Ophthalmologist here. The myopia epidemic is real thing. The advice given in this post is not a dangerous thing to try. However, I doubt that the theory is true, and I doubt that following this method will really help myopic patients. Let's try to justify this point :
"The long-term use of over-correcting glasses induces myopia"
This is quite true. But it induces a myopia which is reversible. Overcorrection (which we try to avoid) leads to ciliary spasm. When the patient gets older, the lens gets less flexible (for everyone, this is what leads to presbyopia) and the myopia, if it was overcorrected, diminishes. It is common to reduce the correction for patients around 40.
We have a good, natural model in nature for over-corrected myopic eyes: hyperopic patients. They don't become myopic with time. Around 40-45 years, their hyperopia becomes clinically significant (they didn't need glasses before and they progressively need to have their hyperopia corrected at 45, or a little bit later if the hyperopia is slight).
"Repair is fast at first as you clear the ciliary spasm, and then slows down as you work on shortening the eyeball itself."
No. Clearing the ciliary spasm (which is not present in every myopic patient, only the overcorrected ones) will indeed reduce the amount of myopia (the eye will return to its normal state: less myopia). However, we happen to have a very precise way to mesure the axial length of the eyeball (interferometry). While we commonly observe a lengthening of the eyeball in high, pathological myopia, I've never heard of an eyeball which shortened, nor read any paper which related this phenomenon.
We don't know why the eyeball elongates in high myopia. But, as far as I know, eyeball never shorten.
"If you are considering laser eye surgery, please skim Lasik Complications."
Yes, please do. You must be informed and your surgeon must inform you. However, you could also look at the number of refractive surgeons who underwent themselves this surgery, or operated their family. It is a common thing to operate our residents at the end of their internship because they saw the outcomes and want the procedure.
Please note that any serious refractive surgeon will perform a refraction after cycloplegia, to remove any ciliary spasm and correct only the "real" myopia.
My understanding was dopamine has the effect of stopping the eyeball from growing longer, which is released during exercise in the presence of bright sunlight. Hence a sedentary and indoor setting make you more prone to Myopia.
I don't have time to find a reference, but I have read research which shows that our eyes tend to grow longer when we are having any sort of trouble focusing, which is often the case with a weakened prescription or in dim light. As a result I stopped ordering slightly weaker glasses for myself and moved my office to a brighter room in the house.
Despite all that, my Myopia seems to be getting worse, wearing the appropriate glasses that ensure sharp focus for distance vision and ones that are less straining with a negative SPH value for computer work (hobby/weak reading glasses etc). I also have some astigmatism which my glasses are completely correcting now.
I would love for medical science to discover the means to reverse myopia, it seems like a solvable problem involving signalling/conditions which causes the eye morphology to change.
> dopamine has the effect of stopping the eyeball from growing longer, w
Bilberry has been proven for this.
If dopamine prevented myopia ADHD people on Adderall would not develop myopia. I'm aware that medical prescription correlates with symptoms are not public nor analysed but still that's a big if
Not sure if dopamine build-up in the striatum (or whatever the specific effect of dopaminergic amphetamines is) would be of any relevance. Could be a separate area of the brain, e.g. only specific to the visual system. Dopamine agonists reviewed in this journal article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5653403/
I have had myopia since age 18 and it constantly worsened. I got diagnosed with glaucoma in my 30s as a result of high IOP, but only because I started to have bad vision because my right optic nerve is already damaged. I started taking medication to reduce IOP then (a few years ago) and since then my myopia stopped worsening.
I have this image of my eyeball in my head, being basically a skin sack full of water enclosed in the skull in all dimensions but one. My theory is my eyeballs lengthened because of the high IOP. My ophthalmologist says this is impossible. Unfortunately I am not scientifically literate enough to check that and I am not sure who to talk to.
What I am trying to say is, if your myopia is constantly worsening get your IOP tested - just in case.
There are devices to measure IOP, most used but kind of inaccurate with a small „air burst“ on your eye. There seem to be more accurate measurement methods but they involve „touching“ the eye.
well it can actually be bought for 700$ but yeah doctors are a thing.
also:
> Differences in pressure between the two eyes are often clinically significant, and potentially associated with certain types of glaucoma, as well as iritis or retinal detachment.
