Can reading glasses really help Myopia?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Some says it can reverse myopia, is this a bogus claim?

Originally Posted by Momus

Some says it can reverse myopia, is this a bogus claim?

yes it is a bogus claim

Simple answer: yes.

Complicated answer: Chickens that had reading lenses or (+) lenses attached to their eyes from birth and never allowed to see without them ended up having adaptational responses to this. Meaning they developed hyperopia. So in a sense if you want to walk around for years with only being able to see closer than you would with your current myopia and if it is done when you are very young then maybe it can reverse myopia. But you would develop amblyopia faster than you would fix your myopia if you played with the lenses during the critical period of vision development which would actually be way worse. When myopia fixing lenses were put on [(-) lenses], the chickens developed myopia.

It gets more complicated than this but I'm lazy.

Allo/osteos correct me if I am wrong but the same kind of simplistic parallel can be drawn to people with acne. If you frequently wash the oil off of your face with soap, your sebaceous glands will start to produce even more oil to compensate. Therefore leading to worse acne than you had in the first place if you stop washing.

It won't reverse myopia. But some folks will Rx a bifocal power for usually young folks with convergence excess in an effort to slow down myopic progression.

Clinically, meant to relax your accommodation and convergence AC ratio. In practice, IMHO does not work. Even the bifocal rx given to young children so stop progression of myopia does not work. I've seen it in practice with no positive results. The only time bifocals bisecting the pupils is effective is in young kids with eso problems and high degree of hyperopia.

aren't there claims on using atropine as well?

Originally Posted by DawgOD

aren't there claims on using atropine as well?

Atropine stops the progression of myopia but as soon as you stop using atropine your myopia progresses to a level that it would have progressed to had you not used the atropine in the first place.

Seems like orthokeratology is the only thing that works consistently.

http://www.revoptom.com/continuing_e...ssonid/106321/

Originally Posted by Shnurek

Seems like orthokeratology is the only thing that works consistently.

http://www.revoptom.com/continuing_e...ssonid/106321/

That doesn't 'reverse' myopia. It temporarily reshapes the cornea.

Sent from my Droid Incredible on SDN Mobile

Originally Posted by Visionary

That doesn't 'reverse' myopia. It temporarily reshapes the cornea.

Sent from my Droid Incredible on SDN Mobile

OP's subject is if it "helps" myopia. Orthokeratology is the only method of vision correction that seems to stop the progression of myopia and not just because of the corneal reshaping. It seems to stop the axial length of the eye from enlarging because of peripheral defocus. I don't know all the details but its being extensively researched now.

Originally Posted by Shnurek

OP's subject is if it "helps" myopia. Orthokeratology is the only method of vision correction that seems to stop the progression of myopia and not just because of the corneal reshaping. It seems to stop the axial length of the eye from enlarging because of peripheral defocus. I don't know all the details but its being extensively researched now.

Um, reread the original post, not the thread title. As for this research, when you show me a well designed, well controlled, unbiased study confirming what you stated, then we can talk. Ortho K is nothing new. I have a hard time believing there are any new revelations coming down the pike.

Sent from my Droid Incredible on SDN Mobile

scholar.google.com ---> http://www.iovs.org/content/52/5/2170.short
http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Ab...atients.8.aspx
http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Ab...the_Two.8.aspx
http://abstracts.iovs.org/cgi/conten...ract/52/6/2837

easy sauce

Originally Posted by Shnurek

scholar.google.com ---> http://www.iovs.org/content/52/5/2170.short
http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Ab...atients.8.aspx
http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Ab...the_Two.8.aspx
http://abstracts.iovs.org/cgi/conten...ract/52/6/2837

easy sauce

Can't access the full article, but the last sentence tells me what I need to know. "If...." Doesn't seem to prove anything other than it can change the refraction, which will also return to it's prior state once you cease treatment.

Sent from my Droid Incredible on SDN Mobile

Which article can't you access?

Your ARVO journal states: "Overnight OK[orthokeratology] lens wear inhibits axial length growth and myopia progression over a 12-month period." which is the 4th link out of the 4.

Originally Posted by Shnurek

Which article can't you access?

Your ARVO journal states: "Overnight OK[orthokeratology] lens wear inhibits axial length growth and myopia progression over a 12-month period." which is the 4th link out of the 4.

