increase of about 4% relative to a normal eye length of 25 mm.  That's enough to produce real refractive effects, which I would argue constitute true axial myopia.

The Incremental Retinal Defocus Theory of Hung and Ciuffreda contents that true and permanent axial myopia results from the cumulative effect of thousands of cycles of defocus-induced axial lengthening, consolidated by sustained and repeated stimulus to scleral tissue growth.

I'm glad you referred to this study, because I think it needs some debunking -- one can frequently get misled by researchers' conclusions. I'd like to direct your attention to the raw data of the exact same study you quoted:

http://www.iovs.org/content/45/10/3380/T1.expansion.html

Please take a look at the eye dimensions reported for myopic groups from -1.60D through -5.5D, which represent the bigger part of the sample size. There is basically ZERO difference between the different groups' average axial length and little difference even in the extremes of the sample! If axial length was the primary determining factor of myopia and the prediction of this study is correct, then there should have been a 0.35 mm difference on average for each group or at least some measurable difference overall. There was none. This is quite disturbing given the conclusions drawn from the study.

I plotted out the data in Achison's Figure 1 (see attached figure), showing the axial length (by 3 different methods) for each group (labelled by the upper end of each diopter range).  There does seem to be a trend to me.  Sure, it's not monotonically linear, and flattens somewhat in the middle range, but keep in mind that these measurements had large variances, of between about +0.5 to +1.5 for each mean reported.  So you have to view the data as having large error bars.  Still, the mean axial length of -5.6 to -6.5D myopes is more than 2 mm longer than that of emmetropes, and that of -6.6 to -12 D myopes is more than 3 mm longer! 

My point is not and never was that axial length perfectly correlates with or determines myopia.  In fact, in the early stages, I suspect that most moderate myopia is pseudo myopia due to ciliary spasm or lens refractive errors, probably with little or no axial lengthening.  Axial lengthening just makes things worse.  While genetics and diet contribute, my contention is that the overprescription of minus lens, combined with excessive near work, drive a viscous cycle of further axial lengthening and worsening myopia.

But conceptually, you are right that axial length is not strictly a necessary or sufficient condition for myopia.  (It may be a necessary condition for extreme myopia).  That doesn't mean it is not a strong causal contributor in practice to most cases of myopia.


Todd, have you tried a refractometer to check whether your subjective VA has resulted in an objective refractive change?

I have not tried any such measurement.  I have not visited an OD for more than 15 years since I stopped wearing glasses.  The last prescription for which I have any record was made on December 18, 1995:

OD -1.00 -0.50 x 95
OS -1.75 -1.00 x 93

So my left eye was the more myopic (-1.75 D) at the time.  You can see that I also had a bit of astigmatism.  When I now test myself with the "astigmatic mirror" all the lines look about the same to me today:
http://www.i-see.org/astigmirror_bw.gif

I have no need or reason to get my axial length measured or to do refractometry -- why spend the money?  What's there to prove?  Just to be clear, my view is that axial lengthening is not the sole determinant of myopia, and probably comes into play mainly for advanced myopia.  Since my myopia was relatively mild, it is quite likely that I may have had mainly pseudo myopia and my eye may have never elongated for all I know. On the other hand, the fact is that my myopia in high school was barely noticeable (to me) until an OD told me I should wear glasses, and then got worse after he kept increasing my prescription.  So maybe there was an axial component?

In any case, I suspect that those with myopia above -6D, and especially above -12D very likely have axial lengthening.

All I need to know is that my Snellen reading is 20/20 in the right eye and 20/40 (sometimes 20/30 on good days) in the left eye.  Since my eyes are close enough and my less myopic right eye dominates, I see clearly in the distance.  For close work, my left eye gets me a bit closer than the right - I see print in clear focus close up.   So I have no need for glasses.

