I am 57 years old, had what I now realize was the great blessing of excellent eyesight most of my life, up until the last 5 years or so, when the usual age-related changes began. I didn't believe it would happen to me, but now I am wearing prescription progressive lenses! I am a photographer, and do a lot of intensive visual work, not only with the camera, but in the "digital darkroom" -- at the computer. I've been having increasing difficulty with frequent periods of double vision, which takes quite a while to resolve. Is this something that might respond to excercises, or is it possibly a more serious red flag that merits closer medical attension (which some sites suggest)?
I'm no doctor(I'm refusing to say OD because I dislike any trad. OD that treat trad. eye care as eye care) but it sounds like you may expirence eye strain...I used VFL a little bit and I saw a small improvement in my eye sight in a day...Sounds like you haven't been wearing glasses that long so you'll see 20/20 quicker than I would..
Some tips, go outside and take a break and allow your eyes to focus on different things in natural sunlight...
Also, trying something like a hot bag of rice warmed in the microwave or a warm towel to relieve stress...
It could be either. There are things that can happen to make you see double besides eyestrain, but it's more the exception than the rule. Legally I can't advise against seeing a doctor, but if it were me and the doctor found anything less than a brain tumor, I would chalk it up to strain.
While we're on the subject, failure of near vision isn't inevitable. There are people who live through middle age, well into old age, and to their deathbed without their near vision failing, and others who reverse the problem. But when vision failure does happen, it leads to others, because in a failure caused by strain the tendency is to react with more strain, causing the original problem to worsen and often cause something else to develop as well because of the general strain and the upset of proper use of the eyes. A huge portion of people with one visual problem, regardless of age, have multiple visual problems, while there remains such a large portion of the population with no visual problems at all. This disproportionality makes it evident that the causes of most visual problems are strongly related.
Dave
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
I have to say that I want very much to believe that my vision can be improved. Of all the changes that come with aging, vision changes seem (according to medical authorities) to be inevitable -- something we need to simply accept and come to terms with (as in get glasses!) I miss my eyesight, and have never really made my peace with having to use glasses. Maybe that is a blessing in disguise, as it pushes me to search for ways to reclaim my vision. In every other field of my health, I believe in taking personal responsibility for my health, so why should my vision be any different. I can tell that at this age, without regular excercise, I tire easily, get stiff, and have less endurance. So what IS different at this age, is that I cannot take my health for granted -- I have to actively work to preserve and enhance it.
Is there any connection between the Bates method (which as yet, I know very little about) and the Program for Better Vision from the Cambridge Institute for Better Vision? Some years ago, I was given the kit, but as yet, have not used it. It got buried during a move, and I've been thinking that it would be worth unearthing it.
I want say anything bad about Program for Better Vision because I never tried it but I've heard that it has a good record...But the thing is, only you can take it into effect. And just like bad hygiene from othe health issues, the eyes are no different. NVI is more than just exercises....It's also about good vision habits....
If you really must see an OD though, check out a behaviroral OD
luv2c Wrote:Is there any connection between the Bates method (which as yet, I know very little about) and the Program for Better Vision from the Cambridge Institute for Better Vision?ÃâÃÂ
I had the Cambridge program many years ago and I don't know what changes have been made since then but I didn't make much progress on it. I don't think I really understood the significance of relaxation. They have some similarities to Bates but some of their material is for stretching and strengthening the eye muscles which isn't really what the problem is. The approach, as I remember, is more like working out at the gym. They give you different exercises and a schedule to follow but with the idea of strenghening the eye muscles and improving coordination and stuff.
I would suggest learning more about the Bates approach, I've had better luch with it.
I assume that your progressives are plus lenses, and that you are farsighted.
I used to get double vision after extended near work. It was actually a superimposed image , usually of a bright object in the distance. It was in either eye , when I covered one. When I was prescribed bifocals with an astigmatism correction, that solved the problem.The downside was that each new prescription got stronger, until I was wearing coke bottles.
See my post on farsightedness. A farsighted eye has a ciliary muscle that is too weak, and a nearsighted eye has a ciliary muscle that is too strong. A minus lense acts as a stimulant to this muscle, and a plus lense acts as a sedative. Therefore a farsighted eye wearing a plus lens is sedating an already weak muscle. But a minus lense will stimulate it. The only thing is that it is a bit hard to get used to the smaller images produced by the minus lense, after one is used to the enlarged images produced by the plus lenses. After getting used to this I find these minus glasses give me much sharper vision, and my eyes do not tire.I do need to cut back on my wearing time though. I sometimes wear them all day , when my vision without them is fairly good. I do feel that I need them at night for driving. I do not have any astigmatism correction in them. My plus bifocals had 1.25 Cyl.I do think that with too much wear ,that one could become nearsighted.But they surely have eliminated my need for strong plus bifocals with astigmatism correction.
I don't think my opthamologist used the term "farsighted". It was presbyopia. The symptoms began with difficulty in refocusing on distance after doing close work, then needing to move reading material farther away (not being able to focus in close), and needing better light. I began with over the counter reading glasses (with 1.25 - 2.0+ corrections over time). Eventually, it was the difficulty I had working at the computer, with increasing sensitivity to glare, also while driving that led me to get an exam. The progressive lenses "improve" both my reading and mid-range (computer & dash board) distances, and I also have a slight correction for astigmatism, as well as non-glare lenses. At this point, I find that my vision is beginning to respond similarly to when I first needed glasses, meaning that I need better light to read, and I sometimes have a hard time reading small print, even with the glasses & good light. Also, there is this increasing problem with double vision after prolonged close work. My current correction is probably about +2.0.
I am resisting the idea that my eyes will inevitably get worse, and would love to discover an authentic program of improving vision. My understanding of presbyopia is that it is caused by a reduction in elasticity of the lens itself, more than the muscles. If this is accurate, I am wondering how the Bates method can improve lens elasticity....?? And are some of you people that have been diagnosed with presbyopia, have used the Bates method, and now have regained all or part of your former vision?
During and after his cure of his own presbyopia, Bates came to view presbyopia as curable as well and caused by just another variation in misuse of the eyes and strain. Farsightedness, which is traditionally seen as a completely different condition from presbyopia, Bates also came to view as very similar to presbyopia, to the point where there was no need to differentiate them for practical purposes, if there was any physiological difference at all.
Presbyopia isn't caused by a reduced elasticity of the lens. There have been several theories on the physiological basis for presbyopia over the years, but when it responds to the Bates method, I don't think the physiological basis is important.
Dave
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
