Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The correct undercorrection?
#1
I used to think that since a -3.00 myope can basically do near-work without glasses, a -8.00 myope should get -5.00 glasses for near-work. However, I now realize that even then there is a bit of leaning forward involved, which might be an acceptable tradeoff for not wearing glasses at all, but not if you're wearing glasses anyway.

So how under-corrected should minus glasses be for near-work? It seems like you'd have to get it exactly right. If you don't under-correct enough, it's still over-corrected for near-work, and if you under-correct too much, you'll end up squinting or hunching forward. Also, if your vision improves at all, it seems like you'd need new glasses immediately, or else you'd then be over-correcting for near-work.
Reply
#2
I guess ideally, you'd try many different minus lenses to read something on a desk in front of you. And then take the weakest prescription which didn't cause you any trouble. Are there any eye doctors who would do this? Behavioral optometrists, maybe?

I guess this would be more feasible if minus glasses were available over-the-counter.
Reply
#3
You could also move the monitor closer or farther, as well as using zoom to magnify what is on the monitor. I have a habit of leaning too but I refuse to wear glasses in front of the computer when I am using it. My clear flashes occur during computer use and sometimes I notice my weaker eye (by ~0.5 diopter) has the clear flash and the double vision goes away when I look at a distant traffic light (while the normally better eye sees double vision).
Reply
#4
lou_deg Wrote:You could also move the monitor closer or farther, as well as using zoom to magnify what is on the monitor.
No doubt that works with low-to-moderate myopia. Perhaps even moderate-moderate myopia. Once you get close to high myopia, that kind of thing is a lost cause.
Reply
#5
Would 20/80 correction be good for near-work? I'm probably going to get glasses, since there is really no good way for me to use the computer or do normal things otherwise.
Reply
#6
hi Daniel,
I think 20/80 should be ok, or maybe a little stronger depending on screen resolution and eye distance from the screen. I have 20/80 and im ok without glasses. Most near work is also ok.
Reply
#7
The problem with myopia is that when you reach -3.00 and beyond you will be reading too close. You should never read closer than 12 inches,and never have the computer monitor closer than 20 inches.
If you believe that you have made progress with your myopia, but continue to read closer than stated above,you are are still quite myopic.
Reply
#8
Bifocal Wrote:The problem with myopia is that when you reach -3.00 and beyond you will be reading too close. You should never read closer than 12 inches,and never have the computer monitor closer than 20 inches.
How would this work with your "anti-corrective lens" approach? That's going to cause people to read at a closer distance. You just recommended it to someone at -4.00. He may already have to read at less than 12 inches, and plus lenses will force him to bring it even closer.
Reply
#9
My explanation was as a myope wearing glasses,or reading without them.
The anticorrective method will require you to read closer,but the idea is to constantly push the near work farther away.The time to total recovery of normal uncorrected vision,and normal reading distance is rapid. No disappointing clear flashes,that never go any farther.

<!-- 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 -->
Reply
#10
What about just "print-pushing" without glasses? Or even with reduced minus glasses, for high myopes?
Reply
#11
Bifocal Wrote:You should never read closer than 12 inches,and never have the computer monitor closer than 20 inches.

I have a real hard time with such definitive statements. Based on my own experience, I should be blind the way I have abused my eyes at the nearpoint over the last decades. And I've deliberately worked with fine print close to the eyes (4-8 inches) as a means of relaxation. My vision never got worse, it go better! And as Bates observed, and proved over and over, a strain at the nearpoint can actually cause a hyperopic shift, or lessening of myopia. None of this would make sense to those who subscribe to conventional vision 'science.'

