Knew a co-worker who'd worn glasses her whole life said her eye sight got better after she turned 50. The optometrist told her the muscles around your eye weaken and don't squeeze your eyeball as well, thus changing the focal point.
Actually, I wonder why we don't need to 'workout' our eyes? I mean there are muscles in our eyes and staring at a constant distance monitor all day can't be any better to those muscles than sitting the whole day to the rest of the body.
today there is a pandemic of myopia . if we go to some graduate class of some university probably more than 50 percent are myopic , though some are wearing contacts or done laser . if we talk in terms of evolution or genetics , clearly these people would not have been able to function before the invention of specs , and that was may be a few centuries back . So it is not genetics but something in our environment . That that something is too much near-work for kids before around 20 years without any opportunity for the eyes to relax . We are all born with somewhat a smaller size eyeball . The body gets some feedback from the degree of accommodation from which it elongates just the right amount . I believe if kids wear weaker prescription , reduce near-work , incorporate some good habits like reading from an arms length and taking frequent breaks then myopia can be avoided or reduced . Myopia has a risk of retinal detachment , which can be fixed by laser if done within a few days . For high myopics doing strenuous work like lifting weights or running may be a risk factor .I believe wearing weaker glasses has many disadvantages , but it may reduce the progression of myopia for those kids who are prone to it.
Knew a co-worker who'd worn glasses her whole life said her eye sight got better after she turned 50. The optometrist told her the muscles around your eye weaken and don't squeeze your eyeball as well, thus changing the focal point.
Someone around that age at my workplace had a moment like that too, in fact he went from near sighted to far sighted and had to get new glasses.
I was told by my optometrist not to get laser surgery to correct short sightedness because as I get older my eyes will naturally become longer sighted. So if I reset my eyes through surgery now I would then need glasses to correct long sightedness in about 10 years... I was 40 at the time. Basically I left it too late. Surgery for just 10 years without glasses is barely worth it for me as I only wear glasses for driving.
Everyone in my family said to me as a teen why aren't you wearing your glasses? You know your eyesight will get worse. Ten years later as a 27 year old I went to the opticians and they had got worse by .25 which my optician told me is so nelgigible that people drop by that in six months. I know this is hardly a scientific study but I do get suspicious sometimes the advice to wear glasses is coming from the opticians…
I'm pretty sure eyesight, if already bad, degrades the quickest in your younger years and flattens when you get older. That's how it happened when I was growing up, and the doctors assured me that I wasn't going to go blind as my experience was "normal." I haven't had a significant change in eyesight for a while now. What's fascinating is how each doctor has a different interpretation of what a proper prescription is…
I think you just get used to the glasses you have. For example my current pair of glasses are a high index lens, and adjusting to them took two or three days of being slightly dizzy when walking around.
> if they don’t have the right glasses they can develop so-called “lazy-eye” or amblyopia because they’ve never had a sharp image on their retina I am not a doctor but this sounds strange to me. (I had amblyopia so I have read a little bit about it.) One eye's vision needs to be significantly different from another, to the extent brain "decides" it cannot merge images and goes mono-ocular. This trivially happens with…
Scarred retina on one of my eyes here, due to blunt trauma as a child. If I close my good eye, everything appears as if through a heavy noise filter. Can read letters if super enlarged fonts though, with a bit of work. My vision appears mainly monoscopic, with the damaged eye providing perfectly integrated peripheral vision. It is never "funny" or weird - except if an eye feels tired it would have to almost always be…
Interesting that you could see 3d. I have only a slightly different RX in my left eye and 3d to me looks like layers of flat objects at different depths. I thought that was just the best 3d had to offer until someone described to me what they were seeing.
Scarred retina on one of my eyes here, due to blunt trauma as a child. If I close my good eye, everything appears as if through a heavy noise filter. Can read letters if super enlarged fonts though, with a bit of work. My vision appears mainly monoscopic, with the damaged eye providing perfectly integrated peripheral vision. It is never "funny" or weird - except if an eye feels tired it would have to almost always be…
Interesting that you could see 3d. I have only a slightly different RX in my left eye and 3d to me looks like layers of flat objects at different depths. I thought that was just the best 3d had to offer until someone described to me what they were seeing.
I think it is the massive size of the IMAX screen, and relative exaggeration of the left / right isolated images that forces the brain to perceive it.
In real life I struggle to tell the difference if I close my bad eye - which leads me to think I don't see in 3d. Brain perceives depth purely through focus; when looking at this phone as typing, the only change if closing the bad one is peripheral vision (Venn diagram/what good eye can't see) being dropped.