Strategy for hyperopia reduction

[johnlink]

Since reading at the far point is part of the strategy for the reduction of myopia, it seems that reading at the near point (or as far in from the far point as is comfortable) would be part of the strategy for the reduction of hyperopia. Is that right?

I'm interested in this question because I'm advising a friend who is somewhat hyperopic in his left eye (+0.50 to get him to 20/20) and quite hyperopic in his right eye (+3.00 to get him to 20/25).

[johnlink]

Otis, do you think that reading at the near point (or as far in from the far point as is comfortable) would be part of the strategy for the reduction of hyperopia?

I want to help my friend reduce the +3.00 hyperopia in his right eye. With a +3.00 lens he can see 20/25 but with his naked eye NOTHING is in focus at ANY distance. Furthermore, his vision with both eyes naked is WORSE than with just his left eye naked and his right eye closed.

[johnlink]

Otis, I still wonder whether you think that reading at the near point (or as far in from the far point as is comfortable) would be part of the strategy for the reduction of hyperopia (+3.00 in the case of my friend).

[johnlink]

Thanks for your review and concerns for the possibility that he might develop hyperopia (refractive state, greater than +1.0 diopters).

Otis, there's no MIGHT about it! My friend right now needs a +3.00 D lens in order to see 20/25 (There was no lens that would get him to 20/20, although I suspect that might change once he starts using the +3.00 lens.).

[johnlink]

Anybody?

[OtisBrown]

Hi Tom Lu,

I am pleased you are also going to work on the problem of "Hyperopia".

Here is an analysis that should help both you and John.

http://www.frauenfeldclinic.com/key-prescription-risks-that-everybody-should-understand/

Tom - do you agree with Dr. Alex on this issue?

Thanks,

[Todd Becker]

Since reading at the far point is part of the strategy for the reduction of myopia, it seems that reading at the near point (or as far in from the far point as is comfortable) would be part of the strategy for the reduction of hyperopia. Is that right?

I'm interested in this question because I'm advising a friend who is somewhat hyperopic in his left eye (+0.50 to get him to 20/20) and quite hyperopic in his right eye (+3.00 to get him to 20/25).

John,

Sorry for the delayed reply -- I just got back from Europe today.

I totally agree that reversing hyperopia can be done as you suggest.  In fact, here is what I wrote several years ago about "anti-corrective lenses" in my original post on Rehabilitation:

Anti-corrective lenses. But there is an approach to eyesight without glasses that I believe is scientifically sound:  anti-corrective lens therapy or, as it is called in the case of overcoming myopia, “plus lens therapy”. Strange as it may seem, this involves wearing the opposite type of glasses normally prescribed, making it initially less comfortable to focus. Specifically, so-called “plus” lenses are employed to overcome nearsightedness (myopia) and “minus” lenses to overcome farsightedness (hyperopia).

It's also supported by the studies on humans and animals that support the IRDT theory of Hung and Ciuffreda:
http://www.iovs.org/content/51/12/6262.full

Todd

[OtisBrown]

Hi John, Tom and Todd,

Subject: Gross, improper over-prescription can indeed "cause problems".

Reference: With respect to the plus - I suggest that IF IT IS PROPERLY USED, you will NEVER develop vision beyond normal-emmetropia.

If you over-prescribe a plus, when a child is five, this is what happens.  NOTE: Like any drug, improper use WILL cause this problem.  The idea is INTELLIGENT AND CORRECT USE.

I am curious as to Tom Lu's analysis of this specific case.  (I NEVER would have had this 5 year old wearing an over-prescribed lens - EITHER PLUS OR MINUS.)

++++++
Thank you for this wonderful group. I enjoy learning from all of you.

My situation is this: I have worn glasses almost 40 years, beginning as
a 5-year-old little girl. My current prescription is 6.25+ with
astigmatism. All my life, 20/30 was the clearest they could get me. But
with the natural vision improvement I have done, this prescription
actually brings me to 20/20 - strong though it is.

