Reversing Lens-Induced Myopia (2018)
losetheglasses.org
losetheglasses.org
"The long-term use of over-correcting glasses induces myopia" This is quite true. But it induces a myopia which is reversible. Overcorrection (which we try to avoid) leads to ciliary spasm. When the patient gets older, the lens gets less flexible (for everyone, this is what leads to presbyopia) and the myopia, if it was overcorrected, diminishes. It is common to reduce the correction for patients around 40.
We have a good, natural model in nature for over-corrected myopic eyes: hyperopic patients. They don't become myopic with time. Around 40-45 years, their hyperopia becomes clinically significant (they didn't need glasses before and they progressively need to have their hyperopia corrected at 45, or a little bit later if the hyperopia is slight).
"Repair is fast at first as you clear the ciliary spasm, and then slows down as you work on shortening the eyeball itself." No. Clearing the ciliary spasm (which is not present in every myopic patient, only the overcorrected ones) will indeed reduce the amount of myopia (the eye will return to its normal state: less myopia). However, we happen to have a very precise way to mesure the axial length of the eyeball (interferometry). While we commonly observe a lengthening of the eyeball in high, pathological myopia, I've never heard of an eyeball which shortened, nor read any paper which related this phenomenon. We don't know why the eyeball elongates in high myopia. But, as far as I know, eyeball never shorten.
"If you are considering laser eye surgery, please skim Lasik Complications." Yes, please do. You must be informed and your surgeon must inform you. However, you could also look at the number of refractive surgeons who underwent themselves this surgery, or operated their family. It is a common thing to operate our residents at the end of their internship because they saw the outcomes and want the procedure. Please note that any serious refractive surgeon will perform a refraction after cycloplegia, to remove any ciliary spasm and correct only the "real" myopia.
https://theophthalmologist.com/business-profession/do-ophtha...
There are many anecdotal reports about people seeing shorter eyeballs as measured by an autorefractor while doing the reduced lens method, one example that I recall is this one from cliffgnu[1].
For LASIK the real thing that isn't communicated is that it doesn't address the root of the problem which is that the eyeball gets longer, it only works as if someone carved glasses on your cornea.
The eyeball gets longer with time in high (pathological) myopia. Serious surgeons will check that the myopia is stable (1-2 years) before doing a surgery. The eye doesn't, usually, gets longer in patients with moderated myopia. All the work, in refractive surgery, is in good patients selection. It is very unusual to observe a significant myopic regression in patients with a stabilized myopia after 21 years. Of course the eye is an organ, there is no absolute rule in the human body. However, patients which were correctly selected for surgery don't, usually, see their myopia coming back with time.
I don't have time to find a reference, but I have read research which shows that our eyes tend to grow longer when we are having any sort of trouble focusing, which is often the case with a weakened prescription or in dim light. As a result I stopped ordering slightly weaker glasses for myself and moved my office to a brighter room in the house.
Despite all that, my Myopia seems to be getting worse, wearing the appropriate glasses that ensure sharp focus for distance vision and ones that are less straining with a negative SPH value for computer work (hobby/weak reading glasses etc). I also have some astigmatism which my glasses are completely correcting now.
I would love for medical science to discover the means to reverse myopia, it seems like a solvable problem involving signalling/conditions which causes the eye morphology to change.
I have this image of my eyeball in my head, being basically a skin sack full of water enclosed in the skull in all dimensions but one. My theory is my eyeballs lengthened because of the high IOP. My ophthalmologist says this is impossible. Unfortunately I am not scientifically literate enough to check that and I am not sure who to talk to.
What I am trying to say is, if your myopia is constantly worsening get your IOP tested - just in case.
Any sources about that?
also: > Differences in pressure between the two eyes are often clinically significant, and potentially associated with certain types of glaucoma, as well as iritis or retinal detachment.
As a farsighted person who didn't get glasses until I was 30... I only wish it was as easy as sitting and waiting a few years.
Most of the advice in tech circles is about myopia, so whenever I see something like this I like to imagine the opposite advice to see if it would cure me in the opposite direction. Should I stare at something less than 20cm away for 20 seconds every 20 minutes? I don't think either near or far-sighted people are going to heal themselves with internet advice
Interestingly enough, it does seem like eyeballs can shorten in many species, including chicks, shrews, and some primates. It only took a few seconds to Google.[1]
I’d be curious whether humans share a similar mechanism. I would be surprised if they didn’t, considering how this mechanism is common amongst such a diverse range of species.
Cheers.
[1] https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2189093
When they spend more time on getting prescriptions and multiple opinions, they get better prescriptions.
Does this measure the length at the center only? Even if the eye cannot shrink there, it could possibly grow outside of the center or by inreasing its diameter causing a change of the shape.
I'll edit if I find the reference.
