Does wearing glasses weaken your eyesight? (2014) | Hacker News Reader

Does wearing glasses weaken your eyesight? (2014)

bbc.com

80 pointswalterbell56 comments

> if they don’t have the right glasses they can develop so-called “lazy-eye” or amblyopia because they’ve never had a sharp image on their retina

I am not a doctor but this sounds strange to me. (I had amblyopia so I have read a little bit about it.)

One eye's vision needs to be significantly different from another, to the extent brain "decides" it cannot merge images and goes mono-ocular.

This trivially happens with e.g. strabismus, when eyes look at different directions. But with poor eyesight corrected with sub-optimal lenses, it would require that only one eye sees significantly blurry image while another eye sees sharp enough (otherwise person would squint or tilt glasses, adjusting for both eyes - so, no reason for amblyopia to develop).

It is not unusual that a person may have different eyesight with their left and right eye (IIRC that's called anisometropia), but I think it must be quite unusual to have glasses that fail to account for this. Even if glasses are sub-optimal, the difference should be consistent, shouldn't it?

Scarred retina on one of my eyes here, due to blunt trauma as a child. If I close my good eye, everything appears as if through a heavy noise filter. Can read letters if super enlarged fonts though, with a bit of work.

My vision appears mainly monoscopic, with the damaged eye providing perfectly integrated peripheral vision.

It is never "funny" or weird - except if an eye feels tired it would have to almost always be the good one, and I have no problem driving or mountain bike riding. I'm slightly short sighted, wear glasses when out and about (contacts offer very little protection by comparison and are a pain to put on) - always buying premium polycarbonate lenses - but take them off when sitting at a screen (work) or just reading or engaging with anything in close proximity.

I was greatly surprised to find myself being able to experience 3d when watching Avatar at IMAX Melbourne - I'm thinking the largely exaggerated scale helped - the movie was not blurry, but I could strongly sense the depth; I'm very impressed by the brain's ability to make sense of things.

As for the prescription of my bad eye, I just set it to the same as my good - it really doesn't matter, so might as well have them be uniform.

Interesting that you could see 3d. I have only a slightly different RX in my left eye and 3d to me looks like layers of flat objects at different depths. I thought that was just the best 3d had to offer until someone described to me what they were seeing.

I think it is the massive size of the IMAX screen, and relative exaggeration of the left / right isolated images that forces the brain to perceive it.

In real life I struggle to tell the difference if I close my bad eye - which leads me to think I don't see in 3d. Brain perceives depth purely through focus; when looking at this phone as typing, the only change if closing the bad one is peripheral vision (Venn diagram/what good eye can't see) being dropped.

Good chance you've only seen 2d movies converted to 3d then, Because those definitely look like paper cutouts.

I saw Avatar in 3d at Imax and it looked like paper cutouts to me. Although I do at times get flashes of a full 3d experience from time to time. Magic eye posters also look like paper cutouts to me, but maybe that is the same for everyone.

You mention you had amblyopia, I'm curious how you got rid of it?

I've had strabismus (i.e. diplopia / double vision) for as long as I can remember. It's pretty minor and I didn't even wear glasses until my 20s but it's such a PITA having to wear 2 different pairs of glasses.

I understand there's a surgery that corrects strabismus where they adjust the eye muscles, just wondering if you or any other HN folks have tried the surgery. The idea of eye surgery is slightly terrifying but would make coding (especially late at night) a lot more comfortable.

These may be useful:

http://www.convergenceinsufficiency.org

http://www.strabismusworld.com

http://stereosue.com

https://nocturnalfred.github.io/strabismicapp/

https://youtube.com/user/VisualExercises

Thanks, great links! I bought the 'Fixing My Gaze' audiobook and I am researching vision therapy as a potential surgery alternative.

> You mention you had amblyopia, I'm curious how you got rid of it?

I had surgery.

