Why are so many people myopic?

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by aaaJoe, Oct 1, 2005.

  1. aaaJoe

    aaaJoe Guest

    To the eye professionals out there......does the evidence suggest that
    people always had such poor vision throughout history and just didn't
    realize it or are we doing things that are degrading our vision and
    contributing to its worsening performance.
     
    aaaJoe, Oct 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. aaaJoe

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    What do you mean by "degrading our vision and contributing to its
    worsening performance"?

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. aaaJoe

    aaJoe Guest

    To the eye professionals out there......does the evidence suggest that
    What do you mean by "degrading our vision and contributing to its
    worsening performance"?
    I meant that large proportion of our young society needs myopic
    correction. They don't need help with their hearing, or coordination
    or smell or touch. I wonder if its always been that way for the past
    few hundred years. I would suspect not. I would suspect that modern
    man is doing something to degrade our vision.
     
    aaJoe, Oct 1, 2005
    #3
  4. aaaJoe

    otisbrown Guest

    Joe> I meant that large proportion of our young society needs myopic
    correction. They don't need help with their hearing, or coordination
    or smell or touch. I wonder if its always been that way for the past
    few hundred years.

    Joe> I would suspect not. I would suspect that modern
    man is doing something to degrade our vision.

    Otis> BINGO!
     
    otisbrown, Oct 1, 2005
    #4
  5. aaaJoe

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Well, when you and Otis figure out the cure for the ills of modern
    society (other than handing out free reading glasses), ring me up,
    please.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 1, 2005
    #5
  6. aaaJoe

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear DrG,

    Joe (GG) must be concerned with HER OWN VISUAL WELFARE.

    She is not concerned with the "ills of modern society" any
    more than you are.

    It is obvious that if GG figures this out (and checks
    her own eye chat, then she has no need for
    ANYTING that you might have to offer.

    Maybe that is the final resolution for her.

    If she can function with out the minus -- and that
    is no "impact" for her -- then why not.

    Her "mono-vision" is actually going to be of
    considerable help for her in the future years.
    is about 20/50, and if she keeps this up, I
    would suspect the possiblity of getting to
    20/40, which would pass most DMV tests.

    The rest, as they say, is up to her -- and not you.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Oct 1, 2005
    #6
  7. aaaJoe

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Then why is she posting here?

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 1, 2005
    #7
  8. aaaJoe

    Dom Guest

    Don't know about the history of poor vision, but these days we spend a
    lot more time doing near work (reading, computing, etc) than our eyes
    were 'designed' (evolved) for.

    This may contribute to myopia in particular, but also it may make other
    existing problems like hyperopia or astigmatism more noticeable due to
    the demand of the task.

    I don't know for a fact but would strongly suspect that hundreds of
    years ago there was a lot less myopia and perhaps less astigmatism than
    there is now. To be highly myopic back then would have been more than an
    inconvenience.

    To loosely quote Brien Holden: in the world of fauna, you're either
    emmetropic or dead. In years gone by, I'd say this would have applied to
    humans too.

    Dom
     
    Dom, Oct 1, 2005
    #8
  9. aaaJoe

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Study after study finds that close work is a factor, second only to
    genetics.

    I think the incidence is going up, but primarily due to the excessive
    amount of computer usage among young people. I have been taking my own
    informal "show of hands" at the middle school for the past twenty
    years, and it seems like more hands go up now than in the past. Also,
    at some point, when vision requirements for operating a motor vehicle
    and school screenings became mandatory, the detection rate improved.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 1, 2005
    #9
  10. aaaJoe

    Dr Judy Guest

    The answer to this one is going to mostly speculation, since there are no
    records of the distribution of refractive error in the population beyond
    about 100 years back.

    We can speculate that some myopia must have been around if older people did
    any near work. The educated classes (monks, scribes) and the artists would
    have found myopia to be an advantage.
    Not so sure about that. Humans have divided labour for thousands of years.
    The hunters and warriors would need good distance vision, but the food
    gatherers, baby minders, tool makers, artists, clothing makers and so on
    would find keen near vision a boon.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Oct 1, 2005
    #10
  11. aaaJoe

    Access Guest

    Interesting theory - I wonder if there is a statistic correlation between
    artistic people (painters, writers, ...) and people with myopic vision since
    birth.
     
