Can reading glasses really help Myopia?

[Cometstar]

I've been wearing reading glasses on top of my normal glasses and I feel like my vision has become more stable and is not getting worse as quick as it used to. Maybe wearing reading glasses slows down the progression of myopia.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I've been wearing reading glasses on top of my normal glasses and I feel like my vision has become more stable and is not getting worse as quick as it used to. Maybe wearing reading glasses slows down the progression of myopia.

Or maybe myopic progression slows as you get older?

 

[PBEA]

Or maybe myopic progression slows as you get older?

yes, myopic progression is mostly limited to the younger developmental years, with a tendency to plateau somewhere in the early mid 20's.

 

[lampuiho]

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

Did you read the study linked by Member 453693?

Just remember there are two types of mypoia. One is caused by the inability of ciliary muscle to relax and the other is caused by increase in the eye's axial length or changes to the refractive index of the lens/cornea.

When you're still a child, your muscle has greater flexibility. That includes the ciliary muscle. But most of the myopia is accounted for the size of the eyeball.

And when you become a adult, your flexibility can only deteriorate. If you don't use it, you lose it. Just like people who could do splits stop being able to when they get older for not training.

But unlike they eyes, you can apply external pressure to stretch the legs while you cannot exert any power on your ciliary muscle when you want to see further because it's "relaxing". There is simply no way to stretch the ciliary muscle. Thus, there is no way you can reverse myopia. But you can certainly halt its progress by seeing things very far apart from you to keep it relaxed at it's maximum length.

To see things close to you, you just need to be able to contract the muscle which can be done on its own. You may lose the strength to do it if you don't see things close to you for a while but you can gain it back easily.

Just another simple logic to explain why reading glasses can help mypoia (or more precisely, stopping its progression).

 

[PBEA]

Did you read the study linked by Member 453693?

Just remember there are two types of mypoia. One is caused by the inability of ciliary muscle to relax and the other is caused by increase in the eye's axial length or changes to the refractive index of the lens/cornea.

When you're still a child, your muscle has greater flexibility. That includes the ciliary muscle. But most of the myopia is accounted for the size of the eyeball.

And when you become a adult, your flexibility can only deteriorate. If you don't use it, you lose it. Just like people who could do splits stop being able to when they get older for not training.

But unlike they eyes, you can apply external pressure to stretch the legs while you cannot exert any power on your ciliary muscle when you want to see further because it's "relaxing". There is simply no way to stretch the ciliary muscle. Thus, there is no way you can reverse myopia. But you can certainly halt its progress by seeing things very far apart from you to keep it relaxed at it's maximum length.

To see things close to you, you just need to be able to contract the muscle which can be done on its own. You may lose the strength to do it if you don't see things close to you for a while but you can gain it back easily.

Just another simple logic to explain why reading glasses can help mypoia (or more precisely, stopping its progression).

not sure how I missed your post but...

you describe psuedomyopia vs myopia.

psuedomyopia is one that can respond to "relaxing the eyes" or taking breaks from near work. But psuedomyopia is not permanent and is not equivalent to myopic progression. Therefore reducing psuedomyopia is not "stopping myopic progression". Apples and oranges. Psuedomyopia is essentially accomodative spasm, while myopia (the kind most people have) has no accomodative component, and is driven primarily by axial length. Example if you cycloplege a psuedomyope you should see a large change in the measured wet refraction whereas the myope will experience no such change.

 

[PBEA]

Did you read the study linked by Member 453693?

Just remember there are two types of mypoia. One is caused by the inability of ciliary muscle to relax and the other is caused by increase in the eye's axial length or changes to the refractive index of the lens/cornea.

When you're still a child, your muscle has greater flexibility. That includes the ciliary muscle. But most of the myopia is accounted for the size of the eyeball.

And when you become a adult, your flexibility can only deteriorate. If you don't use it, you lose it. Just like people who could do splits stop being able to when they get older for not training.

But unlike they eyes, you can apply external pressure to stretch the legs while you cannot exert any power on your ciliary muscle when you want to see further because it's "relaxing". There is simply no way to stretch the ciliary muscle. Thus, there is no way you can reverse myopia. But you can certainly halt its progress by seeing things very far apart from you to keep it relaxed at it's maximum length.