Sorry, I'm on mobile, and the hyperlinks are wonky. I was referring to the 2nd. The two optometry articles I can't access more than the abstracts. The 3rd is a case report. The last, to which you referred is by a bunch of B & L folks--no bias there. The only legit one appears to be the Japanese one (1st article). Color me skeptical.

Sent from my Droid Incredible on SDN Mobile

Originally Posted by Visionary

Sorry, I'm on mobile, and the hyperlinks are wonky. I was referring to the 2nd. The two optometry articles I can't access more than the abstracts. The 3rd is a case report. The last, to which you referred is by a bunch of B & L folks--no bias there. The only legit one appears to be the Japanese one (1st article). Color me skeptical.

Sent from my Droid Incredible on SDN Mobile

Oh, c'mon now.....B&L showing bias in a publication?? I've never heard of such a thing!

a proper reading prescription (if necessary) combined with well performed vision therapy can reverse myopia in many cases. No two patients are the same so you can't make a blanket statement and we're talking low grade myopia here not minus 10. although I've had a patient with a minus 9 drop two diopters.

I think the real question here should be "is low myopia really such a bad thing that warrants needing to be reversed?"

Originally Posted by inflammablefish

I think the real question here should be "is low myopia really such a bad thing that warrants needing to be reversed?"

Really depends on what the patient wants.

Originally Posted by inflammablefish

a proper reading prescription (if necessary) combined with well performed vision therapy can reverse myopia in many cases. No two patients are the same so you can't make a blanket statement and we're talking low grade myopia here not minus 10. although I've had a patient with a minus 9 drop two diopters.

I think the real question here should be "is low myopia really such a bad thing that warrants needing to be reversed?"

What you're talking about sounds like relaxing accommodation, not reversing myopia. Is this vision therapy reshaping the cornea or changing the axial length? I seriously doubt that.

Sent from my Droid Incredible on SDN Mobile

Originally Posted by Visionary

What you're talking about sounds like relaxing accommodation, not reversing myopia. Is this vision therapy reshaping the cornea or changing the axial length? I seriously doubt that.

That depends on your definition of myopia and whether you think myopia is physical (i.e. axial length etc) or behavioral.

Originally Posted by inflammablefish

That depends on your definition of myopia and whether you think myopia is physical (i.e. axial length etc) or behavioral.

Behavioral? What is this pseudoscientific shpiel? Go join Dr. Bates M.D.

Even if tonic accommodation is causing pseudomyopia that is still physical because the ciliary muscle is causing the lens to thicken.

I'm not talking about Bates. Bates doesn't work.

I'm talking about Skeffington, Streff, Manas, MacDonald, Getman, DB Harmon.... All those early Optometrists that really influenced how we practice and understand how the visual system really works

Originally Posted by Shnurek

Even if tonic accommodation is causing pseudomyopia that is still physical because the ciliary muscle is causing the lens to thicken.

What do you think is causing the ciliary muscle to do what it does?

Some more journal articles on ortho-K and myopia control to peruse:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21212181
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21037497

Ortho-K seems to have the most support for possible means of myopia control, not just based on these 2 studies, but others as well. My own patient base can attest to the slowing and in many cases the halting of myopia progression.

Originally Posted by inflammablefish

What do you think is causing the ciliary muscle to do what it does?

The ciliary muscle is innervated with sympathetic and parasympathetic autonomous fibers however it can be controlled voluntarily even though it is smooth muscle. For example I can accommodate while looking at something closer or just accommodate voluntarily with no target closer. Few people can do it voluntarily.

I don't know all the history of these ODs but there are a bunch of older OD quacks so that is why I am cautious. Our education is very allopathic based nowadays. Maybe you can inform me more by what you mean exactly as "behavioral". I might have mistaken your intention.

Originally Posted by Shnurek

The ciliary muscle is innervated with sympathetic and parasympathetic autonomous fibers however it can be controlled voluntarily even though it is smooth muscle. For example I can accommodate while looking at something closer or just accommodate voluntarily with no target closer. Few people can do it voluntarily.

I don't know all the history of these ODs but there are a bunch of older OD quacks so that is why I am cautious. Our education is very allopathic based nowadays. Maybe you can inform me more by what you mean exactly as "behavioral". I might have mistaken your intention.

