Comments on: Overview http://gettingstronger.org Train yourself to thrive on stress Sun, 20 May 2012 09:57:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Blog Review: Getting Stronger http://gettingstronger.org/about-this-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-12218 Blog Review: Getting Stronger Sun, 06 May 2012 01:59:50 +0000 http://gettingstronger.org/?page_id=31#comment-12218 [...] manifesto of the Getting Stronger blog is utilizing the biological principle of hormesis – to train yourself to thrive on [...] [...] manifesto of the Getting Stronger blog is utilizing the biological principle of hormesis – to train yourself to thrive on [...]

]]> By: Taking Cold Showers | The Art of Ass-Kicking http://gettingstronger.org/about-this-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-2379 Taking Cold Showers | The Art of Ass-Kicking Tue, 07 Jun 2011 07:30:18 +0000 http://gettingstronger.org/?page_id=31#comment-2379 [...] in my mind after reading an article about it on a blog called Getting Stronger. The thesis behind Getting Stronger is that rather than damaging you, that stress can, in the right conditions, make you stronger by [...] [...] in my mind after reading an article about it on a blog called Getting Stronger. The thesis behind Getting Stronger is that rather than damaging you, that stress can, in the right conditions, make you stronger by [...]

]]> By: Otis Brown http://gettingstronger.org/about-this-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-1775 Otis Brown Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:00:28 +0000 http://gettingstronger.org/?page_id=31#comment-1775 Hi Peter and Todd, I believe in getting "ahead" of a problem (as an engineer) and stopping it, or preventing it, before it goes beyond 20/60 to 20/70. (When the person can still function with no minus lens, and will use an anti-prescription lens). I am often asked to PROVE that this is possible. I have proposed a formal prevention study as stated here: http://myopiafree.i-see.org/Embry.html The people in this study would be like Jansen, intelligent, self-motivated, and could see results in about four months. The problem -- the National Eye Institute, that will not support any such (potentially successful study). I can't get beyond that point, but I know that individual pilots (starting at 20/60) managed to get their refractive STATE to change in a postive direction, and their Snellen to clear from 20/70 to 20/40 (DMV normal) and with much greater effort, to clear to 20/20 and pass, objectively the FAA requirement. So if I sound frustrated -- I am. Best, Otis Hi Peter and Todd,
I believe in getting “ahead” of a problem (as an engineer) and stopping it, or preventing it, before it goes beyond 20/60 to 20/70. (When the person can still function with no minus lens, and will use an anti-prescription lens). I am often asked to PROVE that this is possible. I have proposed a formal prevention study as stated here:
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/Embry.html
The people in this study would be like Jansen, intelligent, self-motivated, and could see results in about four months. The problem — the National Eye Institute, that will not support any such (potentially successful study). I can’t get beyond that point, but I know that individual pilots (starting at 20/60) managed to get their refractive STATE to change in a postive direction, and their Snellen to clear from 20/70 to 20/40 (DMV normal) and with much greater effort, to clear to 20/20 and pass, objectively the FAA requirement. So if I sound frustrated — I am. Best, Otis

]]> By: Otis Brown http://gettingstronger.org/about-this-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-1774 Otis Brown Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:39:26 +0000 http://gettingstronger.org/?page_id=31#comment-1774 Hi Peter and Todd, Subject: Helping a person avoid "entry" into negative status for the eye. I have reviewed large-scale studies of the natural eye's behavior, with Dr. Francis Young -- and importantly, studies of the primate eye, and the characteristic response of this natural eye in a long-term "cage" environment. If a person, at age 7, has 20/20 (good retina) and a postive state, I believe that that person, with strong motivation, could, under HIS control, always avoid entry into "nearsightedness." So, for me, that is my "altrustic" goal, to help a person at say, 20/60 (while he can still "function" with no minus lens) SLOWLY clear his Snellen back to DMV-Normal (i.e., personally verify he passes the DMV line. For this "advocacy" I get incredible objection. But that (self-empowerment) goal is what makes sense to me at this time. I have proposed a preventive study (for people at 20/60 and -1.5 diopters), but get no support at all. I am 71 years old, and "was" a very frustrated "myope". I consider (at the threshold) this situation is "self-induced". Tragically, very few people will understand, let use a strong plus, when their Snellen is at 20/50, and prevention possible. Peter, I am pleased you have found a supportive OD for your myopia reduction work. Keep on posting your thoughts as I belive we must work together to achieve prevention for the people who need it the most. Otis Hi Peter and Todd,
Subject: Helping a person avoid “entry” into negative status for the eye.
I have reviewed large-scale studies of the natural eye’s behavior, with Dr. Francis Young — and importantly, studies of the primate eye, and the characteristic response of this natural eye in a long-term “cage” environment. If a person, at age 7, has 20/20 (good retina) and a postive state, I believe that that person, with strong motivation, could, under HIS control, always avoid entry into “nearsightedness.” So, for me, that is my “altrustic” goal, to help a person at say, 20/60 (while he can still “function” with no minus lens) SLOWLY clear his Snellen back to DMV-Normal (i.e., personally verify he passes the DMV line. For this “advocacy” I get incredible objection. But that (self-empowerment) goal is what makes sense to me at this time. I have proposed a preventive study (for people at 20/60 and -1.5 diopters), but get no support at all. I am 71 years old, and “was” a very frustrated “myope”. I consider (at the threshold) this situation is “self-induced”. Tragically, very few people will understand, let use a strong plus, when their Snellen is at 20/50, and prevention possible. Peter, I am pleased you have found a supportive OD for your myopia reduction work. Keep on posting your thoughts as I belive we must work together to achieve prevention for the people who need it the most. Otis

