The title is misleading. This would work to slow the progression of myopia, but won't do anything to reverse myopic changes. This works in a similar way to low-dose atropine which is already around the corner for slowing the progression of myopia (in children). For adults with myopia your only options to be spectacle independent are LASIK/PRK/SMILE, implantable contact lenses or cataract surgery.
Will strongly recommend people not to consider laser treatments.
Got SMILE done and its awful 4 years later - at least my eyes don't hurt anymore.
The entire business model exists only by not informing you of everything that can go wrong.
Ironically I now know more about these procedures than I ever did before, and all I've learned is how the entire industry is aligned to not tell patients about what things effects the outcome and how little they actually can do if the results are not good.
Edit : If you google lasik/Smile complications and so on you'll just find a rabbit hole of despair from people who had their eyes ruined. I'm kinda amazed that medical professionals actually has the conscience to perform these procedures. Theres also this tendency to blame dry eyes - which is just the industry's way of camouflaging the real issues.
My eye-doctor an old guy just before retirement said after being asked about laser treatments:
He had a patient that spent 5k on a laster surgery. Nothing went wrong, but it didn't improve his eyes. It would have been better to go on a good vacation.
There is sadly no guarantee that they help, and they can damage your eyes in the worst case.
A digression, there is a meta-strategy here I like to use: when researching anything you're interested in getting, try searches like "complications", "issue", "troubleshooting", they'll often reveal a lot about what can go wrong that you won't find out if you only search for stuff like "opinion" or "review" etc.
Good idea. With the prevalent issue of positive review spam, I often look for negative reviews first to see a thoughtful one where the buyer actually used the item, rather than the flood of positive "reviews" of short-term usage.
I don't dismiss your concerns. I remember reading about them at the time. And to be honest, the older I get, the more surprised I was to risk one of the most important things I have.
However, I did Lasik, maybe 10-15 years ago, no problems now and never had a problem.
The industry did feel a bit sketchy though. Not sure if it's improved. I'm sure most of the professionals involved are excellent - but at the time, it felt very private, and not in a good way.
Let's start a thread sharing some experience with laser treatment:
A friend of mine did a Lasik surgery, but lost his sight after a week (1/10 on one eye). AFAIK, there was no wrongdoing from the doctor side, so no financial compensation.
I did LASIK surgery when I was in my 20's. After almost a decade, my vision is pretty much perfect. Recently, Ive been prescribed with glasses only for when I work with computers because Im getting visually tired quicker.
I think it was a good decision in my case, mainly because in my 20's I used to be into decently active activities (5ks runs, long distance biking, etc), so I didn't have to choose between seeing correctly or enjoying what I was doing to the fullest.
Not everyone can use them. I have sinus allergies and astigmatism. The combination makes it hard to fit me with lenses that actually correct my vision well enough to be useful and makes those lenses very uncomfortable almost immediately.
I had ReLex SMILE done 4 years ago. Total costs were around $5k. Easily one of the best decisions of my life. I score the absolute maximum on the tests, there were no complications and it only took a couple days to heal. I actually took the bus back to my apartment after the surgery by myself.
I know that outcomes vary but for me by now I don't actually remember what it was to be shortsighted and all outdoor activities are soo much nicer without contacts or glasses. I'd definitely do it again in a heartbeat.
I somehow ended up on the FDA page about the surgery, which told of the odds (20 years ago) of any complication from reflections that impair vision while driving at night to blindness, and described what the complications were like. I didn't like the odds.
My mother got lasik and everything went fine. Her vision started to decline a bit some 15 years later but her overall experience was positive. I would wager "most" people have a good experience, but the risk of a big negative is probably not worth it.
It’s a mark against you being a good candidate. Doesn’t mean you can’t get it.
I had dry eyes post surgery. First 6 months I was miserable. Had to put goop on my eyes at night the viscosity of Vaseline. Felt like years before I got to a normal state.
It’s been about 16 years. I wear glasses again, but I can get by without. Still occasionally have dry eyes.
It's anecdotal I know, but my mother _did_ get -4 down to -1 just with exercises every morning and evening for several months, so I'm sure it _is_ possible at least with some individuals. It just requires work and dedication.
On the other hand for myself I did go for LASIK since I was -7 and didn't fancy the years of work it might entail. And it was like ... 2 day affair from going to the doctor to being fully functional without any side effects ... It was risky though as some people I know did do the same, and ended up with complications that took months to iron out.
I'm -6 and the risk of complications is what makes me think I'll probably never want to do any corrective procedure. I had been considering it for a while, but one time when I went in for a checkup, I happened to chat with another guy there who was seeing the doctor because his surgery was making him see halos. Apparently they usually go away eventually, but I decided I'd rather not find that out personally.
And I feel there's a kind of meditative calmness to the blurriness that I think I might miss. It's quite nice when I'm going to bed or waking up and everything is just a blur, no distractions to catch my eye because I can't see them! I'm probably doomed if I'm ever in an apocalypse and lose my glasses, though (see Twilight Zone "Time Enough at Last").