Regarding LASIK, I got my surgery in 2009, at 21 years of age. At the time I only did enough research to know to find a reputable surgeon in my area, and no more. Nowadays I would probably Google for more side effects and dangers. I'd likely hesitate at the risk of getting it so early and wonder if it'll be a waste as my eyes change, but at the time I just trusted what the doctor told me.
I still consider it to be one of the best things I've ever spent money on. I think the surgeon mentioned he over-corrected somehow, accounting for eyesight changes over the years. There's been some degradation. If I close one eye I can see that my right one is slightly less sharp and slower to focus than the left. But overall my eyesight is still excellent over ten years later, with none of the scary persistent complications I'd read about since the surgery.
Nowadays, I hear of newer methods of laser eye surgery that involve putting in lenses that you can replace with new ones when needed as opposed to resurfacing the eye itself. It makes me think about how much advancement there must be in the techniques since I'd gotten it done. If I'm still happy with my decade-old result, I imagine people getting it done today might find their procedures to be even better.
What I like about this theory is we can test whether or not it’s true for ourselves by simply wearing slightly weaker glasses and seeing if our vision improves. The cost is relatively low and it would be fun to do.
Interestingly enough, it does seem like eyeballs can shorten in many species, including chicks, shrews, and some primates. It only took a few seconds to Google.[1]
I’d be curious whether humans share a similar mechanism. I would be surprised if they didn’t, considering how this mechanism is common amongst such a diverse range of species.
> hyperopic patients. They don't become myopic with time
As a farsighted person who didn't get glasses until I was 30... I only wish it was as easy as sitting and waiting a few years.
Most of the advice in tech circles is about myopia, so whenever I see something like this I like to imagine the opposite advice to see if it would cure me in the opposite direction. Should I stare at something less than 20cm away for 20 seconds every 20 minutes? I don't think either near or far-sighted people are going to heal themselves with internet advice
Yes, hyperopia is a very ungrateful condition... The usual situation is patients which had a perfect vision all their life, and, around 40, lose their near vision, and their far vision a few years later. This is always a little bit depressing.
My only advice for hyperopia would be (I'm sorry for that) to not wait too long to wear a correction for near vision. Sadly you won't heal hyperopia by training your eyes to look closer, but you will certainly be very tired at the end of the day if you need convex glasses and don't have them.
You're completely right. Although I could see just fine, my eyes were extremely fatigued after every workday and I just never realized it. Glasses changed my life. In fact I'm about to go in again for a second stronger pair of reading glasses for computer work. I might as well embrace getting old!
There are many anecdotal reports about people seeing shorter eyeballs as measured by an autorefractor while doing the reduced lens method, one example that I recall is this one from cliffgnu[1].
For LASIK the real thing that isn't communicated is that it doesn't address the root of the problem which is that the eyeball gets longer, it only works as if someone carved glasses on your cornea.
The problem is that you can't measure axial length with an autorefractometer. You need a biometer. The autoref will tell you the objective refraction of the patient (which is quite imprecise).
The eyeball gets longer with time in high (pathological) myopia. Serious surgeons will check that the myopia is stable (1-2 years) before doing a surgery. The eye doesn't, usually, gets longer in patients with moderated myopia. All the work, in refractive surgery, is in good patients selection. It is very unusual to observe a significant myopic regression in patients with a stabilized myopia after 21 years. Of course the eye is an organ, there is no absolute rule in the human body. However, patients which were correctly selected for surgery don't, usually, see their myopia coming back with time.
Even for pathological patients, the solution is to reset their eye with e.g LASIK and to prevent growth via bilberry. It's non-prescription is one instance of the universal established deep mediocrity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6296196/
I don't know but you have to understand that in general, extracts achieve effective concentrations that are impossible to achieve naturally. Moreover, a pill is easy to take consistently in the morning, while eating a bunch of billberries every morning is a chore. Consistency is key for the goal.
I guess eating bilberries is better than nothing, you'd have to study the extract to infer how many bilberries per pill it represent.
Can't find it right now, but there was a retweet by longevity scientist David Sinclair about a study in mice that exposure to UV-C could potentially reverse aging (and myopia) of the eyes.
I'll edit if I find the reference.
What I do is regularly go for a walk in the sun for up to half an hour without wearing glasses or contacts. If it doesn't work, I'll be getting a good dose of vitamin D in any case.
