Hey there, I'm starting my journey on reversing my myopia.I would like to buy reduced vision glasses online from zennioptical instead of going to a optometrist to get my prescription changed. I have my original prescription for the glasses I'm wearing now, how do I adjust the prescription for reduced vision glasses, do I lower the numbers down a few points, or divide the numbers in half, three quarters, or is there a specific way?
I am a vision coach and teacher, not an eye doctor, so cannot legally prescribe glasses. For others, your prescription looks like right eye -7.25 with .75 cylinder for astigmatism, left eye -7.75 with .50 cylinder for astigmatism. This is a pretty strong prescription, and doing without glasses entirely may be difficult or even frightening for you right now. Still, I'd encourage you to take them off and just look around, seeing what you notice, that you can still see SOMETHING, to get it in your head that you don't need them for survival like you do oxygen. As far as the lower prescription, it would be great if you had on older weaker pair of glasses to experiment with. I'd do away with the astigmatism correction in any new glasses you order, since it's so low, and reduce the sphere by at least 1 diopter, or maybe since Zenni is so cheap order a couple of pairs of 1 , 2, and 3 diopters lower each. You might find that you can see better with the weaker glasses than you think, which is not only more relaxing for your visual system, it is a real confidence booster. Good luck and let us know how you do.
I'm not sure what Axis means, can I just set both Os and Od Axis to 0?
The glasses are only $15 so I don't mind ordering again in 3 months once my vision gets better. If those numbers work I'll order the glasses right now.
The axis is the angle of the astigmatism correction and not relevant if there is no cylinder, so just the sphere and PD (pupil distance) should be all Zenni needs. Go for it, and don't get too in love with this new prescription since you're hoping your eyes get stronger and you'll soon need an even weaker pair. Let us know how you do. Remember to be safe and don't drive if you can't see well enough. And I hope you're using an eye chart, not to test yourself, but jsut to see what your vison is doing from day to day. It my teach you more than anything else does about your vision.
I just ordered reduced prescription on Zenni as well. I am -4.25 and I got a pair of -2 and a pair of -1's. It's really only for emergency purposes, like walking around an airport. Otherwise, I pretty much never wear them. It's harder at night but I'm usually with my girlfriend so it's okay.
Also, I made sure I chose really REALLY UGLY frames. Next time someone makes a comment like "could you please put glasses on" I will show them my glasses and ask them if they want me to take them off If they're going to pressure me to mess up my eyes with glasses, I will mess up their eyes with my ugly looking glasses.
Everyone is different, but I'm concerned that y'all are getting too weak glasses. Going more than about 0.5 to 1 diopters weaker your "20/20" lenses is likely* to result in inadequate vision under a variety of circumstances and may cause you to strain even more. Remember -- glasses cause you to strain, so if you try to go too weak, you're both straining because you're wearing glasses and also straining because you can't see well enough. While going without glasses is always best, assuming you have the right circumstances (i.e., you're not needing to drive or work on the computer, etc.), it's possible to improve vision while wearing only slightly weak lenses. Getting too-weak lenses isn't likely to give you any benefit and may be counterproductive if it causes you to squint and do other things unconsciously to try to see.
* I understand that diopters don't correspond one-for-one to visual acuity, which is why I'm only saying likely. Certain individuals may be different.
I got my glasses today, and they're pretty weak. I have the book relearning to see but it's a huge book, I just want to get started. Is there another recommendation for what I can read just to start right now?
Yeah the recommendation is don't read books by or pay to see crap eyesight teachers, natural vision educators or "Bates teachers". They want to cast a wide net for customers -- or revenue maximization -- by telling you bullshit about how you can improve your vision while wearing reduced prescriptions. Bates never advocated such nonsense. If you really want it you will have to try to enter into or create the conditions where you can go without glasses. Example: Use a bicycle, bus or train so you don't drive( unless you are at least 20/40). Change your job if you need glasses for it, quit, etc. I know this is not what you want to hear -- but people must be often told what they don't want or are not ready to hear. Quacks-in-bushes teaching "bates" or "eyesight improvement" want to do the opposite, to tell you what they think you want to hear no matter how untrue it is -- for money of course.
Caveat: You can tell an author or teacher has integrity if they tell the bitter and hard truth most don't want to hear -- discard your glasses or don't bother. I first was introduced to Bates method by Quackenbush's abomination of a book. I would advise against it, the only worthy thing in his whole books are the quotes from Bates!
RoyFokker Wrote:Yeah the recommendation is don't read books by or pay to see crap eyesight teachers, natural vision educators or "Bates teachers". They want to cast a wide net for customers -- or revenue maximization -- by telling you bullshit about how you can improve your vision while wearing reduced prescriptions. Bates never advocated such nonsense. If you really want it you will have to try to enter into or create the conditions where you can go without glasses. Example: Use a bicycle, bus or train so you don't drive( unless you are at least 20/40). Change your job if you need glasses for it, quit, etc. I know this is not what you want to hear -- but people must be often told what they don't want or are not ready to hear. Quacks-in-bushes teaching "bates" or "eyesight improvement" want to do the opposite, to tell you what they think you want to hear no matter how untrue it is -- for money of course.
Caveat: You can tell an author or teacher has integrity if they tell the bitter and hard truth most don't want to hear -- discard your glasses or don't bother. I first was introduced to Bates method by Quackenbush's abomination of a book. I would advise against it, the only worthy thing in his whole books are the quotes from Bates!