That's the first time I've heard someone express what I feel too! I'm -8.5 and -9.5 in contact lenses and that blurriness feels very relaxing for the brain. Though it's a bit unpractical having to hold my phone 15 cm from my face in the bed...
Also, our super power is the power to see extremely small details, which proves useful sometimes!
The other day I had a splinter in my left index fingertip that was so small I couldn‘t see it even under a magnifier. After some clueless and painful poking with a needle, removing my glasses did the trick. I located the splinter and got it out within seconds. Around -6 in glasses.
I have a similar correction and I was surprised when I was helping my brother reassemble a small motor he couldn’t see the fine details.
It wasn’t until I started wearing contacts (and thus couldn’t easily take them out) did I realize that short-sightedness gives me very good up close vision.
I can totally relate to the meditative calmness you talked about. I'm pretty sure, it contributed to my personality development as well.
I wonder if I'd have been more distracted and restless if I could see everything clearly.
I played a FPS where you could have the wall textures blurry or sharp. The blurry setting made me fiddle with my glasses unconsciously, so I went with sharp, even though I ended up looking at big squares in the limit, like a weird mosaic decorated the wall.
Can you share what exercises your mother did? Sounds like some very nice progression for her.
Glad Lasik worked out for you. What side effects did your friends experience? I've thought briefly about Lasik, but I have this (potentially irrational) fear of persistent headaches as a side effect, which would be a nightmare for me. So I stick with spectacles - it has no detrimental effect on my life, but I do wonder if it would be possible to get back good eyesight again.
Don’t remember the details of the exercises as it was long ago - some russian self help book, I think by Mirzakarim Norbekov , but the essence was to get one of the “eye test” boards and each morning focus on the elements you can see best and try to resolve just the ones below. Do it enough and you slowly start to “go down” the chart, getting better and better.
The problems - one mate didn’t properly understand the commands he was given, (not a native speaker) and ended up poking his eye sort of mid operation. They fixed his good eye, and told him to wait for a couple of weeks until the “flap” healed and regrew so they could do it again on the other eye. Totally avoidable if he was paying attention - I had no problems and it was over in like 5 mins.
Another mate didn’t get corrected to the exact focal length so they had to do it again a couple of months later. Not a big deal just unpleasant.
I decided to go for the operation after I had an eye infection and figured I was risking my eyes every time I was putting the contacts in, so might as well risk it once and be done with it. Glasses were not an option as I wanted (and still do) practice various sports, and -7 is not fun at all.
"but the essence was to get one of the “eye test” boards and each morning focus on the elements you can see best and try to resolve just the ones below"
I do this every day over years now "just in case it works" - hasn't helped me at all. Wish I could believe these delusions.
It sounds like quackery but I tried it for a couple months and comfortably went down .5(or is it "up" -.5?) and stopped going up every year. I stopped because the constantly switching strengths, self testing and having to remind myself to take breaks and look far away was more than I had the mental bandwidth for at the time. The "marketing" website reads like snake oil sleazery but what worked for me was the community wiki. Id spend hours correlating what was in the wiki with what he was hinting it at in his "hear my pitch for 10 minutes before I get to the point" videos until I got the hang of the routine, which was basically:
Have two pairs of glasses, one of them about half strength(self test for the exact number) for computer and close up work or in-home. Use your full strength glasses for important tasks like driving. Every 20-30 minutes take a break and look into the distance(works well with Pomodoro technique, if you do that), practice your blurring exercises.
Edit: at .5 adjustment I'm right at the edge of variance. It's possible to do nothing and have a slight improvement on your yearly optometrist visit because of secondary factors like change in environment or nutrition. I'm not a health expert so I can't say, but if anything that site helped me to do fewer things that strain my vision and a few things that made me more comfortable. Would I have fully cured if I kept going? Science says probably not, but I don't regret my effort.
Science is ever changing. After trying this out my self, I can say with confidence that current state of myopic management with glasses will be deemed as quackery on par with drinking crude oil to cure diseases in past centuries.
Near work imposed in schools and wearing glasses constantly is the reason for current myopia epidemic as can be evidenced by low myopia rates in schools following western curriculum that is more holistic in nature.
I've always been a little surprised why we haven't figured out a treatment for myopia beyond LASIK, e.g. some way to manipulate the muscles around the eye.
Anyway, the first thing that came to my mind when I read this article was pinhole glasses which people have also (most likely wrongly) claimed help correct myopia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_glasses
> I've always been a little surprised why we haven't figured out a treatment for myopia
Isn't the treatment for "treatable" myopia "spend more time in the sun"? IIRC, something about spending time in the sun prevents/reverses myopia in most children.
I also seem to recall that you can sleep in pure oxygen and it will change your eyesight (the cornea gets its oxygen directly from the atmosphere and high oxygen concentration encourages growth which thickens the cornea).
If myopia is structural though (misshapen eyeball, aged muscles not working to focus, etc.), what kind of non-surgical treatment would you expect to work?