As far as I understand it, David Sinclair lost all credibility when he was invited to debate scientists in real life and refuse. The rate at which he spins up companies is also a bit alarming. This is as someone who would love for what he is preaching to turn out to be true.
The site alleges that there are a number of positive self-treating anecdotes found on the internet. Is there a medically justified explanation for these? (It's ok if not -- an alternative is that they're cranks or lying, both of which are very plausible). What is the minimum vision improvement from behavioural adjustment that would be medically surprising to you?
I have severe dry eyes from unfortunately taking accutane in my teens. Will LASIK cause more dryness? I already tried restasis which did not improve the ability of ‘rewetting’ my eyes when the optometrist was testing for this towards the end of treatment.
Worsened dryness as an outcome from LASIK is the only thing holding me back from it. Would love some feedback!
Is it recommended to get two different pairs of glasses for both near sightedness and far sightedness? I have a -3.5D with astigmatism as well. I get the feeling I'd require only less powered glasses for screen time as opposed to using my regular glasses for it. What is your professional opinion about this?
I am not the expert you are replying to, and I have only anecdotal evidence. But for what it is worth, I have been using "computer glasses", which are midway between my reading- and distance vision prescriptions, for more than 10 years. I find that this prescription reduces eyestrain very significantly, and I can easily spend a whole day in front of the screen without fatigue.
> However, we happen to have a very precise way to mesure the axial length of the eyeball (interferometry).
Does this measure the length at the center only? Even if the eye cannot shrink there, it could possibly grow outside of the center or by inreasing its diameter causing a change of the shape.
Do they ever perform lasik under general anesthesia? My eyes react so strongly to overstimulation like bright light or being touched that I couldn't even get the pre-tests done.
No you can't do that, because the patient must look at a target. There is an eye tracker in the laser but you have to look in the right direction. The surgery is much less impressive that you can imagine. Take an advice with a reputable, trained surgeon which will carefully look for any contraindication !
We recently obtained Ortho-K lens for our 11-year-old as his myopia was progressing faster than normal. These are hard contact lens worn during sleep, they work by basically flattening the cornea. Next day morning when they wake up, vision is perfect, and glasses are not needed for the next day. Ortho-K contacts must be worn every night. If not, kid simply has to use his glasses. https://www.visioncenter.org/contacts/orthokeratology/
One has to wear the contacts every night. They do not reverse myopia but are the most effective in stopping further progression of myopia. As per our eye doctor, ortho-K lens is the most effective (~80%) and is a non-destructive method unlike LASIK which basically burns the cornea to the right shape.
Wow, thanks for posting that link! I was able to find his paper, "The End of Myopia", and glasses patent which describe his theory of myopia progression and preventative solution. The patent describes a pair of glasses with tiny dots (<1 mm in diameter) spread uniformly across the lens except in the central 7 mm diameter. The dots reduce the contrast of your peripheral vision which inhibits axial eye growth, and the clear region allows the wearer to see normally in the center of vision.
The theory is that children are naturally far sighted which creates blurrier/lower contrast central vision and sharper/higher contrast peripheral vision. The brain interprets the higher contrast peripheral vision as a sign the eye is too short and far sighted, and the eye begins to grow. As the eye grows to the appropriate length, central vision experiences higher contrast and peripheral vision experiences lower contrast, and the eye stops growing.
If you degrade the peripheral vision's ability to experience higher contrast at all with these glasses, then the brain will never see a need to grow the eye.
I've had these for about 12 years, they don't get mentioned enough!
Downsides were that in the US there were expensive, and need proper daily cleaning, but the tradeoff is worth it - only need 1 pair per year - less waste too!
Going to get Lasik this year because they don't play nicely with travel in developing countries, but they were absolutely fantastic for school and university.
I had something very strange occur to me. I realized one of my eyes was weaker than the other; specifically my right eye (I’m right handed, right footed I suppose). I would every so often close one eye, then the other, just to compare and to see if I can help strengthen the weaker eye. I was aware of EndMyopia, Hormesis theory etc.
I went in to get an endoscopy done one day. They put me under for it for about 15 minutes or so. Not sure which sedative they used. Did the usual “count to three” trick where you’re out in less than a second.
After I woke up, some hours later I noticed that my weak eye had cleared up and the other one was now the weak one.
