01-03-2015, 12:42 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2015, 12:43 AM by bloobi.)
Hi all,
An introduction post of a new member here on the board. Well, new is not the right word because I have already been lurking for a while and this is not my very first post, but it is new in a sense that I am not established inventory of this site yet.
You may have seen a few of my posts which are manly in the Skeptics part of this forum. And most likely that is the part where you see me most in the coming time. I have a high myopic condition of OD -6.75 and OS -8.00 at the latest measurement and this is often correlated to conditions as detaching retina, glaucoma etc. Hence my vision related interest. At my age of 46 I also caught a light presbyopia and that is where my experience with vision training started.
After I started vision training my presbyopia is not significant anymore although I don't see it as proof that it will never come back, or that the progress in reading small print is a proof that vision training is a perfect solution. But it was enough for me to plunge deeper in the world of vision training to see what it could do for my myopia.
As I am skeptic by design (not the philosophical type who isn't convinced by anything, more the scientifical type), I don't just take anything for granted, and I like to know the context and background of systems and methods to better understand them.
Because of my skeptical view, I am not sure that Bates' methods are right, but I am also not sure other methods like the plus lens methods are right, or that the general opinion in ophthalmology that myopia can only get worse, not better, is right. I am open for all options as long as there is evidence that it might be part of the whole truth.
That "part of the whole truth" sentence is important for me. With such a large portion of the brain dedicated to vision and human beings so dependent on visual information for their normal daily life, I cannot understand that about a billion people on earth are suffering from imperfect focus conditions of their eyes (myopia, presbyopia, hyperopia, astigmatism etc). I don't see these imperfect focus conditions as diseases--although a portion may be disease related--but rather as an inadequate adaptation of our visual system to rapid changes in the environment compared to how humans lived in the past.
Our focus should be on reprogramming the adaptation system to the changed environment or use it again in it's original context, and current level of science may be part of that, but also vision training may be. All may be part of this whole truth about our vision system.
My experience with reading this forum and other forums on the internet is that people on either side of the line easily hide in their trenches, ducking behind their ideas and believes, rather than being willing to openly discuss all the options with an open mind. As long as we have a billion people with imperfect focus, nobody can claim that they know the absolute truth, as knowing the absolute truth would also imply the knowledge and implementation of systems and measures to prevent, or cure those imperfect focus conditions. As especially myopia occurrence in the world is increasing rapidly, it is hard to believe that that focus condition is fully understood by anyone completely yet.
You will therefore likely see me popping up in discussions with new views, questions, doubts or head-ups, not for the sake of promoting a specific view on vision and vision training, but rather to create an open minded discussion and see if we can get any further with our understanding of the complex process of vision with the final goal to improve our vision to a state that we are perfectly functioning in life without the help of artificial focusing devices or methods like glasses, contacts, lasik etc.
An introduction post of a new member here on the board. Well, new is not the right word because I have already been lurking for a while and this is not my very first post, but it is new in a sense that I am not established inventory of this site yet.
You may have seen a few of my posts which are manly in the Skeptics part of this forum. And most likely that is the part where you see me most in the coming time. I have a high myopic condition of OD -6.75 and OS -8.00 at the latest measurement and this is often correlated to conditions as detaching retina, glaucoma etc. Hence my vision related interest. At my age of 46 I also caught a light presbyopia and that is where my experience with vision training started.
After I started vision training my presbyopia is not significant anymore although I don't see it as proof that it will never come back, or that the progress in reading small print is a proof that vision training is a perfect solution. But it was enough for me to plunge deeper in the world of vision training to see what it could do for my myopia.
As I am skeptic by design (not the philosophical type who isn't convinced by anything, more the scientifical type), I don't just take anything for granted, and I like to know the context and background of systems and methods to better understand them.
Because of my skeptical view, I am not sure that Bates' methods are right, but I am also not sure other methods like the plus lens methods are right, or that the general opinion in ophthalmology that myopia can only get worse, not better, is right. I am open for all options as long as there is evidence that it might be part of the whole truth.
That "part of the whole truth" sentence is important for me. With such a large portion of the brain dedicated to vision and human beings so dependent on visual information for their normal daily life, I cannot understand that about a billion people on earth are suffering from imperfect focus conditions of their eyes (myopia, presbyopia, hyperopia, astigmatism etc). I don't see these imperfect focus conditions as diseases--although a portion may be disease related--but rather as an inadequate adaptation of our visual system to rapid changes in the environment compared to how humans lived in the past.
Our focus should be on reprogramming the adaptation system to the changed environment or use it again in it's original context, and current level of science may be part of that, but also vision training may be. All may be part of this whole truth about our vision system.
My experience with reading this forum and other forums on the internet is that people on either side of the line easily hide in their trenches, ducking behind their ideas and believes, rather than being willing to openly discuss all the options with an open mind. As long as we have a billion people with imperfect focus, nobody can claim that they know the absolute truth, as knowing the absolute truth would also imply the knowledge and implementation of systems and measures to prevent, or cure those imperfect focus conditions. As especially myopia occurrence in the world is increasing rapidly, it is hard to believe that that focus condition is fully understood by anyone completely yet.
You will therefore likely see me popping up in discussions with new views, questions, doubts or head-ups, not for the sake of promoting a specific view on vision and vision training, but rather to create an open minded discussion and see if we can get any further with our understanding of the complex process of vision with the final goal to improve our vision to a state that we are perfectly functioning in life without the help of artificial focusing devices or methods like glasses, contacts, lasik etc.