One other problem that comes up is that the neural "integrators" in the human control systems get "leaky" with age. If you ask someone above about age 40 to look completely to the right or left, you can observe their eyeball "vibrate" as the saccades correct the integration error in tracking position.
(This was given as an exercise in a bioenginering class for "model the human eye tracking system". You had a series of observations you had to take and measure and then derive both the control system and the rough time constants. One of the observations that you had to account for was why the older grad students/professors had this "vibration". You could create this behavior if your "integrator" block was leaky.)
> One of the observations that you had to account for was why the older grad students/professors had this "vibration".
Microsaccade amplitude is correlated with uncorrected myopia, actually. If you have visual blur it seems fixational eye movements have higher amplitude. (Proper corrective lenses generally remove this effect).
Of course, if someone has astigmatism, often it won't be properly corrected looking far right or left, too. I'm guessing this is the effect you measured.
> I've always been a little surprised why we haven't figured out a treatment for myopia beyond LASIK, e.g. some way to manipulate the muscles around the eye.
Generally the reasons behind myopia are changes in the shape of the eye or the lens, not something the muscles are doing wrong. (And a contributing factor with age is the decreased flexibility of the lens over time).
To people considering LASIK I want to say try ortho-k first. You'll get the sharpness, the halos and the whole experience but at least it will be reversible. I've been on ortho-k for around a decade.
When done in children, it stops progression of myopia. I had it done at 13 after loosing 1 point every year, and it stopped at 6.5. God only knows what would it be without it.
Fixing my myopia would be one of my life’s dream. I’m unfortunately non eligible to laser surgery due to my amblyopia. I’m stuck there forever waiting for a non invasive treatment that nobody is searching for because, well, we have the LASIK.
I suggest and encourage you to try the exercises that others in this page have mentioned; some people have written their guide or guidelines and one well known is
"The No Bulls#*t Guide to Vision Improvement", by C. G. Hayes
(search for > Guide to Vision Improvement.pdf < or similar).
First of all, the best wager is to place bets on ways that some witness have worked, and it is not ruled out they could work for you also.
If anything, you will have gained points exercising discipline.
Just wait until you're older.. my dream is for presbyopia to be fixed. Presbyopia is essentially when your eyes can no longer auto-focus, it's incredibly annoying.
I think some Israeli company was supposedly working on auto-focus glasses for this... good idea, since the market is basically everyone. But it looks like they stopped.
Silly Question: It it a good experiment to put the medicine in one eye and the placebo in the other eye? What could be other consequences of such a thing?
There is a sizable incumbent revenue stream from expensive progressive lenses for those with presbyopia, which may or may not influence investment in alternative solutions.
Man fixing it would be my dream too, especially with masks these days.
I'm eligible for LASIK but I'm still waiting for a non invasive treatment as well. I know it is "safe" but it can go wrong and after reading some of the horror stories in forums I would _hate_ it if it goes wrong. Even smaller side effects like having dry eyes all the time and eyes hurting when there is wind sounds annoying.
Oh you can try hard contact lenses. Sadly I’ve not been able to tolerate them for some reason that my ophthalmologist cannot explain but while I was wearing them, the correction was extraordinary, because it also fixes all forms of astigmatisms.
Are hard contact lenses better than soft for astigmatism? Have you tried soft ones? I've only tried the latter and could never get used to them seeming to go out of focus or drift around whenever I blinked.
They are well better because they are 100% effective. I have tried soft ones (torics) and never been satisfied with them (still better than glasses). With the hard ones, the astigmatism basically disappears because a drop of tear forms between your eye and the lens so the optical system is composed with your eye, the tear drop, and the lens. This way, the surface of your eye have not any impact on the optical result.
(please excuse my writing, it's difficult for a non native to talk about technical topics with a lot of vocabulary I'm unfamiliar of)
> Asian are prone to nearsightedness. Of people aged 20 and under, 96% of South Koreans, 95% of Japanese, 87% of Hong Kongers, 85% of Taiwanese and 82% of Singaporeans are affected by the condition, according to Kubota.
Wow, this is so stark. Is it genetic or is it something lifestyle related?
It would seem strange if it was genetic as glasses were invented quite late and vast population suffering from near sightedness without glasses seems like such a disadvantage.
Exposing eyes to sunlight (or high intensity light) is a very important factor preventing and reversing myopia [1]
There was also Australian paper I cant find now, showing that prevalence of myopia in Asians in Australia is much lower due to school systen encouraging more free time and play outdoors. (not explainable by genetic factors)
Children must play outside in the sun or they become myopic.
I heard that playing outside also generally makes you focus on much more distant objects, and that as the eye optimizes for a "at rest" focal point that best fits what you're looking at most of the time.
So when you're looking at close screens or books for most of your day, the eye makes that be the "at rest" state, but now distant objects are blurry. Now if you insist on having distant objects not blurry (by wearing glasses _all the time_), it's the same situation again and the eye will "adapt" even more, and you'ell get more power glasses, and so on...
If that's true, then people with myopia shouldn't wear their glasses _all the time_, particularly when staring at close objects (screens and books). I have myopia and that explanation fits my experience. Most of the time I'm looking at a screen not wearing my glasses, and the screen is exactly at the right distance for me to not to have focus, so my eye is "at rest" for most of the day.