This is an interesting debate, but a bit academic. We may be right or wrong about the role that axial lengthening plays, vs. changes to the lens --- or perhaps even cognitive factors.  All very interesting. But the real pragmatic question is whether the degree of myopia can be reversed by active focusing at the edge of blur, print pushing, reduced prescriptions, or by other techniques.   My myopia resolved to the point that I can see distant objects that used to be very blurry.  I can drive without glasses.  Many people posting on this site or others have had similar experiences, many more dramatic than mine.  Somehow it seems unlikely that we are all laboring under some massive delusion and our vision never actually improved.

Todd
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 08:41:56 PM by Todd Becker »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1751
Hi Jim,

Otis> I know you are struggling with the idea of self-prevention with a plus lens.  I know you are sincere when you make this remark.  I know I struggled to establish that a minus lens has an adverse effect on all natural eyes - and sought to prove it as objective science.  For me, that is the only proof I require.  The fact that Todd restored his vision, by wearing a plus for near, is part of respecting this scientific proof - and applying prevention to yourself.  It is rather obvious that no one who is "medical" can ever do this for you.

Jim> I challenge you to discard your positive outcome bias & try objective measurement!

Otis> What do you mean by this statement?  Further, who EXACTLY is supposed to make your so-called, "objective measurement".

Otis> Would that  not be Todd?  After all, most ODs automatically over-prescribe by -1 diopter, because they believe you MUST HAVE 20/13 vision, and will not be "satisfied" with self-confirmed 20/20 vision.

Otis> Their measurements are simply not objective - in a scientific sense.  For that matter they are not "standardized"  - in any objective way.

Otis> I do not know what Todd's visual acuity is at this point.  Only Todd can make that objective measurement himself.  I trust him because he is an engineer - and understands how to  make an objective visual acuity measurement.

Otis> I am certain that Todd will always pass the legal requirements for driving a car.

Otis> I personally and objectively measure my refractive status, using a "reduced" trial lens kit.  If a person is truly interested in these details - I recommend that he measure his refractive status himself.

Otis> We know, by OBJECTIVE measurements that the eye is highly responsive to 1) Long-term near, and 2) The wearing of a minus lens.
These measurements ARE objective, for both "length" and refractive status.

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

Otis> It is up to Todd, to make a scientific judgment of the above objective science - and act correctly to protect his distant vision with a plus.  It is not up to us to ask for him to verify anything other than his visual acuity.

Thanks for your review.

Otis

« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 07:04:47 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline Todd Becker

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 442
We see what we want to see, and I admit that I am not immune to my own biases. I focused more on the data where there was little axial change relative to the size of the error, you naturally focus on the parts where the AL is maximal.

We tend to interpret new data in light of previous information, assumptions and conceptual frameworks.  I prefer to regard  these assumptions and frameworks not as biases, but rather as hypotheses that can be revised or rejected based upon new data and compelling arguments. 

I see that you are skeptical of the view that myopia is (mostly) a refractive problem.  What is your alternative hypothesis?  I sense that you see a significant or even dominant role for cognitive processing and blur adaptation.  While I can understand that these factors affect visual acuity generally, I don't see how they could specifically explain myopia.  Why would such cognitive effects discriminate between near and far vision, so that one sees near objects much more crisply than far objects? Perhaps you could explain this and cite your evidence.

I challenge you to discard your positive outcome bias & try objective measurement!...A refractometer is nothing more than an optical system that measures reflections. In my experience, its spherical readings are very accurate, while the astigmatism can fluctuate. A few measurements later in the day would give a pretty trustworthy result after averaging. I don't know how it is in the States right now, but in Europe using an auto refractor is part of standard examination and is NOT charged extra. Optic shops even offer it for free. This is NOT a sophisticated biometric exam and shouldn't cost you anything!

I sincerely try to avoid confirmation bias.  I avidly read contrary views and try to poke holes in my own position.  And I change my views if they don't survive scrutiny.

However there is a problem in the "experiment" you propose.   The supposedly "objective" autorefractor (what you call "refractometer") gives a different result than the "subjective" phoropter that was used to measure the refractive state of my eyes in 1995.

