Nearsightedness with glasses for reading at a young age.

Hi,

I was working with my girlfriend for about half a year (Bates'Method ).
She has an odd problem (at least in my oppinion). She had glasses for
distance and for reading too (both minuses).

L eye: distance: -2.25 cyl -1
reading : -1.25 cyl -1

R eye: distance: -1.75 cyl -1.25
reading : -0.75 cyl -1.25
(We both don't know the angles of the astig.)

I just wantd to know more about the physiological problem that she has.

Thanks a lot,
Best wishes,
Eli.

She could either be presbyopic or taking measures to reduce the strain
of near work and slow down her myopia progression. Instead of bifocals,
I have just taken the undercorrection route. I wear a weaker pair of
glasses for the computer and house and near full power for distance. I
take my glasses off for reading. Does she ever read bare eyed? My
vision has improved a diopter.

Dragon28 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was working with my girlfriend for about half a year (Bates'Method ).
> She has an odd problem (at least in my oppinion). She had glasses for
> distance and for reading too (both minuses).
>
> L eye: distance: -2.25 cyl -1
> reading : -1.25 cyl -1
>
> R eye: distance: -1.75 cyl -1.25
> reading : -0.75 cyl -1.25
> (We both don't know the angles of the astig.)
>
> I just wantd to know more about the physiological problem that she has.
>

Basically, she has a +1.00 add in her reading prescription (don't let
the fact that both near and distance are in minus throw you off).
So, after a year and a half of Bates what does she have to show
for with all this time and energy?

Her problem is simply refractive- she's myopic with astigmatism.

frank

unless your girlfriend is over 40, she is not presbyopic. she is
simply undercorrecting her nearsightedness a little using those
"reading" glasses. some vision researchers used to think that
undercorrection might slow progression of myopia but it was later
proven to be ineffective. some of the Bates people continue to try it
because they aren't aware that science has disproven their theories (or
they just don't care). in fact, some studies have shown that
undercorrection might actually cause myopia to progress faster! read
this reference.

Chung K.; Mohidin N.; O'Leary D.J. Vision Research, Volume 42, Number
22, October 2002, pp. 2555-2559.

and by the way just ignor this poster named acemanvx. he is a
drug-tripping idiot who is unemployed and spends his days posting
drivel on this newsgroup. facts are irrelevant to him.

She was wearing glasses for reading before we started working on the
Bates' method.

She could read perfectly without glasses till age of 14, than she
started seeing blury.

Now, after half a year practicing she can read without glasses, but
still preffers reading with glasses.

First, I've practicing the Bates' method myself, I was longsighted a
little, it helped. In addition I have a friend who improved 1.25
diopteries, though I tend to think that it is working.

She started wearing reading glasses before the Bates' practicing and
what is most wierd is that the doctor said she need to wear them while
reading, it was the doctors idea. In my girlfriend's case the progress
of myopia is the same as before.

Actually there are some results.

1. She can read without glasses almost clearly.
2. She has a little better vission sharpness.
3. In that half a year there was no progress in myopia. (I know it
doesn't mean anything).
4. Her eyes are less strained.

We are not doing suning and too much of acomodative exercises.

Have her try reading without glasses and countinue to do so till she
can read perfectly without glasses. My pescription is much higher than
hers and I see much better without glasses from near.

left eye: -4.5 sphere, -.75 cylindar(140 axis) correctable to 20/30
right eye: -3.5 sphere, -1.5 cylindar(55 axis) correctable to 20/40


In fact with my new glasses which correct my astigmastim, I see very
blurry from near. My old glasses which ignore my astigmastim I see much
better from near. I have to assume when I accomodate, it changes my
astigmastim as well. The right eye sees a little blurrier than the left
from near due to astigmastim, but with astigmastim correction, the
right eye sees much blurrier. astigmastim correction does help my
visual accuracy in distance but at the expense of disorting everything
and giving me headaches and the effects of anisometropia.


She has a low pescription so any real improvement in her vision will be
able to free her from glasses! I reduced my myopia by a diopter but
still have about -4 more to go, well if I can get down to about a -2 im
done with glasses.

I won't force her to read without glasses too often 'cause it still
makes her eyes strain.

Other strange fact that I didn't notice is that she always has problem
with reading with her full corrective glasses. From what I know that
may be caused by presbyopia, but she is just 17, and it started from
age of 9 if not earlier.

>Ace: left eye: -4.5 sphere, -.75 cylindar(140 axis) correctable to 20/30
>right eye: -3.5 sphere, -1.5 cylindar(55 axis) correctable to 20/40

I can't say that you improved your vission. Improving 1 diopter but
geting 1 astig. rather seemed like no improvement to me, but it is all
about how you feel, Diopteres don't mean anything. How did your vission
sharpness improved?

Get her vision checked properly. There is little chance of Bates
working, it hasn't yet.

There are a myriad of other options, try some.

dr grant