Author Topic: Eyesight without glasses  (Read 428041 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #60 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.

Offline jansen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #61 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.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #62 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.

Offline jansen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #63 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.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #64 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.

Offline jansen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #65 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.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #66 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.

Offline Rajeev

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #67 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

Offline Todd Becker

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 442
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #68 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
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 05:11:46 PM by Todd Becker »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #69 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.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #70 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
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 05:02:02 PM by Todd Becker »

Offline jansen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #71 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.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #72 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.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #73 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.

Offline Rajeev

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Eyesight without glasses
« Reply #74 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