Eye Exercises... Throw Away Your Glasses?

[Tex]

You may have heard about various products and programs that promise to "improve your vision naturally" through eye exercises, pinhole glasses, biofeedback, etc. From what I gather, they've been pretty well debunked. Although there are legitimate eye exercise regimens used to treat certain conditions such as lazy eye, there doesn't seem to be any real evidence that such techniques can actually reverse myopia.

But is there a way to prevent it? I understand that in China (and Japan?) the children in primary schools conduct daily eye exercises. And supposedly, since these programs were first implemented some decades ago, the rate of myopia in China has decreased dramatically. But I haven't been able to find any authoritative documentation of this (not in English, anyway).

In my own experience, I've noticed that there seems to be a disproportionately high rate of myopia among people who avidly read books or used the computer a lot as children. In my own family, I hit the books very early and I have terrible eyesight (-13 D) while my two brothers don't need glasses at all. But of course this is not scientific at all and may well be just confirmation bias.

So I guess what I'm asking is whether any skeptics out there have any knowledge of the efficacy of the eye exercises in China, or have any insight into whether certain childhood behavior can influence the development of myopia. I'd like for my future children to avoid the inconveniences of extreme nearsightedness, if at all possible.

 

[Kopji]

Give up reading?

 

[flyboy217]

If you have (mild) myopia, try the following experiment.

Hold a piece of paper in front of you, just far enough so that the words are still crisp. Move it out another few inches until the letters become fuzzy. After a few seconds, your eyes will (or at least seem to be able to) adjust to this new distance.

Ophthalmologists are well aware of the fact that even people with 20/20 vision have regular fluctuations in the focusing ability of the eye. They will tell you, for example, not to take an eye exam if you have a headache or are hungover. Moreover, most people who wear glasses receive higher and higher prescriptions year after year. It is well established that one's diopter can increase. Why is it far-fetched to believe it can decrease too?

In the past two years, I have been doing "exercises" like I mentioned. Giving my eyes a chance to read or see things that I don't really need my glasses to see. The sum of my spherical (myopia) and cylindrical (astigmatism) diopters has fallen (that is, got closer to 0.0) by 1.0 points in each of my last two eye exams, spaced one year apart.

My ophthalmologist acknowledges that what I'm doing is helping my vision, but she insists that I shouldn't become too hopeful of ridding myself of my glasses. Go figure. Too bad the improvement seems to be continuing

No doubt some will relegate this to the "woo woo" realm, although I'm not really sure why. We know that one's eye muscles are constantly adapting, so I'm not really sure why there's such an adamant belief that the muscles can only get weaker, not stronger.

 

[steenkh]

Originally posted by flyboy217
No doubt some will relegate this to the "woo woo" realm, although I'm not really sure why. We know that one's eye muscles are constantly adapting, so I'm not really sure why there's such an adamant belief that the muscles can only get weaker, not stronger.

I am not sure if it is only a question of muscle strength, but I can see no woo-woo claim in this (even if it turns out that it does not work).

It is well known that with age, people get more far-sighted, so that if you have mild near-sigthedness, you might end up not needing glasses at all.

My ophthalmologist has told me that using glasses actually damages the eyes, in the sense that the muscles that usually had to strain themselves get used to doing less work. This should be one reason why people that get glasses often have to get new glasses every so often in the first years.

Because my diopter is very low, I have always taken off my glasses at home. I really only need them when I see TV, and becoming middle-aged has really helped the diopter, so that I can now read a book further away from my eyes than before. The bad thing is htat the eyes have not changed in equal measure, so that apart from a small overlap, now one of the eyes will always be out of focus no matter what distance I hold a book. The overlap is fortunately at a comfortable reading distance.

What really changes with age is the ability of the muscles to react quickly. It always takes a little time before they can adjust focus from far distance to close distance, but glasses help me out so that the muscles do not have to strain themselves as much.

My point here is that although I have always trained my muscles by not using glasses as much as possible, but that has not stopped the muscles from becoming lax with time.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Age related changes in vision have little or nothing to do with muscles. Presbyopia ("old vision") is due to the lens becoming progressively less flexible and less able to accommodate different focal lengths.
No amount of muscle training will correct that.

 

[Ed]

Age related changes in vision have little or nothing to do with muscles. Presbyopia ("old vision") is due to the lens becoming progressively less flexible and less able to accommodate different focal lengths.
No amount of muscle training will correct that.

Not even if you eat spinach? I am sceptical.

