Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
List of other methods - help!
(09-09-2014, 01:05 AM)David Wrote: After reading another new thread, I'm convinced that the #1 idea that sends people astray is the idea that close work causes myopia. I'll concentrate on that.

Have a feeling that a 2nd idea that sends people astray might be that reading in dim light causes myopia. Because the pupil is not preventing (or interfering with) the relaxation of the lense in dim light, and that causes a more efficient direct biofeedback learning mechanism.

No small pupil size as in sunlight to assist the clarity. So in dim light with the wide pupil we must have perfect natural function with relaxation.
(09-09-2014, 11:09 AM)clarknight Wrote:
(09-09-2014, 01:05 AM)David Wrote: After reading another new thread, I'm convinced that the #1 idea that sends people astray is the idea that close work causes myopia. I'll concentrate on that.


Bates taught that reading the fine and microscopic print cures blur. It cured my experience with presbyopia age 40. Now 57 and still clear. I practice when need to keep that very close vision like a kid has; looking at a marble close to the eye.

Bates really made a discovery here. I wonder if it just dawned on him as he observed central-fixation and saccades or also something else he was working on. When did he first discover this and start advising patients to read the fine print and monitor the result?

Meir Schneider seems to be mostly against near work in general. He doesn't really get into it very much from everything I've heard other than saying that people look near too much and need to take breaks to look into the distance.

I think this topic is definitely in need of some clarification and more in depth explanation than "Near work is bad for your eyes." So I'm looking forward to what you have to say about this.

I've been working at my current job for about 2.5 months now, and it's mostly computer based. When I first arrive in the morning I notice that my vision is a little blurred but as the day progresses it usually clears up a little bit. So I've pretty much become convinced that there is much more going on here that causes vision to deteriorate (or recover for that matter) than meets the eye.
(10-06-2014, 08:08 PM)ted Wrote: Meir Schneider seems to be mostly against near work in general. He doesn't really get into it very much from everything I've heard other than saying that people look near too much and need to take breaks to look into the distance.

I think this topic is definitely in need of some clarification and more in depth explanation than "Near work is bad for your eyes." So I'm looking forward to what you have to say about this.

I'll try to clarify that statement about taking frequent breakes and looking into the distance.

Your lens muscles work pretty hard when you look from near. It's no wonder that one must compensate this by relaxing them (lens flat - muscles loose) by looking at the distance. I think there's no mistery here.

What Meir Schneider does is going even further - he claims our eyes (read lens muscles in this case) are made for looking far most of the time and looking at near from time to time. I don't know if this is true but I remember his argumentation: in the past people used to look to at the distance all the time - they were farmers, hunters, they didn't read newspapers or watched TV or used computers for many hours a day, they didn't read weather forecast - instead they looked at the clouds to predict the weather. They also had to look at the distance to see who's approaching their village, maybe they are friends but maybe they are their enemies etc.

Anyway, we inherited the eyes from our ancestors who had different way of living and what I can add to this is that perhaps one day our eyes will get accustomed to looking from near whole day long but untill then - we'll suffer from different kind of refractive errors. The change in our lives was much faster than the genetical change that would enable us to look close things all the time withour negative consequences.

One interesting thing: once Meir's training (or lecture) was attended by an ophtalmologist who came because he made the conclusion that something was wrong with the official teaching. The ophtalmologist had a patient who one day saw 20/20 and a few months later he could only see a few lines at the top of the chart so the ophtalmologist concluded that must not be a permanent change in the shape of the patient's eyes but cilliary spasm from constant looking from near.
The book is not heavy but if you hold it in your hands whole day long your arm muscles might get spasm too. Smile
Aureus, you have interesting points. I try to be open minded about absolutely everything.

I had noticeable vision problems when I was a baby, and I have memories of not being able to make out the faces of my parents and had to go by voice, intuition, whatever. So it was before I started reading, and it really didn't get much worse over the years for whatever reason.

I think a lot of people have noticed that their distance vision can be worse after a long period of close work. I noticed that a lot in college when I started reading about Bates. Now I always look up occasionally, so I can't confirm it anymore, but I remember it often happened that way... but not always.

I can relate to the idea of other muscles getting tense if used in a certain way repeatedly, or maybe if not used. If you sit for too long without occasionally standing, well, it's not good.

After the nearwork strain of course you look into the distance and your eyes get even more uncomfortable if you continue to misuse them, which is what Bates focused on. He saw how straining the eyes to see in the distance resulted in myopia, but he didn't believe that what you were doing right before that, with near work, to be relevant.

