Any comprehensive explanation of diet and obesity has to be able to explain both Shangri-La (flavourless calories) and low-carb diets.

It seems to me that the ‘food reward’ hypothesis needs crisping up. Is it that some foods have the property that eating them makes you more likely to overeat then and there ? Is it that eating them now makes you more likely to eat them tomorrow ? Is it that food reward drives non-obese people to become obese, or keeps the obese overeating ? Is it that food reward is the dominant factor in obesity ? Is it that food reward is one of many factors in eating choices which in turn impact obesity ?

My own view is that for a non-obsessive low-carber, some carbs are worse than others in terms of being habit-forming, and are best shunned altogether, while others can be eaten without risk of becoming a habit.

Finally, on calories in, calories out.
We all have conscious control of what we put in our mouth (except when we let our habits take over), but we don’t consciously control whether or not we feel hungry, or whether or not we have eaten enough to want to stop eating. Nor do we have conscious control of what the digestive system and gut flora does with the ingested food. (In my view this is one reason why sugar drinks are bad, the gut cannot defend the body against an excess).

It’s always frustrating to hit a plateau. Nevertheless, your progress has been impressive: from – 6 to -3.75 in less than a year. Can you remind us of exactly when you started, and what technique you used (plus lenses vs. threshold focusing with unaided eyes, number and length of daily reading sessions, etc.).

I like your idea of making regular weekly measurements every Monday. How about starting a “personal page” on the Discussion Forum where you post your measurements for each week? Going public with these measurements is a motivation technique that I’ve seen works quite well on a number of the weight loss forums on the Internet. Why not apply the same to vision improvement? You might also add comments regarding any special modifications you are making to your technique. That might help you to see correlations between what you are doing and the results. And sharing your experience with others often ends up inviting some good suggestions!

Todd

In light of that, I have decided to be more precise. I am going to do and document three different measurements every Monday morning: my corrected distance vision (currently 20/50 with -3.75 correction), my distance for corrected reading (currently 13 3/4 inch with -1.5 correction), and uncorrected focal distance (currently 9 3/4 inch). withing a couple of months I should know if I have truly stopped progressing.

I started at -6 diopters. I am now functional at -3.75 (although not completely corrected). I can also am able to read comfortably with -1.5′s, where when I started -3.5 was my “comfortable reading” prescription. So I have progressed.

I put on an old pair of -5.25 lenses the other day, and they were strongly overcorrected.

Anyways, with more careful measurements and documentation, I hope to document some progress.

Thanks for what you have done.

I been going on the computer more, but havnt been taking breaks. After my MMA training, or weekends I go on for at least 3 hours, barely any breaks. But, I rarely go on.

Now I feel like my vision has slightly gotten worse. Do you think my vision is getting worse from not taking breaks, even though I barely go on the computer?

Your first question is easy to answer: Read at D2 — the edge of blur, sometimes called the blur point. This will tend to merge into D1 (the edge of focus), so in practice you will find yourself alternating between the two. For a fuller explanation, read: http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php/topic,8.msg781.html#msg781

The second question is harder to answer. Since I have not seen a scientific study on this or run one myself, I cannot answer with confidence. But the general principle of hormesis applies: too little stress will fail to induce significant improvement, but too much or too frequent stress will lead to overstrain and inadequate recovery, repair and remodeling. My personal experience is that two 30-minute sessions should be enough. But if you are in a job where you read all day, or you are using computers or smart phones or watching TV a lot, you may need to do some of that with your plus lenses on or sitting far enough away.

Where has your Snellen score plateau’d and for how long?

Todd

Would you mind briefly answering a few questions?

1. Please explain the optimal intensity (you call this D1, D2, and D3 in places).

2. How about the optimal amount of time to do the exercises/day. You refer to two 30 minute sessions elsewhere. Is more excessive, and possible self-defeating.

Sorry to impose.

The reason I ask is that I suspect that I am overdoing it, and possibly that is why I seem to be on a plateau. I have been very committed and dedicated. I probably do the exercises for hours each day (all in the normal course of work). And often I am deep into the “blur”. Possibly I need to back off on both of these-both time and intensity.

Thanks,
Nate

I am profoundly respectful of any person who is medical. I know that they want a solution, but many are in the position of being damned if they do – and damned if they don’t. I don’t have all the answers, so I do restrict myself to talking to people who have the strongest possible reason and desire to clear their Snellen visual acuity from 20/50 to 20/20 – under their wise personal control. Because this means long-term wearing of a plus, and avoiding the minus (possible at 20/50), and the need for this to be continued as long as the person is in a reading environment, it follows that only the wise, and very motivated person will do this consistently. The person must obviously over-come any fear he might have about wearing the plus in this manner – as well as having a goal that he needs in his professional career. That is why I promote an education for pilots at the threshold level – because I am a pilot and have flown experimental aircraft. (Yes, I did take “risks” doing this.) So the person that has a strong desire, and will actually monitor his Snellen, can get out of about 20/50 vision in about nine months. But this is about engineering and self motivation. I have also prepared a proposal about conducting this type of independent study by engineers (who will make the measurements and can make the nine month commitment). Since people like Todd and Shadowfoot had done it – I have little doubt that an intelligent pilot (at 20/50) entering a four year college could be part of his own scientific study. I am obligated to provide an engineering plan for this work as shown here;

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/Embry.html

This could succeed – if the “powers that be” would help us.

I do know that some ODs and MDs have recognized the “dynamic” quality of the natural eye (the scientific primate data), and insist THEIR OWN CHILDREN ALWAYS WEAR THE PLUS THROUGH THE SCHOOL YEARS. That works, but that success – is always personal.

Nate, thanks for your review!

I am curious to see what your prescription really is.

Keep in mind that it is perfectly normal to experience a range of vision from day to day and even from hour to hour depending on what you have been doing. That being said, I view any sort of improved clarity as a good thing, as an improvement.

Good luck!

Yes, I identify with you, because the same thing happened to me.

Grant> It’s really upsetting to me, because I feel that my vision would not be so poor if it were not for the misinformation being spread by doctors. They tell you that NOT wearing glasses makes your vision WORSE. And how absurd that is! My poor vision is testament to that.

Otis> You are correct about the amount of “mis-information” that is supplied to you in an OD office. It is not exactly “dis-honest” but it is a “fib” that wearing a strong minus IMPROVES YOUR NAKED EYE VISION. Today, because of OBJECTIVE primate studies, it is very clear that our natural eyes adapt to 1) Long-term near, required in school, which creates negative stats of about -3/4 diopters, ( 20/40 to 20/50), followed (in an office) with a very strong minus lens. Because of the primate studies, it is very clear that 1) Our natural eye “move negative”, because of the necessity of reading, and 2) Get far worse because of that over-prescribed minus lens. All that I have stated above is true for the primate eye. The ODs managed to avoid the science of this by CLAIMING THAT THE HUMAN EYE IS NOT A PRIMATE EYE. For myself, I only argue for prevention when you FIRST get to 20/40 or -1 diopters. I would WANT TO BE TOLD SCIENTIFIC TRUTH AT THAT POINT. But the OD’s “scientific truth” is to deny that it exists. I don’t “complain”, but I do know that some people, like Todd and Shadowfoot, managed to “figure this out” and use the plus correctly while there is time for them to become successful.