Author Topic: The Shadowfoot interview  (Read 4519 times)

Offline Todd Becker

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 442
The Shadowfoot interview
« on: April 21, 2012, 01:13:13 PM »
Those of you with an interest in vision improvement will be interested to read my interview with Shadowfoot, one of our most consistent and diligent contributors to the Discussion Forum.

How one person improved his vision

Take a look and chime in with your comments!

Todd

Offline Hillyman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: The Shadowfoot interview
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2013, 09:11:56 PM »
For those of us who are well into -2 and above (I am at -5.5), the interview gave a depressing "If only I had known the plus-lens system when I first started wearing glasses" feeling. We can only heave a collective sigh.

I suspect the majority of those visiting this forum are well past the first or second year of wearing glasses. If you have interviews or reports of how others have improved from 20/200 or worse, that would be terrific.  My own feeling is that if I could get 3 diopter improvement, that would be a huge progress already: that would mean being able to read a book clearly at 16-20 inches, and not at 7 inches. It may take a year or two, but understanding and appreciating the theory behind the plus-lens and "working the blur" approaches (as opposed to just relaxing the myopia away a la Bates) makes me confident that it is within reach.

Offline Hillyman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: The Shadowfoot interview
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2013, 07:46:53 AM »
I've been a bit busy lately. Here is a success story from Dr. Antonia Orfield, and my comments on her ideas. What makes this story more than a typical testimony is that it's published by an OD, on a behavioral optometry journal.


Tom

Thank you very much for that link to Dr Antonia Orfield's writing. What a terrific piece of work she did exploring some of the possible mechanisms behind the onset and then the progression of myopia. Her insight that myopia is tied to the problem of seeing space took my breath away--this resonated strongly with me, as well as her comments on the need to strengthen the peripheral vision.  As one of her patients commented, it seems to me that one aid in improving our eyesight is when we train ourselves to be in the space surrounding us, rather than just looking at what is in front of us, and through lenses.

It was admirable that she found a way to improve to virtually 20/20 by continuing to explore each recovery path on her own--and prior to her studying to be an OD. That it took her 7 years speaks to her tenacity and her refusal to be stopped by the nay-sayers, who were no doubt around every corner. More admirable was her decision to become an OD herself so that she could explore the field more systematically and her discoveries could be grounded in solid credentials. As Tom noted, she then approached the subject in the most empathetic way possible: that of a (knowledgeable) patient herself, instead of just the doctor.

Immediately after I finished reading the link to her article, I looked her up in Google and was sorry to see that the first hits were her obituary, in 2009. She does have a book, available on amazon.com. (Amazon has interesting reviews and comments.)  I have ordered that and am looking forward to reading it.

Tom, I noted your last comment about Dr.Frauenfeld's approach being the one that we "should follow at this point." I would hope that this is not meant to denigrate Orfield's observations and insights. In fighting the good fight to rehabilitate ourselves from myopia, it would be well to arm ourselves with all theories and approaches, especially when those have a track record of being effective in their own way.


Offline Hillyman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: The Shadowfoot interview
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2013, 07:14:24 AM »
Since increased clarity after brief exposure to low plus does not seem to persist, there must be some reasonable explanation. Is there some physiological limitation in reducing nearsightedness that is long standing? Is the limitation somewhere other than the physiology? Is there some advantage to a certain amount of nearsightedness that continually overrides attempts to change it?"

Tom:

This Plus-Lens approach is a real discovery for me after all these years of reading about Bates.

As to the impermanence of the improvement that Gallop mentions after a +0.5 D is no longer used, let me suggest this theory as a point for discussion:

Let's say the patient's eye has a physiologically fixed range of accommodation, from near-point to a point less than infinity as he is nearsighted. Let's say this is a range from 25cm to 2m, or a range of 4.5D. With the +0.5 lens, he is able to see clearly at 25cm even though physiologically his eye's focus is at 28.5cm. So the eye can then work with this as the starting near point. Add the 4.5D range and he can actually then see into infinity, i.e., 25cm+4.5D gets a maximum point of 2m; 28.5cm+4.5D gets a maximum point at infinity.

Once the +0.5 is taken off, the eye has to look at a 25cm point with a 25cm focus (and not a 28.5cm focus with the +0.5 lens). With no +0.5 lens to ease the near-point strain, the limit of the 4.5D range means that his distance vision reverts to a 2m maximum, as a trade off of the eye having to work at 25cm.

« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 09:38:01 AM by Hillyman »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: The Shadowfoot interview
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2013, 08:49:11 PM »
Hi Hillyman and Tom,

I had a considerable and long-term discussion with Shadowfoot (who was about 17 years old).  After he struggled with the idea (I suggested 20/20 was great) he said he "wanted more", or "best possible vision".

He truly did "commit" to the plus, and got better-than 20/20, and I think consistent 20/18 vision.

I know that most people simply fail to have "motivation", and that is why I suggest exceeding the 20/40 line - is a good start.  After all - it does pass the required DMV test.

Otis



Since increased clarity after brief exposure to low plus does not seem to persist, there must be some reasonable explanation. Is there some physiological limitation in reducing nearsightedness that is long standing? Is the limitation somewhere other than the physiology? Is there some advantage to a certain amount of nearsightedness that continually overrides attempts to change it?"

Tom:

This Plus-Lens approach is a real discovery for me after all these years of reading about Bates.

As to the impermanence of the improvement that Gallop mentions after a +0.5 D is no longer used, let me suggest this theory as a point for discussion:

Let's say the patient's eye has a physiologically fixed range of accommodation, from near-point to a point less than infinity as he is nearsighted. Let's say this is a range from 25cm to 2m, or a range of 4.5D. With the +0.5 lens, he is able to see clearly at 25cm even though physiologically his eye's focus is at 28.5cm. So the eye can then work with this as the starting near point. Add the 4.5D range and he can actually then see into infinity, i.e., 25cm+4.5D gets a maximum point of 2m; 28.5cm+4.5D gets a maximum point at infinity.

Once the +0.5 is taken off, the eye has to look at a 25cm point with a 25cm focus (and not a 28.5cm focus with the +0.5 lens). With no +0.5 lens to ease the near-point strain, the limit of the 4.5D range means that his distance vision reverts to a 2m maximum, as a trade off of the eye having to work at 25cm.