Eyes, Vision, and Optometrist Voodoo

[Revalos]

OK...so I have redonkulously good eyesight. I have no problem up close or far away, never have, and I can routinely read the copyright date below the smallest eyechart line. I also can see the printing dots on a newsprint image at about two inches from my face.

So I go in today for an eye exam and get told I'm farsighted and that I need glasses. Is this just BS to make money for the industry or should I trust this guy?

He seemed to know his shit this time (as opposed to when they had some seventeen year old medical student give me my exam a year ago) but this was still in an Pearle Vision in a strip mall...not exactly a medical facility.

[Bobmuhthol]

If, during the exam, you saw things distinctly better with one of the lenses used, then you should do it. If you didn't notice a difference, there likely wasn't one.

[Trouble]

OK...so I have redonkulously good eyesight. I have no problem up close or far away, never have, and I can routinely read the copyright date below the smallest eyechart line. I also can see the printing dots on a newsprint image at about two inches from my face.

So I go in today for an eye exam and get told I'm farsighted and that I need glasses. Is this just BS to make money for the industry or should I trust this guy?

He seemed to know his shit this time (as opposed to when they had some seventeen year old medical student give me my exam a year ago) but this was still in an Pearle Vision in a strip mall...not exactly a medical facility.

If you can see as good as you say you can without getting headaches, I'd blow it off for now. I'm of the school that getting glasses when you still see pretty well is an invitation for your eyes to get lazy.

[Allereli]

Why did you bother going if you don't plan on listening to them? Just about all optometrists work out of store fronts

[Revalos]

Well, I went because it was free through my insurance if I did it before I go to South Korea in a few weeks.

I'm not ignoring what the guy said, I just wanted to get some wisdom of crowds to go along with his opinion.

[Snapp]

Get a second opinion?

[AnticorRifling]

Get a second opinion?


This.

An eye exam is pretty cheap. Just go to another one and see if they match up.

If you don't think you need glasses and you're not having trouble seeing or getting headaches you can wait in my opinion.

Me, I'm near sighted as a one eyed mole.

[sst]

post the RX he gave you up here and ill tell you if you need them or not
and how it will help your vision

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Well.. there enough people with totally fucked up vision that they have to take care of without scamming someone with a bogus diagnosis so I doubt he was just arbitrarily telling you to get glasses.

What Bob said was correct-- if during the exam you looked through any lens combination and truly saw better, then you should go through with it. But.. If you're honestly not sure, get a second opinion just in case.

Just as a warning though.. if you do end up ignoring this because you feel it's unneccesary, you could give yourself some really nasty eye-strain and horrible headaches (even migraines).

[Revalos]

Here's the prescription:

Sphere Cyl Axis
OD +1.00 -0.50 130
OS +0.75 -0.25 168

And I never saw better through the test equipment than I can see normally, most of the changes between lens types were very minor.

[sst]

Okay
The first column:
+1.00
+0.75

Means you have a problem with near vision. (Reading, but very very small… it really comes out to Right eye +.50 and left eye 0.00 your real issue is the second and third columns)

The second and third parts
-0.50 x130
-0.75 x168

Means you have a astigmatism which effects your overall vision (your eye is shaped like a football not round and distorts the light before it hits the back of your eye.

Pretty much if you were to get glasses you would see a minor improvement in both your near and far vision

If you want to see if it’s worth it the OD should have a set of fames he can put the lenses from his refractor in and give you a good idea of how you'll see, you'll see better but not very much so. Best bet is to take it outside and focus on something like a tree at a far distance (100-200 meters) A possible idea is to get a cheap ass pair from Wal-Mart or something and give them a shot (you can get a set for 39-49 dollars)

Overall it will make a small improvement on your vision; you will see details at a distance better… Reading street signs and the like, and correct any headache and eyestrain problems you have when reading or working in front of a computer for long periods. Id drop the $50 bucks to try them out at walmart

[Revalos]

Huh. Maybe I will try it out. The guy said nothing about an astigmatism.

I'll pick up a hand-ground pair in Korea for a couple bucks and try that while I'm there.

[Renian]

I'm going to have to say that you shouldn't go through with it anyway. Using lenses of any sort actually changes the shape of the eye (except hard contact lenses), which will slowly lead to you having to get a more powerful prescription again...and again...and again.

