How Much Can My Eyes Changes?

I've been wearing glasses for about 4 1/2 years now.

My first prescription, Jan '03, was
SPH CYL AXIS ADD
-.87 +.25 90 +1.25
-.87 +.25 90 +1.25

Then in Feb '04 it was
SPH CYL AXIS ADD
-.75 - - +1.75
-1.00 - - +1.75

Now, Aug '07, it is:
SPH CYL AXIS ADD
-.75 - - +2.25
-.75 - - +2.25

I got progressive lenses based on my August '07 prescription in early
September.


Furthermore I've noticed a couple of interesting phenomena.

1. I have a digital alarm clock on my dresser about 10 feet from where
I sleep. The numerals are about 3/4 of an inch high. When I look at
the clock a few minutes after retiring, with the lights off, the
numbers are not in focus. However when I wake up in the morning I can
read the clock perfectly. Crystal clear.

2. When I go grocery shopping I have noticed that sometimes I can read
far away category signs hanging above the aisles with ease and
sometimes they aren't in focus. I've compared this on several
differing occasions from the same spot in the store on the same far
away sign with varying results.

3. I've noticed that highway signs viewed from a certain distance that
used to be clear when I first got my new glasses are now not as clear.

I've taken my glasses to three different optometrist's shops and had
them check my glasses on a lensometer. They all come back with -.75 on
the OD measurements and (2 out of 3) with +2.25 on the add portion.

So what's going on? Have my eyes changed in 2 months? Do they change
from day-to-day? Overnight?

How do you explain no cyl. or axis components in my last 2
prescriptions?

So what's going on? Have my eyes changed in 2 months? Do they change
from day-to-day? Overnight?

Otis> None of the measurements are "perfectly accurate". Depending
on measurement conditions, you could see variations of 1/4 to
1/2 diopter -- depending on the OD making the measurements.


How do you explain no cyl. or axis components in my last 2
prescriptions?

Otis> Again, small variations. The smallest "prescription" value
is in 1/4 diopter increments. It could be that the OD simply
rounded "up" or rounded "down" -- depending on the
judgment of the OD -- of course.

Best,

Otis






On Oct 17, 11:44 am, powrwrap <powrw...@aol.com> wrote:
> I've been wearing glasses for about 4 1/2 years now.
>
> My first prescription, Jan '03, was
> SPH CYL AXIS ADD
> -.87 +.25 90 +1.25
> -.87 +.25 90 +1.25
>
> Then in Feb '04 it was
> SPH CYL AXIS ADD
> -.75 - - +1.75
> -1.00 - - +1.75
>
> Now, Aug '07, it is:
> SPH CYL AXIS ADD
> -.75 - - +2.25
> -.75 - - +2.25
>
> I got progressive lenses based on my August '07 prescription in early
> September.
>
> Furthermore I've noticed a couple of interesting phenomena.
>
> 1. I have a digital alarm clock on my dresser about 10 feet from where
> I sleep. The numerals are about 3/4 of an inch high. When I look at
> the clock a few minutes after retiring, with the lights off, the
> numbers are not in focus. However when I wake up in the morning I can
> read the clock perfectly. Crystal clear.
>
> 2. When I go grocery shopping I have noticed that sometimes I can read
> far away category signs hanging above the aisles with ease and
> sometimes they aren't in focus. I've compared this on several
> differing occasions from the same spot in the store on the same far
> away sign with varying results.
>
> 3. I've noticed that highway signs viewed from a certain distance that
> used to be clear when I first got my new glasses are now not as clear.
>
> I've taken my glasses to three different optometrist's shops and had
> them check my glasses on a lensometer. They all come back with -.75 on
> the OD measurements and (2 out of 3) with +2.25 on the add portion.
>
> So what's going on? Have my eyes changed in 2 months? Do they change
> from day-to-day? Overnight?
>
> How do you explain no cyl. or axis components in my last 2
> prescriptions?

Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu), Lena102938, and Otis Brown are
trolls who haunt s.m.v.

