Are you tired of wearing glasses and disappointed that your prescription continues to get stronger every year? It doesn’t have to be that way. I was wearing progressively stronger lenses for my nearsightedness until ten years ago I accidentally stumbled upon a method that allowed me to acheive 20/20 vision and throw away my glasses within a year. For the past decade I have not worn glasses or contacts, but I am able to drive, read, and see everything clearly and sharply. The secret was learning how to actually change my eyes so that they could focus clearly on any objects — near or far, without wearing glasses. The method I used is one of the best examples of the self-strengthening technique called Hormetism, the focus of my blog, which I’ve applied to improve my strength and resilience in many other areas. This is not an infomercial: The method requires several weeks or months of diligent effort, with periodic followup, and results may vary. But for this relatively small investment of time and effort, you may consider the possibility of lasting freedom from prescription lenses to be worth investigating. It worked for me and numerous others who have tried this approach.
The problem with glasses and contacts are that they are crutches. Just like using leg crutches to help you walk when you are recovering from a broken or injured leg, glasses give you the instant gratification of being able to suddenly see clearly with eyes that have lost the ability to focus well on their own. Glasses are a quick fix indeed! However, they don’t address the root cause that allowed your eyes to get out of shape in the first place: deformation of the actual shape of the eye. Myopia (nearsightedness) is caused by elongation of the eye; hyperopia (farsightedness) by the eye becoming shorter in length. And just as one’s leg would never fully recover, but would actually become weaker, if you continued to use crutches indefinitely, the use of corrective lenses allows your eye to become progressively weaker — either more myopic or hyperopic, as the case may be. The use of laser surgery may seem to be the best of all fixes, by permanently resculpting the cornea. But the risks and complications can be significant, and continued bad vision habits can result in the need for repeat surgery.
The approach that worked for me — and which I advocate here — is the frequent and strategic use of anti-corrective lenses for several weeks or months, combined with special techniques involving simple eye exercises that will reshape the eye to achieve and maintain visual acuity. Unlike other eye exercise techniques, such as the Bates Method, the use of anti-corrective lenses has solid experimental support from human and animal studies. By contrast, the Bates Method is based on an unproven idea that refractive errors are caused by “eye strain” and can be relieved by relaxation exercises.
The Bates Method. William Bates believed that the eye changed shaped when attempting to focus, thereby inducing muscular tension. Bates developed a number of techniques, such as “palming” and movement exercises, to help relax the eye, and “visualization” to enhance memory of colors and shapes. But according to Wikipedia:
“Despite continued anecdotal reports of successful results, Bates’ techniques have not been shown to objectively improve eyesight, and his main physiological proposition – that the eyeball changes shape to maintain focus – has consistently been contradicted by observation. In 1952, optometry professor Elwin Marg wrote of Bates, ‘Most of his claims and almost all of his theories have been considered false by practically all visual scientists.’ Marg concluded that the Bates method owed its popularity largely to ‘flashes of clear vision’ experienced by many who followed it. Such occurrences have since been determined to most likely be a contact lens-like effect of moisture on the eye.”
By contrast with the Bates Method, the method of hormetism uses controlled application of stress to induce an adapative growth response — a physical remodelling — of the shape of the eye. Support for this approach comes from extensive animal and human studies showing that the eye actually remodels neuroplastically in response to repeated focusing stimulus. These experimental results have been synthesized into a theory known as the incremental retinal-defocus theory of myopia development (IRDT theory). According to the IRDT theory, extensive close-up focusing of the eyes (for example by reading and wearing minus lenses) causes the image of close objects to be out of focus on the retina, resulting in biochemical processes that affect the rate of synthesis of connective tissues that control the rate of growth of retinal tissues and the shape of the eye. The theoretical and experimental work supporting the IRDT theory is quite interesting and is explained in more detail on the Rehabilitation page of this blog, for those who are interested in the fascinating science behind this.