It sounds weird that a lot of eyes are dysfunctional. Maybe we don't understand how eyes find a trade-off that best suits your average focal distance. It also gives a rational as to why myopia went from a few 1% to 50% of the population in some countries. People started staring at close objects.
I don't know if it's actually true, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
Focus or accommodation loss is just the beginning of myopia. Sometime after the symptoms show up, the eye would physically elongate in the axial direction and push the retina beyond the accommodation range of the lens. This change is impossible to "reset" with current medical knowledge.
Your idea about allowing the eye to "rest" is not new and it has been the subject of several large scale clinical trials such as the COMET study linked below. In short, under correcting myopia does help to slow down progression. However, the benefit is too small to justify not fully correcting vision which will result in a better quality of life.
The traditional view has always been a combination of genetics and behavior factors, namely reading and other close up work during the age of 8-14 when the eye is still capable of axial elongation. The light intensity theory is a more recent development which has some merits, but more evidence is needed for proof.
After WW2, Canadian Inuits started to send their children to school for the first time in history and myopia became endemic from that generation onwards.
- This was before the age of computers and smartphones so screen time was much less of a factor.
- Inuits traditionally spend a disproportionate time indoors due to the climate.
- The schooling was likely shorter and less stressful than those found in places like Japan and Korea, yet the effects are just as apparent.
Similar rises in myopia rate was observed when daily schooling was introduced to many other places, but few occur on the same scale. Thus it is possible that Asians and Inuits are genetically predisposed to myopia and it took until the modern age for this to become a problem.
> So when you're looking at close screens or books for most of your day, the eye makes that be the "at rest" state, but now distant objects are blurry. Now if you insist on having distant objects not blurry (by wearing glasses _all the time_), it's the same situation again and the eye will "adapt" even more, and you'ell get more power glasses, and so on...
My optometrist specifically prescribes me lenses/contacts that are slightly worse than optimal (i.e. -2.25 instead of -2.5) based on the fact that I stare at a computer screen the entire day. IIRC her explanation was along these lines, and I've had no degradation in eyesight in nearly a decade since. (I am not an optometrist, for god's sake find your own)
You can get a separate intermediate distance pair specifically for computer use. If you're -2.25 then something like -1.25 would put optical infinity at 31 inches away allowing your eyes to be completely relaxed. I've got close to the same prescription and just prefer to keep my screen at 24" and increase the font size a bit, and I can see that just fine most days. I'm not sure if my brain has learned to deconvolve better, but around -2 is a sweet spot where you can definitely get away with not needing glasses at all for computer work if you try, considering that you're uncorrected plane is at 20 inches.
It seems that it is more specifically violet light [1] that reduces the development of myopia among children. One of the rational is that light triggers the production of dopamine in the eye, and dopamine prevents the eye from growing excessively during childhood, and thus prevents form-deprivation myopia [2].
Outdoors play with visor/cap and UV protecting sunglasses (not heavy shading) is great for all kinds of development. Just use strategies to limit cumulative direct exposure to UV in childhood.
In the Nordic countries at least, kids spend quite a lot of hours of the day outside in nursery/kindergarten/school as a rule (babies too: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21537988 ) while as parent comment writes, school systems that encourage less outdoor time lead to more myopia.
There's less sunlight in the North during the winter, sure, but still several orders of magnitude more than inside (also, more UV etc.).
Sunlight alone does not explain it. Another possible factor is diet. It can be that eating a lot of carbohydrates with high glycemic index like white rice trigger slightly excessive growth of eye balls in children sufficient to trigger myopia. That also explain why moving to Australia affects this due to diet change.
But this hypothesis also has problems. For example, less refined carbohydrates apparently do not lead to this. Also it does not explain how adding more meat to refined carbohydrates affects the mechanism.
It seems that, like the way that environmental factors affect jaw development[1], environmental factors that are different between modern lifestyles and pre-historical ones drive the development of myopia.[2] But there have always been a percentage of people who are myopic due to other factors, as well, so it's not a single story.
the most effect you can have on your eyes can be cause by study. When you have to use your eyes and your brain at the same time. My parents told me that too much video games is bad for my eyes, from my experience, I became shortsighted in the period I had to study a lot and not playing video games.
Say what you will about not being able to reverse myopia, but I didn't really believe it. My brother recently wrote a book about his experience of going from -4 to 0 diopter over the course of less than a year without surgery: https://www.discoveryournaturalvision.com/
I tried the same technique. I went from wearing -3.5 contacts to -1.5 in about 3 months. The basic concept is forcing your eyes to read any text closeup (computer screen, books) at the edge of blur instead of it being in focus. That's basically all there is to it. People prefer laser surgery because it's less work than putting in the effort 8 hours a day for 3+ months at a time. I admit, I've given up after reaching -1.5, since it's good enough, but I'd like to rid myself of contacts entirely. The last 20% is 80% of the work, same principle applies :)
I saw a similar technique posted here a few weeks ago [0]. This guy is even worse, as his blog sounds like the typical "five simple steps to loose 200lbs, only $99 a month!" (and he does actually charge $99 a month for coaching). I have a really high bullshit radar, so at first I was just "nope this is nonsense", but I saw past that (as it was mentioned here) and started reading more, and I'm starting to believe there is some truth to it.