Rishi has published, and is trying to sell worthless books.

Otis is pathologically dishonest and actually hurts people.
Following his advice can induce double vision in those
not working closely with an eye doctor.

Lena102938 uses anti-eye doctor rhetoric as a substitute for ANY
actual information. It seems she now has to wear glasses and has
developed a pathological (and ILLOGICAL) resentment toward the
industry that "foisted these glasses upon her."

You'd do well to ignore them and wait for responses from the
caring, compassionate eye doctors who DO also participate in this site.

"powrwrap" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ps.com...
> I've been wearing glasses for about 4 1/2 years now.
>
> My first prescription, Jan '03, was
> SPH CYL AXIS ADD
> -.87 +.25 90 +1.25
> -.87 +.25 90 +1.25
>
> Then in Feb '04 it was
> SPH CYL AXIS ADD
> -.75 - - +1.75
> -1.00 - - +1.75
>
> Now, Aug '07, it is:
> SPH CYL AXIS ADD
> -.75 - - +2.25
> -.75 - - +2.25
>
> I got progressive lenses based on my August '07 prescription in early
> September.
>
>
> Furthermore I've noticed a couple of interesting phenomena.
>
> 1. I have a digital alarm clock on my dresser about 10 feet from where
> I sleep. The numerals are about 3/4 of an inch high. When I look at
> the clock a few minutes after retiring, with the lights off, the
> numbers are not in focus. However when I wake up in the morning I can
> read the clock perfectly. Crystal clear.
>
> 2. When I go grocery shopping I have noticed that sometimes I can read
> far away category signs hanging above the aisles with ease and
> sometimes they aren't in focus. I've compared this on several
> differing occasions from the same spot in the store on the same far
> away sign with varying results.
>
> 3. I've noticed that highway signs viewed from a certain distance that
> used to be clear when I first got my new glasses are now not as clear.
>
> I've taken my glasses to three different optometrist's shops and had
> them check my glasses on a lensometer. They all come back with -.75 on
> the OD measurements and (2 out of 3) with +2.25 on the add portion.
>
> So what's going on? Have my eyes changed in 2 months? Do they change
> from day-to-day? Overnight?
>
> How do you explain no cyl. or axis components in my last 2
> prescriptions?

A camera lens (like the eye) can only be in absolute focus at one distance
at any given time. You adjust the focus of a camera lens depending on how
far the object is from the film plane. In the human eye, we rely on the
muscles surrounding the eye to change the shape of the eye to adjust focus
between near and far.

However, as you get older, the muscles in your eye are weaker and less
flexible, and less able to make the necessary adjustment. That is also why
your close-up Rx (add power) increases as you age. Wearing glasses can
actually make the muscles even weaker because you are no longer using these
muscles as much to accommodate and they deteriorate somewhat from lack of
use.

By the same token, when you first waken in the morning, the muscles in your
eye are less tired than later in the day, and you may be able to accommodate
better.

Also, you may be squinting when looking at the clock in bed, which increases
the depth of focus of your eyes and compensates for the need to focus
up-closely, in the exact same way a camera has an increased depth of focus
when the lens aperture is made smaller (as the f-stop is larger).

"Ms.Brainy via MedKB.com" <u33689@uwe> wrote in message
news:79d905ea109a5@uwe...
> It's not the "shape of the eye" that changes with accommodation, but the
> shape of the lens.

The lens is part of the eye.

> No, it's not the weakening of the muscles, but the the deterioration of
> the
> lens which loses its flexibility and ability to accommodate.

It is both. That is why a person's eyes can get "tired." A lens does not
loose flexibility in a single day.

> Unfounded and factually incorrect.

Founded and factually correct. I am not suggesting (unlike some others on
this newsgroup) that one forgo wearing glasses if they are needed, but one's
uncorrected vision does get a little worse if the eye muscles are not used
as much.