This effect went away some hours thereafter. Since then, I’ve often wondered what in the world could have caused that reversal.
When I use something like “active focus” (consciously and voluntarily shifting the focal plane) I can get the weak eye to clear up a bit. Sunlight helps immensely as well.
I have been working on doing this since the start of 2020. I purchased glasses for almost all the diopters from .5 to -4.25 (where I started) cheaply on Zenni, by going with minimal add-ons, it makes the total cost per glasses pair between $10 and $30 each. I have customized text on each of the frames that says their correction, since some of my frames are duplicates with different lenses. I am down to about -2.75 so far for normal stuff. I spend most of my day in front of computers so I end up using much lower correction between -1 and -2 diopters for the various screens I sit in front of to maintain the edge of just-in-focus depending on distance. You just have to remember that progress is slow, it took years get this way and will take years to go back. I wish you luck and patience if you try it yourself.
I'm genuinely interested in your testimony. Did you, by any chance, underwent a refraction after cycloplegia (cyclopentolate) anytime in your life?
Cyclopentolate suppresses the ciliary spasm and allows to measure the real, residual myopia.
I would be very impressed if I had the opportunity to observe a myopic regression in a patient after cycloplegia (for both exams, of course).
I have not done an official cyclopentolate on myself as it requires a prescription here, but in the past I believe it's standard practice at my ophthalmologist when I get checkups, but I haven't gone for one in years.
This is not the first time I hear about these methods of reversing myopia, you definitely should be able to find someone in your area doing this, if you post in one of the communities saying you're an ophthalmologist interested in measuring someone's progress (and willing to prescribe the glasses)
I move my screen back and don't wear glasses during work. I also have an eye chart hanging in front of me across the room. I stuck to near-far focus exercises for about 6 months at some point. My eyesight has not improved. I do notice completely different ability to read the chart during the day - sometimes I can read letters 5x smaller than the large letters, and sometimes I can barely read the large letters. Sunlight and how tired I am matter a lot - early in the day on 8+ hours of sleep like today means I can see almost as well as 20/20 (but at night I can't read the large numbers, though I can read the small with glasses). Sometimes doing the near-far focus exercises helps for the short term. Breathing deeply seems to help. I seem to have a ton of stress related issues breathing deeply helps relax.
Unfortunately, the tldr is that my vision has not objectively improved permanently.
Story of my life really - I very much question most people's ability to improve in most areas, but that's a different topic.
P.S. I have the same disbalance as most here - one eye is both faster to focus and sees better. I close one eye when I do near-far focus.
This works for some people, not all. Reasons are unknown. Nevertheless, the EndMyopia "eye hacking" community has a wealth of empirical information about vision therapy, otherwise only available from very expensive vision therapists and specialist ophthalmologists. It requires an order of magnitude more effort/time than blindly following the guidance of random local optometrists. Even if you don't apply the methods directly, you can become a better educated consumer of professional eye-health services.
While the market for myopia is large and growing, the market for presbyopia is almost 100% of the HackerNews community. Similar techniques apply, in the face of sizable economic incentives to promote expensive progressive lenses. The advent of online glasses offers more options, e.g. dedicated computer glasses for a fixed focal plane, ChemistriE magnetic clip-ons.
In an industry which spends many hours daily using eyes for closeup work, "eye fitness" offers observable returns on vision literacy.
Very interesting reading. I have also been reading about insulin resistance and how one philosophy was to give more insulin, and another philosophy is to reduce insulin + add fasting so that your body corrects towards the new life [ maybe I am paraphrasing too much ]. From the little I have heard on this, reducing insulin and making body adapt sounds more reasonable.
This seems to be going in a similar direction. Get your body to adjust than help it with strong prescription glasses.
Not sure if it will work for people who are in a transition phase with their eyes worsening every year, but it may help people with relatively stable eyes.
This might all be a scam pushed by David Sinclair and his desire to spin up resveratrol companies. Apparently reducing insulin by reducing meal frequency or fasting does help reduce obesity, see "The Obesity Code". As far as the other magical benefits of fasting and cold showers and other "stressors" - specifically autophagy and neurogenesis - none of it is proven and can be considered a trend.
