Eyes in Various Species Can Shorten to Compensate for Myopic Defocus

This is probably the single most important bit of published science, on the topic of natural myopia control, and a hint as to why our method here works so shockingly effectively.

Purpose.: We demonstrated that eyes of young animals of various species (chick, tree shrew, marmoset, and rhesus macaque) can shorten in the axial dimension in response to myopic defocus.

Methods.: Chicks wore positive or negative lenses over one eye for 3 days. Tree shrews were measured during recovery from induced myopia after 5 days of monocular deprivation for 1 to 9 days. Marmosets were measured during recovery from induced myopia after monocular deprivation, or wearing negative lenses over one or both eyes, or from wearing positive lenses over one or both eyes. Rhesus macaques were measured after recovery from induced myopia after monocular deprivation, or wearing negative lenses over one or both eyes. Axial length was measured with ultrasound biometry in all species.

Results.: Tree shrew eyes showed a strong trend to shorten axially to compensate for myopic defocus. Of 34 eyes that recovered from deprivation-induced myopia for various durations, 30 eyes (88%) shortened, whereas only 7 fellow eyes shortened. In chicks, eyes wearing positive lenses reduced their rate of ocular elongation by two-thirds, including 38.5% of eyes in which the axial length became shorter than before. Evidence of axial shortening in rhesus macaque (40%) and marmoset (6%) eyes also occurred when exposed to myopic defocus, although much less frequently than that in eyes of tree shrews. The axial shortening was caused mostly by the reduction in vitreous chamber depth.

Conclusions.: Eyes of chick, tree shrew, marmoset, and rhesus macaque can shorten axially when presented with myopic defocus, whether the myopic defocus is created by wearing positive lenses, or is the result of axial elongation of the eye produced by prior negative lens wear or deprivation. This eye shortening facilitates compensation for the imposed myopia. Implications for human myopia control are significant.

source

That’s huge.

yuge

We’ll fully dissect this in an upcoming post.  For now, for those of you who already understand all the pieces of the argument:

Realize that my #1 interest is in refining the practical, tangible, actionable system we use to effectively reverse myopia.  The discussion of whether what we do is even scientifically possible is so far in the rearview mirror that very occasionally I’ll sigh, pull up a chair, and quote some mainstream science that substantiates that we’re not only mythical wizard creatures.

Even though that’s such 101 discussion that I generally lack the patience to discuss what usually turns out to be academic philosophizing.

If you want to know whether it works, how about try it.  At as much as a diopter reduction in 90 days, at measurable centimeter improvement in a matter of weeks, it’s not exactly a big leap to just try it out, over arguing theory for endless hours.  The ROI on taking action is pretty favorable.  

All that said, above is one of the more rare studies that just straight up says it:  

Axial change of the eyeball goes both ways.

Like I’ve been saying since, forever.

Now the circle jerk arguers will say, but hey, those are not human (yuman?) eyes.  To which you say, my darling friend, basic biology education on eyeball function and how it’s the same in various species, that’s not my job.  Go read a book.

readabook

I’ll actually cover some of that though, one of these days, the various types of eyeballs and biology.  Just to slap it home completely, cover all the nay sayers sad little arguments.  For today, just very seriously important science, desecrated with Jake-memes.  

Sometimes this is the best I’ve got for you.

Update:  Despina kindly actually did all the work for me, explaining, with clinical study links, just exactly how and why those eyes are appropriate test subjects for human eye related discussion.  That completes the circle.  Yes, your eyeball will not only grow longer, but also shorter, depending on stimulus.

Remember the difference between science and pseudoscience.  For those who throw up their puny arms and huff like little girls, hey.  Prove me wrong.  Get an axial measurement, follow the premise of strain reduction and positive stimulus, and next year get another axial measurement.  Unless you’re totally sabotaging yourself, you’ll find that what we say here, and what science occasionally confirms, in a conspiratory whisper, is actually and reasonably factual and true.

Cheers,

-Jake

2016-11-09T02:18:23+00:00 By |Categories: Science|