In my particular case (large-angle strabismus) this was the only sensible option - no amount of therapy would've helped in my case.

If you'd consider a surgery, I'd suggest to talk to at least two different independent doctors (the best you can find and afford) and ask for their opinions on what your possible options are. I basically got a consistent firm "no, not for your condition" and that was it. However, I've heard that for small angles there are ways to fix things with therapy.

Of course, it's somewhat scary but, thankfully, everything went well. The surgery itself proved to be no big deal - sedatives did magic. I was quite nervous, but a few pills I was given had really fixed that. However, there is always a chance of mistake or something not going well, so, of course, one must be wary.

Actually, I had two surgeries. First one was a little bit off and while it corrected most of the problem, a very small angle was still left. I've went through some therapy but, unfortunately, despite my doctor's expectations the muscle had failed to stretch sufficiently.

However, that therapy had semi-fixed the amblyopia - after some exercises with synoptophore I was able to mentally force myself to see with both eyes (with double vision, of course, since alignment was still off). So, after the second surgely, right after the anesthesia paralysis wore off I got my binocular vision back. And I'd say, in my opinion that was really worth it.

Thank you for the detailed reply!

What an absurd article. It makes a totally unsubstantiated statement near the beginning:

"Whether or not you choose to wear your reading glasses will make no difference to your eyesight in the long run..."

Then goes on to conclude:

"But, returning to adults, what I find curious is the lack of studies that have been carried out in this area."

It substantiated that statement by talking about age-related longsightedness as coming from the stiffening of your eye, not from any impact given by reading glasses. You get older, your eyes age along with the rest of you.

Everyone in my family said to me as a teen why aren't you wearing your glasses? You know your eyesight will get worse.

Ten years later as a 27 year old I went to the opticians and they had got worse by .25 which my optician told me is so nelgigible that people drop by that in six months.

I know this is hardly a scientific study but I do get suspicious sometimes the advice to wear glasses is coming from the opticians industry rather than hard facts, a bit like how dentists work

I'm pretty sure eyesight, if already bad, degrades the quickest in your younger years and flattens when you get older. That's how it happened when I was growing up, and the doctors assured me that I wasn't going to go blind as my experience was "normal."

I haven't had a significant change in eyesight for a while now. What's fascinating is how each doctor has a different interpretation of what a proper prescription is. Some like to give too strong, some too weak.

I switched doctors a while ago, due to a move. The new doctor told me my prescription and I was a little surprised by the difference. I asked her why such a change and she showed me what the world would look like if I was using the prior prescription and it was like seeing a massive blur.

She said she had no idea how I was able to see at all. I was using that prescription for one year, and I didn't have any problems seeing anything before.

(I wear contacts and I sort of need to know my prescription so I know what box goes to what eye as my left and right are different. When I wore glasses, I had no clue what it was)

I think you just get used to the glasses you have. For example my current pair of glasses are a high index lens, and adjusting to them took two or three days of being slightly dizzy when walking around.

It appears to me that there is a very peculiar vacuum of knowledge surrounding eyesight and glasses among the public, and what must surely be willful ignorance amongst opticians.

>Everyone in my family said to me as a teen why aren't you wearing your glasses? You know your eyesight will get worse.

And, according to the studies referenced in the post, they were right -- and would have been more so if you were younger than a teen (ie. if you didn't wore then at 6-12 yo, you'd have worsened more).

Knew a co-worker who'd worn glasses her whole life said her eye sight got better after she turned 50.

The optometrist told her the muscles around your eye weaken and don't squeeze your eyeball as well, thus changing the focal point.

Someone around that age at my workplace had a moment like that too, in fact he went from near sighted to far sighted and had to get new glasses.

This HN comment has a good diagram about myopia vs presbyopia: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16196062

That diagram is pretty cool :D

It explains the terms in a visual way with 5 ascii lines (probably a little exaggerating and not 100% correct, but easy to grasp).

