Jon just posted his latest progress report in the forum. If you’ve been following Jon (here, here, and here) you already know that he has a thing for very detailed charts, independent verification, and putting […]
Jon just posted his latest progress report in the forum.
If you’ve been following Jon (here, here, and here) you already know that he has a thing for very detailed charts, independent verification, and putting everything into great concise detail. This one is a must-read, combining Jon’s usually attention to detail, and optometrist verified measurements:
Just came back from my O.D. First visit since I started improving my eyes.
I waited until the end of the visit to mention that I was actively reducing my myopia. (Same doctor, but new office and a visit scheduled at last minute so by chance they didn’t have my old records yet to compare with and thus nothing seemed majorly different. I came in with my strongest (normalized I think to use the parlance on this site) pair which is intentionally slightly weaker than full, so it appeared at first to her that I just had a typical decline over the 1-1.5 years. Remember, my records weren’t available in this one instance so she only had my slightly weak normalized glasses to go on as a last Rx.
Or in other words my normalized Rx wasn’t too far off full sharpness. Which I already knew, and is by design, but now I have an independent assessment to confirm.
When I explained that what I was doing, and that it was not the “eye exercises” bunk often found online, she fully agreed that it was the right thing to do and noted that she does similar herself – at least to the degree of different Rx’s for different needs. She encouraged me to continue with it and was fully supportive! I asked if there is any risk of this affecting, negatively, eye pressure, the optic nerve, risk of retinal detachments, glaucoma risk, etc. Without hesitation, she said it would not negatively affect anything like that. I asked about reshaping the eye (reducing the length to less oblong during improvement). She was of the opinion that the eyeball’s shape probably wouldn’t be improved by this, and the frontal structures of the eye, and other related aspects might be more to account for the improvement, but she acknowledged that this is far from known definitively. It may very well be a slow reshaping or not or both. She also noted that exercise and eating well and being healthy is also helpful for the eyes as with all organs, and a good idea to help reduce the risk of eye diseases in general, along with good habits.
As measured by my OD:
1/31/2013 – OD -7.75 Cyl -0.75 @ 020 – OS -8.00 Cyl -0.50 @ 1575/12/2014 – OD -8.00 Cyl ? @ ? – OS -8.25 Cyl ? @ ? (My O.D. had stated that I only changed slightly and recommended no glasses change, so this is an assumption as I don’t have the record.)
[9/2014 I started improving my myopia.]11/11/2015 – OD -6.00 Cyl -0.25 @ 035 – OS -6.50 Cyl -0.25 @ 137 (My normalized / night driving self Rx is -5.75, -6.00, no Cyl. That’s still in the realm of seeing fully for safety and my tests with them at the doctor confirmed that they are sufficient for legal, safe driving.)
She also provided a computer Rx (i.e. differential) which is just +1.00 to those values. For computer, as I want the positive stimulus, not just arresting decline, I use another +0.50 more than that differential and she thought that was just fine. I’m using another +0.25 still closer to 0 right now actually.
So a nice reduction in both Sphere and Cylinder with apples-to-apples independent testing. Similar time of day as my other doctor visits too. I’ve skipped Cylinder in all my self prescriptions since it wasn’t much IMO. Now it’s really not much. And a very positive experience in all things, as always with her, including with regard to reducing myopia.
Other positives:
When prescribing for kids, she advises parents to encourage the kids to go without glasses as much as possible, especially and particularly when close up / computer. She’s cautious about sending kids down this rabbit hole.She also noted a case of an ~8 year old with a -10 glasses Rx who had dropped -2 or -3 diopters rapidly (1 to 3 years IIRC, but I forget that detail). A special type of eye drop was used to modify focusing and have the effect of a reduced strength glasses Rx. After a couple years, the child hadn’t gotten any worse. Just one case, but interesting nonetheless. I do not know if this was also tried on other extreme cases or was part of a small study.
Thanks to Alex, and to Neha, and to Jake, and any others behind the scenes for carrying on this project.
Give Jon a quick thumbs up in the forum, some props for taking the time to share.
I also added a few thoughts in the thread:
Always loving your posts, Jon. Want to be our tech advisor for some tools we’re working on to make tracking more fun / visual / awesome? ?
And true, both of you, Matt and Jon. There is a lot more nuance in the optometry profession than I make it out to be. I love picking fights, I like having a common “enemy”, and I’m generally just a troublemaker. It’s something that I hired others to help fix a bit. There are three optometrists on payroll as we speak, independently verifying my claims and methods, and tasked to make suggestions to tone down my sometimes combative tone. I get optometrists complaining to me all the time that I make it hard for them to take my side. I know … work in progress.
And Jon, awesome, really. Great also that you have a supportive optometrist to give you the independent readings and thumbs up.
A few other interesting things in today’s forum and e-mail collection. First, Rado:
What I say there is … take it easy on those reduction, Rado. Let your eyes catch up, let your brain catch up. Everything in moderation. Still, great work!
And one from Matt in a longer thread on reduction timing:
Aye. The forum, a two way street for sure.I’m happy to share experiences and suggestions and on the other hand, it keeps me going to get your progress reports, thumbs up, questions, comments, and even pointed criticism and reality checks. Turns out I need the forum and you guys just as much as the other way around. Keep it up!
Housekeeping notes: You know what tomorrow is?
Yes! Amateurishly produced Q&A video time! ;-)
Cheers,
-Jake
P.S.: Your eyes aren't "broken".
It's your lens use and habits that keep making your eyes worse. And the massive hundred billion dollar optics industry loves it. They keep selling you stronger and stronger glasses, and tell you stories of some mysterious genetic "myopia illness".
It's nonsense. Your eyes are perfectly healthy.
Check out Annette's post in our Facebook group. From -5.25 down to the last diopter already:
Exactly.
To find out how Annette did this, grab a copy of my free (yes, darling freeloaders, don't pay me for this one) 7-Day guide. It'll teach you all the basics on how to start getting your eyes back. No sales pitch!
*No eye exercises, no Bates Method, no unicorn farming. Just science and evidence based stimulus and habit changes.
Reformed stock trader. Kite surfer, pilot, vagabond. Father. And of course - the last of the living, imaginarily bearded eye gurus.
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.