To see things close to you, you just need to be able to contract the muscle which can be done on its own. You may lose the strength to do it if you don't see things close to you for a while but you can gain it back easily.

Just another simple logic to explain why reading glasses can help mypoia (or more precisely, stopping its progression).

not sure how I missed your post but...

you describe pseudomyopia vs myopia.

pseudomyopia is one that can respond to "relaxing the eyes" or taking breaks from near work. But pseudomyopia is not permanent and is not equivalent to myopic progression. Therefore reducing pseudomyopia is not "stopping myopic progression". Apples and oranges. Pseudomyopia is essentially accomodative spasm, while myopia (the kind most people have) has no accomodative component, and is driven primarily by axial length. Example if you cycloplege a pseudomyope you should see a large change in the measured wet refraction whereas the myope will experience no such change.

 

[Cometstar]

Or maybe myopic progression slows as you get older?

My eyesight got worse after just one semester with a lot of reading. I was not using reading glasses then. After I started wearing reading glasses, I could read a lot more and my eyesight did not seem to worsen as fast. I don't think this is totally due to age because it was around the same period, just a couple years later.

If you wear your glasses to do a lot of near work, it does seem to make your eyesight worse from my experience. Wearing a lower prescription or reading glasses for near work should help. I'm not sure if it can reverse myopia that has already occurred.

 

[PBEA]

My eyesight got worse after just one semester with a lot of reading. I was not using reading glasses then. After I started wearing reading glasses, I could read a lot more and my eyesight did not seem to worsen as fast. I don't think this is totally due to age because it was around the same period, just a couple years later.

If you wear your glasses to do a lot of near work, it does seem to make your eyesight worse from my experience. Wearing a lower prescription or reading glasses for near work should help. I'm not sure if it can reverse myopia that has already occurred.

says the pharmacy student about his or her anecdote

perhaps we need a bit more evidence then that, don't you think?

You should realize the concept you describe is far from novel and some very smart people (who actually know a thing or two about eyes) have already taken a look at that very thing.

As a layperson, you may find some fun in trying an intuitive solution to some of these eye problems, but as an otherwise learned individual you should realize that you may as well be walking on Mars when you make any claims about what is, and is not, true regarding the eye.

 

[KHE]

My eyesight got worse after just one semester with a lot of reading. I was not using reading glasses then. After I started wearing reading glasses, I could read a lot more and my eyesight did not seem to worsen as fast. I don't think this is totally due to age because it was around the same period, just a couple years later.

If you wear your glasses to do a lot of near work, it does seem to make your eyesight worse from my experience. Wearing a lower prescription or reading glasses for near work should help. I'm not sure if it can reverse myopia that has already occurred.

You are describing pseudomyopia. This has already been discussed.

 

[Michael M.]

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?

Hi

I too have registered to reply to your post since it caught my eye (no pun intended). I have done some extensive research on this topic and have found several conflicting views. I'll

just talk about some of the points you made in your post.

>> In your post you wrote:

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..

>>> This view of myopia is known as the "near work" hypothesis of myopia. There are several other theories including "too little sunlight" and "too much sugar in the diet". I will not

touch upon the "sugar" theory, if you want you can read about it in "The Ultimate Unification of Diet Health and Disease" by Walter Wood, but I will elaborate a bit about the "sunlight" theory of myopia.

Notice that too much near work and too little time outdoors are two activities that go hand in hand. In other words, when you do one (such as playing video games), your usually doing the other (i.e, playing video games indoors). Therefore, it is difficult to determine which of these two activities is, in fact, responsible for the development of myopia based solely on observations (or speculation, in your case) about people who spend too much time watching TV, reading books or playing video games because it shares common causation factors with the lack of sunlight hypothesis.

According to Walter Wood, the true cause of myopia is a lack of sunshine, not too much close work. He writes, that when researchers control for these two variables in trials, they consistantly find that "near work" is not associated with myopia (and may even have an inverse correlation) while a lack of sunshine always is (there are multiple studies on this).

