Since it takes so long to get to the point:
> discovered a surprising relationship. The more time kids spent outside, the less likely they were to have myopia.
> discovered a surprising relationship. The more time kids spent outside, the less likely they were to have myopia.
The more kids difficulty kids had seeing at distance, the less likely they were to spend outside.
Once I started wearing glasses, swimming / pool time was less fun cause I can't see. Other sports were fine with glasses, but sometimes they fly off and maybe get damaged which is a big deal and dampers enthusiasm. Some amusement parks are real strict about not wearing glasses and roller coasters are less fun when you can't see. Etc
I guess I'll just hang out inside with books and computers, thanks.
By the time I was...probably about 12, my myopia was bad enough that I could no longer read without glasses (or without holding the book uncomfortably close to my face). Similarly, attempting to interact with a screen would've been impractical, because it's all fine detail.
Outdoors, however, most things that I would need to care about were large enough that I could see them just fine. I wouldn't have had much trouble, for instance, playing soccer without my glasses on, because I didn't need to care which face was which or even the numbers on the backs of the shirts—I just needed to see the colors of the shirts, and the position of the ball, well enough to maneuver between them. (Well, I wouldn't have had trouble due to my myopia. The trouble I had playing soccer was from a different source.)
...I have literally never encountered an amusement park where I couldn't wear my glasses. It seems to me that if there's really a danger, they should provide some kind of protection for you.
This is logical, but the evidence still points to something environmental causing a major shift in levels of myopia. In one generation the rate of myopia in some countries went from 20% to 80%[0]. This means that it isn't genetic, something environmental must have changed to cause this.
For other types of sports, you can wear contact lenses. Even if you're not comfortable wearing them all the time (I certainly am).
Last year I decided to get a laser eye surgery (PRK), and I'm now enjoying clear vision without glasses.
Actually nicer are cheap goggles from amazon with a close enough prescription, because they're cheap.
I'm not sticking contacts or lasers in my eyes either, thanks.
I'll try to explain what I understood from the article: the natural sunlight makes your body release dopamine, dopamine causes the eye not to elongate, not elongation equals not having near-sightedness.
Probably I got that only half right.
Anyhow the article claims it's not looking at close things and the real cause is being inside.
It makes me wish we would have had more P.E. classes outside, rather than 'giving our eyes a break' by playing kickball indoors under fluorescence.
That's a fairly large room, and we typically don't focus on the furthest point while indoors anyway. So with the 20ft requirement, it's a lot easier to fulfill while being outdoors.
The downsides however? We're completely ignoring them for whatever reason, and increasing myopia and rising child obesity rates are just one point on the giant list.
Good urbanization also, I believe, would discourage myopia. I've spent the past few months living in Barcelona and nearly everything here happens outside in the sun - going for dinner, meeting friends, playing a board game... people tend not to do as much inside under florescent lights when usable, comfortable, and safe outdoor spaces are available.
I know just my own life doesn't nullify the statement but all my friends were the same I mean outside but I don't know of them who has glasses as adults.
Do your glasses magnify or reduce things? The former is for aiding hyperopia and the latter for myopia.
Also, as far as I can recall, astigmatism is present at birth and not developed over time like some other eye conditions.
Only started to get dioptries at 30 ish but the astigmatism was with me all my life.
No, it's definitely not present at birth (at least to the same degree) and can be acquired during child development and even early adulthood.
I know just my own life doesn't nullify the statement but all my friends were
the same I mean outside but I don't know of them who has glasses as adults.
You mean you _do not_ know of any friends who _do not_ wear eyeglasses as adults?
Let me rephrase that.
You played outside as a child. You now wear glasses.
All of your friends played outside as well. All your friends now wear glasses
as well.
My friends and I played outside as children. I began to wear eyeglasses at age 17. My friends at the time to the best of my knowledge did not wear eyeglasses (ages 0 to 18). I do not know any of the same people now so I cannot say if they as adults wear eyeglasses or not.
Take off your glasses and try to read a book at arm length, and close up. If you can easily read it at both distances, you might have good vision. If you can only read it when it's far, you are far sighted. If you can only read it when it's near, you're near sighted.