Lammert
Welcome. I started out scientific and logical, planning to do the exercises and steadily see the results. Yes, that's part of it, but for me and for many with high myopia, I've found emotions play a large part. And people aren't often willing to do that painful difficult work of looking at their feelings. Glad you're here.
An introduction post of a new member here on the board. Well, new is not the right word because I have already been lurking for a while and this is not my very first post, but it is new in a sense that I am not established inventory of this site yet.
You may have seen a few of my posts which are manly in the Skeptics part of this forum. And most likely that is the part where you see me most in the coming time. I have a high myopic condition of OD -6.75 and OS -8.00 at the latest measurement and this is often correlated to conditions as detaching retina, glaucoma etc. Hence my vision related interest. At my age of 46 I also caught a light presbyopia and that is where my experience with vision training started.
After I started vision training my presbyopia is not significant anymore although I don't see it as proof that it will never come back, or that the progress in reading small print is a proof that vision training is a perfect solution. But it was enough for me to plunge deeper in the world of vision training to see what it could do for my myopia.
As I am skeptic by design (not the philosophical type who isn't convinced by anything, more the scientifical type), I don't just take anything for granted, and I like to know the context and background of systems and methods to better understand them.
Because of my skeptical view, I am not sure that Bates' methods are right, but I am also not sure other methods like the plus lens methods are right, or that the general opinion in ophthalmology that myopia can only get worse, not better, is right. I am open for all options as long as there is evidence that it might be part of the whole truth.
That "part of the whole truth" sentence is important for me. With such a large portion of the brain dedicated to vision and human beings so dependent on visual information for their normal daily life, I cannot understand that about a billion people on earth are suffering from imperfect focus conditions of their eyes (myopia, presbyopia, hyperopia, astigmatism etc). I don't see these imperfect focus conditions as diseases--although a portion may be disease related--but rather as an inadequate adaptation of our visual system to rapid changes in the environment compared to how humans lived in the past.
Our focus should be on reprogramming the adaptation system to the changed environment or use it again in it's original context, and current level of science may be part of that, but also vision training may be. All may be part of this whole truth about our vision system.
My experience with reading this forum and other forums on the internet is that people on either side of the line easily hide in their trenches, ducking behind their ideas and believes, rather than being willing to openly discuss all the options with an open mind. As long as we have a billion people with imperfect focus, nobody can claim that they know the absolute truth, as knowing the absolute truth would also imply the knowledge and implementation of systems and measures to prevent, or cure those imperfect focus conditions. As especially myopia occurrence in the world is increasing rapidly, it is hard to believe that that focus condition is fully understood by anyone completely yet.
You will therefore likely see me popping up in discussions with new views, questions, doubts or head-ups, not for the sake of promoting a specific view on vision and vision training, but rather to create an open minded discussion and see if we can get any further with our understanding of the complex process of vision with the final goal to improve our vision to a state that we are perfectly functioning in life without the help of artificial focusing devices or methods like glasses, contacts, lasik etc.
Lammert
Congratulations Lammert, on your success with treating your presbyopia. You say that you used small print as the means of rendering it insignificant. Can you elaborate a little on your approach with it and why you feel it worked for you? What do you think changed?
I recently attended a Xmas Eve dinner, and being there no longer than 10 minutes walked into a conversation between a relative and her brother talking about vision. He was telling her how he no longer needs reading glasses. He's 52, and has had perfect sight both far and near up to a couple years ago, when his near vision started to worsen. It got to the point where he was diagnosed and given a prescription from his eye doctor, and just went wearing them like most do who know nothing about vision improvement. Not long ago he started experiencing fluxuations at the nearpoint, and eventually, realized he didn't need reading glasses at all. He now sees clearly again. I probed as much as I could without making him feel uncomfortable, as to what changed in his life, or in anything he has been doing in the way he uses his eyes. The only thing he could point to was that he had been using the computer, with a very small print. (at normal reading distances, not some blur point). I advised him to keep doing what he's doing, as that is one of the ways presbyopia is treated in natural vision improvement. Goes to show that even people who know nothing about NVI sometimes stumble on doing the right thing, or what is beneficial for their vision.
I agree with Nancy that this is so much more than just science and logic, and came into it thinking I could also find the cure for all humanity in the process. Science and logic can box you in if you let it. Bates is a lot about treating the whole person, and there's just many elements about it that defy logic and that one cannot quantify, measure, and apply to all. While there a common starting points, what works for you may not work for anyone else, due to our uniqueness. Hopefully you will find that which works for you. Do share your experiences with the Bates method here.
Hi Nanci and Arocarty, thanks for the warm welcome.
I know emotions are an important part. If I get angry, don't sleep well or something stressful happens vision immediately gets worse. I have already found that starting with vision training lets you look more closely to yourself. I use slightly under corrected contacts now because safety issues on my work don't allow me to stop with contacts or glasses, and as the horizon is less crisp now, I automatically start to think more inside myself. It looks like my blur distance is some sort of border between my inner me and the outside world. I have to teach myself to look over that border to the blurred world and become less introvert.
Maybe I was not clear about the presbyopia part. It was still in a beginning phase where I could read with some effort. It looked however if the letters were dancing. I had heard this from other people before and couldn't believe that it was a focusing issue due to an inflexible lens. If the lens would be stiff and unable to focus at close distances, the letters would be blurry but not dancing. That was the point that I started to think that it might be a muscle or nerve problem for me, rather than a lens problem.
I started reading info on Bates and stumbled upon a video on Youtube of Leo Angart. Mainly by doing convergence exercises and shifting between near and far objects explained in that video the dancing of the letters stopped within days and I could read small print again. But I must admit that my presbyopia hadn't progressed much and that +0.50 reading glasses would probably have been enough for that first stage.