Thanks

 

[PBEA]

so presumably there are no myopic sunbathers?

snicker

BTW for any interested, myopia does occur in other animals

 

[Michael M.]

so presumably there are no myopic sunbathers?

snicker

BTW for any interested, myopia does occur in other animals

Your observation is an interesting one. I do not have the book in front of me, however, if I recall correctly he does mention numerous studies that compare children who spent more time in the sun vs children who spent more time indoors (but not necessarily indoors and watching video games, which is a key observation) where the children who spent more time in the sun, suffered from far less myopia than the children who spent more time indoors. Moreover, the amount of myopia they suffered from seemed to be directly proportional to the amount of time they spent out of the sun and indoors.

However, I would like to point out that key to this observation is that the study compares different groups of "children". When you say that "so presumably there are no myopic sunbathers?" while the observation might be correct, this would only apply to children who sunbathe, not adults, as myopia is clearly a condition which develops during the childhood / teenage years.

Also, according to Mr. Wood there is another factor which contributes to myopia in childhood, namely a diet dominated by lots of sugar and sweets. Lots of sun exposure merely serves as a way to inhibit/halt or reverse the bad effects of diet.

 

[PBEA]

Your observation is an interesting one. I do not have the book in front of me, however, if I recall correctly he does mention numerous studies that compare children who spent more time in the sun vs children who spent more time indoors (but not necessarily indoors and watching video games, which is a key observation) where the children who spent more time in the sun, suffered from far less myopia than the children who spent more time indoors. Moreover, the amount of myopia they suffered from seemed to be directly proportional to the amount of time they spent out of the sun and indoors.

However, I would like to point out that key to this observation is that the study compares different groups of "children". When you say that "so presumably there are no myopic sunbathers?" while the observation might be correct, this would only apply to children who sunbathe, not adults, as myopia is clearly a condition which develops during the childhood / teenage years.

Also, according to Mr. Wood there is another factor which contributes to myopia in childhood, namely a diet dominated by lots of sugar and sweets. Lots of sun exposure merely serves as a way to inhibit/halt or reverse the bad effects of diet.

If that guy is hanging his hat on those ideas then respectfully that guy doesn't know squat, he's merely regurgitating small, weak studies that don't prove much of anything. There are several other theories regarding myopic development, but none have very much traction because it would appear that myopia, is not surprisingly, multifactorial.

 

[Michael M.]

If that guy is hanging his hat on those ideas then respectfully that guy doesn't know squat, he's merely regurgitating small, weak studies that don't prove much of anything. There are several other theories regarding myopic development, but none have very much traction because it would appear that myopia, is not surprisingly, multifactorial.

Perhaps the underlying biological mechanisms that lead to myopia are multifactorial. However, it's hard to dispute the simple observation that certain (specific) environmental / dietary triggers lead to the onset of myopia.

If your still skeptical you could download the Kindle version of the book on Amazon - I believe it is free for a limited time (free as of me writing this on 5/22/2014).

While you are entitled to form your own notion on the matter, you cannot possibly say the "studies are weak", unless you've actually read them.

 

[PBEA]

I have read any study that matters when it comes to myopic development, the studies are weak, and it is easy to dispute them. If you want to know why, post the pubmed links to each study you are interested in and I will be happy to tell you why each one is lacking. That being true you should stop trying to think of things as so black and white, less declaratory. Instead of saying "..........that certain (specific) environmental / dietary triggers lead to the onset of myopia", what you should be saying (and thinking) is "........that certain (specific) environmental / dietary triggers MAY CONTRIBUTE to the onset of myopia". May contribute, because that's as good as it gets.

 

[Michael M.]

I have read any study that matters when it comes to myopic development, the studies are weak, and it is easy to dispute them. If you want to know why, post the pubmed links to each study you are interested in and I will be happy to tell you why each one is lacking. That being true you should stop trying to think of things as so black and white, less declaratory. Instead of saying "..........that certain (specific) environmental / dietary triggers lead to the onset of myopia", what you should be saying (and thinking) is "........that certain (specific) environmental / dietary triggers MAY CONTRIBUTE to the onset of myopia". May contribute, because that's as good as it gets.

"May contribute" is a very ambiguous statement. If something prevents myopia from developing 5% of the time then this "something" will by definition "contribute" to the onset of myopia, although in a very insignificant manner. If, however, 70-90%+ of all myopia can be prevented by removing (or adding) two or so simple dietary/environmental triggers then these "stuff" also "contribute" to myopic development, but in a rather significant fashion.