Anti-corrective lenses. The approach advocated here is a very specific use of anti-corrective lenses in combination with good visual habits to ensure routine variation in the use of the eyes for both up close and distance activities. The most well documented use of anti-corrective lenses is for the reversal of myopia; in this case it is called “plus lens therapy”. Strange as it may seem, this involves wearing the opposite type of glasses normally prescribed for myopia or for hyperopia, making it initially less comfortable to focus. Specifically, so-called “plus” lenses are employed to overcome nearsightedness (myopia) and “minus” lenses to overcome farsightedness (hyperopia). In my discussion on the Rehabilitation page, there is a more extensive discussion of the history of the use of plus lenses.
The use of anti-corrective lenses is a classic case of the five general principles of Hormetism, as outlined on the Overview page of this website:
- the viewing distance is adjusted to simulate real-world conditions as closely as possible (i.e. the eye is actually focusing in the distance while reading a book or computer screen that is close up);
- a constraint (an eye cover or plus lens) is imposed on the stronger eye to focus the stress on the weaker eye, and both eyes are held at the limit of their ability to comfortably focus
- the intensity is adjusted to be somewhat uncomfortable, but still short of “failure”;
- adequate recovery is allowed during rest periods between sessions; and
- gradualism is observed by progressively increasing the focal range over time in order to force adaptive remodeling of the eye.
How to proceed. The clearest explanation of how to use plus lenses was given by Brian Severson, who many years ago published the key steps in his “Vision Freedom” system. Comparing the eye to a digital camera, Severson observed that the eye will attempt to “autofocus” on any image that is slightly out of focus, but will not even attempt to focus on objects that are significantly out of focus. Furthermore, he found that the focal range can be extended by a simple technique. Here is the essence of the technique:
Step 1. Find your starting range of focus:
“Take off your prescription lenses and put this page right on the end of your nose. Now push the print slowly away until it becomes clear and in focus, and stop. Now close each eye and see which one is sending the clear image to your brain. You have just entered the range of focus of your better close vision eye. It dominates for all close work…Now open both eyes, and slowly push the print away until the very first indication that the print is no longer perfectly clear and in focus, and stop…You have just found the limit of your range of focus for that eye”.
Step 2: Push your eyes to increase their range of focus.
For myopes, this is done by repeatedly pushing a printed page just slightly outside the range of focus, and allowing it to sharpen up or “clear”. (For hyperopes, the page is pulled closer until it blurs, then allowed to clear). The eye gradually adapts to increase its range. This can be done with different objects at different ranges. So it can be done with fine print close up, but also with larger objects in the distance. It is especially useful to focus on sharp lines, such as overhead electrical transmission lines, and houses or trees with sharp edges.
For myopes, the process is best carried out by using plus lenses, the “reading glasses”, available in most pharmacies, that hyperopes typically use for close reading; conversely, hyperopes can accelerate the process by using minus lenses that myopes use for vision distance. Myopes can improve their vision by starting with the strongest plus lenses they can wear that will maintain their reading or computer just within their focal range. (Hyperopes do the converse). Typically, for mild myopia, one starts by wearing a +1 diopter lens and moving up to a +1.5 or +2 lens as soon as it becomes comfortable. If the myopia or hyperopia is extreme to the point where anti-corrective lenses do not allow a reasonable focal range, then it may be preferable or necessary to use reduced prescription lenses, i.e., lenses in which the diopter have been somewhat reduced by +1 or +2 diopters. With time and success, these can be progressively weakened, and a move can be made to anti-corrective lenses.
HERE IS THE CRITICAL STEP: For the focusing exercises, one should periodically push the book or computer slightly out of focal range and wait for the image to clear again. This will cause a slight feeling of discomfort, but the eye will focus as long as the distance is just slightly out of the comfort zone. If your eyes cannot focus, move a few inches closer again until the reading material is just within focus.
This procedure can be followed for hours or more during everyday activities such as reading and computer work, watching TV, walking or driving. The anti-corrective or reduced prescription lens diopter rating (the plus or minus number) should be selected so as to make the eyes slightly uncomfortable, while still allowing clear focusing.