The basic premise is that opticians often over prescribe glasses. I've had this personally, an optician prescribed me glasses that were 0.75 dipole too strong for computer use, as the way they test (unless you ask otherwise) is for long distance vision (i.e. driving), not for 50cm in front of your eyes.
The theory is that your eye muscles become lazy as they don't need to work so hard, and you get used to that, so you need glasses to see clearly. If you look at distance text that is ever so slightly out of focus, eventually your vision system will figure out how to correct for that blur, and you will be able to see in focus. If you rinse and repeat, changing ever few months to a slightly weaker prescription (e.g. a reduction of 0.25) you can greatly reduce the strength of glasses you need.
I've only just started, but there are other comments on HN about people who have done this.
God, just the frontpage of this site makes it look even more quacky. The call to urgency, the secret knowledge, the rant against Big Glass, the frankly cult-ish photo of this guy, etc...
And I wouldn't like to describe myself as "having really high bullshit meter", it makes one overconfident when you do fall for one. I'd rather think I try to avoid emotional arguments and contexts in which I would be vulnerable.
the funny thing is that, this method that you are trying to call it out as being 'fake', 'quackery', does not allow other people directly earning money from it (indirectly maybe)
it litereally only cost people money to purchase different power of glasses and time and effort to do practices on their eyes
The muscles controlling focus are smooth muscle*. That means it can't be exercised, it doesn't get bigger/stonger with use. It also doesn't get tired, which is fortunate since it's basically working all day.
Anything purported to "exercise" your eye into better vision is either outright sham or probably teaching you to recognize fuzzy things better.
* Quick review: you have three types of muscle: skeletal, smooth, and cardiac. Smooth muscle lines round things: arteries, intestines, iris, lens, etc.
I thought it may be helpful for others, it’s a consolidation of knowledge and anecdotes, you can find the same info for free on forums and by reading research papers :)
I can’t. I think the eye is oblong shaped for myopes, and correction worsens this oblongity. By training your eye like a muscle, you’re decreasing it, hence the focus improves. I’m sure someone can explain it better. Don’t trust me, try it! And eat carrots and look at long distances in the daytime when taking breaks from work. Some old wives’ tapes have some truth to them.
I can't believe no-one mentioned keratological lenses. Not only gives you a glasses free experience during the day, they also slow or stop the progression of myopia. Aren't these avaliable in the US?
Our daughter is using Ortho-K lenses. She's been wearing them for about 10 months now and they are very good. They are more 'myopia control' than fixing the underlying issue, but it means she can do sports etc without worrying about glasses (she's still little).
For the uninitiated (as I was), they are hard plastic lenses that are worn at night.
Initially the optometrist will take a variety or measurements of the eye and then a pair of lenses is manufactured. They are thicker than the standard disposable lenses and take a while to get used to and can be uncomfortable for a few weeks until you adjust to them. They work by shaping the outer part of the eye during sleep, when removed in the morning the outer part of the eyes have retained the shape from the lenses. Light entering the eye is then bent correctly and vision is almost 20/20.
If she was to stop wearing them her eyes would return to her standard myopic level, but hopefully not be any worse than before.
“[Keratological] lenses correct your vision while you sleep. They do this by applying a controlled shape to the cornea which is the front surface of the eye, eliminating myopia (short –sightedness).”
This seems to be an implementation of “plus lens therapy”.
If so, you could get the same results by purchasing cheap, $5 reading glasses (+2.5 or something like that), and use those when reading on your phone.
Doing this, you effectively simulate that the screen you’re looking at is as far away as the horizon (and the characters you read as large as mountains).
You’d need to hold your phone far away enough that you touch the “blur boundary”. This gives your eye the stimulus to further relax its lens and, over time, for the eyeball to get shorter.
It’s like you’re slowly pushing the blur boundary of your eyes further and further towards optical infinity.
The exact value of the plus lens to use depends on a few factors. The distance between your eyes and the screen (or book), and the current diopter of your eyes (based in a vision test). There’s a formula for that you can google (I don’t remember it).
You know, I always get a bunch of pushback for this, but glasses cause myopia in most people.
It induces a hormetic effect on the eyeballs, causing them to grow longer over time, inducing blurriness. As you increase the strength of the prescription glasses, the hormetic effect will continue in a feedback loop, worsening your vision as your eyeball elongates.
It's the same adaptation that causes muscles to weaken, strengthen, bones to harden, calluses to form.
"Well then, if that's true, why was my vision blurry as a child when I wasn't wearing glasses?"
The initial blurriness one experiences as a child isn't caused by glasses and is likely a consequence of the ciliary muscle becoming "exhausted" from prolonged staring up close. Your eye muscles are actually most relaxed when staring at objects in the far distance. It evolved that way. We didn't "evolve" for close up work.
