Presbyopia: diopters by age

Mike, I think you mentioned a table of "add for age" diopter
values, and I apparently didn't save it. Can you point me to this resource?

(The question arose during a library committee meeting - I think the actual
underlying question is does add continue to rise with age, or does it
eventually plateau, and about where?)

Thanks.

Kay

On 4/16/2010 10:42 PM, Kay Lancaster wrote:
> Mike, I think you mentioned a table of "add for age" diopter
> values, and I apparently didn't save it. Can you point me to this resource?
>
> (The question arose during a library committee meeting - I think the actual
> underlying question is does add continue to rise with age, or does it
> eventually plateau, and about where?)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kay
>
Mike,

I'm currently using 2.00 diopters for driving and 3.75's for reading. Is
that unusual at age 72? Should I expect to find I have some sort of eye
disease?

By the way, I did have iridotomies for "narrow angles," which might have
caused glaucoma in the future. I have never actually had glaucoma.

On Apr 17, 7:27*am, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article <2cudnaXDkrgrsVTWnZ2dnUVZ_tqdn...@giganews.com>,
> *"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > So for sake of simplicity, just remember these three data points and you can
> > interpolate the rest:
>
> > 40 *+075
> > 45 *+150
> > 50 *+250
>
> > There's little point in trying to be more precise than this, because every
> > calculation of working distance varies with stature, posture, occupation,
> > preference.
>
> > These days, I seldom assume 16" working distance. When I do, it's usually
> > someone short, or perhaps with early cataracts.
>
> > Adds higher than +250 usually indicate medically reduced vision, where
> > people benefit from the relative distance magnification of closer working
> > distances.
>
> I am not a (medical) vision professional, but I was beginning to think
> of greater adds. My vision has deteriorated from glaucoma. I can read
> decently with the aid of a computer screen and inverse video. The
> bifocal add of 3D seems to be of little utility. I was thinking of going
> to a 5D add.
>
> Another solution though more inconvenient, would be to use a
> supplementary lens to add onto a bifocal lens. I have seen such things
> in use by some aging machinists. I do not know what is available or
> where to get them.
>
> Bill
>
> --
> An old man would be better off never having been born.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If you want a +5 add, you will have to hold things a lot closer, I
would suggest doing that as single vision reading glasses. A little
base in prism helps too if you use both eyes. Hand held magnifier
used with your current glasses might be better for short term checking
of fine print.

You would be best served by asking your optometrist to demo some low
vision aids or referring you to a low vision clinic for a low vision
assessment to determine exactly what you need.

Judy

On Apr 17, 9:13*pm, riserman <riser...@optonline.net> wrote:

>
> I'm currently using 2.00 diopters for driving and 3.75's for reading. Is
> that unusual at age 72?

So the +2 is distance and you have +1.75 add for near? If you have
longish arms and are not looking at really fine print, it is within
reason. For finer print or closer distance you might need +4 or +4.25
at near.

> Should I expect to find I have some sort of eye disease?

Can't tell anything about disease by knowing your glasses
prescription, only an eye doctor who has personally examined your eyes
can answer that one.


Dr Judy

On 4/17/2010 11:33 PM, Salmon Egg wrote:
> In article<4bca5cbf$0$31270$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> riserman<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2010 10:42 PM, Kay Lancaster wrote:
>>> Mike, I think you mentioned a table of "add for age" diopter
>>> values, and I apparently didn't save it. Can you point me to this resource?
>>>
>>> (The question arose during a library committee meeting - I think the actual
>>> underlying question is does add continue to rise with age, or does it
>>> eventually plateau, and about where?)
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Kay
>>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> I'm currently using 2.00 diopters for driving and 3.75's for reading. Is
>> that unusual at age 72? Should I expect to find I have some sort of eye
>> disease?
>>
>> By the way, I did have iridotomies for "narrow angles," which might have
>> caused glaucoma in the future. I have never actually had glaucoma.
>
> While, as I said, I am not a vision expert, this strikes me as a strange
> combination. At 72, you have little if any accommodative ability.
> Presumably, the 2.00 diopters enables you to see well at infinity for
> driving. If you are talking about single vision lenses, you have an
> additional 1.75 diopters to make things at 22.5 inches or 57cm be
> optimal for reading. This distance seems a bit too much for comfortable
> reading but is not outrageous.
>
> Bill
>
Not sure at 72 that i've lost all accommodation. Ophthalmologist has
found no signs of eye disease. 2.00 is my sharpest lense for infinity,
3.75 is sharpest at about 14.4 inches (reading), 2.75 for computer and
2.25 for TV at about 10 feet. These values were independently
established by me with drugstore glasses then verified by the doctor.