 

[garys_2k]

My vision's improved over the last ten years to the point that I don't need corrective lenses for driving any more. My distance vision is now near 20:20, but my "close" vision's gotten worse. I didn't train for it, that's just what happened. My eye doctor said he sees it all the time, too.

 

[Jeff Corey]

My vision's improved over the last ten years to the point that I don't need corrective lenses for driving any more. My distance vision is now near 20:20, but my "close" vision's gotten worse. I didn't train for it, that's just what happened. My eye doctor said he sees it all the time, too.

Your lenses are locked into farsightedness and are not flexible enough to accommodate for near objects. Some people, like me, had the opposite effect - I needed glasses to drive at first (around age 45), then later needed bifocals.
Now with my plastic replacement lenses, I just need reading glasses.

 

[flyboy217]

I am not sure if it is only a question of muscle strength, but I can see no woo-woo claim in this (even if it turns out that it does not work).

It is well known that with age, people get more far-sighted, so that if you have mild near-sigthedness, you might end up not needing glasses at all.

My ophthalmologist has told me that using glasses actually damages the eyes, in the sense that the muscles that usually had to strain themselves get used to doing less work. This should be one reason why people that get glasses often have to get new glasses every so often in the first years.

Because my diopter is very low, I have always taken off my glasses at home. I really only need them when I see TV, and becoming middle-aged has really helped the diopter, so that I can now read a book further away from my eyes than before. The bad thing is htat the eyes have not changed in equal measure, so that apart from a small overlap, now one of the eyes will always be out of focus no matter what distance I hold a book. The overlap is fortunately at a comfortable reading distance.

What really changes with age is the ability of the muscles to react quickly. It always takes a little time before they can adjust focus from far distance to close distance, but glasses help me out so that the muscles do not have to strain themselves as much.

My point here is that although I have always trained my muscles by not using glasses as much as possible, but that has not stopped the muscles from becoming lax with time.

Whew... I was so worried I'd get toasted for being a woo-woo

I believe presbyopia is a bit different. It is certainly well-accepted that, in old age, people become more farsighted. So if you have myopia at that time, it will be relieved.

I am speaking of vision correction at a young age. As you mention, most people get progressively stronger prescriptions because they're not letting their eyes do any of the work. Normally, your eye muscles stretch the cornea. The curvature of the cornea achieves something like 80% of the focusing ability of the eye. Wearing your glasses less, especially in situations where your eyes can focus with just a little extra effort, can go a LONG way toward restoring 20/20 vision.

Why is this information not well spread or even well accepted? It seems so damn natural, and it's enormously useful. And yet many people jump for the surgery option before even giving it any thought.

 

[bratok]

Norbekov has a system of exercises that lets one correct his vision. Takes 3 ~ 5 days for 1 D. Like if you have -3 it will take you 9 to 15 days.

Only most of the info is in Russian , so use a translator
http://www.worldlingo.com/products_services/worldlingo_translator.html

His book
http://www.universalinternetlibrary.ru/book/norbekov/ogl.shtml

And his institute
http://www.norbekov.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=54

And a bit in English
http://www.norbekovusa.com/index.asp?cat=102617


Good Luck!

 

[Jeff Corey]

Whew... I was so worried I'd get toasted for being a woo-woo

I believe presbyopia is a bit different. It is certainly well-accepted that, in old age, people become more farsighted. So if you have myopia at that time, it will be relieved.(1.)

I am speaking of vision correction at a young age. As you mention, most people get progressively stronger prescriptions because they're not letting their eyes do any of the work. Normally, your eye muscles stretch the cornea.(2.) The curvature of the cornea achieves something like 80% of the focusing ability of the eye. Wearing your glasses less, especially in situations where your eyes can focus with just a little extra effort, can go a LONG way toward restoring 20/20 vision. (3.)

Why is this information not well spread or even well accepted? It seems so damn natural, and it's enormously useful. And yet many people jump for the surgery option before even giving it any thought.

1.Not all people become more farslighted with presbyopia.
2. The lens, not this cornea changes shape. And the muscles don't stretch the lens. Ther lens is under tension from the ligaments that hold it in place and the muscles lessen that tension, allowing the lens to get more concave (or fatter).
3. This has not been established to the satisfacton of optomologists.

 

[RamblingOnwards]

Wearing your glasses less, especially in situations where your eyes can focus with just a little extra effort, can go a LONG way toward restoring 20/20 vision.