We know glasses induce myopia because we can reliably cause myopia in all sorts of animals by making them wear contact lenses. There's no controversy about this. Feel free to look up the studies yourself.
What's less plausible is whether the axial elongation can be reversed in humans. And it does seem (with some effort and time) it can be, although there's considerably pushback from poorly designed scientific studies suggesting otherwise but lots of Internet communities of people who have improved their vision significantly.
You can induce a reverse hormetic effect by wearing glasses that are on the "border" of blurriness and staring at objects in the distance for long periods of time. In other words, wear slightly weaker prescription glasses than what you're currently wearing; one for close-up work and one for far distance so you're always just on the "edge" of blurriness.
You can usually improve your vision at a rate of 0.75 diopters per year if you do this consistently.
At this point, I usually get a lot of disbelief and criticisms, links to randomized controlled studies suggesting the opposite. I get into arguments trying to explain how those studies were set up wrong, people call me crazy, etc. It's pretty annoying.
So I simply offer this: If you wear glasses, try ordering a slightly weaker version from Zenni Optical (or any store of your choosing). Try it for a year. See what happens.
It's cheap. And low risk.
"Don't I need a prescription?"
You do, in the sense that you need your prescription strength number, but the word "prescription" here is a misnomer. Anybody can order prescription glasses online legally. It's like ordering socks. It is not like ordering prescription drugs. Completely different legal classifications.
But if you're still skeptical, I ask you to think about this problem from first principles for a moment.
If Homo Sapiens started naturally going blind from the age of 9, our ancestors would not have survived long. Most animals that have poor vision usually compensate with some other sense. And while it may be possible humans just naturally evolved to have terrible vision, studies of other populations (like the Moken population that can see underwater and have near-perfect vision) suggest it's likely a modern problem.
There is a stressor. What is the stressor? It's multi-variate, but the most influential in modernity is wearing glasses.
I wear two pairs. One for close-up work (so it's slightly blurry when I'm programming). And another that's much stronger (and safer) for driving. So I can see all the stop signs clearly, but the mountains in the distance are just blurry. In this way, I'm always at the "edge" of blurriness.
There's a few other techniques you can do, but that one is the easiest to maintain. (Interestingly enough, people who hike outdoors a lot seem to do the best).
As you improve you'll find yourself ordering weaker and weaker prescriptions (although the closer you get to 0 diopters, the longer it seems to take).
N=1 but this perfectly matches my experience. I stare at a computer all day, and my power is almost exactly enough so that the screen is just on the edge of blurriness. Almost like my eyes have adapted to that focal length. This has also remained pretty stable over 10 years since I never wear the glasses for close work (why bother when I can pretty much see it fine, and increase font size if needed for fine detail).
I wonder if the reason why it takes longer as you approach 0 diopters is because at that point the signal received by the brain is enough such that the brain can learn to "deconvolve" the image (blur adaption), removing any incentive for further axial shrinking.
Edit: actually going further I wonder if the stressor you mentioned is indeed actually ciliary accommodation. This is known to be very taxing (hence why people get eye strain from looking at computers for a long time), so it makes sense that the body would adapt to relieve this stressor by elongating the eyeball itself so that the screen can now sit at optical infinity.
It is also a relatively well-known result from large correlative studies that time spent outdoors decreases the chance for myopia. I read something about how it was total luminous flux of the bright outdoors that helped to prevent progression of myopia – just something to think about, especially given the recent trend of blue light blocking glasses. Who knows if those wavelengths might actually be needed in some subtle manner for optical development.
But note that because convergence and accommodation are linked, without any accommodation there might be a greater tendency for the eye to develop exophorias. I wonder if you look at the data you might see a high correlation between exophoria and myopia?
N=3. I have a different setup, though. I have my original glasses to drive (-3.25, but they are now too strong, I need to downgrade them). Then I have glasses for other uses (-1, IIRC. They allow me to see at the limit of bluriness at 2-3 meters). And for computer work, I wear no glasses at all. Worth noting, though, that before I started, my prescription hadn't changed in 25 years.
I've had tremendous frustration from optometrists insisting that I have a fixed prescription, but invariably whatever they prescribe me ends up wrong. In the end I ignored my optometrist, found a way to order online and ordered every single prescription for contacts from -5.5 to -6.5 with a couple of options for other parameters and literally just tried them all.
What I found was that my "correct" prescription really, truly varies, ... even over a period of just days. So I ended up just switching between different contacts as needed. But one effect I observed is that a great sequence was to wear slightly under-strength lenses for a week or so and then switch up a level. This seems to do what you suggest ... my eyes then slot into the correct strength with improved comfort and vision and often stabilise there.
Every now and then, everything tips over (often if I get a really bad sleep for some reason) and then I go back to the "slightly under strength" option to try and reset.
All of this I've figured out purely empiracally because I've been so unhappy with the options that multiple optometrists provided me .... so its nice to hear someone say something vaguely similar to what I experience!
