Honestly, myopia is not complicated (Kepler pretty much had it right in 1604 already). There's countless studies showing that axial length (eyeball length) changes in both directions, where elongation increases myopia. How do you change it? You get defocus (blur) which makes the eye adjust in the direction to reduce the blur. Practically: use weaker (around 1.5 diopters) or no glasses during close-up work (reading, c…
This probably works for most people. But I've used 2-diopter weak glasses for the last 40 years, whenever I'm indoors. I think it helped slow the worsening of progression of my nearsightedness, but didn't stop it and certainly didn't reverse it.
It is not necessary that bad. I had some fights with kids at that age, but it definitely was not every single time we walked. You are exaggerating how bad it is. What you do is normal at that age. If you walk to store frequently it is normal routine and lead to fights only occasionally. And while kid stops to look at boring things, it is not like they would stop for hours, most of time you nudge them after few second…
> I had some fights with kids at that age, but it definitely was not every single time we walked. You are exaggerating how bad it is. Every child is unique. Some are more stubborn than others. This is a challenge with any parenting advice because there is so much variance. My experience is my kids do fight or linger every time despite the routine and nudges.
Sure. But the whole "heh your plan to have daily walks with kids is impossible" is just not true. Families with kids walk to places.
Plus, there are millions of single parents around the world who don't have cars and walk+public transport their kids to daycare daily.
I paid nearly $1500 for my kid myopia treatment plan: specialized drop, checkin every 2 months. Nothing helps. They now recommend I do contacts for my 9 year old and I kindly say hell no. I think this is scammy at best.
It's bullshit because there are a ton of reasons why you would need corrective vision. This will work for a small subset but for most will not. And for those who it does help, they'll still need glasses. It's pointless.
It's more likely that it works for a large majority. If you were born myopic or had an accident or something similar, yea it most likely wont work for you. But most myopes do not fall in those categories. I'm very open to hearing your arguments backing up your statement though.
My arguments are that if that were the case, we'd already be doing it. I work in the optical industry. To suggest that opthalmologists just haven't figured this out yet is just pants on head retarded, sorry.
This should be easy to answer: we are not smarter in the recent decades (the opposite is likely true due to the leaded petrol). The natural selection for smartness is too weak in humans (it does not take much brain to reproduce nowadays). The hypothesis in TFA is much more likely (regular exposure to bright daylight in children)
On the contrary, IQ has been increasing decade-over-decade basically since IQ was invented. So we are smarter in recent decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect (Though because IQ is standardized around a mean of 100, it's probably more accurate to say that the IQ of people in the past has retroactively gotten lower)
Everything in nature is fractal-shaped, while most things in our artificial environments are made of flat surfaces. If you think of light as a kind of "food" for the eyes, we are effectively eating junk food all day every day.
I wore glasses for a few years in high school because I had trouble seeing the blackboard from anywhere but the front row. I started hiking and kayaking every day, especially in places where I could see for many miles. I also migrated from CRT to LCD to LED screens, and more recently to e-ink devices when possible. Very fine print in a dark space is hard to read, but I can read a moving US license plate from six blocks away. Yesterday I recognized a friend a mile and a half away by their paddle-stroke. I am able to differentiate a bald eagle from an osprey at two miles based on the shape of the wings, and see a fish in talons at about a mile. (Friday I observed an osprey dive, catch a fish, head towards the nest, then get chased for thirty minutes by a bald eagle. Nasty, opportunistic birds, bald eagles. I get why Benjamin Franklin held them in such contempt. I lost the pair when they went behind a mountain about three miles away.) In speaking with ophthalmologists, there is wide support for my hypothesis that the near-daily outdoor activity and frequent change of focal distance–from a nautical chart on my foredeck to the bow wave of a tanker eight miles out–has preserved and likely improved my vision. The data: 20/20 in primary school, 20/23 in high school, 20/20 during my higher education, and 20/13 and improving as I approach retirement. A fun trick is to describe an approaching vessel before others have seen it.
On the contrary, IQ has been increasing decade-over-decade basically since IQ was invented. So we are smarter in recent decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect (Though because IQ is standardized around a mean of 100, it's probably more accurate to say that the IQ of people in the past has retroactively gotten lower)
The flynn effect is well documented. The negative effect of leaded gas on intelligence just means that average IQ "should" have been raising even more throughout the 20th century.