I'd look up the Bates method instead, which I'm currently trying to use to get my vision back. It definitely works, but because I have glasses/contacts and generally need to use them, my progress is hindered.

[sst]

I'm going to have to say that you shouldn't go through with it anyway. Using lenses of any sort actually changes the shape of the eye (except hard contact lenses), which will slowly lead to you having to get a more powerful prescription again...and again...and again.

I'd look up the Bates method instead, which I'm currently trying to use to get my vision back. It definitely works, but because I have glasses/contacts and generally need to use them, my progress is hindered.

No it does not change the shape of your eye. That is a myth.

The bates method is a bunch of bullshit too.

Edited to add: You cant will your eyes to change shape... his method is like flexing your shoulder muscles to make your calfs stronger.

[Renian]

Bates method kicks ass, don't know what you are talking about.



No it does not change the shape of your eye. That is a myth.

[citation needed]
I am 100% sure that science has proven this.

[sst]

no its 100% unproven by science.

I wikipidea'd it for ya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method

According to him you can heal glaucoma and cataracts by standing in front of a eye chart and blinking.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Bates method kicks ass, don't know what you are talking about.



[citation needed]
I am 100% sure that science has proven this.

I'd be interested in seeing that citation. From my understanding, the degenerating shape of the eye is almost wholly dependent on genetics, not whether or not you wear corrective lenses.

[Renian]

I'm looking for internet articles that point either way at the moment. I know I have books I can cite when I get home though.

It's pretty bad when Google search turns up nothing either way, and Wikipedia doesn't have it. Bleh. Books are supposed to be useless now!

EDIT: Well, there's this: http://www.myopia.org/page2.htm
Problem is it's not a straight-up, recent scientific article. Actual science articles from like NCBI or something = DO WANT

EDIT 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9040464?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

CONCLUSIONS: The structural cause of adult-onset and adult-progression of myopia is vitreous chamber elongation.
It doesn't say glasses cause it but it's a start.

EDIT 3: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18484807?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Lens-induced defocus changes in refractive state were significantly correlated with vitreous chamber depth changes.

Bitchin'! I do believe I win.

EDIT 4: MOAR
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16797531
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15980206

[sst]

its a scam he was a quack

[Renian]

Who? Bates?

[sst]

yes, bates

[Renian]

Oh. Well tell that to everyone that reviewed this.

http://www.amazon.com/Relearning-See-Improve-Eyesight-Naturally/dp/1556433417/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217513426&sr=8-1

...Though the author's name is Quackenbush, roflcopter. But I have that book. It's win.

Also, see above posts. I think I just proved the lenses/elongation thing with the NCBI articles. Unless I read them wrong, in which case I'd be happy to attempt to find more. But later.

[Warriorbird]

This is one area I'd trust sst in.

If you're not comfortable with this guy... get another guy and get some cheap frames.

[Renian]

I wouldn't when I keep finding shit on NCBI that is damning to glasses.

[sst]

I wouldn't when I keep finding shit on NCBI that is damning to glasses.

We're talking about bates here and him being a quack.

[sst]

i briefly scanned over the articles it seems none of the lenses are being used to correct anything in the animal subjects just to blur their vision.

Second, why use animal subjects when you can use human subjects... there are millions in the us who wear glasses

Ive had the same RX since I was 12 years old. Guess my glasses are not making my eyes worse.

[Renian]

We're talking about bates here and him being a quack.

Not what Warriorbird was talking about.

At any rate you appear to be making generalizations without sources while I'm finding things to back up my case. Care to counter with actual sources, so that we can make damn sure that Revalos is making the right decision?



i briefly scanned over the articles it seems none of the lenses are being used to correct anything in the animal subjects just to blur their vision.

Second, why use animal subjects when you can use human subjects... there are millions in the us who wear glasses


True on the first. But on the second we generally always use animals, and we don't want to unnecessarily elongate the vitreous chamber of humans more. The study may also take longer.

Also, in regards to the first, the prescription you give someone isn't always necessarily correct. So your vision could still be blurred, and it may cause the problems. Much slower, but it still happens.

[sst]

Not what Warriorbird was talking about.

At any rate you appear to be making generalizations without sources while I'm finding things to back up my case. Care to counter with actual sources, so that we can make damn sure that Revalos is making the right decision?



True on the first. But on the second we generally always use animals, and we don't want to unnecessarily elongate the vitreous chamber of humans more. The study may also take longer.