There's a sizable community of eye fitness empiricists at https://endmyopia.org with years of discussions, measurements on improvements, videos, etc. Most of the content is free/open.
Basically all the lines should look equally sharp when your vision is corrected. In my case - if I don't wear glasses and move close enough to see it clearly - the horizontal lines have a shadow going upwards, where as the vertical lines are sharp. The shadow is strongest on the 0 degree and 180 degree lines, meaning I have an astigmatism at one of those.
This doesn't tell you what the correction should be, but it tells you if you have it.
I ordered slightly undercorrected glasses (-2/-2.5 instead of -2.25/-2.75) exactly a year ago to try the same, and it did nothing for my myopia. I use the undercorrected glasses all the time, except when driving at night and when playing sports, and nothing has changed.
I still use them all the time because the cheap frame I chose turned out to be very comfortable, more than the expensive one from my regular glasses.
At first I had some hope because for the first days using the undercorrected glasses I would end up with a strong headache in the evening; when this passed I figured that maybe my eyes had begun adjusting. But every time I try the regular and undercorrected glasses side-by-side, I see noticeably better with the regular ones (I sometimes test this just by eyeballing something afar, or by reading a home-printed Snellen chart 3 meters away).
I figured some people have glass-induced myopia, and some people just have myopia.
Vision therapy doesn't work for everyone, it's quite a bit of effort. Under-correction is only one component, therapy should be designed in conjunction with lifestyle.
For liability reasons (e.g. driving) optometrists tend to err on the side of stronger rather than weaker, so most prescriptions are for distance activity. If you're spending many hours with screens that are at arms length or closer, then reducing a distance-driving prescription by 0.25 may not be enough to reach the "edge of blur" for closeup vision.
The https://endmyopia.org community has more info. If you don't have the time to learn about measurements and feedback testing, look for a local optometrist who endorses vision therapy and can work iteratively with you.
Some discussion of this vision therapy approach at https://gettingstronger.org/2016/03/faq-for-vision-improveme.... It requires an investment in learning, self-testing and feedback loops, since vision varies slightly with environment and time of day. Online sales of eyeglasses has made this more practical. It works for many, but not all, reasons unclear.
ah, nice, that explanation has always been making a lot of sense to me. I don't wear my glasses indoor and I stare at a screen for most of my day. My myopia level is actually perfect for this use case, my screen is at my "at rest" focal point, my eyes are "at rest" for most of the day, and the screen isn't blurry.
Now I couldn't find support for it anywhere so I was thinking this might be a case of a very reasonable explanation that turns out to be wrong. Is there some literature on this?
You are absolutely right, I tested in on myself over several years. I want to share my story so far.
Since I got a prescription of -4 I was so mad that I didn't want to wear those glasses. Furthermore I really felt like they were too "strong" for me. So I kept wearing the previous one that was at -3. Since then my myopia never got worse.
But I wanted to go further and try to reverse it in some way. I have read many studies, like the one you mentioned about the animals with glasses/contact lenses that after some time develops myopia. That is the real proof that "too strong" glasses causes myopia. But what does "too strong" mean? It actually means 2 cases: the glasses that are actually stronger that the one you need (like -4 if you have -3.75), or the glasses that are used when you don't need them (short distance). In both cases you are slowly increasing your myopia (like the animal study). So to stop the myopia you just need to use the "right" correction for the "right" time. For example at PC you don't need full correction (for low myopia you don't even need glasses at all), because full correction is only for driving and looking at infinite distance. So the first thing to do, if you work at PC, is to buy less strong glasses (even super cheap one you can find on Amazon). What less strong means? It depends on your myopia and your distance from the screen. But you can calculate it using a ruler that has the diopters written on it (just print it: https://endmyopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/myopia-rule...). For example I've -3.5 but at PC I wear -1.5 because my screen is 70cm far.
As other mentioned already, the best correction you need to use is the one that blurs the text a little bit, where you are still able to read but is not crystal clear.
You may notice that this gets even harder if you have different myopia per eye, because one eye may blur, but not the other or viceversa (I still don't know what happens here, if it's better to cover 1 eye or not, etc).
Btw, if you combine: less strong glasses at PC, regular intervals looking way far, no glasses for reading/phone, you will surely stop the myopia, and maybe you even improve. After years I just improved from -4 to -3.25, but it's better than nothing (and I was not so constant)...
I'd love to hear some other experiences here.
The consolidated $100B industry [1] for lenses/frames may not be incentivized to fund studies which endanger their market. There are precedents [2] in other industries.
You can calculate the prescription you need for a distance using simple optical physics (inverse diopter is the focal plane in meters. E.g. if your prescription is -2, then uncorrected your focal plane will be 1/2 meters. If you use a +1.25 add (so wear a -0.75 net lens diopter), then your new focal plane is 1/1.25 meters). That would be a good start if you usually wear full-strength for close work.