Shnurek, believe it or not, you can't just read a few pages on the effects of various types of refractive correction on myopia progression and think you've gotten it all figured out. As usual, you make assumptions that will some day prove to be your achilles heel. Even those who are waist deep in researching this topic will tell you they don't understand it themselves. As I usually do with my responses to your posts, I'll finish by telling you that you simply don't know what you don't know.

There is the practice of some that prescribe bifocals (or progressives) to young myopes, (even children) to reduce the accommdative demand.

Whether that works or not. Who knows..

Originally Posted by syma

There is the practice of some that prescribe bifocals (or progressives) to young myopes, (even children) to reduce the accommdative demand.

Whether that works or not. Who knows..

It doesn't work, COMET showed insignificant results effects, and so far so has "peripheral defocus" via various contact lens types. As for "vision therapy" and myopia I agree with others that it is related to accomodation and not really "reversing" myopia.

Originally Posted by Shnurek

Simple answer: yes.

Complicated answer: Chickens that had reading lenses or (+) lenses attached to their eyes from birth and never allowed to see without them ended up having adaptational responses to this. Meaning they developed hyperopia. So in a sense if you want to walk around for years with only being able to see closer than you would with your current myopia and if it is done when you are very young then maybe it can reverse myopia. But you would develop amblyopia faster than you would fix your myopia if you played with the lenses during the critical period of vision development which would actually be way worse. When myopia fixing lenses were put on [(-) lenses], the chickens developed myopia.

Hello, I just registered to reply because this topic is close to me.
I am a high tech worker who is slowly losing his sight. I did a vision check and they recommended me no glasses because my number is so low (-0.25 to -0.5)
But I'm extremely afraid of deterioation due to 10 hours per day computer screen time. My screen is positioned about 30cm-40cm from me. I can't move it further because there's a wall blocking. And i can't sit away further because it get's inconvienant. I can't buy larger screen, either. I wish I could.

I am afraid of deterioration because my eyes focal center is positioned always 40cm away from me. I'm convinced this had something to do with my sight deteriorating slowly. because..

What kind of animal, living in the wild, have myopia?
Do dogs have myopia, do cats, monkies, birds, elephants, horses and other mammals have it? I doubt.
Do villagers living in africa in the most ancient tradition, have myopia?
Is the precentage of farmers who are having myopia, is bigger, than the precentage of high tech workers who are having myopia? I doubt.

All this convinces me that myopia. at least my own minor myopia, is the pressure of sitting all day long, reading books, computer screen, TV and so forth. because if I would go outside and farm all the day I doubt this kind of situation was occuring. But this is all my speculation..if you have a research that proves otherwise I would like to see it.

I thought - If i could move the screen away - OR - move my focal focus point further away, by wearing reading glasses (let's say +1 for instance) then my vision would stop deteriorating. I am now replying in this thread because I really want to discuss this with professionals from the field to see whether am I right or wrong. I am now on the verge of making an important decision, whether to not buy reading glasses - and then risking more deterioration. or, buying reading glasses and then risking deterioration because I did something totally wrong to my eyes. I don't know what to do.

The experiment about the chickens makes sense. at first, the chickens only saw very far away. too far. and they developed, like you said, hyperopia. and then they suddenly saw from very close all the time - and developed myopia. But something's missing from the experiment. what if the chickens wore the +1 lenses once again after their were myopic? would their myopia improve? would it disappear? what would happen? that's the answer i'm looking for. Is there any kind of experiment such as this?

Originally Posted by fgove9

Hello, I just registered to reply because this topic is close to me.
I am a high tech worker who is slowly losing his sight. I did a vision check and they recommended me no glasses because my number is so low (-0.25 to -0.5)
But I'm extremely afraid of deterioation due to 10 hours per day computer screen time. My screen is positioned about 30cm-40cm from me. I can't move it further because there's a wall blocking. And i can't sit away further because it get's inconvienant. I can't buy larger screen, either. I wish I could.

I am afraid of deterioration because my eyes focal center is positioned always 40cm away from me. I'm convinced this had something to do with my sight deteriorating slowly. because..