Also, in regards to the first, the prescription you give someone isn't always necessarily correct. So your vision could still be blurred, and it may cause the problems. Much slower, but it still happens.

the correctness of the RX depends on the person sitting in the chair

Before I joined i worked in eyecare and am still ABO certified and nationally licensed, ive got a good idea how things work.

your sources are puting lenses that are 7 to 10 diopters off on animals, that is a far cry from putting a correct RX on somebody

making and eye look though a lens that is 10 diopters off is going to fuck its vision because the muscles of the eye adjust to attempt to improve what it sees and the muscles in the eye are not like those in your arm they dont jump back to the original shape so quickly

The correct RX does not hurt your eyes.

[BigWorm]

Renian, the Bates Method is bullshit. Seriously. As in his theory on how the eye focuses doesn't stand up to scrutiny now or even when he thought it up.

[Renian]

Before I joined i worked in eyecare and am still ABO certified and nationally licensed, ive got a good idea how things work.

your sources are puting lenses that are 7 to 10 diopters off on animals, that is a far cry from putting a correct RX on somebody


Didn't realize you were in eyecare but it makes sense. And, while your criticism remains valid, you still have not provided anything that refutes what I'm saying, whereas I have at least provided something that says it is possible for lenses to change the depth of the vitreous chamber, causing elongation.


Renian, the Bates Method is bullshit. Seriously. As in his theory on how the eye focuses doesn't stand up to scrutiny now or even when he thought it up.

If it's bullshit, people wouldn't use it and get results. His reasons for it working might be wrong, I'll yield, but if the methods that he prescribes causes the eye to work correctly again then whatever. I'm in the process of using it myself and it seems to be working as I practice with a Snellen card. Using the methods allows me to read like four more lines down on the Snellen card in a single session at the same distance.

[sst]

If it's bullshit, people wouldn't use it and get results. His reasons for it working might be wrong, I'll yield, but if the methods that he prescribes causes the eye to work correctly again then whatever. I'm in the process of using it myself and it seems to be working as I practice with a Snellen card.

Yes and people take all the herbal weight loss things because they work too.

people are stupid and a lot will believe anything.

as to the other part, I'm to lazy to play the google wars. If you think you're right go for it, its not going to hurt your eyes in the long run, but when you start getting headaches go to your OD or MD get a RX and buy some glasses.

[Renian]

Yes and people take all the herbal weight loss things because they work too.

people are stupid and a lot will believe anything.

as to the other part, I'm to lazy to play the google wars. If you think you're right go for it, its not going to hurt your eyes in the long run, but when you start getting headaches go to your OD or MD get a RX and buy some glasses.

Given the fact that I have glasses already...that won't be an issue. I'm trying to get *rid* of them.

[sst]

good luck

[Renian]

good luck

Thanks :)

I'll let you know of the results because of your profession.

[CrystalTears]

Given the fact that I have glasses already...that won't be an issue. I'm trying to get *rid* of them.
Contacts. Unless you plan on getting lasik surgery.

Personally I'm sick of my eyes getting injected, operated on and engulfed in drops, although I'm glad I can still see.

[Renian]

Contacts. Unless you plan on getting lasik surgery.

Personally I'm sick of my eyes getting injected, operated on and engulfed in drops, although I'm glad I can still see.

Oh I have contacts too. I'm trying to see (lawl pun) if there is really another way to fix your eyes without glasses/contacts/lasik. Which, of course, would be good.

[BigWorm]

If it's bullshit, people wouldn't use it and get results. His reasons for it working might be wrong, I'll yield, but if the methods that he prescribes causes the eye to work correctly again then whatever. I'm in the process of using it myself and it seems to be working as I practice with a Snellen card. Using the methods allows me to read like four more lines down on the Snellen card in a single session at the same distance.

You get better at recognizing blurry things. If you like that better than having correct vision, good for you.

[CrystalTears]

Ah, now I see why sst said good luck because I don't see there being another way.

[Renian]

Ah, now I see why sst said good luck because I don't see there being another way.

Yeah.

I'll let you guys know if it does, in fact, work.

[CrystalTears]

In my experience, eyes don't heal or fix themselves through "physical therapy". Once there is a compromise in how the eye is functioning, it doesn't get better without corrective lenses or surgery.

[Latrinsorm]

If it's bullshit, people wouldn't use it and get results.The mind is a powerful deceiver, and the placebo effect is well documented.