Home » The Crystal Hall » Authors Corner » Call me four eyes (or six if you count lenses)
| Re: Call me four eyes [message #53561 is a reply to message #53500 ] |
Sat, 11 February 2012 11:13   |
 |
 Sir Lee
Messages: 3109
Registered: May 2005
Location: São Paulo, Brazil |
|
|
|
Well... I'm near the same point as Warren, and my sister dragged me to this free introductory "vision self-healing" class in a nearby park.
Among the quasi-religious sales techniques for the "self-healing guru's" books and the "advanced classes" (I mean, there was all the classic ones: the "illuminated guru," the "saved disciple," even an exercise that involved kneeling by a portable genuflectory five times a day), the guy made the rather reasonable point that in our urban lives, we simply don't exercise the eye muscles as much as our ancestors did. We often spend whole days without focusing on the infinite, we don't use our peripheral vision very much, we are rarely in pitch dark situations, we protect our eyes too much from bright light with sunglasses (so the pupil doesn't contract as much -- and as anyone who studied photography knows, a smaller aperture makes focusing easier).
Those aren't unreasonable claims. Eyes have muscles, and like any muscle, if you don't exercise them they lose strength and flexibility. The good news is that you might recover some by deliberately exercising.
There might be hard evidence on those claims, too. I remember something about a study made with Eskimos (I know it's not PC to call them that anymore, but I have no idea if they were Aleutian or Inuit or whatever) -- apparently the number of shortsighted people rose sharply after the introduction of modern conveniences that changed their habits.
So... while I don't endorse the guy's books or classes or anything, maybe making sure that expose your eyes to more natural situations could help.
Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
--
Sent from my Bugs Industries® bPhone™
|
|
|
| Re: Call me four eyes [message #53562 is a reply to message #53500 ] |
Sat, 11 February 2012 11:40 |
thejackle123
Messages: 41
Registered: August 2011 |
|
|
|
|
I don't have any problems close focusing, I can still focus at about 50mm, but then again I spend a lot of time reading and looking at stuff from a short distance. However my ability to focus on stuff farther away seems to be getting worse and I don't spend much time at all focusing on the infinite or even moderately large distances. I don't know if this is a coincidence or not ut it seems interesting. Anyway I'm going to an optician's ( I think Americans call them optometrist's or somthing) on Monday to see if I need glasses or not.
|
|
|
| Re: Call me four eyes [message #53564 is a reply to message #53500 ] |
Sat, 11 February 2012 11:56 |
lduke1990
Messages: 183
Registered: May 2011
Location: Aurora, Ontario, Canada |
|
|
|
Optometrist's are specifically eye doctors (sit in the chair, look at the lights, read the alphanumeric characters from the chart etc.), Opticians DO NOT have any sort of medical degree, they are simply trained to cut and polish lenses to the exacting specifications of an Optometrist and to fit them into frames for comfort of the wearer (essentially they make and peddle eye glasses, but cannot make diagnoses or offer medical advise). Ophthalmologists are further specialized eye doctors, specializing in diseases of the eye and their defects (glaucoma, strabismus etc.).
it's an ell damnit
|
|
|
| Re: Call me four eyes [message #53566 is a reply to message #53500 ] |
Sat, 11 February 2012 13:04 |
thejackle123
Messages: 41
Registered: August 2011 |
|
|
|
|
Ahh so thats what the difference was; my assumptions stand corrcted.
|
|
|
| Re: Call me four eyes [message #53580 is a reply to message #53500 ] |
Sat, 11 February 2012 18:12 |
 |
mrudat
Messages: 190
Registered: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia |
|
 
|
|
That said, optometrists tend to to have an attached opticians (or vice-versa), so that you come in for a checkup, look at pretty (manly/nerdy/...) frames, and come back in a week for a shiny new pair of glasses.
My current glasses, I got checked out, and then ordered glasses online, they cost the same as a basic pair from the stop, but came with anti-reflective coating, and self-tinting lenses.
|
|
| |
| Re: Call me four eyes [message #53972 is a reply to message #53561 ] |
Sun, 19 February 2012 10:46 |
XaltatunOfAcheron
Messages: 1931
Registered: July 2005
Location: Atlantis |
|
|
|
| Sir Lee wrote on Sat, 11 February 2012 09:13 | Well... I'm near the same point as Warren, and my sister dragged me to this free introductory "vision self-healing" class in a nearby park.
