Is reading without glasses bad???

I am quite nearsighted. I had my eyes checked at a Sears Optical
department. I mentioned to the eye doctor that I generally read
without my glasses and was surprised by the vehemence of his
response. "NEVER NEVER NEVER read without glasses." I asked about
why it was so bad. He said it causes a lot of problems including
eyestrain. In fact, I thought that reading without my glasses felt
like it strained my eyes less than with the glasses and that is why I
do it. That gives me some reason to be skeptical.

I searched sci.med.vision for the string "reading without glasses" and
am not finding anybody saying a bad word about the practice.

Is the doctor right about reading without glasses being a problem?

Thanks.

--Mark

You must have run into a majority-opinion OD.

The second-opinion is that you should avoid using the
minus lens -- unless you have no choice. See:

www.chinamyopia.org

About what a second-opinion OD thinks about that
minus.

Best,

Otis



On Sep 17, 2:31 pm, Mark Leeper <mlee...@optonline.net> wrote:
> I am quite nearsighted. I had my eyes checked at a Sears Optical
> department. I mentioned to the eye doctor that I generally read
> without my glasses and was surprised by the vehemence of his
> response. "NEVER NEVER NEVER read without glasses." I asked about
> why it was so bad. He said it causes a lot of problems including
> eyestrain. In fact, I thought that reading without my glasses felt
> like it strained my eyes less than with the glasses and that is why I
> do it. That gives me some reason to be skeptical.
>
> I searched sci.med.vision for the string "reading without glasses" and
> am not finding anybody saying a bad word about the practice.
>
> Is the doctor right about reading without glasses being a problem?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Mark

Hello,

Reading without glasses is not bad, but instead a benefit to the
sight.
It may take a short period to accustom yourself to the new more
natural condition, but the accustoming will definitely take place. You
will automatically learn to see without strain, just keep the glasses
off and stop staring.

>In fact, I thought that reading without my glasses felt
>like it strained my eyes less than with the glasses and that is why I

It is a truth that the mind enjoys the natural condition, as opposed
to the evil and bad glasses being placed over the eyes, confusing the
eyemind. Of course, reading without glasses would strain your eyes
less. So you have observed fact, and demonstrated truths to yourself.
Well done, you have shown good intelligence. I keep telling the people
here to demonstrate the facts to themselves, but they ignore me and
ask for 'controlled testing blah blah blah'.

The doctor is an idiot, tell him to shut up.
And never go back to him. In fact, even he should not be saying this:
'NEVER EVER take off the glasses', as a professional. It is against
the scientific data, anyway.

Neil Brooks and the others here would say, take the glasses off if you
are a simple myope for near work. So your doctor is even going against
the people here, let alone going against what I advocate.

Begin the real treatment, which is the rest methods of cure.

Go to the central-fixation.com website, go to the library and read a
book called 'Better Eyesight Magazine', you will find all the
information needed to learn how to cure yourself via the rest methods
is inside there.

Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu), Lena102938, and Otis Brown are
trolls who haunt s.m.v. Otis is pathologically
dishonest and actually hurts people. Following his advice
can induce double vision in those not working 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.

Even if you are nearsighted, your near vision will never be as crystal
as the person with perfect sight, for all distances. But certainly
with no doubt, being near-sighted does NOT mean you can ever see
BETTER than a person with normal vision, at near point.

If you are nearsighted, it does not mean you can ever see any better
than a normal sighted person (who can see normally at any distance),
at the near point. You will see better, but never perfect. Imperfect
sight at one distance always means imperfect sight at any distance.
The person with normal sight will see more crystal clear than the near
sighted person, at the near point.

>Many feel (and it appears most scientific
>studies support) that it makes no difference either way.

It might not make any difference to your refractive error, or so the
scientific studies seem to show, but I think it will be harmful to
your sight in general. The eyes do not enjoy being under such a
pressure, surely.

By which I mean to say that; refractive error and refractive state
only plays a very small part in the recording and measuring of what
makes up real, end result vision. There are many other factors
involved, which visual scientists are ignorant of, or not taking into
account. Do you know what I mean?

Hi,

>They absolutely do, after 40.

Age does not matter.

Person with imperfect sight at far can never see perfectly at near.
That is real.

Hi,

>When you measure, you find out that myopes see better up close than

How do you measure?

Snellen acuity? Autorefractor? Or what?
How can measurements know what the person is actually seeing, anyway?

Imagination is a higher level of intelligence; than objective
measurement.

Hi,

>They absolutely do, after 40.

Then you are referring to presbyopia?

I am referring to perfect sight, silly.
Can't you read what I said, please?

Perfect sight is not 'old age sight', now is it?

Perfect sight, meaning perfect sight, and not imperfect sight.

I said: Person with imperfect sight at any distance can never see as
well as person with perfect sight for all distance at the near point.
That is truth.