why do you make a big deal about undercorrection for myopia?

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by acemanvx, Mar 10, 2006.

  1. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    Why is it so important to fully correct myopia if you have presbyopia
    or accomodative dysfunction? Its common for people getting cateract
    surgury to choose to be undercorrected for near or intermediate to the
    tune of -1 diopters, -1.5 diopters, -2 diopters, sometimes even more! I
    have seen lasik people choose to be corrected to 20/40, just enough not
    to ever need distance glasses, not even for driving. Because of the
    undercorrection, they dont need reading glasses for intermediate, such
    as spending hours on the computer.


    I talked about orthoK and undercorrection. I doubt orthoK will fully
    correct me and I have been telling you guys I do NOT want to be fully
    corrected. I dont accomodate well and fully correcting me will just
    make me dependant on reading glasses, defeating the point of orthoK.
    Ideally, I want to be -1.25 diopters since I sit 80cm from the
    computer. I will still be able to see the computer monitor clearly
    enough up to -2.25 diopters. I am only a -4 so it should be easy to get
    me to a -2 or less and ill see well enough to reduce my dependancy on
    glasses by 90%. If I were corrected to plano 0 my dependancy on glasses
    would be higher than at -1.25 because id need reading glasses alot. I
    use my eyes for near much more than for distance.

    You guys wouldnt understand unless you see thru my eyes. Why dont you
    put some tropicamide drops and simulate an incomplete cycloplegia? This
    will make things from closer range blurry and hard to focus on. Then
    youll have the idea.
     
    acemanvx, Mar 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. acemanvx

    Dan Abel Guest

    Because very few people want to be undercorrected. If that is what you
    want, then more power to you, but don't think that it is very common,
    especially among the young.
     
    Dan Abel, Mar 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. acemanvx

    p.clarkii Guest

    you are not presbyopic dumbass
     
    p.clarkii, Mar 10, 2006
    #3
  4. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    "Because very few people want to be undercorrected."


    If they rather wear reading glasses most of the time instead of
    distance glasses occasionally.
    My brother is -1.25 and almost never wears distance glasses. Lots of my
    friends have pescriptions of -1 to -1.5 diopters and go without
    glasses(except for driving if legally required)


    "If that is what you want, then more power to you"


    I dont have a choice for more than one reason. Firstly my dependancy on
    glasses will *increase* if corrected to plano. This is true for many
    people. I know about 20 people who got lasik or cateract surgury and
    were fully corrected by choice of the patient and/or doctor. One lady I
    know in person is in bifocals afterr cateract surgury. She was quite
    myopic before so shes not complaining, at least her UCVA is far better
    and not having cateracts anymore made the surgury worth it. Both her
    UCVA and BCVA improved. Another guy I know online was like -5 with
    minimal astigmastim and he wore progressive glasses and also had a pair
    of -3.5 for the computer. Well for some reason he got lasik. He was
    expecting to be just about free of glasses and only need reading
    glasses for fine print. WRONG! He did end about plano but now wears
    reading glasses much of the time, including the 6-8 hours he spends on
    the computer in +1.5 readers. He needs and uses +3.5 for reading
    boooks, newspaper and even his watch! His dependancy on glasses was
    hardly reduced, he will just spend his life in readers instead of minus
    lenses. Hes in regret now and says he either should never have bothered
    with the expenses and risks of lasik or asked to be undercorrected
    around -1.5 with lasik.

    My friend's mother got lasik and traded up for reading glasses. She now
    has like 10 pairs of readers around the house. My friend just shrugged
    and wondered what was the point of her getting lasik, she did not
    reduce her dependancy on glasses, but marely traded.


    Imagine waking up and not clearly seeing your alarm clock until you get
    out of bed and look at it half way across the room. Then as you go
    downstairs to eat and read the newspaper, you put on your reading
    glasses. You take your reading glasses with you upstairs to wear when
    brushing your teeth and shaving. You put them in your pocket and walk
    to the car where you reach for your bifocals from under your seat so
    you can see the steering wheel and speedometer when driving. You get to
    work and replace the bifocals back in the car. You slap your readers
    back on for reading and computer work. Work is done and you wear
    bifocals as you drive shopping. At the store, you put your readers on
    everytime you look at the prices or ingediants of items. You do it
    again to read your recipt and count your change. Bifocals again as you
    drive home. You put on readers as you insert your keys in to open the
    door of your house. Many other things you do require readers.

    Most humans use their eyes for near and intermediate much more than for
    distance unless you are an athlate, pilot or hunter, whatever. For
    those with high accomodation, enjoy it while it lasts. For those with
    mild myopia, you are very, very lucky! Enjoy being free of the hassles
    of reading glasses!