    Access, Oct 2, 2005
    #11
  12. aaaJoe

    Access Guest

    I've been wearing glasses since my first year in school (6 years old) - now
    i'm 33 (male) and -9.5/-10 (wearing contact lenses now). Guess i'm born
    myopic, but it's strange since there are no other people like me in the
    family. My mother was smoking when she was pregnant, could that have caused
    it ? I also have a lot of birthmarks.
     
    Access, Oct 2, 2005
    #12
  13. aaaJoe

    Dr Judy Guest

    Most people are not myopic from birth but develop it during one of the two
    childhood growth spurts (one around age 6/7, the other around puberty).

    Don't know about occupations but there is a correlation between higher IQ
    and myopia.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Oct 3, 2005
    #13
  14. aaaJoe

    Quick Guest

    Drat, I'm a hyper. Hopefully my AB neg. blood has
    added to what little IQ I have.

    (just kidding... I think. Was there a correlation in the other
    direction?)
    -Quick
     
    Quick, Oct 3, 2005
    #14
  15. aaaJoe

    Autymn D. C. Guest

    (stop cascading)
    what about astigmatism?
     
    Autymn D. C., Oct 3, 2005
    #15
  16. aaaJoe

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Quick,

    Subject: Refractive status and intelligence.

    I think it goes this way.

    Ref: IQ

    +2 80

    +1 90

    0.0 100

    -1 110

    -2 120

    -3 130

    -4 140

    -5 150

    -6 160

    It has been proven that you
    can take the primate eye
    and get its refractive
    status to "move" in
    a negative direction.

    Thus we now have a new
    tool to make primates
    more intelligent.

    With a series of "increments"
    in minus-lens strength, you
    could probably create
    a primate with -6 diopters
    and therefore an IQ
    of 160.

    They do not call "man"
    the intelligent ape for no
    good reason.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Oct 3, 2005
    #16
  17. aaaJoe

    LarryDoc Guest

    I hope this was your attempt at humor. If it is, you are so very
    strange. If it was not, you are a very sick man.
     
    LarryDoc, Oct 3, 2005
    #17
  18. aaaJoe

    Quick Guest

    Hmmm, I really like being able to count the leaves of
    the tree line on the mountain top. I haven't decided yet
    if I want to trade this ability for a brain. what to do...
    I get so confused with decisions.

    -Quick
     
    Quick, Oct 3, 2005
    #18
  19. aaaJoe

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Larry-Doc,

    I think that Quick has the "Quick-intelligence" to understand the humor
    in this -- even if you do not.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Oct 3, 2005
    #19
  20. aaaJoe

    p.clarkii Guest

    in your previous post you blurted out the following nonsense:
    "It has been proven that you
    can take the primate eye
    and get its refractive
    status to "move" in
    a negative direction."

    why does this study, performed on HUMANS rather than monkeys or
    chickens, contradict your "minus stairstep" proposal?

    --
    Goss, D. (1984) Overcorrection as a means of slowing myopic
    progression.
    Am J Optom Physiol Opt., Feb;61(2):85-93.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6703013&query_hl=3

    Thirty-six subjects (18 males and 18 females) ranging in ages from 7.38
    to 15.82 years received an overcorrection of 0.75 D over the power
    required to correct their myopia exactly. These 36 experimental
    subjects were matched by control subjects selected at random from the
    files of the Indiana University Optometry Clinics. The criteria used in
    matching were sex, beginning age, beginning refractive error, and
    duration of time covered by the record. The mean rate of change of
    refractive error for the experimental group was (minus indicating
    increase of myopia) -0.49 D/year (range, +0.37 to -1.95 D/year) on
    retinoscopy and -0.52 D/year (range, +0.21 to -1.32 D/year) on
    subjective refraction. The mean rate of change for the control group
    was -0.47 D/year (range, +0.06 to -2.03 D/year) on retinoscopy and
    -0.47 D/year (range, +0.28 to -1.72 D/year) on subjective refraction.
    Rates for the experimental and control groups were not significantly
    different.
    --

    Otis--this reference was presented to you previously as has countless
    other study results. why do you continue to ignor the overwhelming
    evidence against you? what kind of a rational person are you? you
    seem to have some sort of evangelical faith in your beliefs that is not
    at all based in science or objective thinking.
     
    p.clarkii, Oct 4, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.