311–320 of 330 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always thought my myopia was caused by computer usage. Reading this it sounds more likely that it was growing up in Calgary, Canada and spending huge amounts of time indoors and in basements.
Well it is, because the more you are on your computer, the less you are outside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120 > In the early 2000s, when researchers started to look at specific behaviours, such as books read per week or hours spent reading or using a computer, none seemed to be a major contributor to myopia risk > Rose's team tried to eliminate any other explanations for this link — for example, that children outdoors were engaged in more physical activity and that this was…
Okay if that's the case wouldn't you see similar result if kids watch at a sunny window. Light wise that's pretty similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only correlation, light brightness has nothing to do with myopia. It's more likely from looking at things farther away from the face outside so that there is less light focused on the fovea.
"light brightness has nothing to do with myopia" - that's a big claim and will need some evidence to back it up, especially given the many studies that suggest otherwise. This is still a topic with many unknowns, but we have to follow the evidence as much as we can. Evidence should always beat data-free guesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A brief look at citations on Wikipedia seems to contradict everything you've said. Maybe you'd like to link some research?
Your reply is a good example. I haven't seen anyone in this HN post's comments talk about how myopia works. I legitimately do not understand why so few people know even the basics of myopia progression. All of these comments are, pun intended, the blind leading the blind. I especially don't understand it given how common myopia is and how important it is for parents to understand it for their children. ------ 1. Glas…
>I have a serious question: did you not come across any of this research?
I hadn't seen the more recent developments on these preventative glasses, no. However I don't tend to give too much credence to individual studies especially when reported through mainstream media. You see such studies and articles supporting all kinds of contradictory conclusions all the time.
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, but it is kind of useful as a quick overview of current ideas on a topic. Skimming the article,
>The near work hypothesis, also referred to as the "use-abuse theory" states that spending time involved in near work strains the intraocular and extraocular muscles. Some studies support the hypothesis, while other studies do not.[3] While an association is present, it is not clearly causal.[3]
and
>There is preliminary evidence that the protective effect of outdoor activities on the development of myopia is due, at least in part, to the effect of long hours of exposure to daylight on the production and the release of retinal dopamine.[15][29][30][31]
So, immediately it seems like we aren't so certain as you suggest we are what the cause of myopia is. And your assertion that "..exposure to light brightness has nothing to do with myopia" is directly contradicted here. And from a cited recent (2019) review paper [1]
> Huang et al. highlighted, in a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, that near-work activities were related with higher odds of myopia (odds ratio 1.14; 95% CI 1.08–1.20) and that the odds of myopia increased by 2% (OR: 1.02; 95% CI 1.01–1.03) for every one diopter-hour more of weekly near work [110].
> In contrast, there are studies reporting that near work is not associated with faster rates of myopia progression [85, 111–113].
> Therefore the relationship between near work and myopia is complex and needs to be investigated.
> On the other hand, several recent epidemiological studies suggest that greater time spent outdoors might have a protective effect against myopia development and progression [114–116].
So, though I am far from being an expert after reading these few articles, they all seem to strongly contradict your assertion that "It's not unknown", and also that the research all agrees with your points.
Off on a complete tangent here, only remotely related. Yo, fellow four-eyed geeks. I noticed that when lying down and looking up in a room with a light source, with my glasses on, if there is a small droplet of water on the lens (say, due to having just cleaned the glasses and not wicked up every last drop), this droplet can bend the light in such a way that when it subsequently hits the cornea and pupa, a perfectly…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A brief look at citations on Wikipedia seems to contradict everything you've said. Maybe you'd like to link some research?
Your reply is a good example. I haven't seen anyone in this HN post's comments talk about how myopia works. I legitimately do not understand why so few people know even the basics of myopia progression. All of these comments are, pun intended, the blind leading the blind. I especially don't understand it given how common myopia is and how important it is for parents to understand it for their children. ------ 1. Glas…
>The development of chicks towards emmetropization was observed at various levels of illumination: (10.000 Lux, 500 Lux and 50 Lux). Result: After 90 days 50 Lux resulted in a mean myopia of –2.41 D, 500 Lux resulted in +0.03 D, and 10.000 Lux resulted in hyperopia of +1.1 D.
>"Categorized according to their objectively measured average daily light exposure and adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, baseline axial length, parental myopia, nearwork, and physical activity), children experiencing low average daily light exposure (mean daily light exposure: 459 ± 117 lux, annual eye growth: 0.13 mm/y) exhibited significantly greater eye growth than children experiencing moderate (842 ± 109 lux, 0.060 mm/y), and high (1455 ± 317 lux, 0.065 mm/y) average daily light exposure levels."
>for myopic children 6 to 12 years old a mean progression of – 0.35 D in winter and –0.14 D in summer. This was attributed to the children's extended time spent outdoors in summer
Getting more sunlight is the most helpful thing one can do without special equipment
Maybe some of you will find this beneficial if you have slight vision issues. It’s anecdotal, I don’t have scientific backing here. It worked for me, and I think it’s harmless to try. What I’m about to describe is what I think is the Active Focus method. I’ve always had perfect vision but my dominant eye degraded slightly over the years so I looked into how to bring it back to full. No one in family wears glasses or…
Endmyopia is real. It works, and I’m not a shill. I went from severe myopia to 20/20 vision; although you need to put the effort in (took me 2 years to get to 20/20, but improvements have been steady). I genuinely believe that optometrists are either evil, or horribly misguided with hubris.
It worked well enough that my myopia did not progress. However, I got bad astigmatism
Optometrists are really bad at measuring anything. Endmyopia probably works best for people who never had myopia, but the optometrists just measured some temporary accommodation as myopia. They always kept measuring my astigmatism as myopia for years. Only now that they have modern wavefront aberrometers, the device could tell them that they have measured the cylinder as 2 diopters too weak
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Correlation does not imply causation but it does imply having something to do with the other Correlation does not imply having something to do with another. For example, in the first decade of the 21st century, spending on space exploration had a 99.8% correlation with a specific subset of suicides (hanging?).
"Correlation does not imply having something to do with another." By its very definition, "correlation" means exactly "a mutual relation": https://www.dictionary.com/browse/correlation The example you're giving is called coincidence not correlation. There are times where words' etymologies loose their connection with their current meaning, but that is not the case here, where we have "con" meaning "together" + "relat…
> Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's something called SMILE if you're interested in surgery. I recently had it done.
can you tell me a bit more about costs, any side effects, and whether you are satisifed?
Side effects = NOTHING. Seriously. The operation is legitimately nothing, super duper quick. You walk into a room and in less than fifteen minutes you walk out with perfect vision. It's unbelievable.
Satisfied? Very much. I now have perfect vision. I still forget sometimes. Like I'll take off my shirt at the end of the night and will be pulling it away as if I had glasses on.
Or I'll even go to take off my glasses when I get in bed and realize I don't have glasses.
I will say...everyone throughout life treated me like a "very smart person"(tm) but now that is less so and I'm starting to think the glasses had something to do with it :D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The currently favored theory is that it's due to a lack of UV light reaching the eye. It's not (just) video games, it's (also) school and generally being indoors instead of out at midday.
Since I learned that excess UV radiation burns the retina, I've started always wearing sunglasses outside. Should I stop?