Here are some different views on the usefulness of the autorefractor, suggesting that the classical retinoscopy with the "subjective" phoropter is considered by many to be more reliable than the supposedly "objective" autorefractor.  In particular, the autorefractor can lead to significant overcorrection:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630406?dopt=Abstract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor#cite_note-1
http://www.refractiveeyecare.com/2011/10/subjective-refraction-without-a-phoropter-its-time-has-come-2/

Regardless of the relative merits, the two methods do not always correlate.  They give different results.  So if I get a better or worse result in 2014 with the autorefractor vs. the 1995 result with the phoropter, what have I proven?  An increase or decrease in diopters is only meaningful if the methods are the same, or at least reliably correlated.  And from what I've read, these methods are not. 

I'm not trying to be glib or evasive, I'm serious.   Here in the U.S. an autorefractor eye exam is not free.  I don't have vision insurance, so I called around.  The least expensive quote I got for doing the autorefractor exam was $139, but the optometrist said they prefer to complement that test with a subjective phoropter test as well.   They said the two tests don't always give the same results. The optometrist I called said that's why they like to use multiple methods. 

I'm not against spending $139 for information that is practically useful or theoretically meaningful.  But how do I interpret the results since I don't have a baseline with the same method?


All positions are most likely flawed, including mine. We just don't know enough yet, and myopia is a complicated problem. But some people have improved with Bates, while others didn't get anything out of PVS for years. Some emmetropic programmers stare at <50cm until their eyes bleed every day for decades and still maintain 20/20. Still others wear their full prescriptions all day (incl. for near work) and their myopia doesn't progress. Why?

So far we can only hypothesize. :)

Well, certainly there is variability in the results people achieve. We are far from comprehensive explanations.  That doesn't mean we are left with speculation and unverifiable hypotheses.   From what I've read, and personal experience, the Incremental Retinal Defocus Theory has a decent amount of empirical confirmation, and leads to practical suggestions which have enabled many of us to reduce or eliminate our myopia.    I do acknowlege that the defocus resolution methods like print pushing work better for some people than others.  YMMV.  Apparently, reading at the edge of focus through print pushing and distance viewing has not worked so well for you.  Which means it may not be the whole story, and there may be other factors like genetics, individual variation, age, diet and environment.  Or there may be subtle differences in how each of us is practicing the method.  I can't say.

Now what would be VERY interesting to me, Jim, would be any alternative methods you've found for improving visual acuity and reducing myopia without glasses.  Perhaps there are some evidence-based cognitive methods you are exploring or have had success with? If so, I'd love to hear about them!

Todd
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 09:52:14 AM by Todd Becker »

Offline warnbd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Video and slides from my talk on myopia at the Ancestral Health Symposium
« Reply #23 on: September 04, 2014, 10:29:08 AM »
Hi Todd,

I have doing this vision therapy since Jan. and having success and I am truly grateful for this blog and forum.  But, I am curious, if you have one eye at 20/30 or 20/40, why haven't you continued plus therapy on that eye to bring it towards 20/20 status?

( My efforts are being documented at "My myopia/astigmatism Journey" )

warnbd

Offline Myoctim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Video and slides from my talk on myopia at the Ancestral Health Symposium
« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2014, 09:32:27 AM »
I'm not trying to be glib or evasive, I'm serious.   Here in the U.S. an autorefractor eye exam is not free.  I don't have vision insurance, so I called around.  The least expensive quote I got for doing the autorefractor exam was $139, but the optometrist said they prefer to complement that test with a subjective phoropter test as well.   They said the two tests don't always give the same results. The optometrist I called said that's why they like to use multiple methods. 

I'm not against spending $139 for information that is practically useful or theoretically meaningful.  But how do I interpret the results since I don't have a baseline with the same method?


for getting an idea about an emmetropic person's spherical equivalent (SE) refractive state you only need to put a pair of reading specs on the person's nose and compare the resulting far point to the 1/D calculation of the glasses.
For a 0.0D refractive state and 1.0D readers it should result in 1.0 m.

