Author Topic: changes in eye size?  (Read 4943 times)

Offline NickGrouwen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
changes in eye size?
« on: January 12, 2014, 04:09:06 AM »
for those successful with plus lens therapy, have you noticed any changes in the size of your eyes? do your eyes look a little smaller now/further back in their sockets/less bulging? just wondering  :) i believe myopic people tend to have bigger looking eyes, right?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 04:17:04 AM by NickGrouwen »

Offline FonkStreet

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2014, 05:33:27 AM »
A normal eye have an axial length of 23mm. An eye just 1mm longer are 3D myopic.

Thus, the change in the axial length of the eye is very small, except fro strong myopia.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2014, 05:48:12 AM »
Hi Nick,

I spent a lot of research time - looking for a better answer to your question.

For small changes in optical power - and eye-size change can not be detected.  For your interest, here is a short discussion of the need to wear the plus in the "early stage" of myopia.

http://www.doyletics.com/arj/nomyopia.htm

Also, it has been mistakenly believed that you can convert a refractive CHANGE, into a "length".  That is an assumption, and leads to some mistakes.  The natural eye will change its refractive POWER, when you place a minus lens on it, and show in this video.

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

This animation is correct on a pure-scientific level.  The people measured a refractive change, and ASSUMED that the eye's length changed - as shown in the video.  It does make a difference, when this type of assumption is made.  The "picture" is very nice, however.  The video shows the danger of the minus lens - if you start wearing it.

A lens that is proven to CAUSE nearsightedness in the totally normal eye - can hardly be a lens you would choose to cure myopia.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 05:54:01 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline Todd Becker

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 442
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2014, 03:47:41 PM »
In fact, the axial length of the eye does change measurably in response to defocus.  While Fonk is correct that the change is so small that you can't see or feel it subjectively, it is real.  In my post "Improve eyesight - and throw away your glasses", I included a reference (near the end of the article) to an article by Read et al. showing a change of 10-20 microns after only an hour of defocus stress in either direction.

http://www.iovs.org/content/51/12/6262.full.pdf+html

Of course, the real question is how long this change in axial eye length persists, how far it can continue to progress and whether it becomes increasingly permanent with time.  I'm not sure this has been studied in humans, but Hung and Ciuffreda, proponents of the IRDT theory of myopia, have show that these axial length changes do persist in chicks and other animals.

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1241153


« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 03:50:26 PM by Todd Becker »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2014, 03:58:32 PM »
Hi Todd,

Subject: The only person who believes in "scientific prevention", is the person who wears the plus and "gets out of it".

Item: As you did it.  It does take strong belief in science, and yourself, and your ability.  It takes  long-term persistence.  In my judgment, prevention must be started before you go below 20/50 on your Snellen.

The "man in his office", just concludes that all prevention is impossible.  Or he concludes that the only thing the "public" could ever want, is "instant sharp vision with a minus lens."  I understand him with perfect clarity.

I do agree that if you do not "stop it" at 20/50, it will get increasingly permanent.

This issue of, "increasingly permanent" was in fact studied by Dr. Young and Dr. Oakley.  They found that if you start wearing a strong minus, your refraction goes down at a steady rate of -1/2 diopter per year, for each year in school.  I fight only to STOP that process, while you can still get yourself out of it.  Here is a simplified graph of this five year study with children.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/bifig1.gif

I agree that it is hard to "read" this graph.  But it shows that children who insist in reading at 6 inches and even 4 inches, will "go down" at this steady rate.

These were fundamental eyes and in a real sense, normal eyes that are highly responsive to near (as I show in the "Wildsoet" video that I posted).