If the right and left eyes are very uneven in strength, it may be necessary to match different corrections to each eye (buy two pairs and pop out and replace one side), or to cover the stronger eye with a patch or diffuser. Much as with CI movement therapy, this follows the principle of “constraint” to ensure that the primary stress is focused on the weaker eye, stimulating it to do most of the focusing, until it catches up with the stronger eye. We don’t want the weak eye to coast along with a “free ride” or only the stronger eye will benefit.
When to use the anti-corrective lenses. It is only necessary to use anti-corrective lenses for short periods of time — one to three hours each day, for the appropriate activities — to see significant progress over several weeks. It is important to realize that the strong anticorrective lenses are only to be used for the activities for which your prescription glasses were least needed! So for myopes, wear the plus lenses only for close work (reading and computer work); for hyperopes, wear the minus lenses when looking in the distance or across the room, but not when reading or at the computer. For myope engaging in distance activities (such as driving or viewing presentations), either no lenses or undercorrected lenses are recommended, though very mild plus lenses (less than +1 diopters) can be used when the myopia has been significantly reduced. The key is that the eye will adapt and remodel only when subjected to mildly uncomfortable stress. If the stress is excessive, the eye gives up and no progress is made. This principle is very similar that followed by weight lifters, who understand the importance of slight, but not excessive, overload.
Misunderstandings. Failure to understand this need to change or remove anti-corrective lenses in response to the distance of the current activity has led to some flawed studies which purported to show the ineffectiveness of plus lens therapy. One example of this is a frequently cited paper by Chung, Mohidan and O’Leary (http://tinyurl.com/chung22) which found that myopic children fitted with undercorrected lenses showed a more rapid progression of myopia than children wearing lenses with full correction. So the eyesight of these children actually got worse by using undercorrection than normal correction. This would appear to contradict the IRDT hypothesis that the eye can be stimulated via lens therapy to grow shorter in axial length, and hence reduce myopia. And this result has been repeatedly cited by others as disproving the effectiveness of plus lenses or undercorrection.
However, a re-analysis of this study by Hung and Ciuffreda of Rutgers University (http://abstracts.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/5/4791) came to a different conclusion. In addition to normal correction and slight undercorrection groups, the Hung and Ciufredda study included a group using “high-powered plus lenses”. Their analysis found that the high-powered plus lenses led to hyperopic growth (in other words, shortening of the eye’s axial length), which decreased the myopia of the children wearing those lenses. And the progression of myopia in children who wore undercorrected lenses is explained by the fact that they wore these all the time, not when just reading. This led to a diminished stimulus by facilitating accommodative focuses during “near-to-far viewing cycles”, which underminded the benefits of undercorrection. Based upon this analysis, the proper use of undercorrection would be to wear the undercorrective lenses only during long distance viewing. This is a key point! Note that, according to the protocol of the study (Chung et al, p. 2556), “Subjects were instructed to wear their glasses all the time except during sleeping.” The fact that the undercorrected lenses were worn for close up viewing as well as distance viewing, would tend to undermine their effectiveness, according to the IRDT theory. In their summary, Hung and Ciufredda conclude:
Based on IRDT analysis, high-powered plus lens, full correction, and 0.75 D under-correction result in relative hyperopic, emmetropic, and myopic growth, respectively. Thus, the theory is able to explain these apparently contradictory findings. Moreover, the IRDT provides a consistent theoretical framework for understanding the development of myopia under a variety of experimental and clinical conditions.
So far from disproving the value of plus lenses and undercorrection, this study supports the IRDT theory for treating myopia. The conclusion should be taken as showing how NOT to use undercorrected lenses — don’t wear them for close work and reading, only for far distance viewing activities such as driving. On the other hand, for close work (reading and computer use), wearing stronger plus lenses are effective in counteracting myopia. Based upon IRDT theory, I suppose the ideal combination would be bifocals with plus lenses for close vision and undercorrection for distance vision, or using two different glasses for these different situations.