A more acurate SE measurement would be ordering a cheap trial lense frame

http://www.optometrial.com/trial-lens-sets/trial-frames

together with a set of + and - 0.5D and + and - 0.25D trial lenses.

Offline Todd Becker

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 442
Re: Video and slides from my talk on myopia at the Ancestral Health Symposium
« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2014, 08:09:23 AM »
Hi Todd,

I have doing this vision therapy since Jan. and having success and I am truly grateful for this blog and forum.  But, I am curious, if you have one eye at 20/30 or 20/40, why haven't you continued plus therapy on that eye to bring it towards 20/20 status?

( My efforts are being documented at "My myopia/astigmatism Journey" )

warnbd

Hi warnbd

Your question is a good one.  I do frequently work on my 20/40 left eye to increase its range.  However, since my 20/20 right eye dominates in binocular vision, my distance vision with both eyes is excellent and I don't perceive any loss of sharpness and acuity with both eyes open. 

There is also a benefit in having my left eye slightly  "specialized" in close up vision. I can read fine print better with the left eye than the right, and so it dominates for close vision.  Thus, I can cover a greater total range with both eyes having slightly overlapping near-to-far focal ranges.   This is sometimes misleadingly called "monovision" by opthalmologists. It is a common adaptive response to the presbyopia that comes with aging:

http://www.improveyourvision.com/lasik-center/overview/monovision.html

But I don't like that term because it suggests a loss of binocular stereovision, which is not at all the case.

Ideally, both eyes would be 20/20 or better for distance and also have good close up vision for fine print.  But that gets harder to achieve at my age (58), as the crystalline lens becomes less flexible, although perhaps I could make a stronger effort.   

Todd
« Last Edit: September 09, 2014, 08:12:04 AM by Todd Becker »

Offline warnbd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Video and slides from my talk on myopia at the Ancestral Health Symposium
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2014, 11:02:11 AM »
Thanks for clarifying Todd,

My concern was the stereovision with the difference between the eyes.  My interest in this is that I think I will be in the same situation early next year when my better eye gets to 20/20.  At that time I think my other eye will be at 20/30 or 20/40.  Being of a similar age, this specialization you describe could be good for me too, as long as I am not sacrificing stereovision abilitiy.

Do you know of techniques to improve presbyopia if both eyes are at 20/20?

warnbd

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1751
Re: Video and slides from my talk on myopia at the Ancestral Health Symposium
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2014, 11:10:55 AM »
Hi Warn,

Let me support what Todd stated.  When you get to the 50 to 70 year range, it is in fact valuable to have a difference of 1 diopter between the two eyes.  This does NOT mean the loss of stero-vision.  It means (with refraction of 0.0 diopters, and -1 diopters), that you will have 20/20 with both eyes open, and for near, excellent vision at 20 inches.

My wife INTENTIONALLY wore a lens in one eye - to keep both near and far vision, and she paid $$$ for that result.  You get that difference for free.  All you have to do is to get to self-verified 20/30 to 20/20 vision, and do your own refraction checking yourself.  There are no risks, and great advantage to you to do this checking.  But it does take a long time to get there. 

Thanks for clarifying Todd,

My concern was the stereovision with the difference between the eyes.  My interest in this is that I think I will be in the same situation early next year when my better eye gets to 20/20.  At that time I think my other eye will be at 20/30 or 20/40.  Being of a similar age, this specialization you describe could be good for me too, as long as I am not sacrificing stereovision abilitiy.

Do you know of techniques to improve presbyopia if both eyes are at 20/20?

warnbd

Offline warnbd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Video and slides from my talk on myopia at the Ancestral Health Symposium
« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2014, 04:56:39 PM »
I look forward to seeing how this will work, this will save me the time and effort to "equalize" my eyes. 

warnbd

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1751
Hi Warnbd,

You own success in going from -3 diopters (approx.) to 20/25 in a year, it proof.  I hope others watch Todd, "pitch" and video
on this important subject of self-prevention.

Otis



I look forward to seeing how this will work, this will save me the time and effort to "equalize" my eyes. 

warnbd