Glasses and Eye Muscle Strength

Good 'observation'! I found to require reading glasses fom about age of 50 in order to focus on newspapers, manuals and such, and I swear that the publishers of these items to be read by a growing majority of aging baby boomers are deliberately printing much smaller, harder to read fonts and spaces between printed articles.

Just another one of my C.T.s - Loupy

I wear corrective lenses and in the past contacts. I am lazy with going to the eye doctor so I wait years between visits. At first things were a little blurry which is why I went they gave me glasses everything looked clear and I was happy. With in a year stuff started to get blurry again but I didn't go back until about two years later. In that two years things stayed about the same blurry as they were before. I got new lenses one step up and things were good for a year until things got worse again. This went on for a few years, the last time I went I asked them to give me one step below my prescription. So far it seems like my eyes have not gotten worse and actually perhaps a bit better. Now a few years since my last visit, I went back to some older lenses I had and they weren't half bad so I have been using them instead.

My sister also was told she needed glasses but she never got them, and now years later she does not wear glasses.

So I agree with your experience, and almost wonder if I could go the other way and gradually switch to weaker and weaker lenses.

I would be very interested to hear the outcome of weaning off corrective lenses. I think if my vision ever does get bad enough to cause constant headaches, or inability to function in the world I'll opt in for the laser surgery, I hear it has pretty good results for most people, and I would think it would still require your eye muscles to work at their full potential.

Well said. Thank you for the response. I still wonder how a persons eyesight would compare over the long run with and without the use of glasses. I wonder how accurate of a study could be accomplished using many sets of identical twins as the test subjects, one twin given the normal anual eye test and corrective lenses, and one twin "left to nature" so to speak. Which one would see the best with no lenses 10 years later?

I know my younger brothers are identical twins, and have roughly the same poor eyesight.

Hmmm... the things I ponder on a slow friday.

Interesting speculation. Identical twins are genetically the same, and unless reared apart are environmentally similar. But I'm not sure that these factors would make their lens structures (or fingerprints, for another example) the same. Hard to say how this would affect the suggested experiment....

If the eye needs glasses, then do not forget that the lenses are of different strengths, with 0.25 in between the them. That makes the lens not quite perfect for the eye so for the end of the range (too far or too close), there will be always an eye effort. For me the problem is (I have myopia) that you tend to use the range where you see well, and you seldom try to focus on a object that is to out of your range. The eye is not exercised systematically to improve the range. But there is professional myopia, developed by people that have to read a lot or have to look a long time through microscope, so for them, it seams that the range gets modified. Over the weekend the eye it seems that is recovering, Monday they do not have myopia. A monkey kept in a box 50 cm wide developed permanent myopia after one month. It seems that you have to exercise systematically, otherwise you loose your gain very fast. I see a lot of off-shape people on the street, but I bet that most of them at one time have put effort to get in shape and succeeded. Yet, now they are back to old habits. I am not optometrist either.

I've always been suspicious of corrective lenses, same as you stated, but it hardly mattered since I had excellent vision. I did get tested at one time, and was advised to get a prescription because one eye is slightly different than the other. The glasses gave me a horrible headache so I got rid of them.

Years later I found that I had to get glasses for my work, and I have been using them for work for a couple of years now. I would tend to agree that this is causing my vision to deteriorate, so I need a stronger lens to see as well as I did when this started. I pretty well can't read any kind of fine print now without glasses.

It's very annoying.

I have read that a feedback mechanism exists in young eyes, so that if they spend most of their time within a few feet of walls, they will become short sighted.

In the evolutionary past they were in the dark at night and outdoors in the day time and keeping a eagle eye out for food/mates/predators, which would tend to evolve good eyes.

So proper child rearing demands a number of hours a day with far away objects for the child to focus on = long walks with the child carried or carriaged and later on its own feet. Sadly, I see children seeing very short times outdoors.

myopia and feedback search

That seems like a fairly recent development, what with TV, video games, computers, and "social networking." When I was a kid, we spent just about as much time as we could outdoors, with lots of physical activity. The increasing problem of childhood obesity may also be related to this picture.

yes, and myopia is a more modern disease. I wonder how prevalent it was in the 1500s? Where would one find stats over this time?

