Is it possible to cancel out (eliminate) the strain at the far point by straining to see at the near point? Though Bates does briefly mention this in his book, I've been confused about what he intended to convey. Assuming we should interpret this passage (see blowski's post below) literally, then why is it that later in the book the Doctor states that vision can never be cured by straining to see, and any strain is always a harm to the vision
1. Bates stated that diamond type or fine print could be read from less than 10 inches by a nearsighted person only when the vision has relaxed sufficiently. The more vision is relaxed, the even closer to the eyelashes a nearsighted person can read the diamond type. Relaxation benefits both the nearpoint and farpoint simulateously, because different extrinsic eye muscles are responsible for producing myopia and hyperopia. Remember that palming addresses all the eye muscles simulateously. This illustrates a direct relationship in how relaxation causes a person to see better at both distances simulateously.
2. Bates also stated that being able to read something closer up than usual, such as diamond type, through relaxation also improved the ability to see in the distance (if I recall correctly).
3. Straining is the antithesis of relaxing. Straining is never good. This is my own understanding...if you're confused because of reading things like how Bates addressed strabismus, please don't confuse straining with seeing worse strabismus-wise because in strabismus cases the patient tries to produce a different type of strabismus to counteract his own strabismus while at the same time relaxing the eye muscles.
Bates did not recommend straining at all for anything, as far as my memory goes. This includes seeing up close or in the distance. You won't be able to cancel out myopia by straining to see at the nearpoint, nor vice-versa; straining has a harmful mental effect under any circumstance and straining will leave a mental imprint of something appearing worse, so don't do that.
Correction: After reading what bkowalski said, I stand corrected. But that's the only instance I know of as far as I can recall.
Read Bates Ch 17 - Vision Under Adverse Conditions A Benefit to the Eye. Here is a relevant paragraph:
"All this is directly contrary to my own experience. Children might be bored by
books in excessively small print; but I have never seen any reason for supposing
that their eyes, or any other eyes, would be harmed by such type. On the
contrary, the reading of fine print, when it can be done without discomfort, has
invariably proven to be beneficial, and the dimmer the light in which it can be
read, and the closer to the eyes it can be held, the greater the benefit. By this
means severe pain in the eyes has been relieved in a few minutes or even
instantly. The reason is that fine print cannot be read in a dim light and close to
the eyes unless the eyes are relaxed, whereas large print can be read in a good
light and at ordinary reading distance although the eyes may be under a strain.
When fine print can be read under adverse conditions, the reading of ordinary
print under ordinary conditions is vastly improved. In myopia it may be a benefit
to strain to see fine print, because myopia is always lessened when there is a
strain to see near objects, and this has sometimes counteracted the tendency to
strain in looking at distant objects, which is always associated with the production
of myopia. Even straining to see print so fine that it cannot be read is a benefit to
some myopes."
I believe that this is just one technique of many described by Bates that may work for you, to actually strain to see at the near point. So bring in a book so close that you cannot read it, strain to do so, and then test your distant vision. I would do this repetitively and see if you get any results. If it doesn't work, move on to other methods. But I personally haven't any experience with this one.
Yeah that's an interesting one that can really throw people for a loop, and people tend to like trying it because they know how to strain and still kind of have that idea that straining in some way is the best way to accomplish something. I'm moving this topic to the Bates Method category, because it really is part of it and even comes from Bates's book.
I had experimented with it at one point and I found that Bates did have a really good point. You have to consider this at the same time, which makes it clearer:
"Anatomically the results of straining to see at a distance may be the same as those of regarding an object at the near point without strain; but in one case the eye does what the mind desires, and in the other it does not." - PSWG, ch 9
My little experiment consisted of simply looking alternately at my finger and a distant object, and changing the distance of my finger so that it became close enough to my eye to become blurry. I strained to see the distant object and noticed my finger clearing up, and strained to see my blurry finger and found the distant object clearing up. It's really fascinating. That was one of the biggest "wow" moments I've had.
It paints strain in kind of a clearer way. When you think about it, it suggests that strain is a conflict between your desire and actions. And in life in general, think about how burdensome it is when you have a desire you don't act upon, and what a relief it is when you begin to take actions in honest harmony with a desire. And I've noticed in particular that myopic people tend to be emotionally dishonest - they telegraph, imitate, or act, not only in the presence of other people but internally as well.
Anyway, as far as the practice of straining at the near point to reverse myopia, I believe Bates said that it seemed to give some benefit but really wasn't ever as successful as his other methods. But hey, if someone gives it a go over several days or weeks and finds it amazingly effective, then do share.
Dave
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Dave Wrote:Yeah that's an interesting one that can really throw people for a loop, and people tend to like trying it because they know how to strain and still kind of have that idea that straining in some way is the best way to accomplish something. I'm moving this topic to the Bates Method category, because it really is part of it and even comes from Bates's book.
Yes Dave, I like this part, we know how to strain, and this is what makes me so interested.
Thx 4 the clarification, Dave, Spock, and bkowalski.