What I do is regularly go for a walk in the sun for up to half an hour without wearing glasses or contacts. If it doesn't work, I'll be getting a good dose of vitamin D in any case.
edit :
here's the study : https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2018840118
here's DS's retweet : https://twitter.com/davidasinclair/status/145775319654643712...
I misrepresented DS's retweet comment and it is not as spectacular as I made it seem. In any case, intresting.
Regarding LASIK, I got my surgery in 2009, at 21 years of age. At the time I only did enough research to know to find a reputable surgeon in my area, and no more. Nowadays I would probably Google for more side effects and dangers. I'd likely hesitate at the risk of getting it so early and wonder if it'll be a waste as my eyes change, but at the time I just trusted what the doctor told me.
I still consider it to be one of the best things I've ever spent money on. I think the surgeon mentioned he over-corrected somehow, accounting for eyesight changes over the years. There's been some degradation. If I close one eye I can see that my right one is slightly less sharp and slower to focus than the left. But overall my eyesight is still excellent over ten years later, with none of the scary persistent complications I'd read about since the surgery.
Nowadays, I hear of newer methods of laser eye surgery that involve putting in lenses that you can replace with new ones when needed as opposed to resurfacing the eye itself. It makes me think about how much advancement there must be in the techniques since I'd gotten it done. If I'm still happy with my decade-old result, I imagine people getting it done today might find their procedures to be even better.
Worsened dryness as an outcome from LASIK is the only thing holding me back from it. Would love some feedback!
One has to wear the contacts every night. They do not reverse myopia but are the most effective in stopping further progression of myopia. As per our eye doctor, ortho-K lens is the most effective (~80%) and is a non-destructive method unlike LASIK which basically burns the cornea to the right shape.
There is also a team at Univ. of Washington who designed glasses to slow down the progression of myopia (approved in Canada, not yet in the USA). https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/glasses-stop-myopia-are-success...
The theory is that children are naturally far sighted which creates blurrier/lower contrast central vision and sharper/higher contrast peripheral vision. The brain interprets the higher contrast peripheral vision as a sign the eye is too short and far sighted, and the eye begins to grow. As the eye grows to the appropriate length, central vision experiences higher contrast and peripheral vision experiences lower contrast, and the eye stops growing.
If you degrade the peripheral vision's ability to experience higher contrast at all with these glasses, then the brain will never see a need to grow the eye.
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1258672/v1/48b147...
Downsides were that in the US there were expensive, and need proper daily cleaning, but the tradeoff is worth it - only need 1 pair per year - less waste too!
Going to get Lasik this year because they don't play nicely with travel in developing countries, but they were absolutely fantastic for school and university.
I went in to get an endoscopy done one day. They put me under for it for about 15 minutes or so. Not sure which sedative they used. Did the usual “count to three” trick where you’re out in less than a second.
After I woke up, some hours later I noticed that my weak eye had cleared up and the other one was now the weak one.
This effect went away some hours thereafter. Since then, I’ve often wondered what in the world could have caused that reversal.
When I use something like “active focus” (consciously and voluntarily shifting the focal plane) I can get the weak eye to clear up a bit. Sunlight helps immensely as well.
I would be very impressed if I had the opportunity to observe a myopic regression in a patient after cycloplegia (for both exams, of course).
Anecdotally people have reported you can improve at about 0.75 diopters per year and that resonates with my experiences.
Also anecdotally, people who spend a lot of times outdoors seem to recover faster.
Unfortunately, the tldr is that my vision has not objectively improved permanently.
Story of my life really - I very much question most people's ability to improve in most areas, but that's a different topic.
P.S. I have the same disbalance as most here - one eye is both faster to focus and sees better. I close one eye when I do near-far focus.
This trial had a similar but not statistically significant result: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16907670/
(There are conflicting observational studies, but these two were controlled trials).
While the market for myopia is large and growing, the market for presbyopia is almost 100% of the HackerNews community. Similar techniques apply, in the face of sizable economic incentives to promote expensive progressive lenses. The advent of online glasses offers more options, e.g. dedicated computer glasses for a fixed focal plane, ChemistriE magnetic clip-ons.
In an industry which spends many hours daily using eyes for closeup work, "eye fitness" offers observable returns on vision literacy.
This seems to be going in a similar direction. Get your body to adjust than help it with strong prescription glasses.
Not sure if it will work for people who are in a transition phase with their eyes worsening every year, but it may help people with relatively stable eyes.
I do water-fast 3 days in a row once a month, and it does basically nothing for me (adversely or positively). This is very much a trend in my life - trying all these things to achieve pretty much nothing. I guess it's good to know with certainty though.
At worst in my late teens my prescription was -1.25, at which point I started wearing glasses only for distance vision, never for reading and computer work. I am certain this diligent habit stopped the myopia progressing. Now that I’m 10 years out of uni my prescription has reversed to -0.25. I don’t wear distance glasses anymore and am careful with computer positioning to minimise eye strain. Hope my 25/20 lasts!