Work without lenses. In addition to using anti-corrective lenses for close up activities (or distance activities, in the case of hyperopes), it is important to engage in frequent and deliberate near-to-far focusing exercises in daily life. Without glasses, take some time to look intently and focus on distant objects, and alternate this with looking at close up objects. Just as when using the lenses, try to focus on objects at the edge or just beyond of your current focal range, allowing them to “clear”. I found it most helpful to choose objects with crisply defined dark lines or borders, such as telephone poles and power lines or edges of buildings. You’ll soon notice that blurry or “double” images will begin to resolve. I remember becoming excited when I started to see crisp power lines, and billboard signs, and could eventually start to read signs at a distance. This is one of the most motivating aspects of the technique. On the Rehabilitation page, you’ll find my speculations as to how this resolution of double images relates to the mechanisms of eye remodelling and the IRDT theory.
A final word: Be patient. Your eyes took a long time to lose their shape, and they won’t pop back into shape overnight. Just as building muscles in the gym takes time and discipline, remodelling your eyes is a step-by-step process that takes time. Most likely, you’ll notice progress in spurts. And just like going to the gym, you will need to keep you eyes in shape by periodically using anti-corrective lenses (especially if you will be spending a lot of time reading or at the computer), and by varying your daily activities to include looking at both near and far objects. But if you stick with it, you’ll find your eyesight is improving, perhaps at a time when many of your older friends are finding their eyesight is getting worse.
If this topic interests you, please comment below, or check out the Rehabilitation Discussion Forum, where a number of people have reported their success with using the Hormetism method for improving eyesight, manual dexterity, and other areas of overcoming the need for corrective devices.
April 2012 update: See my interview, How one person improved his vision, for details on how the above method helped one individual achieve 20/15 vision!
Otis,
I didn’t know you were a co-founder of the plus-lens therapy until I looked back through some of the comments and visited your website. I thank you for getting it out there and trying to reverse the common thinking the medical community has on vision. I am honored to be in contact with such pioneers. Thank you.
I was wondering if you have seen this website: http://schwerdfeger.name/articles/pluslens.shtml. ?
In the article, the author discusses how wearing plus-lens in everyday situations, it allows the eye to relax, thus improving from the therapy. Todd talks about how the eye can adjust only when it it close-to-clear. I don’t know if you have any thoughts on this? Or Todd, if you do?
I will stop asking questions now as I have discovered the site dedicated to this discussion. If I may, I will share with you all when I reach 20/20 or beyond. Thank you again for your valuable information and timely responses. Plus-lens therapy is life changing.
Mike
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your support. I post some remarks under, “Discussion” to reflect my advocacy that a person at 20/40 (-1 diopter) receive the scientific education he needs to be part of a successful preventive effort. I get endless abuse from “conventional ODs” about this subject, since they all seem “brain washed” against the idea that the fundamental eye is dynamic, and with wise use of the plus — preventable up to about 20/40 — in my opinion. It does take great resolve to “stick” in using the plus. This is why Brian Severson was successful. When he was at 20/60 to 20/70, he just resolved to keep on wearing the plus until he got a refractive change of 1 to 1.5 diopter. But he had a very personal reason to keep on “going” — his professional career. From the web-site you posted, you can see that some “wise” or very bright people “internalize” the solution, and just “commit” to wearing the plus when it can be most effective (i.e., 20/40 to 20/20).
Mike> In the article, the author discusses how wearing plus-lens in everyday situations, it allows the eye to relax, thus improving from the therapy. Todd talks about how the eye can adjust only when it it close-to-clear. I don’t know if you have any thoughts on this? Or Todd, if you do?
Otis> Obviously Todd and I are in total agreement about the need for the plus (when you are at 20/40). There is no doubt that we will probably diagree about some nuance of the concept. If you are at 20/40 (about -1) I suggest the use of a +2 that will “just blur” at about 20 to 25 inches — and for all close work. As your Snellen improves to 20/25 then I would increase that to +2.5 diopters. This must be self-selected, with both comfort and ease of use important.