I hear what you're saying, but unless a pupil gets it right away and starts doing several hours a day of practice (and starts seeing results) it's going to get downright annoying, and dangerous if they need to operate machinery. That why the recommendation of reduced prescription lenses ONLY WHEN NEEDED! Go without as often as possible, but use them when driving or operating machinery etc. So what's your take on that idea?
@Nancy I just saw my optometrist yesterday (really great visit, I'll post about it later) and found that my left eye has 1.25 diopters astigmatism. I ordered a pair that gave me 20/25 and no astigmatism correction. That was A LOT of astigmatism though! You said that your behavioral optometrist said ditch astigmatism correction for anything below cylinder 2 diopters, right?
Yes, my behavioral optometrist's rule of thumb was that anything below -2 for cylinder should be removed in the reduced prescription, although he treated every patient individually. I once saw him with a very nervous anxious fearful female friend who did not drive any longer, and he hardly reduced her prescription at all because he said her nervous system wouldn't be able to handle much of a change, that for her it would have to be very gradual. When I first saw him about 12 years ago, I had -1.75 cylinder in my hard contacts and he took it out and gave me soft ones, the first pair I think -9.5. I was a little disoriented without the astigmatism correction at first, but quickly got used to it. I am still working on the slight spinal twist and head tilt, but my balance and postural alignment is much much better.
RoyFokker Wrote:Yeah the recommendation is don't read books by or pay to see crap eyesight teachers, natural vision educators or "Bates teachers". They want to cast a wide net for customers -- or revenue maximization -- by telling you bullshit about how you can improve your vision while wearing reduced prescriptions. Bates never advocated such nonsense. If you really want it you will have to try to enter into or create the conditions where you can go without glasses. Example: Use a bicycle, bus or train so you don't drive( unless you are at least 20/40). Change your job if you need glasses for it, quit, etc. I know this is not what you want to hear -- but people must be often told what they don't want or are not ready to hear. Quacks-in-bushes teaching "bates" or "eyesight improvement" want to do the opposite, to tell you what they think you want to hear no matter how untrue it is -- for money of course.
Caveat: You can tell an author or teacher has integrity if they tell the bitter and hard truth most don't want to hear -- discard your glasses or don't bother. I first was introduced to Bates method by Quackenbush's abomination of a book. I would advise against it, the only worthy thing in his whole books are the quotes from Bates!
I agree with you to some extent, but Bates did in fact report that some people were able to improve while still wearing glasses, as discussed here. "Discard your glasses or don't bother" is probably good advice for someone trying to improve without personal help from a competent vision teacher. In his book Quackenbush recommends finding a Bates teacher, but that makes me wonder why he even bothered to write the book.
A good example of the low standard of contemporary Bates teachers:
In Quackenbush's book and his extreme editing and butchering of the Perfect Eyesight Magazines by Bates, he has in the back of those books offers to become a "Natural Vision Center" Teacher. He writes, "The Teacher Trainee does not need to have clear vision ... ." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do I need to add anything to that? Does he have integrity? Absolutely not, he will just take people's money and certify so called teachers who have not walked the walk. That is also why they advocate reduced prescription glasses, as well, it is a money making operation and nothing else. They don't care about the extra obstacles or the false hope it will cause. It is like saying, "fat people, lose weight by not changing your lifestyle or diet."
@FIAT2LUX:
What do you mean by "pupil", do you mean by that your students and that you are a "Bates" teacher?
You added nothing new to what I said. Getting a different job or leaving your current one which I said may be necessary so you could avoid situations like the need to operate heavy machinery or use glasses in any manner. I even said you might have to even move if you need a car to live and cannot find other means.
@Daniel:
Bates's teachings are easy in principle but very difficult to implement as it is. According to Rishi, who runs the PerfectSight Yahoo Group and David who runs this site, most people never obtain 20/20 or better who try. Nonsense about wearing glasses will only make it EVEN more difficult.
Imo it is not all that important whether people have reached 20/20. The important question is whether they have gotten significant lasting improvement from where they started. Someone who has (genuinely) gone from -4.00 to -1.00 might be a good teacher, and such a person would certainly be a success story. Unfortunately I get the impression that even that kind of success is quite rare.
Yes, it is important! Quackenbush, has been a Bates teacher since 1983 according to his books! So in all these decades he must have had lots of success... Nope! He had to lower the pole vault height because he had so few successful students, that to maintain his petty certification, he needed to allow people with poor eyesight to become teachers of his bastardized Bates method. The blind truly leading the blind!
If you agree it is so difficult as it is, Daniel, can I ask why you support the wear eye-glasses and eat the cake too, approach?
@Qlue, trust me I first was sidetracked by Quackenbush, what I write here is all true and can be cross-checked. You are better going the authentic Bates route or just fighting a "rearguard action"(using the Quackenbush spouted nonsense to simply arrest further deterioration by stronger prescriptions every few years).
@RoyFokker pupil meaning anyone learning/practicing the Bates Method or other NVI methods. I am not a teacher, and do not feel qualified to be one until I've gotten consistent 20/25 or better, which is currently a long ways off. However, I am ready and willing to give helpful tips to people lost in a bog. So, next question. HAVE YOU PERSONALLY ATTAINED A CONSISTENT 20/20 or better level of vision? Yes, or no?
If they're going to pressure me to mess up my eyes with glasses, I will mess up their eyes with my ugly looking glasses.