To simplify:  What this graph shows is that the children who wore the plus for five years - did not become nearsighted. ** The children who DID NOT wear the plus, became seriously myopic over the five years of the study. ***

** There refractive change was ZERO diopters per year.  This is provided that they were willing to wear the plus for those five year - and no minus lens.  I would say, "negative change in refractive STATE", but most people want to say, "eyes became longer".  To me, it makes a big difference how you described the refractive states of all natural eyes.  I also say that exceeding or passing the 20/40 line - by your personal verification is the success I would look for.  Assuming that you managed, with your personal wisdom and persistence to BEGIN TO READ THE 20/40 LINE, and have confirmed this result yourself, you would be inclined to CONTINUE TO WEAR THE PLUS FOR ALL NEAR - and just wait for the 20/20 line to clear.  But of course, I never know what any person will decide to do.


*** Quote for the Hung paper, that shows that the minus lens (defocus) creates permanent change:

Previous theories of myopia development involved subtle and complex processes such as the sensing and analyzing of chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, spatial gradient of blur, or spatial frequency content of the retinal image, but they have not been able to explain satisfactorily the diverse experimental results reported in the literature. On the other hand, our newly proposed incremental retinal-defocus theory (IRDT) has been able to explain all of these results. This theory is based on a relatively simple and direct mechanism for the regulation of ocular growth. It states that a time-averaged decrease in retinal-image defocus area decreases the rate of release of retinal neuromodulators, which decreases the rate of retinal proteoglycan synthesis with an associated decrease in scleral structural integrity. This increases the rate of scleral growth, and in turn the eye's axial length, which leads to myopia. Our schematic analysis has provided a clear explanation for the eye's ability to grow in the appropriate direction under a wide range of experimental conditions. In addition, the theory has been able to explain how repeated cycles of nearwork-induced transient myopia leads to repeated periods of decreased retinal-image defocus, whose cumulative effect over an extended period of time results in an increase in axial growth that leads to permanent myopia. Thus, this unifying theory forms the basis for understanding the underlying retinal and scleral mechanisms of myopia development.

By George  Hung.



In fact, the axial length of the eye does change measurably in response to defocus.  While Fonk is correct that the change is so small that you can't see or feel it subjectively, it is real.  In my post "Improve eyesight - and throw away your glasses", I including a reference to an article by Read et al. showing a change of 10-20 microns after only an hour of defocus stress in either direction.

http://www.iovs.org/content/51/12/6262.full.pdf+html

Of course, the real question is how long this change in axial eye length persists, how far it can continue to progress and whether it becomes increasingly permanent with time.  I'm not sure this has been studied in humans, but Hung and Ciuffreda, proponents of the IRDT theory of myopia, have show that these axial length changes do persist in chicks and other animals.

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1241153
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 07:40:48 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline NickGrouwen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2014, 12:49:55 AM »
i see thank you for all your answers!! yes fonkstreet, i guess the change would be too small to notice. i've already read that even a very very small change in lenght would impact your eyesight, but i didn't know these numbers yet, thanks
thank you for mentioning Kaisu Viikari mr brown, i need to read up on her website and book. maybe i have a different problem then
yes mr becker the eye does seem to change in length, it's just not noticable i guess

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2014, 06:17:35 AM »
But the question is is this change permanent? Pseudomyopia may result in small axial change (correct me if im wrong) but soon the eye goes back to normal once its relaxed. I think, as TomLu mentioned the the Generalized system for myopia reversal thread, that it takes a constant and stressful myopic defocus to induce a permanent change.

My dad improved his eyesight from less than 20/40 to 20/20+ just by looking at the snelllen and trying to focus on the letter. He did this for an hour at a time until his eyes hurt But he did this for several HOURS a day and it took him only about 2months. 

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2014, 06:26:21 AM »
Hi Sam,

Subject: Two months to go from 20/40 to 20/20 - just by checking Snellen.

I totally support the person who puts up a Snellen (permanently, in bright light), and checks it to pass the REQUIRED line.  That your father got back to 20/20 - is objective proof that prevention is possible.  It is also objective proof that you can avoid the wearing of a minus lens - provided you personally do your own checking.  No checking - no proof.

A man in his office (optometrist) has no "time" for that type of effort or support.  Did you father "cure myopia"?  Or was it normal statistical variation in vision?  I will leave that to your own judgment.  I personally check *my* Snellen, to always pass the required DMV line, so I never get a "prescription", in an office, by a person who has no interest in *me* preserving my distant vision - for life.

