I believe that's still under active research. If this is a factor, my money is more on "your eyes will be focusing more at infinity" rather then low light levels.
> In the early 2000s, when researchers started to look at specific behaviours, such as books read per week or hours spent reading or using a computer, none seemed to be a major contributor to myopia risk
> Rose's team tried to eliminate any other explanations for this link — for example, that children outdoors were engaged in more physical activity and that this was having the beneficial effect. But time engaged in indoor sports had no such protective association; and time outdoors did, whether children had played sports, attended picnics or simply read on the beach ... what seemed to matter most was the eye's exposure to bright light.
if your child loves watching tv, bring the ipad to the park and make her watch it outside.
> if your child loves watching tv, bring the ipad to the park and make her watch it outside.
I was in agreement until this.
Doesn't this defeat the purpose of being outside? To actually use their eyes to see things near and far, run about and get those muscles working? I don't know what it is about modern parenting that seems wholeheartedly dedicated to the task of making children worship at the altar of Disney and Youtube while denying any chance of developing mental and physical toughness.
The whole point of the comment is that time outside matters more than what is done outside. I don't know the degree to which this is true but if you're going to watch something anyway, doing it outside instead of inside seems like not a bad plan. I don't think they intended anything by specifying tv and you could replace it with reading, board games, drawing, any activity commonly done inside.
Glass absorbs a huge chunk of the spectrum, both UV and visible. Without studying the actual difference, it is risky to assume that the effect would be similar.
Focusing on infinity more has been tested using glasses designed to force this, it was a popular theory for 60 years or so, and many opticians prescribed glasses which forced people to do this as a result. I cant find it atm, but the result according to a large metastudy was that it caused headaches, and nothing else of note.
Wow in what country do you live in? I have NEVER in my live even have an optician hint at that. The best I got so far was slow understanding of why I am ordering glasses to focus the screen at infinity (one out of 10). All others stare blankly at me and say like "Uh that's illegal, we can give out glasses that potentially ruin your eyes". Well I kept thinking, "Yeah, that's just what you are doing all day" :D
Sweden,
Third optician I had did it did it and explained "why", including pointing that the last one also did it according to their logs. Both over adjusting by 0.75, explaining why the first year with each pair gave me a headache. I looked into the causes of nearsightedness afterwards, including the focus nearby/read too much myth, as well I definitely read enough. So was prepared to stop the next optician. But she just called the earlier ones idiots when I mentioned it. Terminal glasses worked well for me.
I don't know which it is or if multiple other factors are involved, but if you look at the structure of an eye, there are tissues which compose the iris which are connected to the adjacent tissue of where the lens is nestled. It's quite possible to me that increased use of the iris outdoors to close down and reduce light entering the eye could affect the "dynamic range" of the lens response to focal inputs - especially during the growth stages of kids.
Then you would expect darker regions of the world which have lower serum levels of vitamin D to have more sight problems, I don’t think that’s the case.
I’d actually look at the vision of people with dark skin who now reside in northern latitudes. Typically that is the most vitamin D deficient population, since their melanin levels are tuned for more intense sunlight than their current location provides.
