Just to be sure I understand the logic, you are suggesting going with lower negative/plus spherical correction but with still relatively strong cylinder. Is that right? Seems like that should help challenge the myopia while being reasonable/gradual in pushing against the astigmatism.
Also, did you mean to suggest -3.25D on the cyl for both the reading and distance rather than -3.75D on the reading? I want to be a bit more cautious on what I order in this range since Zenni charges an extra $9 per pair of glasses with more than -3.0D cyl and they are also recommending a higher lens quality for this prescription which could bring the cost up quite a bit for an experimental pair or two.
Hi Don,
sorry, for my typo, of course I meant -3.25D cyl. for both (an undercorrection of 0.75 D) . The less expensive -3.0 D cyl. should also work.
Maybe the "blur factor" by 0.5D sph blur + 1/2 * 0.75D cyl. blur = 0.875 D is too much for a comfortable distant vision (exept for TV).
I guess
-0.75D -1.75D cyl
0.0D -3.25 D cyl (or less expensive -3.0D)
would give you a more comfortable vision.
Does it seem the reading lenses you suggest would be more helpful in working on hormetic correction than just trying to read at say 17-20 inches without corrective lenses? I think I understand your logic and it seems worth a try.
also looks like I got you wrong by thinking you want to use that -2.25D and the 0D -2D cyl together at your left eye which would result in overcorrection.
So you can use that R -2.25D SE for distant vision, but I think using a cyl. correction (like -0.75D -1.75D cyl) would give you a more pleasant vision and you are avoiding the risk of equalizing your meridians for the prize of getting more sherical myopia.
IMHO particulary reading at 17 inches could change your nearly emmetropic L -0.25D sph value.