That's very common. People with good eyesight tend to become farsighted as they get older - hence their need for reading glasses - and people who are nearsighted tend to become less nearsighted.

I was told by my optometrist not to get laser surgery to correct short sightedness because as I get older my eyes will naturally become longer sighted. So if I reset my eyes through surgery now I would then need glasses to correct long sightedness in about 10 years... I was 40 at the time. Basically I left it too late. Surgery for just 10 years without glasses is barely worth it for me as I only wear glasses for driving.

Actually, I wonder why we don't need to 'workout' our eyes? I mean there are muscles in our eyes and staring at a constant distance monitor all day can't be any better to those muscles than sitting the whole day to the rest of the body.

We should. Previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16146106

Previous thread (140 comments) on vision therapy to reduce the need for reading glasses for presbyopia, which starts in late 40s for most adults: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16194580

> Why then do so many people become convinced, anecdotally, that glasses have made their eyesight worse?

It's so surprising to me that people never consider their in experience and wondering. The first time wearing the correct prescription is amazingly clear. The first time taking them off makes vision much worse than before trying the glasses. Of course it's natural to question if the latter is 'being caused'. That of course is only a feeling or hypothesis, so the more results like this we have the better.

I am pretty near-sighted. I started practicing martial arts ten years ago. When I practice I don’t wear glasses. Several hours a week, where I would have worn glasses all the time previously. After a few years I noted that I felt I could see better without glasses than I used to. But my optician says otherwise. It feels like my brain ha gotten better/more comfortable (?) at interpreting what it sees, even if I don’t objectively see better. Not sure what is happening, but I am not complaining.

Vision therapy is only endorsed by mainstream optometry and insurance companies when glasses don't work, but it has helped some people. You may want to learn more about the approach you've accidentally discovered.

Neuroplasticity: http://www.allaboutvision.com/parents/vision_therapy.htm

Undercorrection: https://gettingstronger.org/2016/03/faq-for-vision-improveme...

I've always had 20/15 vision in both eyes, so I've always wondered why there are so many people in the world with bad vision. Actually I can usually bring the word into focus using someone else's glasses- unless they are the super thick coke bottle ones, or they have a really bad astigmatism, in which case I can bring either the horizontal or the vertical into focus but not both. I wish I knew what I did right, or wrong!

today there is a pandemic of myopia . if we go to some graduate class of some university probably more than 50 percent are myopic , though some are wearing contacts or done laser . if we talk in terms of evolution or genetics , clearly these people would not have been able to function before the invention of specs , and that was may be a few centuries back . So it is not genetics but something in our environment . That that something is too much near-work for kids before around 20 years without any opportunity for the eyes to relax . We are all born with somewhat a smaller size eyeball . The body gets some feedback from the degree of accommodation from which it elongates just the right amount . I believe if kids wear weaker prescription , reduce near-work , incorporate some good habits like reading from an arms length and taking frequent breaks then myopia can be avoided or reduced . Myopia has a risk of retinal detachment , which can be fixed by laser if done within a few days . For high myopics doing strenuous work like lifting weights or running may be a risk factor .I believe wearing weaker glasses has many disadvantages , but it may reduce the progression of myopia for those kids who are prone to it.

disclaimer: not medical advice, please consult opthalmologist

There is a genetic component to myopia, i.e. two people can have similar closeup/distance/light exposure as children, yet only one develops myopia. If you are genetically (nature) susceptible to myopia, then lifestyle (nurture) plays a role in development and progression of myopia. Lifestyle factors include:

  % of closeup vs distance vision 
  reducing uninterrupted closeup time
  increasing viewing distance
  light quality/intensity: >10K lux natural vs artificial
  self-awareness of eye strain signals
  outside distance vision (especially with motion)
  sports with fast-moving objects, e.g. ping pong
  use of full peripheral vision

Good vision depends on the visual cortex of the brain which processes signals from the physical eye. Software and hardware. There is a complex feedback loop between the brain's ability to correct small errors vs. eye muscles accomodating to change focus and direction. The most advanced work in this area is vision therapy for veterans with TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury).