Essentially, the argument I'm making here is of the latter type, not the former.

 

[PBEA]

"May contribute" is a very ambiguous statement. If something prevents myopia from developing 5% of the time then this "something" will still "contribute" to the development of myopia, although in a very insignificant manner. If, however, 70-90%+ of all myopia can be prevented by removing (or adding) two or so simple triggers then these things also "contribute" to myopic development, but this time, in a very big and significant fashion.

Essentially, the argument I'm making here is of the latter type, not the former.

70-90%!!! wow, that's amazing. Worthy of the nobel peace prize......

If you believe that, I wonder if you might be interested in a bridge that I have for sale.

 

[PBEA]

70-90%!!! wow, that's amazing. Worthy of the nobel peace prize......of course there's all that silly stuff like proof but I'm sure they will just read the book you referenced and that will be evidence enough

If you believe that, I wonder if you might be interested in a bridge that I have for sale.

 

[Alex S.]

yes it is a bogus claim

No it is not a bogus claim. Your claim is bogus.

Sorry but I came across this post through Google and it struck me how little you know on the subject, yet you are making one assertion after the next in this post with no data, no facts - nothing to back anything you say.

Let's take a look at each claim you make to see how little you know:

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.

No good data? What " good data" do you know about? Show us what you know instead of calling people names.

Or to quote another members post:

Don't just shoot me down. Back yourself up. Where's your data? Where's your argument for the contrary?

The overall tone of your posts sounds very much opinion based. No facts. No data. Probably why your posts look the way they do.

OK, now here are some facts for you to look at:

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22323488

The study showed that when using + 4.0 D lenses over a period of 12 days for only 1 hour per day myopic progression increased by only 0.7 D instead of 3.6 D (animal study). That's 2.9 D difference through positive lenses during a period of 12 days.

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20592235

In this study researchers imposed optical defocus on a group of 28 adults (humans) with +3 D, - 3 D lenses and control group (see study for exact details).

The results I quote:

"Significant changes in optical axial length occurred in human subjects after 60 minutes of monocular defocus.."

3. http://www.iovs.org/content/44/7/2818.full

In this study chicks wore +6 and +1o lenses for varying amounts of time. Here are the results (I quote):

"RESULTS. Wearing positive lenses for as little as 12 min/d (six periods of 2 minutes) with unrestricted vision the remainder of the time caused eyes to become hyperopic and reduced the rate of ocular elongation. These effects also occurred when the scene viewed was beyond the far point of the lens-wearing eye and thus was myopically blurred. Even when chicks wore negative lenses for the entire day except for 8 minutes of wearing positive lenses, the eyes compensated for the positive lenses, as though the negative lenses had not been worn."

4. http://www.journalofvision.org/content/8/3/1.full

Clearly shows that constant +4 D lens wear produced +6.9 hyperopia - again reinforcing the notion that positive lenses can alter the growth of the eye in hyperopia direction.

5. Negative lenses always increase myopia (dozens of studies confirm this) which suggest that positive lenses should do the opposite as the studies 1-4 indeed demonstrate.

You should realize the concept you describe is far from novel and some very smart people (who actually know a thing or two about eyes) have already taken a look at that very thing.

As a layperson, you may find some fun in trying an intuitive solution to some of these eye problems, but as an otherwise learned individual you should realize that you may as well be walking on Mars when you make any claims about what is, and is not, true regarding the eye.

Don't tell us what "other" smart people know (or what you think they know).

Tell us what you know (apparently nothing)

If that guy is hanging his hat on those ideas then respectfully that guy doesn't know squat, he's merely regurgitating small, weak studies that don't prove much of anything. There are several other theories regarding myopic development, but none have very much traction because it would appear that myopia, is not surprisingly, multifactorial.

Again, pure talk. No proof. No data.

"None have very much traction" - again, your opinion not a fact.

70-90%!!! wow, that's amazing. Worthy of the nobel peace prize......

If you believe that, I wonder if you might be interested in a bridge that I have for sale.

More talk..