What kind of animal, living in the wild, have myopia?
Do dogs have myopia, do cats, monkies, birds, elephants, horses and other mammals have it? I doubt.
Do villagers living in africa in the most ancient tradition, have myopia?
Is the precentage of farmers who are having myopia, is bigger, than the precentage of high tech workers who are having myopia? I doubt.

All this convinces me that myopia. at least my own minor myopia, is the pressure of sitting all day long, reading books, computer screen, TV and so forth. because if I would go outside and farm all the day I doubt this kind of situation was occuring. But this is all my speculation..if you have a research that proves otherwise I would like to see it.

I thought - If i could move the screen away - OR - move my focal focus point further away, by wearing reading glasses (let's say +1 for instance) then my vision would stop deteriorating. I am now replying in this thread because I really want to discuss this with professionals from the field to see whether am I right or wrong. I am now on the verge of making an important decision, whether to not buy reading glasses - and then risking more deterioration. or, buying reading glasses and then risking deterioration because I did something totally wrong to my eyes. I don't know what to do.

The experiment about the chickens makes sense. at first, the chickens only saw very far away. too far. and they developed, like you said, hyperopia. and then they suddenly saw from very close all the time - and developed myopia. But something's missing from the experiment. what if the chickens wore the +1 lenses once again after their were myopic? would their myopia improve? would it disappear? what would happen? that's the answer i'm looking for. Is there any kind of experiment such as this?

To my knowledge, the idea of myopia-prevention with plus lenses is not one that, in 2012, is well-accepted in the world of eye-medicine. That said, it certainly ought not to do you any harm to work at your computer in a pair of +1.00D, or even +2.00D, readers, if you so wish: Essilor even produces an "Anti-Fatigue" lens (though I'm not making a call, here, to whether this truly is a useful product), which hinges on decreasing accommodative strain.

Originally Posted by fgove9

Hello, I just registered to reply because this topic is close to me.
I am a high tech worker who is slowly losing his sight. I did a vision check and they recommended me no glasses because my number is so low (-0.25 to -0.5)
But I'm extremely afraid of deterioation due to 10 hours per day computer screen time. My screen is positioned about 30cm-40cm from me. I can't move it further because there's a wall blocking. And i can't sit away further because it get's inconvienant. I can't buy larger screen, either. I wish I could.

I am afraid of deterioration because my eyes focal center is positioned always 40cm away from me. I'm convinced this had something to do with my sight deteriorating slowly. because..

What kind of animal, living in the wild, have myopia?
Do dogs have myopia, do cats, monkies, birds, elephants, horses and other mammals have it? I doubt.
Do villagers living in africa in the most ancient tradition, have myopia?
Is the precentage of farmers who are having myopia, is bigger, than the precentage of high tech workers who are having myopia? I doubt.

All this convinces me that myopia. at least my own minor myopia, is the pressure of sitting all day long, reading books, computer screen, TV and so forth. because if I would go outside and farm all the day I doubt this kind of situation was occuring. But this is all my speculation..if you have a research that proves otherwise I would like to see it.

I thought - If i could move the screen away - OR - move my focal focus point further away, by wearing reading glasses (let's say +1 for instance) then my vision would stop deteriorating. I am now replying in this thread because I really want to discuss this with professionals from the field to see whether am I right or wrong. I am now on the verge of making an important decision, whether to not buy reading glasses - and then risking more deterioration. or, buying reading glasses and then risking deterioration because I did something totally wrong to my eyes. I don't know what to do.

The experiment about the chickens makes sense. at first, the chickens only saw very far away. too far. and they developed, like you said, hyperopia. and then they suddenly saw from very close all the time - and developed myopia. But something's missing from the experiment. what if the chickens wore the +1 lenses once again after their were myopic? would their myopia improve? would it disappear? what would happen? that's the answer i'm looking for. Is there any kind of experiment such as this?

Go see an eye doctor because this is giving away visual/medical advice which not might be proper for your specific circumstances and it is against the rules here. But yes near work is correlated with myopia progression. I'd say just get some over the counter +1.50 or +2.00 reading glasses, but that might not be good for your specific eyes.

Here is what myopia is all about from my point of view (pardon the length):


Everyone tend to agree that structure determines function. However, people don’t tend to realize that function can modify structure: the size of every muscle is determined by function, as is the size, direction, and structure of every tendon and bone plus the circulatory and even the nervous system. There are records of sudden emotion causing functional symptoms. For example, a person receiving very distressing news (i.e. a death) can have an acute attack of glaucoma. If it doesn’t last too long, the glaucoma goes away. However, a lasting high pressure in the eye can become irreversible and structural changes will occur in the eye.