Neuroplasticity means that the brain/software can be upgraded with vision therapy. This is most effective with children where both the brain and eye are still developing, but it also works with adults. However, it is much more expensive than eyeglass correction and thus requires special insurance coverage for behavioral opthalmology. It may be covered by national healthcare.

https://aoa.org/patients-and-public/resources-for-teachers/a... says: "Reading requires the integration of a number of vision skills: visual acuity, visual fixation, accommodation, binocular fusion, convergence, field of vision, and form perception. The typical school eye chart test only evaluates distance visual acuity." This means a child can pass the "eye exam" (visual acuity) test and still have vision difficulty, causing an incorrect diagnosis of learning disability. Wendy Beth Rosen wrote the only book on this topic: https://www.wendybethrosen.com & https://youtube.com/watch?v=d-FvbUnxGKM.

All I know on this is that I was near sighted from the 3rd grade on. My vision steadily got worse when I was wearing glasses. When I switched to contacts, it stayed at the same level. Had to go without the contacts for a year and it got worse again.

Finally got lasik and it’s been perfect for 10+ years.

Anecdotal I know, but still...

My eyesight was perfect for 10+ years after Lasik as well. In the last two years...had to return to glasses :-(

How much time do you spend on the computer each day? Are you wearing your full-strength distance glasses when using the computer?

Of course it does. Go to endmyopia.org. I have improved my eyesight easily in only a few months. I know I’ll end up not needing glasses because I’ve understood how it works. Optometrist just want to sell you glasses and don’t want to tell you how to fix your vision.

insufficient light intensity does that

Interesting. Do you have links to any studies I could read on the matter?

https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120

from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9227541

Myopia, at least for children, could be the result of lack of exposure to sufficient light during the growing phase (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjdkbcOx05A).In the research, chicks with exposure to 10000+ lux had prevented myopia, while the other chicks which didn't get exposed to enough light developed myopia. The overall recommendation from the study was for children to get at least 3 hours of outdoor activity, even during school. The research showed no correlation of myopia and close work (reading, computer screen) or physical activity (exercise, play). Rather, myopia rate was lower among children who had spent more time outdoor, and also had more exposure to brightness of light.

I can testify that it seems true, at least for me, because I'm the only one in the family that has severe myopia, and the only difference between me and my family member is that I didn't go outside that much and stayed mostly indoor. Later in life, I had LASIK, but wearing glasses was awful.

In contrast to your anecdote, my brother went outside far more often than I did growing up, and his nearsightedness is both much worse and getting worse more quickly than mine (mine has changed between .25 and .5 over the last 10 years, his has changed by something like 2 in the last 5).

A lot of factors does that. Both genetics and environmental factors have their influence.

> There are, of course, two very different reasons why people wear glasses

Actually, three. Probably more. I wear glasses for astigmatism.

I’ve worn glasses for 40+ years. I’ve never worn contacts. My eyesight hasn’t changed in over 20 years.

TLDR; no. Betteridge’s law at work

you missed a dot after "no"

Thanks. I inserted a line break but HN handles them weirdly.

Whitespace gets mostly passed straight to the browser, meaning newlines, tabs, and consecutive spaces get rendered as a single space. The exceptions are: two consecutive newlines start a new paragraph, and two spaces at the start of a line denote a preformatted (“code”) block.

That explains some things. I always thought it was just some badly designed attempt to prevent comment spam where someone just posts a whole bunch of newlines.

I mean... obviously. Beyond the age of 20-25 people go decades without having to change their glasses due to changed dioptres. If wearing glasses would weaken eyesight, then you'd expect everyone to have to run off every few years get new glasses with stronger lenses.

yes

TL;DR - They don't know.

no mention of plus lens therapy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com