But regarding the second part of my question;
Quote:why is it that later in the book the Doctor states that vision can never be cured by straining to see, and any strain is always a harm to the vision
Be careful in using strain to reverse myopia (this is why I avoided the method of oppositional strain):
Quote:The eye strains to see at the distance, on the contrary, becomes rounder than it was before and may pass from the flattened condition of hypermetropia, through emmetropia, into the elongated condition of myopia [and the reverse is true]. If these changes take place unsymmetrically, astigmatism will again be produced in connection with the other conditions
When talking about patients following the operations that had their lens removed:
Quote:In the first case a strain to see at distance lessens the hypermetropia and a strain to see near point increases it; in the second a strain to see at the distance increases the myopia and a strain to see at near-point lessens it.
A few paragraphs after, he states the most important part:
Quote:By constant repetition and frequent demonstration and by all means possible, the fact must be stressed that perfect sight can be obtained only by relaxation
He mentioned the phenomena of oppositional strain surprisingly many times in his writing, but he never developed it. It's almost as if he imagines its possible, but a bit counter-intuitive with respect to his methods. Perhaps he is leaving this to the ingenuity of the future readers to develop this further
Now I would like to stress the first quote I printed: be careful. The reason why he said it's not possible later on because an average reader would try something as stupid as oppositional strain without having much background knowledge. Even if this reduces myopia it can lead to unsymmetrical change leading to other complications, and the novice Bates student may incorrectly conclude that the Bates method ruined his eyesight...while in fact it was his stupidity. Maybe at the start Bates had a little too much confidence in the reader.
also: I tried what Dave suggested and it worked!!! Straining to see near clears up distance vision, but also causes GREAT discomfort >
This is direct proof of the Bates postulates are true, and the modern theory that myopia is associated with lots of near-work strain false.
Although, I'm having trouble explaining this phenomena:
When I study boring subjects as cell biology for 2-hours or so, I look up to notice my distance vision is completely blurred. When I put the book down and do something else, within an hour the distance vision clears up again. This is bizzare because Bates said multiple times that children become hypermetropic when studying very boring subjects because they strain to see something that does not interest them. Maybe I just have deep interest in cell biology that I'm not aware of -- not likely.
Can someone explain this?
Once you look up, your distance vision should clear up very quickly if you aren't straining to see in the distance. I know what you're describing happens a lot to people, and I think it's because you' re really straining to see in the distance while looking near. The text isn't going to appear as black as it would if you were to really not strain while looking at it, and the letters don't stand out. Physiologically maybe it means you're tightening the wrong muscles to see near instead of accommodating normally. Or you lock your vision in a habit of freezing your body while reading, so that you're still focusing near while looking up and it turns into strain, or at least more strain than when looking near.
Distance vs. near vision can be really odd. I know two people personally who started wearing glasses for reading because they had trouble seeing near, but still good distance vision. Normally that means hyperopia (farsightedness), but guess what? Their glasses had minus lenses, for myopia. So they were myopic when looking near, and not in the distance.
David
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Just a thought I had today:
The "plus lens prevention" is proposed to work in a similar way. The idea is that when a myopic person puts on a plus lens, everything appears blurry at near-point. Therefore, while working on the computer or reading a book, your eyes strain to see the blurry image. This strain to see near supposedly promotes hypermetropia and "cancels" the myopic condition.
Likewise when one with normal sight or hypermetropic (far sighted) puts on a minus lens, everything at a distance appears blurry and the strain to see far is produced. This strain would otherwise be absent without glasses as those individuals see distant objects perfectly. The strain to see far promotes myopia supposedly cancels hyopermetropia and perhaps leads the eye towards a state of apparent good sight.
Having said that, this is not what Dr. Bates was all about. The idea is to reduce the strain while viewing distant objects, not to produce more strain for your eyes by wearing another set of glasses. Not to mention the headaches and discomfort it produces.
I know that the plus/minus lens prevention is not the subject of this board, but I thought I'd bring it up to help explain the concept. I believe Dave said discussion of this matter was ok.
Subject: Let me clarify the plus-preventive concept.
(I think Dave will allow this clarification.)
Paul> Just a thought I had today:
Paul> The "plus lens prevention" is proposed to work in a similar way. The idea is that when a myopic person puts on a plus lens, everything appears blurry at near-point.
Otis> This is not the case. The intention is that the use of
the plus will START before a strong minus is applied. (i.e.,
the child can still read the 20/60 line -- although she
might have been over-prescribed with a minus.)
Otis> If the plus is correctly selected for reading distance,
then there is little if any blur. In fact the child should
be instructed to read at the "just blur" point -- but
clear for the most part. I also strongly advocate
that as PART of this program the child be instructed
in the Bates methods.
Paul> Therefore, while working on the computer or reading a book, your eyes strain to see the blurry image.
Otis> This is not the case. The plus is often described as
a "relaxing" lens, or a strain-reduction lens.
Paul> This strain to see near supposedly promotes hypermetropia and "cancels" the myopic condition.
Otis> Like Bates, this method is also about self-empowerment, and
monitoring your Snellen to verify clearing of that eye chart.
Thus, when correctly done (like Bates) the parent will
verify that the child reads progressively smaller lines,
until she passes normal visual acuity requirements.
I didn't think that clarification was necessary.
I just simply mentioned "plus lens prevention" within the context of the effect of glasses on the eyes in order to understand strain, and perhaps the concept of oppositional strain.