Interesting discussion--As I have gotten older, my prescription is now back to where it was 10 years ago. A thought about no lenses, versus lenses ,from an early age. My Optometrist, is involved , with a Mormon family, who go each year to Fiji and other So. Pacific regions, to do volunteer work in this field. They do all of the operations, cataracts etc, for free, and bring a great deal of relief to the communities there. I asked him about this subject, and his response was--"If not having your eyes corrected at a younger age, helped you with later vision, we would not be needed" Not an Doctor either,--Just passing on a comment. (BTW--We pass on all of our old glasses to the people they serve--They are not perfect, but they do make a HUGE difference for those that have poor vision_These Islanders have not had ANY vision correction in their lives, until now)..

When I was in college, I could not see clearly whatever written on the board in the class room. I consulted a doctor who prescribed glasses for short sight. Since I felt uncomfortable, I stopped using it. To improve my long sight, I started looking at distant objects for a few minutes every day- like clouds in the morning and stars and moon in the night. Just for few minutes only. But within two years,my eye sight improved and I could see anything written on the board very clearly. Even to day, after many years , I am not wearing any lenses.This is my personal experience which I just waned to share.

58 years ago,as I was 15 years old, told me the optolomegist that I have to use glsses for long distance, otherwise my eyes will deteriorated, but as a hormone full teenager, I refused.

10 years latter,as I got my driving license, I was told that only for driving I need glasses!

Even now I read newspaper without glasses.

Whether you wear glasses or not when you read small letters and minute details,your eyes will get strained and get weaker

I've worn glasses for being nearsighted since age 8 or so, but if people had just explained to me that I should use a magnifying glass for really close work, and gaze at the horizon from time to time, I probably would not have needed them. From time to time, my prescription was strengthened, until I finally learned to focus on the horizon a few times a day.

Getting older, there is just less flex in the lenses, not lack of muscle, I think. My left eye was always the lazy one, until I started using it for a helmet mirror when bicycling. Now, my left eye specializes in distance work, and my right for close up. There are some ranges now that fall in between, but overall, I prefer my 36 year old glasses to some new graduated-focus lenses that require a lot of head motion.

I strained my eyes at age very young by reading Cleveland western paperbacks in dim candle or kerosene light(all we had then)- at age 14 I was fitted with specs to correct myopia in my 1st job(strong lens)- over the years stronger lenses were needed after several years. I kept all my old specs. Recently I experimented by putting these older specs in a frame adjustable forward from a blank frame sitting on my nose- I found that I had better vision for the crt comp screen 3 feet away, & over a period of watching the comp with this setup, my requirements for "normal" lenses decreased-ie- the earlier "weaker " lens in specs were now better focused as myopia correction. I told my optometrist of this & he said he'd never heard of anyone else doing this- but a vision test confirmed that my eyes were now less myopic!. So obviously there is truth in the saying "use it or lose it!"

Adjustable frame or focal length is an excellent idea but is anybody manufacturing them?.

Not that I know of- but all I did was use a cheap pair of reading specs, remove the lens, then fitted my old specs along the frames using heat shrink tubing- then by focusing on the screen & sliding the old specs in & out, got the clearest vision. The same thing can be used to see if your vision is better or worse with a prescription lens by looking at a scene say 10 feet away, then sliding specs forward from fully at home pos on nose- if vision improves- eyesight has improved& a weaker or older prescription can be used- I am now using lenses from 25 years ago- the frames had collapsed, so I made a new frame using spring wire shaped by hand, then affixed lens to half moon x 2 shape using moderate amount of hot-melt glue- excellent!. Also I advise others NOT to use multi-focal specs- mine cost $552- eyes got worse rapidly- which is why I started experimenting- with this positive result!.

Hi,

I have ben shortsighted since around 11 yrs old. I was prescribed glases and have worn them all of my life since then.