It's said that -0.25 diopters is not noticeable by 50% of population, and especially for base prescriptions <= -2 ish the scale of distance quickly becomes negligible (e.g. a +1.25 add would give 31 inches and a +1.5 add is 26 inches, so only a 5" difference which is basically negligible. Also note that as one commenter noted, I've found my focusing ability changes throughout the day and also based on stress, sleep level etc., so that on a good day I might not need the glasses at all to see up to 32".
A final point is that if you end up going too weak you might find your posture being affected as you inch your neck forward to try to adjust. You could consciously try to prevent this, but I'm sure involuntary habits will kick in, so I think it's better to just choose a prescription precisely calculated for the focal length you want.
In principle the stressor explanation would hold for astigmatism as well, and you could try the same of reducing the cylindrical power as well. N=1 but I've found astigmatism is more easily corrected by the brain, such that you might not even need correction for a -1 cyl power whereas you'd definitely see blurriness at -1 sph.
i am -4 and lost my glasses; however, i still keep my -2 glasses.
on a sunny day, outdoor, the -2 glasses works just fine. not 99% eagle eye precision, but like 90% precision, overkill to see car plates and directions.
does the intensity of light from sun cut -2 from -4 requirement?
Yes, in bright light your pupils are narrow enough to create a pinhole focus effect. (It works the same way with a camera: stop down your camera lens enough and you get infinite depth of field with every visible object in focus.)
In a dark room, your pupils will dilate and impact clarity of vision. If the room is well lit and screen brightness is matched to ambient light, there will be no effect on pupil dilation.
Oh, this is more "believe your way to a lower prescription" myopia skeptic stuff, isn't it. Yeah, sure, and in a pinch you can just glance up at the sun for a second to "improve" your vision.
"Kubota Glass technology works to reduce the increase in axial length associated with myopia by projecting myopically-defocused virtual images generated using micro-LEDS on the peripheral visual field to actively stimulate the retina."
I don't understand why would this work. It implies that stimulating the retina affects the shape of the eye somehow..
Presumably stimulating the retina with a defocused image activates the brain to use the ciliary muscle to adjust how the lens is focused, which could help reduce the effective myopia?
Why wouldn't it? Bright light and dark light causes your pupils to dilate differently, right? That's muscles actuated by input from the retina. Focusing is also about shaping the eye using muscles. It would actually be kind of weird if retina input wasn't used to shape the eyes.
there's a yogic practice – known as Trataka (Still Gazing) – which can fix short-sightedness or myopia. Giving it from the book A Million Thoughts (on meditation) [0]:
> How to Do It Right
1. Assume the standard yogic posture for meditation, preferably cross-legged.
2. Light a candle, at a distance of about three feet, in front of you. You can also keep any other object than a candle if you prefer.
3. Ensure the candle or any other object of focus is at your eyelevel.
4. Watch it unblinking for a minimum of seven minutes. You can gradually increase the duration.
5. During the actual practice, try to be aware of your wandering thoughts and gently bring your mind back to the object.
> Please see the chart below:
> You will notice that still body and still gaze are red impact items, which means if you move your body or shift your gaze while practising trataka; that is instant failure. Reset the clock and start again. If you are unable to control your eye movement and end up blinking, it’s not a problem, simply be mindful and carry on. You may experience your thoughts flow. Ideally it should be restricted but it is natural and a green impact item, which means you don’t have to stop your practice.
Let us say you decide to do trataka for a period of seven minutes. For those seven minutes, you must be still like a rock restricting your eye movements as well. It is important to not blink at all. Tears will start to roll down, but you should stay unmoved. If it gets really uncomfortable, you can blink. The ability to not blink improves over time and with practice.
Each time your mind goes off the tangent, bring your focus back to the object. You can do trataka on any object, but doing it on a candle flame has a purifying effect on the mind. It is best to do the practice at least twice a day: in the morning and before going to bed at night.
> Steadily and gradually increase your ability to stay unblinking as part of this practice. It requires patience and resolve.
> as the participants were students, they were asked to perform the exercises and the Trataka before and after the college hours, respectively. This caused inconvenience for the students to do the activities regularly.
As mentioned from the book, the exercise has to be done regularly for 40 days at least, with the quality required as mentioned. The study itself disclaims the quality in the effort of participant, so there's not much doubt that it couldn't replicate any significant result.
Not to say that Trataka will work for everyone; however, yogic exercises are harmless (if you follow the instructions from authentic sources), and those are usually helpful if you're able to apply them properly.
To stop myopia, you have to go outside without things in front of your eyes.
Putting plastic lenses in front of your eyes block natural UV light and you eyes don’t develop normally.
Who would have thought that we need a bit of natural environment to develop properly.
I've seen that claim before, but then I remember my dad grew up on a farm and TV wasn't much available and he is very nearsighted. So the claim is either completely false, or only a small part of the picture.
They are available from some time in Germany also. And here they don't say they come from Japan (but from other asian country, korea i think) so the article reads like cheap propaganda.
They are called something like"myo smart glassses" or myo smart. They are available in Ingolstadt at "Sichtbetont". Also the Augenklinik from the LMU München can AFAIK recommend some suppliers.
https://www.aao.org/eyenet/article/how-to-use-low-dose-atrop...