What data do we have or what tool can we use to see that myopia can be acquired or developed? Retinoscopy. Getman performed nearpoint retinoscopy on school children while reading. When reading easy material the children showed a “with” motion. When reading slightly difficult material they scoped “netural.” When presented with very difficult reading material there was a definite “against” motion. This shows that under stress the child is accommodating more than the fixation distance requires. Kephart did a study of school children and changes in static retinoscopy for when they were in school versus summer vacation. The results were statistically significant showing a decrease in myopia when the children were not in school.


Let’s talk about the nervous system for a second. Two parts of the central nervous system are at work with accommodation and convergence: the autonomic and the voluntary. These two system usually work in sequence in the body; one will start an activity and the other takes over and finishes. However, with the visual system the two nervous systems must work simultaneously in order to maintain single, clear vision. This is highly stressful to the brain to have these two systems working simultaneously and usually, through brain scans, you find one nervous system being in dominance over the other and it often fluctuates which one is in dominance. The body creates a buffer area to absorb excessive stimulation and preserve clear and single vision.


The buffer in the accommodative and convergence patterns is called hyperopia and exophoria respectively. The “normal” eye is not emmetropic or ortho under a cover test. These are indicative of a problem in the visual system. The “normal” eye is hyperopic and exophoric because of its use as a buffer. When the visual system is under stress it absorbs the buffer zone. When there is too much stress and the buffer zone is all used up we enter emmetropia and orthophoria and then we move into esophoria and myopia. If not countered, the individual that continues under this stress will undergo physiological changes and myopia with become structured and irreversible (function modifying structure).


So what do we do about it? Prescribe a lens to minimize the stress. In this case, plus at near. Now the best way to treat myopia is to prevent it from happening in the first place which means it needs to be treated when the patient is still hyperopic or at least emmetropic at distance. Unfortunately most patients don’t come and get an exam at this point in myopia development but we can treat them in the intermediate stage when patients are first starting to enter myopia with proper lens prescription (usually a bifocal at this point, at the very first stage you can usually get away with prescribing single vision) and vision therapy or at least a lesson on proper vision techniques (emphasizing peripheral awareness). In the best of all possible situations the myopia is resolved. This doesn’t happen all the time, but at the very least the myopia is stabilized and doesn’t progress beyond a half to one diopter.


Hope this helps. If you have any more questions, I will try to answer them best I can.

Originally Posted by inflammablefish

Kephart did a study of school children and changes in static retinoscopy for when they were in school versus summer vacation. The results were statistically significant showing a decrease in myopia when the children were not in school.

I agree with this because there have been studies that correlate near work with myopia progression and per our vision scientists at my school ~15 hours of outdoor activity acts as a protective mechanism against developing myopia. But most of the other things you wrote have a pretty quacky and holistic/homeopathic tone to them with no real evidence backing them up. Maybe Visionary or somebody allopathic can back me up on this but I either did not get to this point in my education or you are just talking shpiel like I thought you were in the first place.

Originally Posted by inflammablefish

Here is what myopia is all about from my point of view (pardon the length):


Everyone tend to agree that structure determines function. However, people don’t tend to realize that function can modify structure: the size of every muscle is determined by function, as is the size, direction, and structure of every tendon and bone plus the circulatory and even the nervous system. There are records of sudden emotion causing functional symptoms. For example, a person receiving very distressing news (i.e. a death) can have an acute attack of glaucoma. If it doesn’t last too long, the glaucoma goes away. However, a lasting high pressure in the eye can become irreversible and structural changes will occur in the eye.


What data do we have or what tool can we use to see that myopia can be acquired or developed? Retinoscopy. Getman performed nearpoint retinoscopy on school children while reading. When reading easy material the children showed a “with” motion. When reading slightly difficult material they scoped “netural.” When presented with very difficult reading material there was a definite “against” motion. This shows that under stress the child is accommodating more than the fixation distance requires. Kephart did a study of school children and changes in static retinoscopy for when they were in school versus summer vacation. The results were statistically significant showing a decrease in myopia when the children were not in school.