This is the "line" I think we need to draw, so we do not have any un-necessary conflict with  a man in his office, who thinks that everyone should be wearing a strong minus lens - to always have 20/13 vision.  Take care of this issue yourself, and you will never wear a minus lens.


But the question is is this change permanent? Pseudomyopia may result in small axial change (correct me if im wrong) but soon the eye goes back to normal once its relaxed. I think, as TomLu mentioned the the Generalized system for myopia reversal thread, that it takes a constant and stressful myopic defocus to induce a permanent change.

My dad improved his eyesight from less than 20/40 to 20/20+ just by looking at the snelllen and trying to focus on the letter. He did this for an hour at a time until his eyes hurt But he did this for several HOURS a day and it took him only about 2months.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2014, 07:33:40 AM »
Hi Nick,

Subject: Ophthalmologist who argues for plus-prevention.

Always look for medical people who object to "standard minus-lens practice".  You can learn from them.  Here is Dr. Kaisu's book for your interest.

http://kaisuviikari.com/wordpress/

As always, it is difficult to argue for "change", in a profession that is very conservative in what it does.  This is the same issue that Dr. Bates encountered when he argued that "exercise" should allow you to go from 20/40 to 20/20.

Here is her personal history.

http://kaisuviikari.com/wordpress/en/about-me/

++++++
CLOSING WORDS (by Kaisu Viikari January 2013)

It is, of course, possible to find a blanket explanation for the particularly fervent opposition to my message that has continued for 40 years:

When this idea of mine was, in the beginning, shot down in Finnish medical journals that lacked suitable experts, it was easy for international scientific publications to pick up where they left off.

It was, and still is, too bitter a pill, completely impossible to swallow, for the professional body engaged in myopia research to admit that the entire foundation of their work is collapsing.

In this, humility and the Hippocratic Oath (Do No Harm) do not have even the smallest role to play.
+++++

I understand how difficult plus-prevention is for most of us, as a concept and an effort.  But she is correct about the minus lens.  First - do no harm.

I am certain that the "struggle" is between the extreme "ease" of a strong minus lens in an office (when you still have 20/40 vision), versus the realization that wearing an over-prescribed minus lens 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, will in fact, "do harm".

It is up to you to conduct your own " visual acuity" checking - with full knowledge that this approach his supported by medical people.

I describe this as the "second opinion".
 



i see thank you for all your answers!! yes fonkstreet, i guess the change would be too small to notice. i've already read that even a very very small change in lenght would impact your eyesight, but i didn't know these numbers yet, thanks
thank you for mentioning Kaisu Viikari mr brown, i need to read up on her website and book. maybe i have a different problem then
yes mr becker the eye does seem to change in length, it's just not noticable i guess
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 08:01:56 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline NickGrouwen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2014, 11:27:51 PM »
My dad improved his eyesight from less than 20/40 to 20/20+ just by looking at the snelllen and trying to focus on the letter. He did this for an hour at a time until his eyes hurt But he did this for several HOURS a day and it took him only about 2months.
this is why every classroom should have a snellen chart!! dr bates used to put snellen charts in classrooms as well, with great success :)

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2014, 10:33:19 AM »

otis <Did you father "cure myopia"?  Or was it normal statistical variation in vision? >

hi otis,

i do not believe it was due to statistical variations. I measured my dad's v/a for the past week and it is always from 20/20 to 20/15. I used a snellen with the E's and randomized it, so there is no one he can memorize it. I checked the blur point using a  +1D and his blur point is about 65cm so -0.5D refractive state to emmetropic (20/13).

The most important thing is that he says he feels a significant difference in his life. although his vision is not perfect, there is almost no blur now to him. this is very unusual to hear anyone to "recover" in 2-3 months and it is even more unusual to hear that my dad did it.

because he now drives without glasses two hours a day to and from work and he stares at the snellen for hours a day without breaks, he engaged in chronic far strain that reduced his axial myopia fairly quickly. he feels that plus lenses are too  "slow" and thinks its faster to actively focus.