    "but don't think that it is very common,
    especially among the young."


    age doesnt matter, anyone with reduced or low accomodation has that
    problem. I can still accomodate but attempting to read without taking
    my glasses off gives me instant eyestrain and headache. Text remains
    clear if I hold reading material away from my face. Its much easier for
    me to remove my glasses and read razor sharp text from 10 inches.
    OrthoK will reduce my myopia and astigmastim. I do not need my
    pescription shown below:



    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 want to reduce my astigmastim as much as possible or eliminate it
    all. I want to correct my left eye, which is dormant more than my right
    eye. I wont mind if the right eye is within half diopter of my left.
    Below is what I should get after 7mm zone orthoK based on average
    results of others


    left eye: -2.0 sphere correctable to 20/25
    right eye: -1.5 sphere, -.5 cylindar(55 axis) correctable to 20/30


    Notice that I could probably get my right eye down a little further but
    the anisometropia and non dormant eye being much better would annoy me.
    I may or may not improve my BCVA but less minification and disortion
    due to myopia and astigmastim should help. OrthoK is based on RGP
    contacts, so it may smoothen my high order aberrations in my cornea as
    well. I will be happy as long as my BCVA remains the same, but my
    optometrist said an improvement is possible. My UCVA will be good
    enough to reduce my dependancy on glasses by 75% or more and NOT need
    reading glasses!
     
    acemanvx, Mar 10, 2006
    #4
  5. acemanvx

    CatmanX Guest

    The problem with talking to psychopaths is that they don't listen, so
    you don't hear when everyone in the world tells you to **** OFF.

    Anyway, **** OFF once again, hopefully your crap will stop.

    dr grant
     
    CatmanX, Mar 10, 2006
    #5
  6. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    why should I care what a lunatic like you says? Its already clear you
    cuss and swear at everyone and never have anything constructive to say.
    What you say is meaningless
     
    acemanvx, Mar 10, 2006
    #6
  7. You still don't get it do you Nancy?

    You are sick in the head and have no understanding of logic.

    I shall put this simply:

    Research shows that undercorrection makes you go more myopic.

    Do you understand this?????

    Why do you then tell people to undercorrect themselves? Do you want to
    make them more myopic? Do you hate people that much that you want to
    make their eyes worse to make yourself frrl better??

    You are really sick.

    You should be banned from the net.

    dr grant
     
    drgranthatesyou, Mar 10, 2006
    #7
  8. acemanvx

    Dan Abel Guest


    I, and most of the people I know, do more at distance than close. YMMV.
    And it sounds like it does. That still doesn't make you "most people".


    Of course you have a choice.

    [snipped stuff about correction making him more myopic]

    Ridiculous. I want to know what time it is *without* getting up. I
    have an LED alarm clock with bright red 2 1/4" digits. It has a setting
    for "high" or "low" brightness. I keep it on "high". For a small
    amount of money, you can get a clock that projects the time on the
    ceiling.


    You know less about driving than you do about vision.


    I always kept reading glasses at work. I didn't bring them. I kept
    spare readers in the vehicle in case I needed them while I was out.

    You forgot using the ATM/credit card machine. I prefer readers for
    that, although I can get along without them if necessary.


    I can find the keyhole and insert the key without readers.


    It was an over-generalization. Older people tend to get out less than
    younger people. YMMV, and probably does.
     
    Dan Abel, Mar 10, 2006
    #8
  9. acemanvx

    RT Guest

    ?????
     
    RT, Mar 10, 2006
    #9
  10. acemanvx

    RT Guest

    TYVM
     
    RT, Mar 10, 2006
    #10
  11. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    "I, and most of the people I know, do more at distance than close.
    YMMV.
    And it sounds like it does. That still doesn't make you "most
    people"."


    Id say I use my eyes for near and intermediate about 80% of the time.
    Therefore I want my eyes to be focused for such. -1.25 to -2 diopters
    fits the bill perfect.


    Z"Ridiculous. I want to know what time it is *without* getting up. I
    have an LED alarm clock with bright red 2 1/4" digits."


    I can see mine but its faint and blurry due to being -4. Any correction
    will greatly sharpen it because its big and only 5 feet away. Even
    presbyopes can see it as 5 feet isnt too close to be illegable if the
    numbers are big.


    "I can find the keyhole and insert the key without readers."


    You have a good sense of touch. Maybe you stand 2 meters back and see
    the keyhole from there and then make a beeline for it?



    anyway I have already stated the reasons and advantages for having your
    eyes focused for near if you use them for near more.
     
    acemanvx, Mar 11, 2006
    #11
  12. acemanvx

    CatmanX Guest

    WTF are you ranting about? Is there any sense in the rambling?

    dr grant
     
    CatmanX, Mar 11, 2006
    #12
  13. acemanvx

    drfrank21 Guest


    I have at times slightly undercorrected a myope who is
    also an emerging presbyope (by a quarter or so) to help them
    with near work. I have not seen any seen any "wild" increases in
    their myopic posture by this mild undercorrection any more than
    giving a full correction. Obviously, I'm not going to blur out a
    patient to 20/40 (or worse) at distance but going conservative
    isn't the end of the world in any age group.