Over the years my eyesight has improved - an expected effect - see yr Optomerist for short sight, i.e distance vision.

I moved to Varifocals which enable close and far vision to be corrected with the same lens for each eye. Reading is achieved with the lower portion of the lens. Unfortunately this provides difficulties in doing precise work above the eye line!!

My close eyesight now needs two different sets of glasses, one for reading, close vision and a slightly different pair which double up as DIY glasses and Computer screen use. This latter pair are different in focal length and are not Varifocal so have to be taken on and off.

So I agree with various statements about changing focal lengths for different purposes - and the Optomerist ought to ask you to set up your reading distance for whatever you are trying to do.

The varifocal argument is currently changing as some manufacturers are producing contact lenses which are said to be useful for those that need varifocal lenses.

Enjoy

Sleepy

I had a similar experience in my youth. After 10 years, I finally gave up on my doctor when he told me that "if you don't get laser surgery now [ie before your eyesight gets any worse] then you won't have enough cornea to laser off" - oh and that he had a special that month too! I was 18 at the time.

You definitely want to look into the Bates Method: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Improve-Your-Eyesight-Without-Glasses/dp/0285635085/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301726786&sr=8-1

Read up on the history of Bates and optimology too. It's interesting about how what we sometimes accept as "pure science" is actual the byproduct of history more than scientific objectivity.

I use glassuk online to order prescriptions that are substantially lower than my doctor prescribed ones (though I still use a slightly stronger one for the computer - straining is the ultimate no-no for Bates)

I've had experiences very much coincident with those described in Bates including improved eyesight (1.5 diopters with minimal effort) and brief moments of totally clear vision without any glasses at all. My business partner went from -5.5 to -1 when she was really working the Bates Method.

-HKS

It is no coincidence that my eyes are the same age I am. When I found it difficult to read a newspaper about 35 years ago, I went to an optometrist who prescribed reading glasses. At that time, I inquired about Bates and related methods. His response was that exercises were a waste of time and that because I spent much time around machines and firearms, glasses were a very good idea. As a result, I have worn glasses for 35 years without knowing whether another solution would have worked, but confident that on several occasions, my glasses have saved me from potentially blinding accidents.

The eye is just the "collector", have you considered the actual processing going on in your gray matter? When the brain doesn't get the response it wants over time it will try to adapt new pathways to the same goal. Just a thought.

This topic ties in with my life significantly.

I abused my eyes from an early age without knowing it. I recall staring cross-eyed at an object on the wall for long times as a toddler lying in bed.

Then later in school, I spent an above average amount of time reading compared to other children my age. By fourth grade, I was already unable to read the blackboard without squinting. I still had never had glasses, so that indicates anecdotally, that the eyes can degrade longterm without them. I compensated slightly by using a telescope sometimes. I had a very decent Japanese-made Focal brand telescope, 10-30x zoom with a 30mm objective lens. That one got stolen , and the replacement one, though the same type made a few years later, no longer had good quality.

By sixth grade when I finally was able to get glasses, my vision had deteriorated to 20/80 in each eye.

I continued to spend more time reading books than most other children my age. I have an easily stressed personality, and stress is a big factor in myopia progression. Stress in life that causes general bodily symptoms can contribute to eye strain.

By 9th grade my vision had deteriorated to 20/200 per eye. I was studying at least 4 hours every day then.

By the end of 12th grade, my visual acuity had plummeted to about 20/400 per eye, with one eye having worse astigmatism than the other. For that bad eyesight was to be my last pair of glasses for correcting myopia.

By the time I had graduated from college four years later, I could no longer see well enough from the bottle-bottom glasses. I was definitely legally blind without glasses.

So, I went to an ophthalmologist and got radial keratotomy on both eyes. That enabled me to see far without corrective lenses. The right eye turned out clearer, has smooth vision, and does most of the work, especially reading. The left eye turned out with a severe but strange type of astigmatism. I guess the procedure goofed on that eye.