Mike> I will stop asking questions now as I have discovered the site dedicated to this discussion. If I may, I will share with you all when I reach 20/20 or beyond. Thank you again for your valuable information and timely responses. Plus-lens therapy is life changing.
Otis> I would suggest that you continue to post either here or under “discussions”. But Snellen-clearing is very slow — so be prepared for that issue. I know people want this to be “easy” and “fast” but it is not that way. You just have to “grit your teeth”, and when you sit down, put that +2 on your face and “push back” till “just blur”, and then lean forward. Since “plus” is so cheap, you can get several “plus” to find out what is best for you. But, from all that I have seen, I would look for 20/30 as the next step — and accept “slow” as part of the issue you must deal with. Keep on posting — your struggle is always part of “problem solving”, and this is indeed a difficult scientific problem. Otis
Will the plus lense therapy work if your vision is over 20/40? I dont know my eyesight, I am going to the eye doctor in about 3 weeks.
I just reduced my prescription from 4.25R/4.75L to 4.0R/4.25L. Things are still a little blurry in the distance, though. On my Snellen I can read the 20/40-20/50 lines with the new correction.
Even though I reduced my prescription, I feel like I am at somewhat of a plateau. I do see alot of the “double image” when reading that Todd describes in his rehab page. On occasion, the “clear image” becomes very strong, or my vision at reading distance clears entirely. It only lasts for about twenty seconds, though, and then goes back to blurry.
I am still very determined.
Otis,
You are right, I have to take this journey step by step. My next goal will be 20/30. Thank you for the advice and encouragement.
Mike
Hi Mike,
Subject: The personal difficulty of prevention.
Re: Todd’s “Discussion Forum” — and my remarks.
I think that any person who can read his Snellen at 20/40, is very lucky. The real issue is “deeper understanding”, of why you must conduct prevention YOURSELF. I have placed a great deal of my personal judgment and experience on the “discussion forum”. The real issue for me (and for you) is how much “commitment” can you summon for your goal? That is a question I can never answer. I know most of us are easily “distracted”, so that we “want” something NOW, but then we lose “interest”. This is why Pilot Severson was successful — in my opinion. I don’t reflect badly on a person who can’t summon that resolve, because it is indeed hard to keep on wearing the plus, and your friends don’t understand what you are doing — or why you are doing it. From the postings (and your efforts) you will find that the average rate-of-change is about +1 diopter per year, maybe better. But you are truly taking about wearing a +2 to +2.5 for from six to 12 months. I love my distant vision as passing the 20/30 to 20/25 line (and better). I also love having my own “test” lenses so I can determine my refractive status (at no cost). I only “advocate” this type of preventive work — for people I think have that type of motivation and insight. Todd has that insight, and all of this advice is indeed FREE — as I think it should be. Only you are going to “think through” these issues and make your choice. Otis
Subject: Published Documents — if you wish to do further research.
The “database” on the eye is HUGE — but terribly organized and hard to read. No one could read all of it, as each year a new “stack” is published. To even begin to make sense of the natural eye’s behavior, it is necessary to recognize the bias in this research and publications. I simply class these publications as “majority-opinion” and “second-opinion.”
The second-opinion (by the ODs and MDs themselves) recommends that negative status of the eye be prevented in its early stage.
I prepared a book to reflect this judgment, and to organize a preventive study. Here is the book for your interest. I truly developed the book to honor Dr. Jacob Raphaelson whose basic concept led to some of the ideas expressed by this analysis.
http://www.i-see.org/otis_brown/
To support your research, I prepared two sites, starting in the year 2002
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/
And a more recent one:
http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/
I was convinced that Raphaelson was correct, and worked to develop the science behind prevention.
But it is also clear that only the guidance of a parent (and/or the wise OD) could get the child to START with the plus and soon as his refractive status “started negative” and visual acuity at 20/40.
