Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Anyone tried out Power Vision System?
#1
Hi.

I've been more or less reading books by Bates and others who've more or less added stuff to his research. I was just curious on the Power Vision System since it has good reviews on Amazon and it has some different exercises that don't seem to be from Bates. So is the book worth getting in the end if you've read other Bates books?
Reply
#2
(08-23-2014, 05:54 PM)fvig2001 Wrote: Hi.

I've been more or less reading books by Bates and others who've more or less added stuff to his research. I was just curious on the Power Vision System since it has good reviews on Amazon and it has some different exercises that don't seem to be from Bates. So is the book worth getting in the end if you've read other Bates books?

I'd say no. Plus, my understanding is that unless you actually get someone trained in this system to show you how to do the exercises properly, it's not an easy system to follow. I do believe however that certain eye exercises can be helpful, but you can learn about those anywhere.

Cheers,
JW
Reply
#3
I would avoid that system.
Reply
#4
(08-25-2014, 12:42 PM)sleepmaster Wrote: I would avoid that system.

Why? Is it because of the plus lenses or is like mostly against Bates' teachings? Just asking out of curiousity.
Reply
#5
I thinik the way the power vision system uses plus lenses is just so wrong. I'm referring to the so-called principle of maximum load, where you use the strongest plus lens you can read blurry print with just outside your blur point, similar to lifting the strongest weight you can to increase physical strength(the analogy made by that system which I think is ridiculous). I know the system teaches to preface this with several weeks of ocular stretching exercises, but it's still just wrong.

I think a lot of systems seem better than they really are because they take advantage of the fact that nearsighted eye under the pressure of minus lens usage, will naturally improve a diopter and change over time, purely from that minus lens pressure no longer being there. That's the reason why lasik surgery doctors often only choose to correct patients' vision to -1 instead of the full 20/20., or correct one eye to 20/20 and hte other eye to -1 so one eye is for distance and the other eye is for reading. So what would happen naturally is extoled by the system as being the benefits of that system. If a system is any good, it should have a plethora of people that improve beyond 1.5 diopters.

I've seen the discussion board on the power vision system and it does not impress me on bit. I think the system uses a lot of technical jargon, defocus, visual field, convergencec, ocular whatever, which makes it sound more scientific. But the biggest vision improvement I've seen is on a guy who claimed to use the power vision system to go from -3/-3.75 to 20/20, which when people say they are 20/20 online, you can almost bet that it means 1-1.5 diopters, so the guyimproved 2 diopters, maybe 2.5 , over 18 months. But he had the luxury of starting from only in the -3s. All of the people I've seen who have come back significant;y from -10 or worse have done it more the bates way.

My opinion is if your myopia is pretty bad, if you use the power vision system method, you'll improve say 1.5-2 diopters at most and then get stuck and/or put too much stress on your eye to continue using that method. The initial vision improvement with power vision system can happen fast which makes it fools gold.

It's just common sense to me to take the most natural form of natural vision improvement as far as you can take it, even if that's a couple years, and then make a decision whether to use pus lenses or not, as opposed to using plus lenses just after several weeks. Even if plus lenses have their place, what's the logic of using up all your bullets so quickly? I'd rather improve by 2 diopters with bates and have the plus lens option available to me, instead of dropping two diopters and getting stiuck because I used up my bullets.

Another thing to think about is the pressure on the eyeball to accomodate such a dramatic diopter difference if you using the maximum plus lens you can read blurry print with just outside your blur point. It's like putting -10 glasses on a -6 kid, but in the opposite direction. Too much stress on the eyeball either way.
Reply
#6
OK. Thanks. I'll probably just avoid it and stick with my current program, which more or less tries to insert a lot of palming, looking at outdoors, sunning and swinging. Weirdly, my far range vision is slightly improving but my near vision isn't really improving much.

(08-26-2014, 07:44 AM)sleepmaster Wrote: I thinik the way the power vision system uses plus lenses is just so wrong. I'm referring to the so-called principle of maximum load, where you use the strongest plus lens you can read blurry print with just outside your blur point, similar to lifting the strongest weight you can to increase physical strength(the analogy made by that system which I think is ridiculous). I know the system teaches to preface this with several weeks of ocular stretching exercises, but it's still just wrong.

I think a lot of systems seem better than they really are because they take advantage of the fact that nearsighted eye under the pressure of minus lens usage, will naturally improve a diopter and change over time, purely from that minus lens pressure no longer being there. That's the reason why lasik surgery doctors often only choose to correct patients' vision to -1 instead of the full 20/20., or correct one eye to 20/20 and hte other eye to -1 so one eye is for distance and the other eye is for reading. So what would happen naturally is extoled by the system as being the benefits of that system. If a system is any good, it should have a plethora of people that improve beyond 1.5 diopters.

I've seen the discussion board on the power vision system and it does not impress me on bit. I think the system uses a lot of technical jargon, defocus, visual field, convergencec, ocular whatever, which makes it sound more scientific. But the biggest vision improvement I've seen is on a guy who claimed to use the power vision system to go from -3/-3.75 to 20/20, which when people say they are 20/20 online, you can almost bet that it means 1-1.5 diopters, so the guyimproved 2 diopters, maybe 2.5 , over 18 months. But he had the luxury of starting from only in the -3s. All of the people I've seen who have come back significant;y from -10 or worse have done it more the bates way.

My opinion is if your myopia is pretty bad, if you use the power vision system method, you'll improve say 1.5-2 diopters at most and then get stuck and/or put too much stress on your eye to continue using that method. The initial vision improvement with power vision system can happen fast which makes it fools gold.

It's just common sense to me to take the most natural form of natural vision improvement as far as you can take it, even if that's a couple years, and then make a decision whether to use pus lenses or not, as opposed to using plus lenses just after several weeks. Even if plus lenses have their place, what's the logic of using up all your bullets so quickly? I'd rather improve by 2 diopters with bates and have the plus lens option available to me, instead of dropping two diopters and getting stiuck because I used up my bullets.

Another thing to think about is the pressure on the eyeball to accomodate such a dramatic diopter difference if you using the maximum plus lens you can read blurry print with just outside your blur point. It's like putting -10 glasses on a -6 kid, but in the opposite direction. Too much stress on the eyeball either way.
Reply

5 TIPS TO IMPROVE YOUR VISION IMMEDIATELY!

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

Download Now