Let’s talk about the nervous system for a second. Two parts of the central nervous system are at work with accommodation and convergence: the autonomic and the voluntary. These two system usually work in sequence in the body; one will start an activity and the other takes over and finishes. However, with the visual system the two nervous systems must work simultaneously in order to maintain single, clear vision. This is highly stressful to the brain to have these two systems working simultaneously and usually, through brain scans, you find one nervous system being in dominance over the other and it often fluctuates which one is in dominance. The body creates a buffer area to absorb excessive stimulation and preserve clear and single vision.


The buffer in the accommodative and convergence patterns is called hyperopia and exophoria respectively. The “normal” eye is not emmetropic or ortho under a cover test. These are indicative of a problem in the visual system. The “normal” eye is hyperopic and exophoric because of its use as a buffer. When the visual system is under stress it absorbs the buffer zone. When there is too much stress and the buffer zone is all used up we enter emmetropia and orthophoria and then we move into esophoria and myopia. If not countered, the individual that continues under this stress will undergo physiological changes and myopia with become structured and irreversible (function modifying structure).


So what do we do about it? Prescribe a lens to minimize the stress. In this case, plus at near. Now the best way to treat myopia is to prevent it from happening in the first place which means it needs to be treated when the patient is still hyperopic or at least emmetropic at distance. Unfortunately most patients don’t come and get an exam at this point in myopia development but we can treat them in the intermediate stage when patients are first starting to enter myopia with proper lens prescription (usually a bifocal at this point, at the very first stage you can usually get away with prescribing single vision) and vision therapy or at least a lesson on proper vision techniques (emphasizing peripheral awareness). In the best of all possible situations the myopia is resolved. This doesn’t happen all the time, but at the very least the myopia is stabilized and doesn’t progress beyond a half to one diopter.


Hope this helps. If you have any more questions, I will try to answer them best I can.

The amazing thing is that you actually seem to believe what you're saying (i.e., that you can reverse or at least halt myopia with lenses and vision therapy). I'm sure that allows you to sell it well to your patients and makes you quite a bit of money. Congratulations.

Originally Posted by Visionary

The amazing thing is that you actually seem to believe what you're saying (i.e., that you can reverse or at least halt myopia with lenses and vision therapy). I'm sure that allows you to sell it well to your patients and makes you quite a bit of money. Congratulations.

If you're going to reply, at least have something constructive to say.

I'm merely presenting an alternative viewpoint supported by clinical evidence and logic.

If you have evidence or arguments that can refute what I'm saying I'll be happy to read it and take it into consideration.

Originally Posted by inflammablefish

If you're going to reply, at least have something constructive to say.

I'm merely presenting an alternative viewpoint supported by clinical evidence and logic.

If you have evidence or arguments that can refute what I'm saying I'll be happy to read it and take it into consideration.

Your thesis seems to indicate that you believe myopia is a purely behavioral, or at least behaviorally-derived, phenomenon. While I agree that there are instances in which excessive accommodation produce a measured myopia, and while I am open to the possibility of such resulting in some anatomical changes, you cannot convince me that this underlies all myopia or that it can be reversed or halted with lenses and vision therapy. That is simply ludicrous.

I. for instance, have spent the vast majority of my life in school (14 years of training post college). That involved substantial near work. Most of my daily activities in clinic also involve near work. Am I myopic? No. I'm a mild latent hyperope ~+1.50, just like my mother. Every day, I also see patients with similar refractive errors to their parents. Hmm, perhaps there is a genetic foundation to this mysterious refractive error phenomenon.

I never claimed this was the case for all myopes and was not intending to make such a blanket statement that included every myopic case. I apologize if it came across that way. I was giving an example of a possibility when a glasses prescription can be used to help myopia. There are plenty of cases where this is not so.

I agree with your statement of there being a genetic component. I've seen the same trends and data that support that case. I'm not arguing for nurture over nature. There is always a combination of both.

Originally Posted by inflammablefish

I never claimed this was the case for all myopes and was not intending to make such a blanket statement that included every myopic case. I apologize if it came across that way. I was giving an example of a possibility when a glasses prescription can be used to help myopia. There are plenty of cases where this is not so.

I agree with your statement of there being a genetic component. I've seen the same trends and data that support that case. I'm not arguing for nurture over nature. There is always a combination of both.

