Hi Gekonous,
Subject: It depends on your concept - of the eye as a dynamic system. (The concept is a paradigm, and is respected in science.)
Item: Having self-measured refractive STATES, and never failures.
FACT: But let us start by saying that the minus lens causes negative status in all normal eyes. (The Helmholtz theory IGNORES this fact.)
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swfAs an engineer, I spent a lot of time with this specific issue. I agree that initially, the quick-fix minus SEEMS like it is logical. But it is not for the above reason.
The minus lens is always sold as being perfect, and perfectly safe. It is also sold on the idea that no one would ever understand the need for the plus, before they go below self-measured -1 diopter.
But the Helmholtz theory, by which you prescribe a minus lens - it not accurate, and at a certain point, it is a failure. This was Dr. Bates' thesis - and is he correct. The alternative concept, it the dynamic eye concept, is where long-term near CREATES negative status - in all natural eyes.
It has been proven to be correct to say that, when you place a totally natural eye in a cage, the eye takes on a serious negative status. (i.e., monkey are indeed myopic, when forced for long-time into a cage, with no ability to look into the distance.)
But to check this out, you can just put a strong minus, on the young primate eye, and indeed, objectively that natural eye ALWAYS moves negative in terms of refractive state.
This means that it is the natural eye in "long-term" near, that takes on mild negative states - always.
The concept, if you accept science and facts, (and reject the Helmholtz theory failure), it that you must keep your eyes looking, "in the distance", by always wearing a plus lens for near (that fully neutralized that near environment.) Basic optical analysis will show that the plus (on an eye at -1/2 diopter, can have that effect - although it takes time for wearing a plus - to have that desired effect.
If you do have 20/40, and self-measured -1 diopter, my goal would be to NEVER start wearing a minus lens. (This is again Dr. Bates idea.) But this also must mean that I must wear a plus that FULLY neutralized my near environment, and that meas I wear a +2 to +2.75, for all near, and does depend on my habitual reading distance. That means I must self-select the plus lens I am going to be wearing for all near.
I do not believe in "half measures", like you suggest. I believe in going "all out" with the plus, or just not "bothering" with it at all. For me there is no compromise.
There is no "fast way" to get out of it. Our eyes go "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. You really can not expect your eyes to go "up" at a rate of much more than +1/2 to +1 diopter per year.
It takes a truly interested, person to rise to that challenge -- with all due respect.
How about this idea: First of, the whole concept is plus lenses for close up work right? then how about wearing weaker minus lenses ALL THE TIME for distance viewing even if your myopia is weak? Lets say a -1 Myopic person would wear -0.5 lenses till his eyes adapt to the lenses? wouldnt it be faster to improve that way?