Now, I use reading glasses 99.99 percent of the time that I read or do close work, I very greatly prefer seeing far rather than close without glasses. When I'm reading, glasses are OK, because I am not moving and they don't shift around or otherwise get in the way much. Besides, as I lean my head on my hand, I can hold the bridge of the glasses off of my nose to prevent pressure and a sore spot on the nose skin.

Here is my summarizing interpretation of my eyesight saga, with some external knowledge gained along the way added in. Close work for the eyes, without external magnification, thickens the lenses when the eye muscles squeeze them. However, the muscles don't generally actively work in the other direction. That is, by just relaxing, they release pressure on the lens so that both they and the lens relax back to the far-sight state.

By doing too much unaided close work without distance-sight breaks, the muscles and lenses adapt to the close-seeing state. Think of it like calf muscles that physically shorten in response to wearing high-heel shoes. That explains what happened to my eyes over the years.

"I abused my eyes from an early age without knowing it. I recall staring cross-eyed at an object on the wall for long times as a toddler lying in bed."

That's not abuse :) Yogi's and meditators have been staring cross-eyed at the tip of their noses for hours on end for thousands of years. It stretches the optic nerve and stimulates the pituitary, which the optic nerve stretches around.

Re: Besides, as I lean my head on my hand, I can hold the bridge of the glasses off of my nose to prevent pressure and a sore spot on the nose skin.

This is off the main point, but if you are getting a sore spot on your nose, see a good optician and have your (or a) frame fitted properly to your face. It surprised me--well, it surprised me the frist time someone did a bad job of it, but by bending the nose pieces (of adjustable) and the arms, a good eyeglass fitter can make your frames very comfortable.

I figured that I ought to mention that I use those low-cost reading glasses that come from the store and then I have always adjusted the nose pads on my own, as well as the temples and ear pieces. My nose got broken when I was much younger and that affects the fit greatly for the worse. :(

I think it might be very worth while to go to an optician's office and talk to one of the eyeframe "fitters". They might be able to adjust your frames (maybe for a small fee) or suggest an inexpensive frame that could be fitted with reading lenses and then fitted properly to your face.

That is their profession, you know (or, at least part of it--that is, understanding how to adjust eyeglass frames to fit comfortably on someone's face).

Thanks for the thoughts. There is another advantage to holding the frame, too. I can have my head in a more comfortable position and then move the frames so I'm still looking through the sweetest spot on the lenses. (Also, maybe I should have remembered to say that I used to work in an eyeglass factory.)

I like bifocal readers, which keeps me from being too dependent on magnification I even have the safetyglasses version, as there is nothing worse than trying to switch glasses with greasy hands.

My eyesight deteriorated noticeably after working extensively on printers that used methanol based solvents, which basically melts your optic nerve

I spent many years reading in very low light situations, I always noticed tired eyes from bright lights.

I think there is a relationship between eye color & sensitivity to light

darker colored eyes are more able to tolerate more light

I don't know about eye color and light sensitivity. It seems to me, since I have this problem, that light sensitivity is largely a function of how quickly your pupil size contracts or expands in response to light changes.

While light sensitivity has always been an issue for me, there has been a marked slowing of my pupil reaction time to changes in light during the past years of deteriorating vision. I can be seriously impaired by sudden changes from bright sunlight to darkness, for example - it can take several hours for my eyes to adapt.

Hmm, this probably won't help for the several hours, but, when I worked in some coal mines in Kayford, W.Va., we used to travel through an abandoned railroad tunnel to get to one of the mines.

It was unlit, and probably at least a mile long--I don't really remember. One of the old timers taught me to close one eye shortly before entering the tunnel (so that eye started to adjust for the darkness), and then open that eye and close the other as I entered the darkness of the tunnel. It worked very well.

It may help you...

Thanks, I'll try it!

I found on certain summer days, the sun is really glaring around 5 in the afternoon in my workspace upstairs - I would end up dazzled then and would be seeing nothing for hours after the sun went down. It helped a bit to spend the glaring hours in a different room with indirect light, so my eyes didn't adjust to bright light just before dark.