Could you give us an example of someone who you believe would have their myopia halted (or reversed) by using lenses and/or vision therapy?

Originally Posted by PBEA

Could you give us an example of someone who you believe would have their myopia halted (or reversed) by using lenses and/or vision therapy?

+.50 to +.75 should be used if you see the following:

patient reports blur at distance even though acuity is 20/20
Improved near acuity through plus
Pursuit fixations smoother through plus
Near point retinoscopy shows neutral
no change in acuity at distance through plus
Lateral phoria test indicates esophoria
reading distance is more than two inches shorter than the Harmon Distance (distance from elbow to knuckle)
They show less plus on the static ret than they do on the distance subjective test

occasions when plus should not be prescribed? Yes. Here you go:

distance and near acuity reduced through plus lenses
poorer pursuits through plus
near point ret showing increase in against motion through plus

Originally Posted by inflammablefish

+.50 to +.75 should be used if you see the following:

patient reports blur at distance even though acuity is 20/20
Improved near acuity through plus
Pursuit fixations smoother through plus
Near point retinoscopy shows neutral
no change in acuity at distance through plus
Lateral phoria test indicates esophoria
reading distance is more than two inches shorter than the Harmon Distance (distance from elbow to knuckle)
They show less plus on the static ret than they do on the distance subjective test

so if someone presents in the above fashion by prescribing low plus you believe you are halting or even reversing the progression of myopia?

quack, quack

(sorry couldn't resist)

you do realize there is no good data to support such an incredulous claim.

Originally Posted by PBEA

so if someone presents in the above fashion by prescribing low plus you believe you are halting or even reversing the progression of myopia?

quack, quack

(sorry couldn't resist)

you do realize there is no good data to support such an incredulous claim.

Don't just shoot me down. Back yourself up. Where's your data? Where's your argument for the contrary? If you have a patient present in the fashion I described what would you do? I have not once told any of you that you were wrong. In fact I've actually said I've agreed with you in some instances.

You asked for my opinion and I gave it. The least you can say is thank you for participating and giving an alternative point of view. I'm here for a good, professional debate on myopia and the use of plus lenses. You are entitled to your opinion and if you have something constructive to contribute go ahead, if not, stay out of the conversation.

Also, I'm discussion myopia that is developing in elementary to early middle school age children. Not anything congenital or adult onset.

I go to SUNY and we have a whole clinic area devoted to vision therapy and I can tell you that what you are saying that it can affect your refractive error is complete BS. Vision therapy is more for disorders like convergence insufficiency. Your data will come if you get into optometry school and learn the truth.

I don't know where you learned all this quackery from but you better get with the program or you will not succeed in any professional modern day healthcare setting unless you have some kid of amazing personality and can convince morons to come see you and give you money. Kind of like many chiropractors. Please don't embarrass optometry if you get in. There were enough quack ODs like you that are retiring now (thankfully).

If you are talking about pediatric myopia progression then like those experiments with the chickens. If you want the kids to wear (+) lenses all the time for years ever since birth then yes maybe their axial length will adjust slowly and they will not be as myopic as they would be. But I doubt any human studies have been done on this. Myopia is partly genetic and partly epigenetic (environmental) just like most other conditions. The highest risk factor for developing myopia is having two myopic parents.

Originally Posted by inflammablefish

Don't just shoot me down. Back yourself up. Where's your data? Where's your argument for the contrary? If you have a patient present in the fashion I described what would you do? I have not once told any of you that you were wrong. In fact I've actually said I've agreed with you in some instances.

You asked for my opinion and I gave it. The least you can say is thank you for participating and giving an alternative point of view. I'm here for a good, professional debate on myopia and the use of plus lenses. You are entitled to your opinion and if you have something constructive to contribute go ahead, if not, stay out of the conversation.

Also, I'm discussion myopia that is developing in elementary to early middle school age children. Not anything congenital or adult onset.

sorry pal, but its your incredulous claim and so the burden is clearly on you to prove it.