I just purchased the Read Without Glasses method to see if that might
help me. My issue is that I seem to be converging in a lop-sided way
with their chart:

http://www.i-see.org/gottlieb/presbyopia_chart.pdf
<http://www.i-see.org/gottlieb/presbyopia_chart.pdf>

I will see the three dots, but not five columns of text, at first
anyway. The row of text with the two dots and the words "Cross your
eyes" should become one block of text with no dot, then three blocks of
text with a dot, and one block of text with no dot - five columns.

But what I see at first is three blocks of text with a dot then one
without a dot - four columns, with the one at the far left missing. If I
relax, the phantom left column will eventually show up, and I try to
hold that for practice.

So I have two questions:

1. What is causing this - astigmatism, lazy eye, or something else?
2. What is the best way to clear this?

Thank you so much for any advice you can give.

Lora

[OtisBrown]

Hi Tom Lu,
Subject: Back-hand confirmation of the "Emmetropic" eye's responsiveness to long-term plus wearing.

Reference:  I will not use the word, "Hyperopia" here, but just the objective knowledge of what happens when you wear a plus - that is not necessary.

The reason they put a child into a "plus" has nothing to do with her visual acuity (at age 5).  Typically they will think the child has "phoria", or some other issue - perhaps "convergence".

So feel that is they put the child into a strong plus (way 1.0 diopters) that will "help" in some way.  Well, maybe yes, and maybe no.  This is why I do my own refractive measurements - I do not trust this "hopeful" approach.

So this person had her refractive STATE change in a positive direction, over 35 years, reaching +6 diopters.   This normally takes to 12 years, (age 5 to 17) to get-to +6.  In an abstract why this proves that the natural eye changes its refractive state by about +1/2 diopter per year - if you do that.

This again proves the IRD theory of "natural eye's responsiveness" to a lens.

I take this as a full demonstration of this concept that a "plus" although used incorrectly, can provide an "improvement" of about 1.0 diopters per year for a person with a refractive STATE of -1.0 diopters.  It is this very-slow change that is important to understand - in my opinion.

Each of us will have to make up his own mind as to whether he will wear the plus (at 20/60) and accept this very-slow response of that plus lens - worn to achieve that result.

Thanks for your posts on the hyperopic issue!  All this is indeed part of a learning process - for all of us.

[johnlink]

Since reading at the far point is part of the strategy for the reduction of myopia, it seems that reading at the near point (or as far in from the far point as is comfortable) would be part of the strategy for the reduction of hyperopia. Is that right?

I'm interested in this question because I'm advising a friend who is somewhat hyperopic in his left eye (+0.50 to get him to 20/20) and quite hyperopic in his right eye (+3.00 to get him to 20/25).

John,

Sorry for the delayed reply -- I just got back from Europe today.

I totally agree that reversing hyperopia can be done as you suggest.  In fact, here is what I wrote several years ago about "anti-corrective lenses" in my original post on Rehabilitation:

Anti-corrective lenses. But there is an approach to eyesight without glasses that I believe is scientifically sound:  anti-corrective lens therapy or, as it is called in the case of overcoming myopia, “plus lens therapy”. Strange as it may seem, this involves wearing the opposite type of glasses normally prescribed, making it initially less comfortable to focus. Specifically, so-called “plus” lenses are employed to overcome nearsightedness (myopia) and “minus” lenses to overcome farsightedness (hyperopia).

It's also supported by the studies on humans and animals that support the IRDT theory of Hung and Ciuffreda:
http://www.iovs.org/content/51/12/6262.full

Todd

Todd, thank you for the reference to the article above.

I understand that you agree that hyperopia can be reversed by reading at the near point, or as far in from the far point as is comfortable. Hyperopia doesn't seem to get much attention in this forum or other vision forums, so I would welcome whatever else you would care to write about strategies to reverse hyperopia.

John