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

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.

 

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.

 

you are not presbyopic dumbass

 

"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!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

?????

 

TYVM

 

"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.

 

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

dr grant

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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