I do water-fast 3 days in a row once a month, and it does basically nothing for me (adversely or positively). This is very much a trend in my life - trying all these things to achieve pretty much nothing. I guess it's good to know with certainty though.
Having loved photography since an early age I have always been hyper observant about my own visual mechanics, and to preserve my 25/20 acuity.
At worst in my late teens my prescription was -1.25, at which point I started wearing glasses only for distance vision, never for reading and computer work. I am certain this diligent habit stopped the myopia progressing. Now that I’m 10 years out of uni my prescription has reversed to -0.25. I don’t wear distance glasses anymore and am careful with computer positioning to minimise eye strain. Hope my 25/20 lasts!
I do think vision habits matter for near sightedness. The human eye, like all mammal eyes, seems adapted for far vision. To bring the focal point in, the ciliary muscle must contract to change the shape of the eye. When it relaxes, the focal point goes back out far away.
In the environment for which we are adapted, most time was spent focusing far away. In the modern world, a person may spend all day, every day, for years on end, focusing on things close up like books and screens. If the ciliary muscle is always contracted, it can get stuck; over time, even change the shape of the eyeball from constant pressure such that the cornea focuses too far in front of the retina, making the image blurry.
Perhaps I was too quick to get glasses when things first started looking blurry. If I had known, I would have tried to get the ciliary muscle to relax by focusing on things far away for at least a time every day. Instead, I went right to the minus lenses but kept my lifestyle of close up work all the time. This led to hyperopic defocus, meaning my ciliary muscle had to continue to contract to focus on near objects through the minus lens.
About 7 years ago I had the thought of improving my vision habits. I will spare HN the details, but my vision (optometrist confirmed) has improved from about -3.5 diopters to -2.25 diopters. I can now do things without glasses including working on the computer, cooking, and reading, for which I am grateful.
I wore glasses for 20+ years before adopting contacts at age 30. I had to learn how to change focus because the depth of field is less compressed than it is with glasses. It was a notable effort for the first few weeks until my eyes adapted.
Now I have early stage presbyopia which is only an issue for reading small text. I'm grateful I can just pop out the lenses and get spectacular near vision when I need it. It's great for watching video on a 5" cell phone because you can hold it close enough to fill your field of view and don't have to support the mass of a larger phone when lying down.
~possible but I've read a research that the most impact for children is simply more outdoor time. There's a pdf of a Piano Tuner Association recommending the use of reading glasses when working in close distance.
I believe there should be wider recommendation to strongly discourage using myopia glasses for computer/reading. I've been wearing it since I was 7 (> 15 years) with a lot of reading, phone and computer usage, no ~big changes in my myopia but not better too. (Disclaimer, my glasses have always been pretty weak (<2))
I've also mistakenly overcorrected my latest pair, so I'll experiment with a astigmatism-only pair to see how much I need correction.
probably not a good idea because it would introduce more problems related to convergence and accommodation, better to just let the eyes work naturally and keep better habits.
I have a hard time buying this theory. I'm working behind a screen a lot, and my vision was mostly ok, but about 6-7 years ago I discovered I am no longer comfortable watching TV. I got glasses, which I wore only when watching TV (no more than an hour or two per day, and not every day - on average, would be around an hour a day or less). Recently, I had to take a vision test for driving, and I discovered that while I can still subjectively see OK, I can no longer legally drive without glasses. I went for an eye check and got a prescription which is slightly stronger than my old glasses, though not significantly: I can drive - and pass the eye exam - both with my old and new glasses.
Clearly, I have some myopia, and clearly, it got worse with time, though not drastically so. Also it sounds very unlikely that it was caused by short period I have been wearing glasses to watch TV. Moreover, since I've been going around for a while with no glasses, while my vision was somewhat myopic (I didn't have vision test for years and didn't feel the need to have one) - I have essentially been following the instructions in the article, without knowing it, as I understand. Yet, my vision didn't become better - in fact, it became worse, albeit slightly (which I totally expected with age, so I am not surprised here).
The article stresses that if you reduce too much for the distant vision then you will have too much blur which will only lead to blur adaptation, and won't yield any improvements.
I can focus my eyes without glasses (20/15), and with glasses too. I can try on the glasses of a myopic person and still bring everything into focus, although it's an eye strain like I'm trying to focus on something 2 inches from my face. Astigmatism is tough though- either the horizontal is in focus, or the vertical, but not both at the same time.