As for pts that present in that fashion, no I do not prescribe low plus lenses to pts under the guise of "myopia prevention". That's just silly. I also find it more then a little deceving to suggest to a parent that you can prevent their childs myopia by simply wearing low powered reading glasses. I mean if that were actually true I would have thought that you would have won the Nobel peace prize by now. I mean halting or reversing myopia is..........kind of a big deal. Many smart folks taking a long look at it, but dont let any of that stop you

Originally Posted by Shnurek

If you are talking about pediatric myopia progression then like those experiments with the chickens. If you want the kids to wear (+) lenses all the time for years ever since birth then yes maybe their axial length will adjust slowly and they will not be as myopic as they would be. But I doubt any human studies have been done on this. Myopia is partly genetic and partly epigenetic (environmental) just like most other conditions. The highest risk factor for developing myopia is having two myopic parents.

If someone is genetically predisposed to develop myopia there is no way to stop it. I'm not claiming I can do that. You might be able to slow it down a little bit, but genetics tend to win out on a lot of things.

Also, I know of the clinic at SUNY and I know the doctors who work there, we've actually talked a few times. They've even referred a few patients to my office before for vision therapy for other disorders. Treating myopia is like less than 1% of what my office does. We focus on other things like strabismus and amblyopia. You should ask your docs that work in that clinic what they think of the names I mentioned a few posts up and let me know what they say, I'd be interested to hear it.

There is a reason VT is not covered by insurance. Too many quacks in it that can't get their acts together. I'll admit there are a few people here and there that might benefit from VT first and then they should do strabismus surgery if VT fails but only around 3% of optometrists do VT. I'll ask around if VT has any place in myopia prevention although I still probably won't believe it because otherwise these docs would win a Nobel prize if they could halt myopia progression en masse.

Originally Posted by inflammablefish

+.50 to +.75 should be used if you see the following:

patient reports blur at distance even though acuity is 20/20
Improved near acuity through plus
Pursuit fixations smoother through plus
Near point retinoscopy shows neutral
no change in acuity at distance through plus
Lateral phoria test indicates esophoria
reading distance is more than two inches shorter than the Harmon Distance (distance from elbow to knuckle)
They show less plus on the static ret than they do on the distance subjective test

occasions when plus should not be prescribed? Yes. Here you go:

distance and near acuity reduced through plus lenses
poorer pursuits through plus
near point ret showing increase in against motion through plus

It sounds like the majority of what you are describing as myopia that can be halted, slowed, or reversed by plus lenses is due mostly to over accommodation and accommodative spasms. Adding low plus could help, over time, to alleviate the extra work the patient is doing, but is it really reducing the myopia or rather just helping them relax their accommodation?

Originally Posted by PBEA

so if someone presents in the above fashion by prescribing low plus you believe you are halting or even reversing the progression of myopia?

quack, quack

(sorry couldn't resist)

you do realize there is no good data to support such an incredulous claim.

If myopia is induced, in some percentage of the population, by long term near work, and if that is proven by research, then...

looking at far distances and stopping the near work, can halt myopia progression. (obviously, if there is such a research noted above, then if a person was not doing the near work from the first place he would be less myopic) and..

plus lens makes you focus at the far distance while actually doing the near work. (According to my understandings)

it's that simple! it's extremely logical theory. why wouldn't it work?
if there is a large scale research already attempted this, then please show me.

another way of putting this is replacing strings :
if there is a research proving some percentage of the population becomes myopic because of near work, then that percentage can X entirely in order to halt myopia.
now, you can replace X with one of the below because they're all equal :
X = "stop near work" = "use plus lenses" = "focus far" = "move the screen away" = "be outside"

http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/static/study9.asp

COMET study

Originally Posted by fgove9

If myopia is induced, in some percentage of the population, by long term near work, and if that is proven by research, then...

looking at far distances and stopping the near work, can halt myopia progression. (obviously, if there is such a research noted above, then if a person was not doing the near work from the first place he would be less myopic) and..

plus lens makes you focus at the far distance while actually doing the near work. (According to my understandings)

it's that simple! it's extremely logical theory. why wouldn't it work?
if there is a large scale research already attempted this, then please show me.

another way of putting this is replacing strings :
if there is a research proving some percentage of the population becomes myopic because of near work, then that percentage can X entirely in order to halt myopia.
now, you can replace X with one of the below because they're all equal :
X = "stop near work" = "use plus lenses" = "focus far" = "move the screen away" = "be outside"

while it may sound "logical" to you, that premise has already been shown to be false.