Among the quasi-religious sales techniques for the "self-healing guru's" books and the "advanced classes" (I mean, there was all the classic ones: the "illuminated guru," the "saved disciple," even an exercise that involved kneeling by a portable genuflectory five times a day), the guy made the rather reasonable point that in our urban lives, we simply don't exercise the eye muscles as much as our ancestors did. We often spend whole days without focusing on the infinite, we don't use our peripheral vision very much, we are rarely in pitch dark situations, we protect our eyes too much from bright light with sunglasses (so the pupil doesn't contract as much -- and as anyone who studied photography knows, a smaller aperture makes focusing easier).
Those aren't unreasonable claims. Eyes have muscles, and like any muscle, if you don't exercise them they lose strength and flexibility. The good news is that you might recover some by deliberately exercising.
There might be hard evidence on those claims, too. I remember something about a study made with Eskimos (I know it's not PC to call them that anymore, but I have no idea if they were Aleutian or Inuit or whatever) -- apparently the number of shortsighted people rose sharply after the introduction of modern conveniences that changed their habits.
So... while I don't endorse the guy's books or classes or anything, maybe making sure that expose your eyes to more natural situations could help.
|
Eye exercises for improving vision have existed for a long time. IIRC, one of A. E. vanVogt's stories back in the 40s featured a set of them; they actually existed although vv typically took the idea through the roof.
As a personal experiance, my parents tried to stick me with glasses when I was in high school. I wasn't having any of it, so I practiced near and far field focusing on trees as I walked home from school. (I didn't like the bus either - take a bus to walk a half mile? There are better things to spend money on.)
It worked, and as a side benefit I'm usually aware of parallax effects.
That doesn't have much to do with age-dependent far-sightedness, though. Store-bought glasses work fine, and are a lot cheaper than specially made lenses.
Xaltatun
Oxymoron: Jumbo Shrimp
Impossible: Sustainable Growth
|
|
|
| Re: Call me four eyes [message #54375 is a reply to message #53550 ] |
Sat, 25 February 2012 19:01 |
 |
Rabiata
Messages: 528
Registered: July 2008
Location: Germany |
|
|
|
| mrudat wrote on Sat, 11 February 2012 04:00 | I was under the impression that a further problem is that as we age, on the whole, the lenses in our eyes become less elastic, and are less able to change focus, which, (I think?) causes us to become far-sighted.
On the other hand, there is a procedure for replacing the lenses (for fixing cataracts), and I believe that recently (in the last few years) flexible lenses have become available. I suspect that the replacement lenses aren't as good as the originals (or the surgery carries significant risk or expense), otherwise they'd be being prescribed left, right, and centre, I'd imagine.
|
The "less elastic" is correct. It means that you will have less range between your "far" vision and the nearest point you can focus on. The flexible lenses do exist, but their range is limited compared to a healthy young eye.
Here is a link that gives the accomodative range of the Bausch&Lomb Crystalens as 1.75 diopters. Personally, I'd want something more like 2.5 to 3 diopters to make the risk of the operation worthwhile.
Another interesting development is using a laser to soften up the lens without cutting it out and replacing it. But that seems to be at an early experimental stage, so I don't expect it to be available soon. But with a bit of luck, it may be there before I need it myelf 
Full disclosure:
I work in development of equipment for ophtalmology (laser technology and diagnostics), so I've learned a few things over the years and heard about the Crystalens. But I'm not an ophthalmologist and not supposed to give medical advice, so take this post with a grain of salt...
| Laudator wrote on Fri, 10 February 2012 16:12 | Alternatively, getting your eyes laser-sculpted.
I've heard various things about having your eyes lasered, but my biggest problem with it is that I have not been able to trivially find safety/outcome data for it. I mean, shouldn't the providers go: "Yeah, really safe, and here are the outcome data over 10+ years to prove it!" ?
|
You are probably thinking of LASIK or maybe PRK. Unfortunately, those treatments don't help any with accomodation.
|
|
| | |
| Re: Call me four eyes [message #56955 is a reply to message #53500 ] |
Wed, 18 April 2012 03:19 |
thejackle123
Messages: 41
Registered: August 2011 |
|
|
|
|
I went to the opticians, I'm assuming that they have an optometrists attached though I've never heard that name mentioned, last friday and I now wear glasses though I only really need them for reading across a classroom and driving, I'm boderline for the UK unassised eyesight for driving laws.
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Jun 19 01:34:54 EDT 2013
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01357 seconds
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