When your done with the studies I referenced above, let me know I have more for you.

Good luck

 

[PBEA]

none of those studies proves anything (btw, 2 of the 4 listed are the same study), at best they are level 2 evidence (although due to their absurdly small size and short duration IMO they really are level 3) What that means is that it serves as possible fodder for future studies that might actually have some weight in the real world, that's it sorry. Meanwhile there are several larger actual human studies that have already looked at peripheral defocus, near adds, medications (pirenzipine), lifestyle, contact lens, etc,etc,etc. COMET and CAMPP comes to mind. Lots of possibilities, little fruit. More still being looked at. Personally from a purely basic science standpoint I like the various pirezipine and atropine data the most, although my emotions really want to gravitate towards some of the lifestyle aspects, environment, etc. None of which has really shown any large benefit, IMO, and certainly none of which serves as enough evidence to change clinical practice.

BTW we all want to solve the riddle of myopia, its a major risk factor in a pretty long list of bad problems that can occur in the eye. Lots of really smart, well educated, highly experienced people from around the world working on this problem. There are literally whole populations that suffer from these problems far more frequently then in the US. Perhaps with enough education and passion you might find yourself in a position to meaningfully contribute. In the meantime............slow down, take a breath, gain some humility.........remember we stand on the shoulders of those who have come before us.

 

[Alex S.]

none of those studies proves anything (btw, 2 of the 4 listed are the same study)

Which two are the same studies, please be more specific.. I see 4 different studies

Meanwhile there are several larger actual human studies that have already looked at peripheral defocus, near adds, medications (pirenzipine), lifestyle, contact lens, etc,etc,etc.

Kindly provide links to the "several" "human" studies (2-3 links is just fine).

I'm not sure why you have a whole list of studies that look at "medications", "lifestyle", "contact lens" etc etc - which have clearly nothing to do with the original question (did you read the question at least?)

In case you didn't read the question, the question was specifically regarding plus lens therapy - not "medications" etc etc etc.

Do you have any human studies that looked at plus lens therapy with conflicting results?

BTW we all want to solve the riddle of myopia, its a major risk factor in a pretty long list of bad problems that can occur in the eye. Lots of really smart, well educated, highly experienced people from around the world working on this problem. There are literally whole populations that suffer from these problems far more frequently then in the US. Perhaps with enough education and passion you might find yourself in a position to meaningfully contribute

Definitely true statement. Anyone can contribute with enough knowledge and passion. But all other assertions you made in the post are false.

Whether we stand on the shoulders of the people who came before us (which is true), once again has nothing to do with the core question - and again this statement just serves to shield your ignorance of the subject. What it says to me is "trust person X" who knows more than you do. Don't use your own mind to think things through. Sorry, but this isn't just wrong - it's harmful thinking.

Now to go back to your original post where you say the claim is "bogus":

For the record, the word "bogus" means "not real or genuine" | "fake or false" (Google it).

If you tell someone the claim is bogus (as you did in the original post) it means it is false. If the studies where not large enough to serve as "conclusive" evidence, this doesn't make a claim into a "bogus" claim. If anything, the studies suggest it is a true claim, however we cannot say definitely it will work until we do more research.

Big Difference!

BTW, still waiting for the research you claim shows to the contrary..

I wish you the best!

 

[PBEA]

This is a pointless discussion, it's obvious you are a lay person who doesn't know the first thing about myopia or what research has already been done, what is currently being done, and what is planned for the future. The small animal studies that you posted notwithstanding . Try and relax, enjoy your schooling, you have a long way to go.

 

[310]

I'm with PBEA on this one. I think reading glasses for myopes are a waste of time unless it's for a binocular or accommodative problem. I do know that the studies, which I won't cite, show that full correction for myopia slows it more than undercorrection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alex S.]

This is a pointless discussion, it's obvious you are a lay person who doesn't know the first thing about myopia or what research has already been done, what is currently being done, and what is planned for the future. The small animal studies that you posted notwithstanding . Try and relax, enjoy your schooling, you have a long way to go.

Any reason you didn't post the 2-3 studies you claimed proves that positive lens therapy doesn't work? Suddenly the discussion turned into a pointless discussion?