I think where people go astray is with the idea that near work must necessarily make myopia worse, and as long as you keep doing a lot of near work you're doomed. People do computer work, reading, or fine work with their hands and don't get myopic, or don't get worse, and people reverse it while continuing to do those things. So it isn't the amount of time spent at near work that determines what happens, but how near work is done could lead into myopia.

So considering that, it's still a matter of getting your eyes moving fully again, and softly, and becoming more sensitive to the details of visual input. And in that regard, distance doesn't matter. It's all the same.
Site Administrator

"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Quote:Your lens muscles work pretty hard when you look from near
If I put my glasses on, and start using computer, I will feel that near point stress without any doubts after 2 hours (and even perferct posture will not help). But without glasses I dont care about near work anymore, after I fixed my spine it's almost impossible to feel any strain at all during near work (although I didnt tried extreme near work like looking at 5cm distance for straight few hours)
Dr. Bates states that reading fine print up close improves both close and far vision. This has been my experience. BUT; he meant reading on real paper in natural light; sunlight. Also taught to read in dim light, but natural as possible dim light.

In primitive times people also used the eyes up close; making cloths, tools, baskets, sorting the food supply, creating shelter, cooking. The ladies did a lot of this close work. Did all the women folk go blind from this? No.

The computer is different;

1 - It gives an illusion of 3-D (depth, distance) but we are really looking at one flat surface. Note that even print on paper has a difference of distance between the print and the paper its placed on. Tiny, but its there. Same for the wood fibers in the paper. Computer screen does not have this. Result; tenses, confuses the brain. The tension can travel to the eyes causing strain.

Some people state that one eye has become dominant up close after hours on the computer. This imbalances the vision. Imbalance can lead to a slight imperfection in the eyes convergence, divergence, accommodation, un-accommodation resulting in imperfect vision. Its possible to have one eye clearer for far and the opposite for close. A dominant eye and less clear eye is common and harmless; just practice a bit more Bates stuff with the less clear eye to bring it back to equal clarity with the dominant best vision eye.

We need to look at all distances; far, middle, close and all in between to keep full motion of the eyes, lens. 5-10 hr a day looking at one flat surface is not natural.

About 2 years ago I bought the new large flat screen computer monitor. My old monitor was the type that had the glass cover over the screen. I never had a problem with my eyes using these old monitors.

When I changed over to the new flat screen I liked the size, more work could be done, faster... but; my eyelids started stinging a lot the first hour of use. I thought; no way could it be this new monitor! No way!! But it kept happening each time I tried to use it.

I thought about it and only conclusion was; its some kind of light or pixels... from the monitor that's not geared natural enough or its because there is no glass cover over the screen.

The old monitor's glass cover acted as a mirror; my screen always had reflections of the window and trees, houses in the distance.

So about 2 years ago I tried this idea and have not had any uncomfortable eyes since;
I placed a thin piece of clear hard plastic over the monitor screen. Right against it. This acts much like a mirror reflecting the distant objects right onto my computer screen; an effect of almost real 3-D. Not as perfect as looking at the true objects without the mirror but close to it.


I asked my vision teacher why my eyes continue to converge, diverge when looking at objects in a mirror same as when not using a mirror; he says its scientific, to do with optics.

If you look close at a real object; a flower... you are still getting 3-D; depth, distance between the pedals in front, back, texture...
But a flower in the computer is an illusion of 3-D, there is no real distance.

Adding the plastic cover brings some almost perfect real 3-D on the screen as it reflects other objects in your environment. Feel your eyes diverge as you switch to, look at one of the reflections. Shift on it. That looking close at artificial 3-D all day is broken up, allowing the eyes to move and relax.

I note that even when not looking at the objects on the plastic reflection; my peripheral still picks it up. So both; looking at the reflections and just the fact that they are there in my entire visual field prevents strain.

This is not a perfect solution but it makes a difference.

Pros; already stated above.


#1; The plastic does not contain a prescription, but; its still not perfect for the eyes-vision because its like looking through glass. All glass, plastic prevents perfectly natural vision function.

#2; The plastic must be flat. If it contains waves, scratches.. it will be like looking through wavy glass. That can cause astigmatism. (kind of like those cheaply constructed drug or 99 cent store + plus glasses but with no prescription.)

So; if possible find a flat strong plastic or glass cover. But not too thick. Thin is best because; the thicker the glass, the less natural it is.
I seal it right onto the screen. No space between the screen and plastic. (Not sure if this no space is mandatory. I see some new monitors with glass covers and might have space or not.) Must also be clear. No tinting, colors.

I also place a mirror on my wall behind me for extra reflection on days the monitor is turned in a direction that does not reflect my window. Also look to the distance out on the porch often. Mirrors on left, right sides of the monitor also help. And full spectrum light.

(I also like the old tvs and went back to them.)


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

Download Now