    It's amazing how a couple of posters here can sure push your buttons
    and make you sound more like a raving lunatic than an eye care
    professional. If they bother so much just kill file them.

    frank
     
    drfrank21, Mar 11, 2006
    #13
  14. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    Why does Grant go balliistic
    over you?

    I do not recall that you
    used foul language
    on him.

    You are layman, and can
    ask questions that are
    all over the map.

    I expect that, that
    is just normal.

    No one should get
    upset about it,
    least of all Grant.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Mar 12, 2006
    #14
  15. acemanvx

    p.clarkii Guest

    you and ace are total idiots. what angers the eye doctors here is that
    you give advise to people that is totally invalid. undercorrection has
    been shown in REAL SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICALLY VALID STUDIES to
    accelerate myopia. please read:

    Chung K, Mohidin N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances
    rather than inhibits myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42:
    2555-9.

    i know that you place no weight upon science and instead only upon
    faith and anecdotal stories, but you are potentially screwing with
    peoples health here!

    both of you go away. go eat some mushrooms and surf for girlie
    websites.
     
    p.clarkii, Mar 12, 2006
    #15
  16. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    you are wrong. Otis can prove that the minus lens accelerates myopia,
    especially with lots of near work. My brother has been going without
    glasses and he went from -1.75 to -1.25 so hows that? I have been
    undercorrecting myself for more than a year now and I went from a -5 to
    a -4. The point is different optometrist think differently. My
    ophthamologist actually believes in undercorrection, but not so much to
    improve vision but more to make things from near clear and relieve
    eyestrain that full power glasses induce.
     
    acemanvx, Mar 12, 2006
    #16
  17. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    Subject: The Second-opinion ODs recognize the power
    and effect of the Oakley-Young study, the majority-opinion
    denies that the natural eye is a dynamic system.

    Ace, you are seeing intense bias here -- something you
    must understand.

    In essense, the Oakley-Young study showed that with
    250+ people, the group with a single minus went
    down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year, while
    the "high-plus" segment, stopped further
    negative movement.

    You can make your own judgment between
    the majority-opnion and second-opinion
    about the dyanmic behavior of all
    natural eyes.

    This implies that a negative refractive state
    could be prevented -- if you had the motivation
    to do it correctly.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Mar 13, 2006
    #17
  18. acemanvx

    CatmanX Guest

    Cletis, you must understand that this study has been shown to be wrong.
    It is not properly controlled and numerous studies have since shown
    that there is NO slowing of myopia with plus.

    Time to find a new study to flog as Young does not work.

    dr grant
     
    CatmanX, Mar 13, 2006
    #18
  19. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear dr grant,

    Subject: Your majority opinion.

    Of course you can state that all facts are wrong,
    that all the primate data proving that a population
    of natural primate data is "wrong", and
    everything else you don't like is
    "not science", but that is your majority opinion.

    The second-opinion recognizes the possibility
    of prevention (or avoidance) at the threshold,
    PROVIDED the parents concur with the
    preventive method at the threshold.

    This is suggested by Steve Leung OD at:

    www.chinamyopia.org

    And I am well aware of the difficulties of prevention
    at the threshold. It something for the parents
    to consider -- and perhaps reject, but at least
    they should consider the possibility.

    I certainly do wonder how AceMan would
    have reacted to the offer of "help" with
    prevention at the threshold.

    In fact, perhaps Aceman can provide
    his assessment of that theoretical offer.

    What do you think, Ace?

    You go to the OD, and he says, you see the
    Snellen at 20/50. He suggests the possiblity
    of using the plus to "clear" to 20/40 or better
    by YOUR personal effort. Would you
    have taken that challenge seriously and
    done this prevetive work under YOUR control?


    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Mar 13, 2006
    #19
  20. acemanvx

    CatmanX Guest

    You really don't know much, do you Cletis?

    Plus is only as effective as the visual problem, the wearer and
    prescriber. Young's work on primates is not people. Young has been
    shown to be wrong because it is wrong. Not majority opinion, but just
    plain old wrong. If it were to stand the test of time, it would need to
    be scientifically valid. It is not and has been disproved. How much
    more evidence do you need to show you are factually incorrect? You are
    arguing that a fish can fly through the air. It can't, but you still
    keep telling us that it does. You have no proof, you just keep stating
    the rubbish without justifying your position.

    Nancy would not have worn plus because Nancy knows more than you. She
    knows more about OK than me and more about Lasik than the surgeons. She
    would have told you how to prescribe plus.

    As to your perception of second opinion doctors, I am the second
    opinion doctor. I am the third, fourth and fifth oinion as well. Steven
    Leung is a moron who is trying to terrorise parents into buying his
    lenses. This is easy in Singapore Hong Kong and Taiwan. Parents are
    very concerned about the worsening of vision.

    Your problem is that you have an extremely simplistic biew on the
    genesis of myopia, and your treament strategy is inappropriate. Myopia
    can be controlled, but not in the way you suggest.

    Stop regurgitating your rubbish and learn something about what you
    speak of.

    dr grant
     
    CatmanX, Mar 13, 2006
    #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.