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

 

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.

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.

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,

Age does not matter.

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

 

Hi,

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,

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.

 

I worked with a woman many years ago. She knew everything, just ask
her. She held everything far away, because she couldn't see it
otherwise. I suggested that she visit an eye doctor. No, she already
had, many years ago. She wore glasses, but they didn't work. She was
about 50. End of conversation.

 

if you feel less eyestrain without the glasses and see well enough for
your needs, I wonder what the problem is.

 

Hi all, rereading the original post I remembered something I'd
forgotten to mention in my first post;

The explanation to the doctor's idiocy here is as follows:

Reading without glasses itself, it is doubtful to cause eyestrain.

More likely what has happened is, that since you have taken off the
glasses, you suddenly become AWARE of all that strain which you had
ALREADY been holding chronically, and because you become aware of some
of that strain, it feels like additional strain.

The strain was already there, but since the glasses palliated the
original symptom (the imperfect sight) this makes the eye-mind become
very confused, and it think: "Well since the imperfect sight has gone,
there is no need to send out the signal that tells my consciousness
that there is any strain". You see; the feeling of strain itself is a
protective message to the person telling them 'You need to rest'. It's
when you put the glasses on, that the message is becomes silenced that
and the system is thrown out of normality.

It's like pain; pain itself is not primarily intended to harm you but
is intended to protect you from damage. Likewise with 'strain'.

That makes sense to you, I hope.

 

Although having said that, when a person begins the rest methods as
described in The book, I mean when they first discard the glasses,
sometimes the strain IS increased. But this can always be overcome,
with further practice and rest.

Either way, the strain that you feel as a result of removing the
glasses, is actually a REASSURING message that your eye-mind system is
beginning to re function correctly, after they had been sentenced to
imprisonment behind the stupid and evil glasses, for the long cavalry
which had resulted in the eye care profession's incompetence.

So it is not something to worry about, but a good sign.

When the strain is felt, you should have no excuses to begin the rest
methods after that, because your body is virtually COMMANDING you to
rest your mind. At that stage, you should end the state of ignorance
and wake up, if you wish to really be cured from both the strain and
the imperfect sight.

 

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.

 

here you are spreading misinformation to any novices that read this
newsgroup.

for any person who is past their mid-40s, reading at their nearpoint
is DEFINITELY more straining without glasses than with glasses.

and for the person who chooses to wear glasses to improve a slight
refractive error, or to help with reading, or for whatever reason,
they are doing NO HARM to their vision whatsoever. nor do glasses
help reverse any vision problems and make your vision better. they
simply help you see better when you have them on.

 

Hello pclar,

I never said glasses harm the vision.
I said it palliates the message of strain sent by the mind.

You are right, glasses do not ever help reverse any vision
problems.But they are indeed stupid little things developed to begin
calvary for the gullable and poor people.

And are you unable to read English?
My words described a person WITH PERFECT SIGHT.

Are you stupid and can't understand that?

I am not spreading misinformation, just the easily demonstratable
truths of sight which you do not like to hear because it goes against
your many year of so called 'experience' and because you have never
seen it you are certain it never happens, when the truth can be shown
otherwise with small amount of intelligence. And you do not like the
things you are unfamiliar with, your unfamiliarity causes fear, fear
causes hostility, hostility causes further spite, spite causes anger,
spite turns into deep hatred.

You should wake up from your chain of ignorance, now!

 

Rishi,

I realize that you are not a native english speaker so I'll cut you a
break.

In my posting to about your message, the first two paragraphs were a
direct response to your previous misstatement. However the last
paragraph was a general message that I was posting to any reader who
didn't understand the truth about the value of spectacle corrections.
I find myself in my optometry practice having to explain this to
people all the time so I thought it was worth saying in this forum
since people like you spread misinformation about glasses and what
they do to your vision. The last paragraph was not relating to you
whatsoever nor did I say it did. Why did you think that it did? This
is the second time I have posted something and you have gone freako
thinking that I was talking about you. Believe me, I have lots more
important things to do than be concerned about you-- like watching TV
commercials, or belching, or passing gas. Perhaps you think that
everything people write about somehow relates to you. Perhaps you
have these feelings like people are looking at you all the time.

Really Rishi-- don't flatter yourself. its not about you. Now go
back outside and look at the sun and relax.

 

I was at church camp this summer. A young teen claimed that they could
fart and shit at the same time. Of course, everybody was suitably
impressed. The teen advisor (who was an older women, who spoke very
formally), had a hard stare, and gave a lecture on farting. The average
person farts 14 times a day. The average person farts 1.5 liters per
day. The teen advisor recited a story written by Chaucer, all about
farting. The teen got very quiet.

 

Hello pclar,

What is the misstatement please?
Can you tell me what I did misstated?

Also you quoted me, so it seemed that you were talking to me. Stupid,
if you don't want me to think you are talking to me, then don't quote
me.