The truth is - your right the discussion is pointless. Apparently you do not know the first thing about myopia and my point isn't to convince you of my opinion.

My point is for other people to realize that they should not trust anything you say as evidently you do not know what your talking about when it comes to myopia.

 

[PBEA]

yep you nailed it, I've been in practice for 15yrs and I don't know anything about myopia.

You on the other hand appear to have figured it all out just by searching medline

That's brilliant, why didn't I think of that, congratulations

 

[Alex S.]

yep you nailed it, I've been in practice for 15yrs and I don't know anything about myopia.

You on the other hand appear to have figured it all out just by searching medline

15 years of medical practice gives you zero knowledge on issues of positive lens therapy. So you could have spent 100 years in practice and you'd still know nothing about the core issue of this thread.

I find it odd I need to repeat myself but I'm still waiting for the 2-3 "human" studies you cited. You read what you want to read and come to the conclusions you want to see.

FYI, I've read more studies about myopia in the past few years than you've read your entire 15 yr career which is evident from your posts.
But again my purpose is not to convince you of anything (apparently you learnt everything during your 15 years of practice) just to give a heads up to other readers.

 

[PBEA]

You mean you don't already know what human studies have been done on this topic?......gosh, that's weird....... you better type that into google and get to work (here's a hint, try the National Eye Institute, which is one of the many centers of the National Institute of Health which in turn is an agency of the US Dept of Health and Human Services). Regardless, I'm sure the other readers are thankful that you shared your expertise with all of us. I know I've had my fill, so I'll be moving on from this thread.

 

[Alex S.]

You mean you don't already know what human studies have been done on this topic?......gosh, that's weird....... you better type that into google and get to work (here's a hint, try the National Eye Institute, which is one of the many centers of the National Institute of Health which in turn is an agency of the US Dept of Health and Human Services). Regardless, I'm sure the other readers are thankful that you shared your expertise with all of us. I know I've had my fill, so I'll be moving on from this thread.

You can twist my words if you want to. I never implied that I don't know the human studies that have been done. These are your words. What I said was there are no human studies that contradict the findings I cited in my previous post. Like I pointed out in my earlier posts, you see the things you want to see.

And I'm sure the readers would be grateful to you as well if you would have actually shared something useful instead of constantly beating around the bush. Asserting something is "a bogus claim" without any proof has no value.

Anyhow please move on. As I said earlier, the post was not for you (again, you learnt everything in your 15 years of medical practice). It is so others don't blindly trust your opinion.

 

[Commando303]

OK, now here are some facts for you to look at:

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22323488

The study showed that when using + 4.0 D lenses over a period of 12 days for only 1 hour per day myopic progression increased by only 0.7 D instead of 3.6 D (animal study). That's 2.9 D difference through positive lenses during a period of 12 days.

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20592235

In this study researchers imposed optical defocus on a group of 28 adults (humans) with +3 D, - 3 D lenses and control group (see study for exact details).

The results I quote:

"Significant changes in optical axial length occurred in human subjects after 60 minutes of monocular defocus.."

3. http://www.iovs.org/content/44/7/2818.full

In this study chicks wore +6 and +1o lenses for varying amounts of time. Here are the results (I quote):

"RESULTS. Wearing positive lenses for as little as 12 min/d (six periods of 2 minutes) with unrestricted vision the remainder of the time caused eyes to become hyperopic and reduced the rate of ocular elongation. These effects also occurred when the scene viewed was beyond the far point of the lens-wearing eye and thus was myopically blurred. Even when chicks wore negative lenses for the entire day except for 8 minutes of wearing positive lenses, the eyes compensated for the positive lenses, as though the negative lenses had not been worn."

4. http://www.journalofvision.org/content/8/3/1.full

Clearly shows that constant +4 D lens wear produced +6.9 hyperopia - again reinforcing the notion that positive lenses can alter the growth of the eye in hyperopia direction.


When your done with the studies I referenced above, let me know I have more for you.

Good luck

I'd like to address some of the information you have cited, because it does not support the use of plus lenses in human beings to prevent, delay, or reverse myopia:

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22323488
This study was conducted in the treeshrew, an animal related to the rodent order. There's nothing wrong with animal studies, as they may lay the groundwork for further research, but they should not be taken to influence clinical practice in human beings.

