I haven't used the Bates method, though I am familiar with it in overview. I found this page while looking for a copy of Meir Schneider's method. I have used parts of the "Yoga for the Eyes" method for years. It works.
I am not diligent with it, in fact I only do about four of the exercises. I have and started out with good vision. But, my vision was growing poorer due to age and heredity. EVERYONE in my family wears glasses and they all have them by 30, at the very latest. I discovered this method in my late 20's and am now in my late 30's. I have natural uncorrected vision. I got almost instant results with the YFE method and it only takes a couple of weeks of constant use to see "permanent improvement" (it wears off after a couple of years)
YFE does, as poster on another thread mention, have oodles of exercises. Like, I stated, I only use about four of them. That is because I am lazy and I can see pretty well already. It might not work fantastically with someone who already has really poor vision. ie legally blind. I don't know.
In any case, this leaves little doubt for me that these methods, or some of their components, really do work and are quite valid as an alternative to more mainstream eyesight correction. I am totally convinced that the Bates method, as I understand it and the "Yoga For the Eyes" method really do work and create improvement. I can't say it will give EVERYONE perfect vision. But, I am reasonably certain that practically EVERYONE, with functioning organs, can get RELATIVE improvement from their respective starting positions.
In fact, I am a little shocked that these methods are still viewed sceptically and seen as attempts at hucksterism. I am surprised that there is a dearth of more/better/ more efficient programs out there. As, some of the techniques taught with these programs are likely more effective than others. So, if anyone knows anything better than what I have been doing for years let me know. I am open to it.
Anyway, that's my two cents. I really can't advocate these type of programs enough in regard to the realm of corrected vision. I hope this doesn't sound like an advertisement. YFE is really the only program I am pretty familiar with.
I do that once or twice a day for a couple of weeks. And, I only do it when I notice my eyesight is degrading.
I love Palming. It's got to be the best exercise that there is. I use it when my eyes feel tired, have a sinus infection, or when I am personally stressed. For me, that plus some deep breathing seem to work wonders.
Anyway, I hope this helps anyone on the fence about the time investment. And, again, if anyone knows better methods, I would love to hear about them.
lilchiva Wrote:I haven't used the Bates method, though I am familiar with it in overview. I found this page while looking for a copy of Meir Schneider's method. I have used parts of the "Yoga for the Eyes" method for years. It works.
Reading through what you wrote, you ARE actually using Bates. Relaxation, visualization, palming, near/far focusing, are all basic Bates techniques. Thanks for testifying to the effectiveness of these in retaining your good vision. Regardless of heredity, there are things that can be done to prevent/improve eyesight. Congrats -
I haven't used bates method's . I have used modern vision care techniques and they actually work.
Some have been developed on the basis of groundwork done by Bates and therefore are excellent.
All the best
lilchiva
I think that this method will be excellent for you.
Are you nearsighted,or farsighted?
I you are nearsighted,you need to then use plus lenses,and if you are farsighted,then use minus lenses.
I was farsighted,and now am glasses free.
I did have a period where the minus lenses made me nearsighted,but that is now gone.
Her is the link.<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/improve-eyesight-and-throw-away-your-glasses/">http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/impr ... r-glasses/</a><!-- m -->
Recently, I have been practicing Dr Bate's method. Before I started training, I was wearing glasses of following nos:
Right Eye
Sph: -7.25 Cyl: -0.5 Axis: 180 deg
Left Eye
Sph: -7.00 Cyl: -1.25 Axis 180 deg.
The near vision was normal.
I was examined by the instructor on May 23, 2013. The required correction was found to be:
Right Eye
Sph: -5.5 Cyl: 0 Axis: 180 deg
Left Eye
Sph: -6.00 Cyl: -1.0 Axis 180 deg.
On May 25, 2013 I visited an eye specialist and the correction necessary was found to be:
Right Eye
Sph: -7.25 Cyl: 0 Axis: 180 deg
Left Eye
Sph: -7.00 Cyl: -1.0 Axis 180 deg.
Seeing this disagreement, I went to an optometrist for a check-up and his findings were in agreement with the doctor's.
So, I went back to the instructor for a repeat check-up. His findings were identical to that on May 23.
I am unable to understand this. Can anyone help in assessing the reason/ error.
Regret posting it here, but I am a new member and it seems new members can not create a thread.
The Plus Lens, ati-corrective methods cause cataract and other eye problems including astigmatism, retina damage and eye muscle function impairment.
Otis Brown, the leader of these Plus Lens guys has had 2 cataract operations and lasik on his corneas for astigmatism. Caused by his use of the Plus Lens. He still uses advises it. Strange addiction, stubborn mind. Another guy who also writes books on the subject, advises it as Otis does is addicted to the plus lens and has developed eye problems.
The Bates Method does not use Plus Lens, anti-corrective methods. The name of this method is often changed to hide its true name as people are harmed by it, post bad experiences on the internet. When people try to comment on the the plus lens forums, groups about the harm it has caused them and their children; the owners remove their posts.
These people use the Bates Method to hide behind; they don't really use the Bates Method. Their treatment is all about using eyeglasses and siding with eye doctors that sell the plus lens (and minus lens) method.
iblindness and a very few other sites are the only place this truth can be posted.
ulhas Wrote:Can anyone help in assessing the reason/ error.
I am curious what equipment the instructor used to measure your prescription? And did he intended the prescription to be a weakened pair (not for 20/20 vision)? A lot of members here have used weakened pair of glasses.
Weaker and weaker lenses are ok; thatâs just reversing the strength of your prescription as the sight improves with Bates Method practice.
The plus lens method has the person wearing glasses they donât need; a too strong blurry pair of reading glasses or too strong pair minus. Why become addicted to glasses you donât even need?
Example; The person has clear close vision. Uses plus lens reading glasses which will cause addiction to the lenses, impair the outer and inner eye muscle function and also the eye's lens function, health. It freezes natural accommodation. Similar problems occur with minus lens when wearing minus for eyes that see clear in the distant.
The Bates Method and just reducing the prescription; weaker and weaker is the safe, healthy way to go.
If someone has cataract, any advanced eye problem; its best to stop all glasses to prevent more damage.
A well known Bates teacher goofed up her vision using Plus Lens method. Had clear sight before that.
ulhas
I would say that the instructor said your prescription went down to have you continue coming back to him,leading you to believe that you are making progress,when indeed you are not.
Since both doctors prescriptions are the same,your eyes have not improved.
You should look into the anti corrective lense method,and avoid these so called vision improvement instructors,that only take your money.
ulhas Wrote:Can anyone help in assessing the reason/ error.
I am curious what equipment the instructor used to measure your prescription? And did he intended the prescription to be a weakened pair (not for 20/20 vision)? A lot of members here have used weakened pair of glasses.
Thanks. The instructor used traditional method of placing the chart approximately 20' away from me and then putting lenses by trial and error. The intended prescription was for 6/9 but I could read 6/6 (20/20). The doctor and optometrist did the same.
The instructor and doctors prescriptions are too far off to both be 20/20. I think the instructor gave you a reduced prescription, perhaps for 6/9. Besides, what kind of natural vision improvement instructor would give you a full prescription anyway? You can always ask.
Did the optometrists use an autorefractor as well? I read somewhere that they use the reading from that in conjunction with the subjective test, so they come with a sort of average.The autorefractor reading might show a stronger reading than the subjective test.