I'm extremely near-sighted, so I am probably biased by the fact that (short of laser surgery, and probably not even then) I'll have to wear glasses no matter what. However, improving my vision slightly seems a very poor reward for the headaches I'd get if I tried this.

 

[Tex]

Thanks for the replies, there's some interesting points to think about here.

I'm still quite skeptical about eye exercises being able to reverse myopia to a significant degree. In the many years these techniques have been around, one would expect to see more solid evidence that they really work. Perhaps exercising your ciliary muscle can produce a modest benefit, just not enough for someone with a heavy prescription.

In doing some further searching, I have encountered this interesting theory that suggests that your diet during childhood may have more effect than the amount of time spent doing near work.

 

[Virgil]

I always tell my students that science wrecks your eyes....


Virgil the four eyed tiger.

 

[Jyera]

Check this out.

http://www.visionimprovementsite.com/articles/archives/00000016.html
"Singapore, June 10, 2004 -- The Singapore National Eye Centre today announced the opening of the world’s first non-surgical, interactive computer-aided NeuroVisionTM treatment centre in Singapore. The innovative, groundbreaking technology offers treatment for adults with amblyopia (‘lazy’ eye) which has been considered untreatable until now as well as individuals with low degrees of myopia (short-sightedness). "

With computerisation of the treatment, it would be easier to control and document all treatment instances and find out what works and what do not.

 

[billydkid]

Well

I am not sure if it is only a question of muscle strength, but I can see no woo-woo claim in this (even if it turns out that it does not work).

It is well known that with age, people get more far-sighted, so that if you have mild near-sigthedness, you might end up not needing glasses at all.

My ophthalmologist has told me that using glasses actually damages the eyes, in the sense that the muscles that usually had to strain themselves get used to doing less work. This should be one reason why people that get glasses often have to get new glasses every so often in the first years.

Because my diopter is very low, I have always taken off my glasses at home. I really only need them when I see TV, and becoming middle-aged has really helped the diopter, so that I can now read a book further away from my eyes than before. The bad thing is htat the eyes have not changed in equal measure, so that apart from a small overlap, now one of the eyes will always be out of focus no matter what distance I hold a book. The overlap is fortunately at a comfortable reading distance.

What really changes with age is the ability of the muscles to react quickly. It always takes a little time before they can adjust focus from far distance to close distance, but glasses help me out so that the muscles do not have to strain themselves as much.

My point here is that although I have always trained my muscles by not using glasses as much as possible, but that has not stopped the muscles from becoming lax with time.

Well, it may not be woo woo by your definition, but it is undemonstrated/bad science. It is isn't that your eye muscles lose strength over time. What they lose is resilience.

 

[steenkh]

Re: Well

Well, it may not be woo woo by your definition, but it is undemonstrated/bad science. It is isn't that your eye muscles lose strength over time. What they lose is resilience.

Maybe I should add that the ophthalmologist who told me that I should wear the glasses as little as possible, did this when I was in my teens. Now I am close to 50 and it may weel be that the resilience problem has taken over. Fortunately, double-focus glasses has made my sight just as good as when I was younger.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Re: Well

Well, it may not be woo woo by your definition, but it is undemonstrated/bad science. It is isn't that your eye muscles lose strength over time. What they lose is resilience.

Again, it's not a matter of the muscles. It's due to the decreased flexiblity of the lens with age.

 

[Jyera]

Re: Re: Well

Again, it's not a matter of the muscles. It's due to the decreased flexiblity of the lens with age.

Jeff, are you a doctor or an eye expert? It would be good if you are one, then I can access the credibility of what you said.
Or are you able to points to articles or research or data that tells us that flexibility of the lens is more critical than muscles in affecting vision.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Re: Re: Re: Well

Jeff, are you a doctor or an eye expert? It would be good if you are one, then I can access the credibility of what you said.
Or are you able to points to articles or research or data that tells us that flexibility of the lens is more critical than muscles in affecting vision.

No, I am a psychologist with training in operant conditioning and a minor in visual perception. Part of my interest in the latter was because my grandfather was an optomatrist and my father an optician. Any textbook dealing with visual perception will tell you that it's the lens.
Viz, " As people grow older, they gradually develop presbyopia, decreased flexibility of the lens and therefore inability to focus on nearby objects." p. 106, Kalat, J. (1999) Introduction to Psychology.
In fact, that's only part of the picture. Sometimes the lens may lock into a more convex configuration and render the person myopic, which is what happened in my case. I needed glasses to drive, but not to read.
Check out www.allaboutvision.com