Offline NickGrouwen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2014, 10:57:30 PM »
Hi Nick,

Subject: Ophthalmologist who argues for plus-prevention.

Always look for medical people who object to "standard minus-lens practice".  You can learn from them.  Here is Dr. Kaisu's book for your interest.

http://kaisuviikari.com/wordpress/

As always, it is difficult to argue for "change", in a profession that is very conservative in what it does.  This is the same issue that Dr. Bates encountered when he argued that "exercise" should allow you to go from 20/40 to 20/20.

Here is her personal history.

http://kaisuviikari.com/wordpress/en/about-me/

++++++
CLOSING WORDS (by Kaisu Viikari January 2013)

It is, of course, possible to find a blanket explanation for the particularly fervent opposition to my message that has continued for 40 years:

When this idea of mine was, in the beginning, shot down in Finnish medical journals that lacked suitable experts, it was easy for international scientific publications to pick up where they left off.

It was, and still is, too bitter a pill, completely impossible to swallow, for the professional body engaged in myopia research to admit that the entire foundation of their work is collapsing.

In this, humility and the Hippocratic Oath (Do No Harm) do not have even the smallest role to play.
+++++

I understand how difficult plus-prevention is for most of us, as a concept and an effort.  But she is correct about the minus lens.  First - do no harm.

I am certain that the "struggle" is between the extreme "ease" of a strong minus lens in an office (when you still have 20/40 vision), versus the realization that wearing an over-prescribed minus lens 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, will in fact, "do harm".

It is up to you to conduct your own " visual acuity" checking - with full knowledge that this approach his supported by medical people.

I describe this as the "second opinion".
 



i see thank you for all your answers!! yes fonkstreet, i guess the change would be too small to notice. i've already read that even a very very small change in lenght would impact your eyesight, but i didn't know these numbers yet, thanks
thank you for mentioning Kaisu Viikari mr brown, i need to read up on her website and book. maybe i have a different problem then
yes mr becker the eye does seem to change in length, it's just not noticable i guess
Whew I finally good a good working keyboard again. Yes I agree, plus lenses are the devil for myopics :P I admire doctors like Bates and Viikari who go against the grain like that and who go out of their way to try to use new or alternative methods to heal - provided they aren't quacks like we see a lot

Offline NickGrouwen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2014, 11:00:47 PM »

otis <Did you father "cure myopia"?  Or was it normal statistical variation in vision? >
 he feels that plus lenses are too  "slow" and thinks its faster to actively focus.
I feel the same way. I prefer doing it without plus lenses. I've been doing this for the past couple of weeks and my eyesight has improved in leaps and bounds. Though it's still hard to break the habit of not leaning forward when sitting at a computer screen because I get lazy...

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2014, 10:06:28 AM »
when i move my eyes it feels very unnatural and as if my eyes are not the proper shape. I tried lots of eye exercises, but the stiffness is still there, so i don't think its the muscle issue and rather the shape.

When i practice active focusing outside. occasionally I can feel a pull as if the muscles are trying to shorten my eyes.
Also when i blink i get these images that don't overlap and sometimes very clear images.

i know this is kind of weird, but the main problem is that my eyes just feel "different".

« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 10:08:38 AM by CapitalPrince »

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: changes in eye size?
« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2014, 09:31:59 PM »
so if a children with a refractive state of  say +2.5D is given a +2.5D plus lenses, he gets more and more farsighted and his eyes get....shorter and shorter?

i have never though of this before, so it does seem very likely that the eye shape does change. and so axial myopia, deemed as "incurable", "impossible to reverse" may actually be reversible although very very slowly.

If a child is +2.5D and he wears a +2.5D plus lens and does close work all day. Does his positive refractive become even more positive at the same rate compared to that of a myopic child wearing a minus lens (becoming more negative)?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 09:35:35 PM by CapitalPrince »