On Oct 17, 7:06 pm, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Wearing glasses can
> actually make the muscles even weaker because you are no longer using these
> muscles as much to accommodate and they deteriorate somewhat from lack of
> use.

i thought your explanation of his variations in vision were pretty
good but I disagree with the above statement. perhaps this might be
true for a hyperope who is early into presbyopia but in the vast
majority of cases the use of spectacle correction has no effect on
further weakening of the ciliary muscle.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> i thought your explanation of his variations in vision were pretty
> good but I disagree with the above statement. perhaps this might be
> true for a hyperope who is early into presbyopia but in the vast
> majority of cases the use of spectacle correction has no effect on
> further weakening of the ciliary muscle.

Thank you. It was aimed for a consumer, not for someone who is in the
optical professions. Those in the optical professions will probably continue
to nitpick it, even if that does not help the patient better understand
their vision.

Since I am hyperope, I can say with personal experience that wearing glasses
can be slightly addictive in terms of loosing the ability to accommodate.
This is especially true for patients who are younger than the OP so perhaps
you are correct that it may not be a significant factor in this case. But I
suspect could be a slight factor.

However, by no means I am aligning myself with the quacks on this newsgroup
who advocate not wearing glasses for this reason. But I do believe that is
better to slightly under-prescribe than to slightly over-prescribe (which is
a common problem for hyperopes IMO).

"MsBraimy via MedKB.com" <u33689@uwe> wrote in message
news:79db669890291@uwe...
> Usually the "shape of the eye" relates to the shape of the eyeball, not to
> any particular PART of the eye. Using your logic, you could have said
> "the
> shape of the head", which the eye is a part of.
>
> Reading your original post my impression was that you related
> accommodation
> to adjustments of the shape of the eyeball, and you are not the only one
> who
> makes such statements. I have read lots of similar claims on "i-see"
> message
> board, as part of the participants efforts to "cure" myopia thru
> accommodation, which they mistakenly assumed is done by adjusting the
> shale
> of the eyeball.
> --
> MsBrainy

The shape of the eye does affect how well the image is properly focused in
the eye. A hyperope (farsighted) person has an eyeball that is too short
(too round), and a myope (nearsighted) person has an eyeball which is too
long (not round enough). Both of these conditions cause the retina to be in
the wrong position relative to the lens. You can blame the shape of the lens
or you can blame the length of the eyeball (which determines how far away
the retina is from the lens) for the inability to see clearly in these
cases. In addition, many people have at least some astigmatism, which is
another deformity in the shape of the eye.

Obviously, the ability to focus the lens on the retina for both objects
close by and objects at a distance also depends on other factors besides the
initial shape of the eye, and the ability to see at both distances clearly
will change as one gets older (even a person with 20-20 vision when younger
will likely need reading glasses when they get older). But the initial shape
of the eye is one of the factors.

I certainly do not advocate curing any vision problem by forgoing glasses,
however, as I stated, it is better for a younger person (IMO) to be slightly
under-corrected in many cases.

On Oct 18, 12:03 am, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Since I am hyperope, I can say with personal experience that wearing glasses
> can be slightly addictive in terms of loosing the ability to accommodate.

you are the type of patient I referred to as the possible exception.
hyperopes who are approaching middle-age have reduced ciliary muscle
capacity. Plus lenses, which sometimes cause visual complaints in
younger patients particularly at distance, all of a sudden can become
"appreciated." if that's you, then all I can say is-- it will get
worse. its not the glasses doing it-- its your eyes aging.

just from personal experience I kinda went through the same thing. I
had PRK on my -10 vision. I am back to wearing glasses/contacts. I had
my surgery last year and my vision has changed about 4 times over the
summer, but ever so slightly. I am somewhere around -0.75, -0.25.
That's better then it's been in my entire life and I am grateful for
that. I still have to go back...but I am waiting to see if my eyes get
worse. 3 % chance that can happen and I am just unlucky that way.
My mother on the other hand is 56 years old and her vision actually
got better! you would think with age it would worsen. So with the eyes
any change in vision is possible.