One aspect of this that I haven't heard anyone talk about is the fact that you can get your eyes to focus more precisely if you practice. You can make out really fine details in something if you have bright enough light and you concentrate on one specific point and try really hard to make it as sharp as possible. You can focus on one ridge of the fingerprints on your hand and then look at the little imperfections on those. Or the individual fibers in a sweater. Likewise you can defocus your eyes just by relaxing them. Focusing is a skill and a muscle you can train. I wonder if many people habitually don't focus on things precisely, just leaving them a bit fuzzy, and this contributes to the problem?
This sounds you like have hyperopia. This thing you call "focus" is in part accommodation, another part is probably mental concentration. This accommodation ability deteriorates when you are older and develop presbyopia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodation_(eye)
What my sibling said too: brightness will lead to sharper vision due to the pin-hole effect.
I don't have a lot of myopia (max -1.5 on both eyes) but I also have astigmatism (around 1.75 for both). I find I can work fine on my computer distance-focus wise but the astigmatism means text are slightly blurry. Do any of you have this problem too? Do you have another set of glasses that are just correcting the astigmatism?
you can substitute spherical correction for astigmatism correction. the spherical equivalent is the normal spherical value plus 50% of the cylinder. so for -3.00 sphere -1.00 cylinder 100 axis, the spherical equivalent would be -3.50 sphere (blank cylinder, blank axis).
It makes your vision worse (because the astigmatism is really not corrected) and might trigger a myopia progression (because the glasses are too strong)
It's the normal thing to do if only spherical lenses are available. E.g. cheaper off the shelf contact lenses. Contacts with cylinder correction are relatively novel and have downsides. The lenses are not "too strong", astigmatism causes two focal points, and the spherical equivalent puts you in the middle of these two.
I concur. I got mine done 5 years ago and still marvel nearly every day at how clear my vision is. The hedonic treadmill has yet to detract from the pure joy of not wearing glasses and having crystal clear vision. I am a huge proponent!
The problem with LASIK is that it doesn't address the root of the problem which is that the eyeball gets longer, it only works as if someone carved glasses on your cornea. So you might still get the negative consequences of having a longer eyeball after it.
I only found a doctor that suggested LASIK now that I'm old (37), which I know is late for this, still I feel like doing it - even if to play with my kid without glasses for 10 years.
Anecdotally, I had regular eye exams (once every two years) for several years since they were free under insurance, and was prescribed progressively stronger glasses each time. I wound up somewhere around -7.5. For the past ~10 years I’ve just stuck with a single prescription out of sheer laziness + having no optical insurance in the US. Recently, having gotten a proper job with real insurance, I visited an optometrist and was surprised to learn that my prescription had gone down to -7 - and the new glasses really aren’t much different than the old ones visually.
A fairly significant part of this is likely due to my eyes not growing anymore (the regular eye exams were during high school + undergrad), but I do like to think that some part of it is not feeling like I always had to update my prescription constantly.
My mother did not want me to have glasses as kid, because glasses damage your eyes. It is a scam of the optometrists. They sell you glasses to damage your eyes, so they can sell you even more glasses later.
So when I became nearsighted, I did not wear glasses until I was almost an adult.
The myopia remained rather stable with -1 to -1.5 D. Which fits the distance of the computer screen. It was very unhealthy that I spend 12 h a day programming thinking I was a professional teenage software engineer.
But I got really bad astigmatism with -3.4 D according to an aberrometer.
Perhaps myopia turns into astigmatism if you squint too much?
> Perhaps myopia turns into astigmatism if you squint too much?
In my case no. I started with -2.5 for myopia, and was squinting pretty hard for a few months before that. Had no astigmatism
Then I got a bad habit of scratching my eyes whenever I slept too little time. While this happened my astigmatism increased by 0.25 D each year, for 4 years in a row
There is indeed much more evidence for this advice. This is my I do with my kids. Using your far vision a lot I childhood, with enough light exposure, could be a real preventive habit.
Their big breakthrough in understanding myopia occurred in 2008 when they studied a particular group of people who had a genetic form of myopia that’s very severe. They discovered a gene mutation that was causing the myopia.
“It turns out it was a mutation in the cone photoreceptors,” said Jay Neitz. “We then realized that it’s really just the way that the images are being encoded on the retina.”