In my opinion, that is when you must make an “either/or” choice in the use of the plus. No one can force you or your child to wear a plus lens — that is for certain. But, if you are lucky and independent, in mind and judgment, you might be able to take the personal actions that are necessary to be effective in prevention. I wish you great success in this work. Otis
I thank Todd for posting his experience in the use of the plus to clear his vision back to normal.
But I am certain that Todd will be asked for a medical professional to support his success with the plus — since Todd is an engineer, and presumed to not have “medical knowledge”.
Here is an ophthalmologist who has successfully used the plus, professionally, for the last 30 years.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/nomyopia.htm
Otis
Subject: Successful results from -4.5 and -2.25 Diopters. (about 20/100 on a Snellen)
I would like to post this success by Jansen, who systematically worked with a “plus” and other methods. The DMV requires 20/40 visual acuity. Jansen achieved this result after following Todd’s advice and success on 1/8/11. Because the sequence of posts on “Discussion Forum” can be hard to follow, I post them here. 20/40 is critical. You can fly an airplane with 20/40 under FAA 3rd class rules. (Obviously you should WORK to get to 20/20). But it is truly a success to go from 20/100 to pass the required DMV line in two years. My thanks to Todd and Jansen for his success.
Otis
Great success. I never had glasses but my myopia had started to give me trouble, late facial recognition, trouble reading traffic signs in time to make a turn, trouble flagging down the correct buss in time etc. Based on resolving power calculations, I can only guess that my original vision was something in the 20/40 20/50 range. Only after ten days did i try the Snellen chart for the first time. Before that i had noticed definite subjective improvements.
After ten days i could read the 20/30 line and the 20/20 line was on the verge of being recognizable. Now after seventeen days, when i allow my eyes to adjust (No voluntary effort, just allowing the auto focus to work. Currently this takes up to twenty seconds), i can definitely make out every letter in the 20/20 line. If squint i can almost begin to make out the 20/15 line.
I’ve used +1 lenses for computer work and +1.5 for reading. On most days I’ve used the glasses until I’ve begun to feel definite strain in my eyes. That’s three to four hours total time. There is no chronic strain. I find that my eyes can recover comfortably from this.
Thank you Todd. This really made a difference! Walking outside is a joy and it’s only going to get better.
Joonas,
I’m very happy to hear about the rapid improvement in your vision. It’s especially nice that you were able to reverse your myopia before succumbing to wearing glasses. The joy you describe in seeing more clearly without having to use lenses is a joy that several of us posting here have experienced. It is difficult to convey with words alone.
The kind of progress you experienced is not a permanent thing. It will last only to the extent you maintain good habits and engage in periodic “tune ups”. I’d encourage you to visit the Discussion Forum associated with this blog, peruse some of the comments and tips shared there, and post your own insights or questions if you see fit.
Todd
Hi Joonas,
I am very pleased with your success — in such a short time. Most people take longer than that — perhaps four to seven months, from 20/60.
But you have done what most people never do, 1) Down-load a Snellen visual acuity chart, and actually read it in bright light, and the 2) Begin systematic use of the plus, and KEEP AT IT!!
I don’t know what is in the mind of “most people” but almost always they never even make an effort.
The DMV requires that we pass the 20/40 line (fair enough). The use of the plus under YOUR control, can slowly clear your visual acuity — if you can persist.
You are VERY LUCKY that you never wore a minus lens. It truly kills your distant vision. I argue for recovery, but only if you have not yet started wit the minus. Todd got out of -3 diotpers, and I am highly impressed that he was able to do that.
Keep up the work — you have solved this problem for yourself.
Otis
Dear all,
My daughter was diagnosed as a -2.5 today and we are sad that she has been advised to wear minus glasses. She’s 10 yrs and has had generally good eating/reading habits.
I would like to follow your tips and suggestions and keen to make her avoid wearing glasses. If any of you can post a detailed reply here on exact steps to undertake and equipment/charts one need to have at home to practice, I shall be most grateful. I am a layman and still very unfamiliar with Optometry vocabulary.