In the environment for which we are adapted, most time was spent focusing far away. In the modern world, a person may spend all day, every day, for years on end, focusing on things close up like books and screens. If the ciliary muscle is always contracted, it can get stuck; over time, even change the shape of the eyeball from constant pressure such that the cornea focuses too far in front of the retina, making the image blurry.
Perhaps I was too quick to get glasses when things first started looking blurry. If I had known, I would have tried to get the ciliary muscle to relax by focusing on things far away for at least a time every day. Instead, I went right to the minus lenses but kept my lifestyle of close up work all the time. This led to hyperopic defocus, meaning my ciliary muscle had to continue to contract to focus on near objects through the minus lens.
About 7 years ago I had the thought of improving my vision habits. I will spare HN the details, but my vision (optometrist confirmed) has improved from about -3.5 diopters to -2.25 diopters. I can now do things without glasses including working on the computer, cooking, and reading, for which I am grateful.
I believe there should be wider recommendation to strongly discourage using myopia glasses for computer/reading. I've been wearing it since I was 7 (> 15 years) with a lot of reading, phone and computer usage, no ~big changes in my myopia but not better too. (Disclaimer, my glasses have always been pretty weak (<2))
I've also mistakenly overcorrected my latest pair, so I'll experiment with a astigmatism-only pair to see how much I need correction.
Now I have early stage presbyopia which is only an issue for reading small text. I'm grateful I can just pop out the lenses and get spectacular near vision when I need it. It's great for watching video on a 5" cell phone because you can hold it close enough to fill your field of view and don't have to support the mass of a larger phone when lying down.
One aspect of this that I haven't heard anyone talk about is the fact that you can get your eyes to focus more precisely if you practice. You can make out really fine details in something if you have bright enough light and you concentrate on one specific point and try really hard to make it as sharp as possible. You can focus on one ridge of the fingerprints on your hand and then look at the little imperfections on those. Or the individual fibers in a sweater. Likewise you can defocus your eyes just by relaxing them. Focusing is a skill and a muscle you can train. I wonder if many people habitually don't focus on things precisely, just leaving them a bit fuzzy, and this contributes to the problem?
This part isn't practice, it's the pupils contracting that improves the focus like looking through a pinhole does.
What my sibling said too: brightness will lead to sharper vision due to the pin-hole effect.
It makes your vision worse (because the astigmatism is really not corrected) and might trigger a myopia progression (because the glasses are too strong)
It was absolutely worth it and I regret nothing.
I only found a doctor that suggested LASIK now that I'm old (37), which I know is late for this, still I feel like doing it - even if to play with my kid without glasses for 10 years.
My only regret is not doing it sooner.
A fairly significant part of this is likely due to my eyes not growing anymore (the regular eye exams were during high school + undergrad), but I do like to think that some part of it is not feeling like I always had to update my prescription constantly.
So when I became nearsighted, I did not wear glasses until I was almost an adult.
The myopia remained rather stable with -1 to -1.5 D. Which fits the distance of the computer screen. It was very unhealthy that I spend 12 h a day programming thinking I was a professional teenage software engineer.
But I got really bad astigmatism with -3.4 D according to an aberrometer.
Perhaps myopia turns into astigmatism if you squint too much?
In my case no. I started with -2.5 for myopia, and was squinting pretty hard for a few months before that. Had no astigmatism
Then I got a bad habit of scratching my eyes whenever I slept too little time. While this happened my astigmatism increased by 0.25 D each year, for 4 years in a row
But perhaps sleeping on the stomach is bad
Obviously, helping people with vision issues is kind of more important, I just have a complicated relationship with printers.
Their big breakthrough in understanding myopia occurred in 2008 when they studied a particular group of people who had a genetic form of myopia that’s very severe. They discovered a gene mutation that was causing the myopia.
“It turns out it was a mutation in the cone photoreceptors,” said Jay Neitz. “We then realized that it’s really just the way that the images are being encoded on the retina.”
What’s supposed to happen as your eye grows, is that things should begin to go out of focus in the periphery of your vision. That’s a signal for the eyes to stop growing.
But as long as things are still clear in the periphery, the eyes think this person must still be farsighted, because in the natural world things in the periphery are far away.
Neitz said his team was able to design a lens to make central vision clear and in focus, and give the peripheal vision much lower contrast.
“It recreates what is supposed to be going on with our eyes before we started putting all of these things in front of our face like computer screens and tablets,” he said.
And that's where I stopped reading
But I've seen more than a fair share of doctors who are unreasonably attached to their own ego and out-of-date knowledge it's built on, and of patients who are more invested in genuine research into their condition than even Dr House would be.
The timeframe between science finding new insights(or proving prior ones wrong) and the knowledge becoming mainstream among the medical community is measured in decades.
A motivated individual can - sometimes - do much, much better, medical degree or its lack irregardless.