What’s supposed to happen as your eye grows, is that things should begin to go out of focus in the periphery of your vision. That’s a signal for the eyes to stop growing.
But as long as things are still clear in the periphery, the eyes think this person must still be farsighted, because in the natural world things in the periphery are far away.
Neitz said his team was able to design a lens to make central vision clear and in focus, and give the peripheal vision much lower contrast.
“It recreates what is supposed to be going on with our eyes before we started putting all of these things in front of our face like computer screens and tablets,” he said.
I got myopia during an age where I was exposed to very bright light everyday. Playing cricket everyday under scorching hot southern India summers didn't help prevent it.
Yes it's not 100%, still ~20% of people have myopia with bright light exposure daily, but ~70%+ have myopia without bright light exposure, so it's definitely worth paying attention to.
i was thinking if it wss reversible. so buy some cheap glasses online zenni. reduce the prescription. buy an eink reader to prevent flicker. stare out the window every 20 minutes for 20 seconds
It has been studied that myopia progression can be almost stopped via daily administration of Berberine. However i have learnt this fact when it was too late for me and I have failed to find a pharmacological reversal. Although retinalamin might have some potential. It would be interesting to see wether Berberine potentiate the presented method. Although i have been without glasses for a whole year and I was nearly blind after a few meters, this has not reversed my myopia so??
It's Bilberry, not Berberine, I always confuse the two..
Here's the study.
I have no idea wether the mechanism is from a classical antioxidant/anti-inflammatory/senolytic/pro autophagic mechanism or if bilberry has a unique action mechanism.
The field is so underfunded I expect most regular protectors (e.g. Skq1) to have similar or greater effects but i can't be certain.
Honestly, it's a crapshoot. Most of the time, laymen are just engaging in wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and personal attachment to their opinions.
But I've seen more than a fair share of doctors who are unreasonably attached to their own ego and out-of-date knowledge it's built on, and of patients who are more invested in genuine research into their condition than even Dr House would be.
The timeframe between science finding new insights(or proving prior ones wrong) and the knowledge becoming mainstream among the medical community is measured in decades.
A motivated individual can - sometimes - do much, much better, medical degree or its lack irregardless.
See my other replies here - I am a skeptic like you, but I genuinely have zero trusts in professional. Anecdotal, but most surgeons in the US propose disk fusion for back pain that can be otherwise corrected. I know multiple people who got told they will never do sports again, should fuse their spinal disks, only for another doctor to tell them to rest a few weeks or do some stretches and now they are lifting and playing soccer.
"The long-term use of over-correcting glasses induces myopia" This is quite true. But it induces a myopia which is reversible. Overcorrection (which we try to avoid) leads to ciliary spasm. When the patient gets older, the lens gets less flexible (for everyone, this is what leads to presbyopia) and the myopia, if it was overcorrected, diminishes. It is common to reduce the correction for patients around 40.
We have a good, natural model in nature for over-corrected myopic eyes: hyperopic patients. They don't become myopic with time. Around 40-45 years, their hyperopia becomes clinically significant (they didn't need glasses before and they progressively need to have their hyperopia corrected at 45, or a little bit later if the hyperopia is slight).
"Repair is fast at first as you clear the ciliary spasm, and then slows down as you work on shortening the eyeball itself." No. Clearing the ciliary spasm (which is not present in every myopic patient, only the overcorrected ones) will indeed reduce the amount of myopia (the eye will return to its normal state: less myopia). However, we happen to have a very precise way to mesure the axial length of the eyeball (interferometry). While we commonly observe a lengthening of the eyeball in high, pathological myopia, I've never heard of an eyeball which shortened, nor read any paper which related this phenomenon. We don't know why the eyeball elongates in high myopia. But, as far as I know, eyeball never shorten.
"If you are considering laser eye surgery, please skim Lasik Complications." Yes, please do. You must be informed and your surgeon must inform you. However, you could also look at the number of refractive surgeons who underwent themselves this surgery, or operated their family. It is a common thing to operate our residents at the end of their internship because they saw the outcomes and want the procedure. Please note that any serious refractive surgeon will perform a refraction after cycloplegia, to remove any ciliary spasm and correct only the "real" myopia.
https://theophthalmologist.com/business-profession/do-ophtha...