I went to an event in a bar last year, with a lot of old friends present. The place was so dark, I couldn't see or recognize anyone, as my eyes take so long to adjust. I bet the tunnel trick would work for that.

I heard that vitamin A is important for quick eye adjustment to changes in light. In global areas where poor nutrition is a problem, the condition is often more serious than that and general blindness often occurs. Other medical conditions can also be involved with difficulty seeing in dim light.

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/night_blindness/hic_night_blindness.aspx

Very interesting. Thanks.

But my memory doesn't work so well ;-)

Obviously, once you're in the tunnel (darkness), you should have both eyes open, as having one closed is no advantage.

Sorry--I'm planning to start getting younger, soon (and, thus, hopefully, less forgetful). ;-)

So, why does the dali lama wear spectacles? Too much yoga excercise?

I refused to wear "Readers" for a long time, even though it was obvious that my focal length (distance I had to hold reading material) had lengthened. But my reason for not wanting to was different from thinking that my eye muscles would become weak. I reasoned that the brain adapts to repetitive experience and accepts it as the "default." It has been discovered that when people have brain damage, the activities controlled by that part of the brain, can, in some cases, be recovered because other parts of the brain can sometimes "take over" those same functions. Because there IS physical change and deterioration of the eye as a machine, if you live long enough, your eyesight will decrease to a greater or lesser degree.

So, yes, I think wearing readers can lead to a spiraling situation of needing stronger and stronger prescriptions.

I know most ophthalmologists think the Bates method (and eye exercise in general) won't reverse the changes due to the change in shape of the lens of the eye, but I wouldn't rule out its ability to help. (I put that in the same category as dentists belittling the idea that amalgam fillings are harmful to health. Not to mention root canals! I disagree with dentists, too.) I think eye exercises can improve the situation, but maybe not cure it altogether. As a side note, Rebounding may also improve impaired vision.

Re: Not to mention root canals!

What is your point (or complaint) about root canals?

P.S. - I forgot to mention I am diabetic and have had the following experience.

Sometimes my vision will bet "blurry." But I noticed early on that it was usually mostly due to one of my eyes being blurry. So I alternately, would close the "better" eye and literally force/wait for the other eye to become focused. Then when I would open the other eye, my eyesight was no longer blurred. Because of my experience with this, I found the "alternate" eye experience in coal mining interesting.

Two points:

* Just to be clear, the eye experience wasn't particularly related to coal mining, it just was something I came across while employed in some coal mines--the experience was essentially one that anyone driving on that particular essentially abandoned road could experience. (But, I wouldn't have responded just to make that point.)

* The other point is I learned something else fairly recently. They now make contact lens in a bifocal configuration, and they achieve this in two alternate ways.

One approach is to use an actual bifocal contact lens that is somehow sort of weighted so that it can rotate in the lubrication of the eye to maintain proper orientation.

The other approach is to put a contact lens in one eye for distance vision, and in the other eye a contact lens for close focus. Apparently your brain then qives you the illusion of seeing out of both eyes with either near or far vision.

I haven't tried it. I know one who has, and last time we talked about it, she seemed quite happy with them. I should ask again, to see what she thinks a year or so later.

One eye for close vision and the other for far seems to work well for me.

I'm assuming you have that style of contact lenses?

I did see that has been done with contact lenses. and based on how my eyes have worked, I can see how it could be beneficial. That's because when my eyes were set to the same 20/20 correction, three times by the glasses my optometrist made for me, my eyes deteriorated quickly thereafter. Yet, after I finally got RK surgery, I have been able to see passably without glasses for many years now. I can read without readers but it tends to cause strain, and based on past experience, I want to avoid that.

One thing I can say is that one eye turned out overcorrected with some farsightedness while the other seemed to retain some remnant nearsightedness. The farsighted one had some really bad astigmatism after the RK, too. The slightly nearsighted one ended up pretty clear, fortunately. I guess that the discrepancy between the eyes acted as a stress reliever in the feedback loop. That could have reduced eyestrain, tending to protect acuity. That's my interpretatrion of how it happened.