If you are so passionate about plus lenses, why not create your own blog, and be a moderator where you can sing all the praises of it's controversial virtues uncontested, rather than infiltrate a forum primarily dedicated to the principles of Bates and knowingly cause confusion among the folks earnestly trying to understand said principles, which is difficult enough? It wouldn't cost anything. Or is it just laziness? I just don't get it.
Reply
#12
Reading fine print (WITHOUT GLASSES) is the natural safe alternative to the harmful Plus Lens method. Read it at 20 inches, farther and closer, up to against the eyelashes getting a microscope effect.
I bought fine and microscopic print from a competing author; I have to say it is great! The tiny microscopic is about the size of a dime; one double page of Better Eyesight Magazine. With a few days practice I can see that tiny print and when I look up, to the far distance the vision is so clear!

Arocarty is doing it right! Its an inspiration as I get older, will stay with the Bates method for life. Thank you for speaking up about the many plus lens advertisements that have recently flooded the forum by Bifocal. People come here to find healthy information, not something that will reverse their natural progress. Bifocal; please consider the solely natural process. You will glad you did that as time goes by.

In my experience the fine print keeps the lens and eye shape correct and mobile, including the outer and inner eye muscles. This keeps good circulation in the eye and around, in the lens. A man from a plus lens website yelled at me one day; said I am not an eye doctor, am wrong when I stated the lens needs good circulation. He said the lens does not have circulation. I think it does; maybe not direct blood vessels inside the lens?, but it has to receive nutrients, moisture... form vessels... traveling to, around the lens. Recently helping a blind man reverse cataract. Research keeps coming up about; lack of water, hydration, circulation, proteins... to, in the lens and few other things causing the cataract. He's doing palming, sunlight, no glasses now and is looking close at 6 inches and farther, back and forth (so far seeing only light, shadows and some flashes of vision. Also has glaucoma, burst blood vessel in retina, operation to correct. All caused by glasses minus and plus) in an attempt to get the muscles and eye, lens moving, healthy again. Movement=circulation.

Will have to get the Ophthalmology books out of the closet. Anyone have input on this?
Reply
#13
Neither the lens nor the cornea have any blood vessels. The lens also has no nerves. The cornea is packed with them, more so than any other part of the body. The lens receives its nutrients through the aqueous humor, while the cornea receives it's nutrients through tears on the outer surface, and through the aqueous humor as well.
Reply
#14
Thanks Arocarty,

What books did you read this in. I would like to update my library. Need text with pictures of the entire circulatory system of the eye; blood, lymph, aqueous... and every little nerve. This way I can speak of this with confidence, more study might bring new ideas on reversing advanced cataract. It's probably in my old books. Cant afford buy new from colleges right now and too burnt out from writing... Like Kelly Bundy; new thoughts come in, old go out! 'Ding', "Duh... what was that?" Bud says; "Its the door bell Kel".

Any info. on the zonluar fibers that hold the lens in place, is attached to the ciliary muscles, which is attached to the ciliary body. Ciliary muscle controls movement of the lens. Some of those parts might have blood vessels. That was mentioned in that article by the eye doc; it gets malnourished, dehydrated.

Thomas Quackenbush's website says modern scientists using technology proved the lens changes shape during accommodation and also discovered Bates was right; during this process the eye lengthens. They say the lengthening is not enough to effect anything. They think its the pull of the ciliary on the eye that does it as the ciliary changes the lens shape to see clear up close. If the outer eye muscles are tense, this can affect the ciliary muscle. Can a tense ciliary affect the outer eye muscles?

I still believe in Bates; the outer eye muscles change the eyes shape for accommodation. They definitely can affect the eyes shape; abnormal; long, short, irregular when tense, normal shape when relaxed. Wonder if doctors are still hiding the full truth. If the ciliary, lens become tense, frozen, the outer eye muscles can still produce accommodation by lengthening the eye more, like a camera. Maybe this action eventually breaks up the tension in the ciliary, lens and gets them moving. Thus the positive effect of the looking close and far taught by many teachers. It is a exercise thing but when mixed with Bates Method and not done all the time, is effective.
Reply

5 TIPS TO IMPROVE YOUR VISION IMMEDIATELY!

Quickly prove to yourself that vision improvement is possible, with this free PDF download.

Download Now