Thanks and regards
Srini,
The good news is that you found this site early, before your daughter starts wearing minus lenses that would accelerate her myopia. The challenge for you is working closely with your daughter to train her reading at a proper distance and in the use of plus lenses.
The general approach for preventing myopia with plus lenses and eye exercises are spelled out in the article above, the Rehabilitation page (see header above) and the Rehabiliation section of the Discussion Forum. (See link at upper right). You will find on the Forum a thread about Eyesight Without Glasses. This includes posts and discussions by a number of contributors who have worked with their children to prevent and reverse their myopia. Read through the accounts of the many people there who have reversed their myopia.
If your daughter has been measured as having -2.5 diopters, she should be able to read comfortably at about 40/2.5 = 16 inches. That is the “edge of focus” – the point at which print is crisp, but beyond which it starts to blur. If it is still in focus, have her read as far away from the computer or a book as she can before it starts to blur. She won’t need plus lenses to start – only discipline in not reading too close up.
Once her eyes improve enough that she sees print clearly at more than 20 inches, go with her to the pharmacy and pick out some weak plus lenses, no more than +1, and wear those whenever reading. You may need to strengthen those to +1.5 or stronger as she improves.
It is also important that she spend time in activities like sports, walking or cycling where she spends a lot of time looking at distant objects. She should also take frequent breaks from the computer to look at distant objects. There are good eye exercises outlines in David DeAngelis’ book, the Secret of Perfect Vision.
Good luck,
Todd
Hi Srini,
I don’t like to “dispute” any given measurement, but I know from long experience that some ODs will over-prescribe a child (with a -2.5 diopter) for many reasons. I would suggest “home checking” of her visual acuity yourself. I was also over-prescribed by -2 diopters, and that excessive minus frankly destroyed my vision since I wore it all the time for about ten years. Not all ODs will do this, and quite a few recommend avoiding the minus — if your child can pass the 20/40 line. In order to converse with you about these “preventive” ODs I recommend you go to this location:
http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php
and read the “Rehabilitation” line.
There are some “habits” a young child develops when reading that induce this negative status for her young eyes. We should discuss them — and we will help you and your child if we can.
Thanks a lot, Otis.
I missed seeing the Forum threads so far. Thanks for your guidance. I will read all posts and make best use of the information there, especially in the main thread – Eyesight without glasses.
Any further questions I have, instead of posting in this page, I will post in that thread to keep it ‘tidy’
Dear Todd,
My sincere and heartfelt thanks for your kind and elaborate response. Your running this blog and sharing your insights itself is a great service for all. The fact that you also take time off your busy life, to guide new entrants like me is even more admirable.
Today, we had another test done in a different eye care centre, for a second opinion. Their results are -1.25 in left eye and -2.0 in right eye. They were to prescribe, however, -0.25 short of this (-1.0 and -1.75 for lenses). We have bought some time to get back.
My wife is keen as well to try this alternative therapy – of attempting this method first and see how our daughter gets along despite popular advise all around us suggesting that we shouldn’t delay adopting prescription lenses.
We want to kick start this exercise for our daughter as soon as possible (perhaps tomorrow itself). In order that we carry this out in a proper manner, allocating necessary time and using the right aids, I would benefit from any schedule you can share with us – i.e. suggested font types/sizes to try first, any mechanical aids to rest documents on to move without shake etc. Or, is it just a case of using everyday objects, readable books/newspapers to try out around the threshold range ?
Thanks in advance again.
Hi Srini,
I know you will get a lot of advice on this subject. There are some ODs who call the minus, “poison glasses for children”, and believe that a child should avoid wearing a minus, except when necessary for distant objects.
The also believe, that some children “lean forward” and read too close, like at 10 inches or less. The believe that a child should be requested to “sit up” and keep all reading a writing at a distance of greater-than 16 inches.
I know that this type of discipline for a child is very difficult to enforce, but that has been the recommendation of prevention-minded medical people. I hope this helps your child with prevention.