Just skimming through this to catch up, I see some 'discontent' with prescription glasses.

A number of factors influence an eye test that are not commonly recognised. For instance, if you slept with an eye pressed into your pillow, the lens may be distorted for some time. An early morning eye test will result in 'correction' for a random 'not flaw'.

Also it is common practice for optometrists to 'go a little further in correction' in anticipation of further degradation - not less, in anticipation of improvement.

One should always do 'eye exercises' in the morning, but especially before a test.

It may be interesting - and directly beneficial for several of you - to read this link and investigate further.

Very interesting, I had never heard of that until now. It makes sense, thanks for the link 34point5.

I wore the Ortho-K for several years. Overall it wasn't bad, however there were a few aspects I didn't like.

• One was occasional discomfort of the hard (rigid) lens. The occasional discomfort wasn't all that bad, but every few months it would be bad enough to be more than annoying. For instance, no matter how much I lubricated the lens before putting it in, it would hurt like I was having my eye poked out. Sometimes to the point where my eye would water so much and hurt so much that I could barely get the lens back out. Of course this is all just prior to going to bed. Not a good way to wind down.
• At the time I started wearing the Ortho-K I was travelling frequently (internationally) and also worked rather odd shifts (3rd shift one day, then 1st or 2nd the next, then back to 3rd, etc.). On trips requiring me to be traveling for 18-30 hours before reaching my destination, I would have to travel wearing the contacts and take them out mid trip to have any hope of having decent eyes sight (good enough to drive) upon reaching my destination. The alternative would be to attempt to put them in at the destination, but I didn't want to risk the occasional pain in the eye described above.
• On very rare occasions my eye would be so irritated that I had to leave them out for a day or two. Overall my vision did not degrade too bad as most of what I do requires close up vision. But trying to drive or girl watch (did I say that out loud ?) would be quite difficult. I had no glasses for that condition of my vision....the glasses I had were much too strong (made for my original prescription prior to trying Ortho-K) as it takes several weeks or more for my vision to degrade to use the glasses comfortably (and safely).
• One other very minor gripe is that day to day vision was not consistent. I could see more than well enough, but notice a difference on some days...almost like my eyes were cloudy and I couldn't clear them.

While all of that may not sound too great, it was great to go all day most days without anything in my eyes, especially if I was playing a sport such as beach volleyball, softball or swimming.

I recently switched back to regular contacts as I just hated having to poke myself in the eyes each night. With my extended wear soft lens, I can leave them in for a week. I just have to be more careful playing volleyball and swimming.

I have studied optometry on my own for a long time and plan to go to uni to do the course at some stage...So i know a fair bit.

There are way too many variables and generalizations in most of the comments and I can see (excuse the pun) where the engineering mind analyzes the 'data' presented. It would take me forever to even begin answering all the questions/comments without further questions from each individual.

I will attempt (very briefly) to explain some...There are basically four aspects to vision and vision correction. The spherical power (be it plus or minus), the cylindrical power (astigmatism), axis (the angle of the cylindrical power) and the (if required) add power. Most of the vision problems will fall into this categories to be corrected.

Those that commented on eye muscle movement are somewhat correct. As we age, it's not the muscle that weakens, its that the fluid inside the lens (inside the eye) crystalises, and the muscle cannot pull or contract the lens as it used to. Thus some need the help to focus on the region where the muscle cannot pull/contract the lens any further. So, if you started being myopic (short sighted) at an early stage, the prescription (Rx) will increase (on the negative side) over time. But as you hit the after 40's, the lens starts to crystalize requiring a positive add (so effectively using maths, the negative Rx decreases - as some of you have eluded to already). If you started being longsighted or requiring no correction, But as you hit the after 40's, the lens starts to crystalize requiring a positive add to help)

I can go on and on and on - this is very basic info.

On a side note - I just don't know what it is about the baby boomer gen that are so against wearing glasses?

My reading vision seems to improve when I press Ctrl and + on my keyboard.