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20592235
This study, conducted in human beings, found that optical defocus effected axial-length changes of several microns, which is clinically insignificant. (The article cites statistical significance, which should not be confused with clinical.)

3. http://www.iovs.org/content/44/7/2818.full
This study was conducted on chicks. As noted above, animal studies can develop groundwork for further research, but should not guide patterns of clinical practice.

4. http://www.journalofvision.org/content/8/3/1.full
Once more, this study was conducted on the treeshrew. As above, one should be wary to apply such findings to human beings.

 

[AusOptomStudent]

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

Sent from my Droid Incredible on SDN Mobile

In reversibly reshaping the cornea OrthoK creates a mid peripheral corneal curve that induces peripheral blur on the myopic retina. Peripheral blur has been shown to successfully control /slow myopic progression. So for as long as a patient with progressive myopia uses OrthoK, they should successfully slow/ ****** the progression of pathological retinal changes. This most likely will cease with cessation of OrthoK as the peripheral blur will no longer be induced by reversible corneal reshaping.

 

[MaxKlug]

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

Yes, it corrected my vision. I don't know why the medical profession claims nearsightedness can't be corrected , it most certainly can.

 

[MaxKlug]

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

NO, it has worked for me. Could you please cite your "proof" that it is false?

 

[MaxKlug]

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.

Ther is no genetic predisposition to develop myopia.,

 

[MaxKlug]

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"

It does work, it worked for me. Vision doctors just repeat what they have learned in textbooks and it is all a big scam to make money. It costs very little to buy reading glasses. One thing though, if the glasses are too strong or your current vision is worse than 20-40 then they won't work because at some point your nervous system decides that something is actually blurry and it will not try to focus. You need a lens that creates a slight blur that will make your eye focus at that level of correction. If your nearsighted prescription is very strong then you need to get a lower prescription with which you can still manage to focus something that is blurry. You then need to work your way down. If your sight is in the 20-40 range then a 1.25 or a 1.5 strength in reading glasses will work for you. You may also use the positive , reading glass lenses over your contacts for nearsightedness and work that way.

 

[OpticalBlackOut]

It does work, it worked for me. Vision doctors just repeat what they have learned in textbooks and it is all a big scam to make money. It costs very little to buy reading glasses. One thing though, if the glasses are too strong or your current vision is worse than 20-40 then they won't work because at some point your nervous system decides that something is actually blurry and it will not try to focus. You need a lens that creates a slight blur that will make your eye focus at that level of correction. If your nearsighted prescription is very strong then you need to get a lower prescription with which you can still manage to focus something that is blurry. You then need to work your way down. If your sight is in the 20-40 range then a 1.25 or a 1.5 strength in reading glasses will work for you. You may also use the positive , reading glass lenses over your contacts for nearsightedness and work that way.

Disclaimer: I'm only responding to the outrageous claims from the troll, there's been research correlating peripheral blur with delaying progression of myopia, so I'm not debating that topic.

"Ther is no genetic predisposition to develop myopia.,"

Wow, Dr. Kemp, didn't realize you were a real person. (See: http://www.quantumvisionsystem.com/Video/)
How's your scam working out? How's Bernie Madoff doing?

I didn't realize anecdotal evidence is now scientific truth. Let's all make up numbers and cite it as gospel.
I can do it too: Dennis Kimetto holds the record for running the fastest marathon at 2:02:57, therefore everyone should also be able to do this!

How can you possibly think genetics play no role in myopia?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25823570
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25741866
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25233373

Last article (wait, science is based on research and proof?) is a meta-analysis of numerous studies with 45000+ participants in the Kiefer, et. al study alone.

I read on the internet taking a shower for longer than 10 minutes will give you cancer. Must be true

 

[losojos2020]

You mean you don't already know what human studies have been done on this topic?......gosh, that's weird....... you better type that into google and get to work (here's a hint, try the National Eye Institute, which is one of the many centers of the National Institute of Health which in turn is an agency of the US Dept of Health and Human Services). Regardless, I'm sure the other readers are thankful that you shared your expertise with all of us. I know I've had my fill, so I'll be moving on from this thread.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/opo.12130/