]]> By: Todd http://gettingstronger.org/about-this-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-1771 Todd Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:19:40 +0000 http://gettingstronger.org/?page_id=31#comment-1771 Peter, It is indeed inspiring to hear of cases like yours, showing that one can make the journey from -5.75 diopters to -3.5 or less after several years of working at it, even at a mature age. The eye remains plastic well beyond adolescence! I made my transition from -3 lenses to no glasses at age 45. It is too bad that most opthamologists are unwilling to acknowledge that myopia can be reversed, yet fortunately there are a few such as your Mr. Prais who will prescribe undercorrected lenses. You've understood the principle of progressive improvement perfectly, Peter. Since you can read the 20/15 or 20/10 line on the Snellen chart with your -3.5/-3.25 lenses, it looks to me like you are overcorrected and could stand to work your eyes a bit harder. If you find that +1 distance/+3 reading bifocal combo gives you a "slight blur" for both near and far, that seems right to me. You can wear the glasses much of the day, but I'd suggest taking periodic breaks to give your eyes a rest, and some practice at refocusing. I'd strongly suggest monitoring your Snellen ratings on at least a weekly basis, and tracking this. At first, you'll be set back some with the weaker lenses, but once you creep down to 20/20 its time to undercorrect again by another 0.25 diopters. I'd encourage you to read the posts on the Forum of this blog and consider posting your own experience and progress: http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php?board=4.0 You'll see there many kindred souls who've been working on improving their vision using plus lenses, including some creative variations using, e.g. contact lenses. Cheers, Todd Peter,

It is indeed inspiring to hear of cases like yours, showing that one can make the journey from -5.75 diopters to -3.5 or less after several years of working at it, even at a mature age. The eye remains plastic well beyond adolescence! I made my transition from -3 lenses to no glasses at age 45. It is too bad that most opthamologists are unwilling to acknowledge that myopia can be reversed, yet fortunately there are a few such as your Mr. Prais who will prescribe undercorrected lenses.

You’ve understood the principle of progressive improvement perfectly, Peter. Since you can read the 20/15 or 20/10 line on the Snellen chart with your -3.5/-3.25 lenses, it looks to me like you are overcorrected and could stand to work your eyes a bit harder. If you find that +1 distance/+3 reading bifocal combo gives you a “slight blur” for both near and far, that seems right to me. You can wear the glasses much of the day, but I’d suggest taking periodic breaks to give your eyes a rest, and some practice at refocusing. I’d strongly suggest monitoring your Snellen ratings on at least a weekly basis, and tracking this. At first, you’ll be set back some with the weaker lenses, but once you creep down to 20/20 its time to undercorrect again by another 0.25 diopters.

I’d encourage you to read the posts on the Forum of this blog and consider posting your own experience and progress:

http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php?board=4.0

You’ll see there many kindred souls who’ve been working on improving their vision using plus lenses, including some creative variations using, e.g. contact lenses.

