Hacker News Reader

Comment by zwegner | Hacker News Reader

I'm sure glad I didn't get this. I wore glasses for years and hated them, until I read about vision therapy. My vision has definitely gotten better, without any lenses or surgery, for free (well ok, I bought a book about it), and I'm sure it could be even better if I wasn't lazy about it.

It makes sense to me, how could humans naturally get such bad vision, when it can be so disadvantageous in an evolutionary sense? Environmental factors (such as staring at a computer screen...) would seem an obvious cause, and the evidence seems to confirm it.

View on HN

I was told by an eye doctor that vision therapy is pseudo-science.

How credible are your sources? Could this be quackery, or do you have solid reason for believing it is legit? (No insult intended -- it is an important question for anyone looking into vision therapy).

Well, they're just as credible as any eye doctor IMO. I try to be skeptical about everything, and I'm not 100% sure of this--it's hard to explain how some people have really bad eyesight from an early age. Then again, there's an entire industry built around corrective lenses, so it's not surprising that an eye doctor would dismiss vision therapy as pseudo-science--he'd be out of a job otherwise. That would also explain why there's not a ton of research being done on this, since somebody's gotta pay for it.

As far as sources, I honestly haven't done a ton of investigation (but more than I did before I started wearing glasses at ~4, of course...). From reading the book, and noticing a strong increase in vision soon afterwards while I was actively doing the exercises (and a corresponding decrease when I returned to mindlessly staring at computers :)), it's enough for me personally, I only have so much time in the day to waste on this.

If you want more sources, this site seems to have some pretty reasonable evidence for myopia being environmentally caused (scroll to the bottom): http://www.myopia.org/page2.htm

I'm glad that you've found a faith that speaks to your heart, but it's really not necessary to push it onto other people.

Which vision therapy are you referring to?

It's not the Bates Method,[1] is it?

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method

Which book did you get? Curious to find out what's in it.

> ... so disadvantageous in an evolutionary sense? Environmental factors (such as staring at a computer screen...)

Well if you're arguing that it's a nurture thing, there are plenty of us who had bad vision at childhood, right from before the dawn of the computer age. You could say that it was not computer screens but books that caused it, but how far back can you make this argument? Any sources for this claim?

Well, I did too--I started wearing glasses at around age 4. Books and TV would certainly contribute as well--as I understand it, "nearpoint stress" is the main cause of myopia. The eyes are tuned for scanning the horizon for faraway threats; we're naturally more far-sighted. Focusing your eyes closely causes strain, where your eye muscles must contract the lens constantly. Your eyes accomodate this stress by keeping the lens in a contracted position, and by lengthening the eye.

Oops--I forgot the book. It was this: http://www.amazon.com/Improve-Vision-Without-Glasses-Contact...

(though mine has a more modern looking cover, I guess I have a newer edition?)

Doesn't it become another tooth brushing?

Well, sort of--there's habits you should keep (looking at faraway objects and blinking more) while staring at the screen. But that's just because you're using your eyes in a very unnatural way.

LASIK is the equivalent of dental veneers in your example, or maybe using liposuction to "cure" obesity (while glasses/contacts would be just riding around on a rascal scooter).

Eagerly awaiting your responses to the other replies to your original post.

Yes, sorry--a man's gotta sleep. Hope everyone interested sees my followups...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com