With my low astigmatism, the only real gain with prescription lenses is
that they are coated. Much to my surprise the cheap Chinese drugstore
stuff works very well for everything except nightime driving.

How many of the name lenses used by opticians are really from China?

Thanks for your interest.

"riserman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4bca5cbf$0$31270$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm currently using 2.00 diopters for driving and 3.75's for reading. Is
> that unusual at age 72? Should I expect to find I have some sort of eye
> disease?

I think you are confused. He was talking about add power, not total power.
In the above case (if I understand your Rx), your add power for reading is
+1.75.

On 4/18/2010 11:35 PM, Mark A wrote:
> "riserman"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4bca5cbf$0$31270$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I'm currently using 2.00 diopters for driving and 3.75's for reading. Is
>> that unusual at age 72? Should I expect to find I have some sort of eye
>> disease?
>
> I think you are confused. He was talking about add power, not total power.
> In the above case (if I understand your Rx), your add power for reading is
> +1.75.
>
>
You people are confusing me with "add power." The absolute power of my
driving glasses is 2.00 diopters. They enable me to see as clearly as my
eyes and light level allow at hundreds of yards. That's infinity to me.
My reading glasses are 3.75 absolute power and they allow sharpest focus
at about 14.5 inches. This has been determined empirically, not by
algorithm.

"riserman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4bccb4a8$0$4988$(E-Mail Removed)...
> You people are confusing me with "add power." The absolute power of my
> driving glasses is 2.00 diopters. They enable me to see as clearly as my
> eyes and light level allow at hundreds of yards. That's infinity to me. My
> reading glasses are 3.75 absolute power and they allow sharpest focus at
> about 14.5 inches. This has been determined empirically, not by algorithm.

If you have progressive lenses or bi-focals, then your distance vision would
be +2.00 (don't ever leave out the plus or minus sign, but I assume they are
plus in your case since you didn't say), and your reading vision is +3.75.
That makes your Rx to be +2.00 with +1.75 add power. That is how it has been
specified for billions of years. If any of your numbers are actually
negative, then you need to restate them with the proper sign.

If you have two different sets of glasses, both single vision, one for
driving and one for reading, then obviously they are +2.00 and +3.75
respectively. But the term add power does not apply here (only applies to
bi-focals and progressives).

If you have any astigmatism correction, that would be included in your RX
also, and often times the right and left eyes are slightly different.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:36:22 -0500, Mike Tyner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> So for sake of simplicity, just remember these three data points and you can
> interpolate the rest:
>
> 40 +075
> 45 +150
> 50 +250

Thanks so much!

Kay

In article <SalmonEgg-(E-Mail Removed)>,
Salmon Egg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> I am not a (medical) vision professional, but I was beginning to think
> of greater adds. My vision has deteriorated from glaucoma. I can read
> decently with the aid of a computer screen and inverse video. The
> bifocal add of 3D seems to be of little utility. I was thinking of going
> to a 5D add.
>
> Another solution though more inconvenient, would be to use a
> supplementary lens to add onto a bifocal lens. I have seen such things
> in use by some aging machinists. I do not know what is available or
> where to get them.

I think we've gone through this before, but here's a URL:

http://scientificsonline.com/search....s&ss=magnifier

There are 28, most suitable for use with glasses, some handheld, some
clipon, and some that go around your head and in front of glasses (looks
like you can flip them up, too).

You could also try companies that sell tools to jewelers.

My father had a neat setup that attached to his glasses, for working on
watches. It had two lenses, and you could swing one or both down to get
three different powers.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
(E-Mail Removed)