Cheers,

Todd

]]> By: Peter Jay http://gettingstronger.org/about-this-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-1767 Peter Jay Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:55:32 +0000 http://gettingstronger.org/?page_id=31#comment-1767 Hi Todd, I hope that my input will give some more encouragement to your readers. Here in the UK it is difficult to find an opthalmist who will prescribe under correction. After years of searching I found one (a Mr Prais) who has a brother (optician) in USA, and who practices eye training successfully, so Mr Prais agreed to under-correct for me. That was about 6 years ago. The 5 Previous years to that, I had successfully improved my prescription from -5.75 to -4.5, using various excercises - and including some Bates methods - but had then ceased to improve. With Mr Prais's cooperation I quickly corrected to -3.5 OD and -3.25 OD and I am now very happy with my one month 24/7 soft lenses. I sail, some say very aggressively, in tournaments many weekends, often camping, so the freedom from hard lenses or glasses is great. With these lenses I can read smallish print as well as the bottom of a chart for distance. That is line 20/15 or even 20/10. Having read your blog, I propose having Mr Prais make up bifocals with +1 normal and +3 reading strengths. These two strengths give a slight blur for near and far (I've tried the pharmacy cheapo glasses to check) Then I will move the presciption down -.25 at a time. Or is that UP .25 ? !! Q. Am I correct in my proposal ? Thank you for the blog. Did I mention that I am 75 years of age ? Regards, Peter Jay Hi Todd,

I hope that my input will give some more encouragement to your readers. Here in the UK it is difficult to find an opthalmist who will prescribe under correction. After years of searching I found one (a Mr Prais) who has a brother (optician) in USA, and who practices eye training successfully, so Mr Prais agreed to under-correct for me.

That was about 6 years ago. The 5 Previous years to that, I had successfully improved my prescription from -5.75 to -4.5, using various excercises – and including some Bates methods – but had then ceased to improve. With Mr Prais’s cooperation I quickly corrected to
-3.5 OD and -3.25 OD and I am now very happy with my one month 24/7 soft lenses. I sail, some say very aggressively, in tournaments many weekends, often camping, so the freedom from hard lenses or glasses is great. With these lenses I can read smallish print as well as the bottom of a chart for distance. That is line 20/15 or even 20/10.

Having read your blog, I propose having Mr Prais make up bifocals with +1 normal and +3 reading strengths. These two strengths give a slight blur for near and far (I’ve tried the pharmacy cheapo glasses to check)
Then I will move the presciption down -.25 at a time. Or is that UP .25 ? !!

Q. Am I correct in my proposal ?

Thank you for the blog.

Did I mention that I am 75 years of age ?

Regards, Peter Jay

]]> By: Todd http://gettingstronger.org/about-this-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Todd Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:48:39 +0000 http://gettingstronger.org/?page_id=31#comment-8 Radiation hormesis is still considered controversial by many, but the evidence is accumulating that low dose ionizing radiation induces DNA repair, free radical detoxification and immune stimulation. A brief overview of this evidence is given in <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.html" rel="nofollow">"An introduction to radiation hormesis"</a> under the Hormesis links in the right side panel. But even more to the point of your question, a <a href="http://gettingstronger.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/CT-Scans-May-Reduce-Cancer.pdf" rel="nofollow">recent study</a> in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, also under the Hormesis links, indicates that occasional CT scans in adults may actually reduce the risk of cancer. I was unable to convert the units in this study to millesevierts, but perhaps you can. Radiation hormesis is still considered controversial by many, but the evidence is accumulating that low dose ionizing radiation induces DNA repair, free radical detoxification and immune stimulation. A brief overview of this evidence is given in “An introduction to radiation hormesis” under the Hormesis links in the right side panel. But even more to the point of your question, a recent study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, also under the Hormesis links, indicates that occasional CT scans in adults may actually reduce the risk of cancer. I was unable to convert the units in this study to millesevierts, but perhaps you can.

]]> By: Tom Merson http://gettingstronger.org/about-this-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-6 Tom Merson Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:59:39 +0000 http://gettingstronger.org/?page_id=31#comment-6 I think the whole notion of hormesis is fascinating and I'm particularly interested in the radiation hormesis subset (having had a number of CT scans over the course of many years). Is there any way to correlate that kind of test (typically measured in millesevierts I believe) with any kind of optimization? In other words, where does the biopositive vs. bionegative begin? I think the whole notion of hormesis is fascinating and I’m particularly interested in the radiation hormesis subset (having had a number of CT scans over the course of many years). Is there any way to correlate that kind of test (typically measured in millesevierts I believe) with any kind of optimization? In other words, where does the biopositive vs. bionegative begin?

]]>