12 * 7 computer work still no glasses needed

i have my maternal uncle in the IT sector who works on computer daily for at least 12 hrs and still has perfect vision. somedays he does not come home and has to work all day. i once visited his office and saw that his room in which he worked was about 10 ft * 10 ft with no window only a ventilator … he has been doing this for 10 years and still has no myopia or hyperopia . and the shocking thing is that most of his colleagues in his office have no glasses so my question is how is this possible ? and for further info he does get no holidays only gets a few hrs to spend with his family . he is about 40 yrs old now . so my question is how is this possible. @jakey @NottNott i am practising af andyour methods rather it would be better to say building good habits but can you explain my uncle"s phenomenon


He never starts wearing glasses so he doesn’t have progressive lens myopia. Why he doesn’t get ciliary spasm, maybe doesn’t notice it, might take adequate breaks, maybe knows how to active focus (most emmetropes probably active focus without knowing about it) etc. There’s variation in what degree ciliary spasm will affect a screen junkie emmetrope, but once you go to lenses you don’t go back as easily.


All above that @NottNott mentioned.
Plus it is often true that people who work in IT are very specific about the set up. They make sure the monitors are good quality, totally flickerfree, and because they go for great size monitors they naturally sit a lot further away from them. Plus because they spend all their times in front of the monitors they don’t use their phones for watching videos and chats, etc.
So their “under 60cm close up time” (the biggest killer of eyesight) is close to zero.

However, I’d be interested if the “he doesn’t have glasses” means he doesn’t need them (some fluctuation in vision but he’s OK for all of his everyday situations - so didn’t go down the lens induced myopia way) or he has actual 20/20 real distance vision even at the end of the day with artificial lights.

1 Like

It’s stories like this, and watching my wife who is 20/20 (always has been), and does a fair amount of closeup, that makes me thing that the ciliary spasm concept isn’t quite right when explaining myopia progression.

I’ve been working on my pet theories for as long as I’ve been doing EM. What all of them have as a litmus test is they need to explain why some stay 20/20 while others get myopic. The ciliary spasm one doesn’t meet that criteria, when I read stories like this or look at my wife clearly spending hours on a phone naked eye, even to the point she gets eyestrain headaches. Yet 20/20 she remains. But according to the ciliary spasm theory she should have progressed quite a bit in the decade or so that I’ve known her.

There must be more to the story than just ciliary spasm inducing myopia progression. But what?


This is what you have to figure out.

There’s plenty of explanations out there already by Jake and others.

Emmetropes see the world differently than myopes.

Instead of us explaining an uncle we’ve never met. You should ask your uncle how he sees.

1 Like

In the “with screen” part of the world emmetropes are quickly becoming the minority and as it stands now it is only getting worse.
Comparing the average Janes and Joes with some degree of corrections (anything from cyl only to over -10D glasses) to emmetropes is like people comparing the body shapes to bikini models or body builders. Also like investigating the impact of eating habits on health using the rare example on the contrary: a person who had junk food all his life and is still healthy.

There is surely difference in how much a person needs to get pushed down the myopia way (if it is the amount of close up time or the lack of distance time that starts a process more for a person) and a lot depends on the first opto (overcorrecting or not, adding cyl, correcting unequally, etc).

The engineers I work with all work with good monitors and comfortable chairs and they naturally keep a very good distance from the screen. Same with the pro gamers I know. And the ones who don’t have glasses spend all weekend mountain biking (even if over 50 - broken collarbones are regularly reported), hiking, surfing, shooting, motorbiking, etc. So they don’t get a lot of “less than arm’s length screen time” plus they have a lot of real distance vision time without any screens over the weekends. Since you simply don’t keep checking your mobile phone with these activities I listed.
My sister is similar but the other way around: she is on phone and tablet screens a lot when outside of work, but she works with small kids so her working hours are totally screen free with a lot of distance vision over 3 or 6 meters, etc. (looking at kids - AFing on facial expressions, AFing for kids climbing on things in the playground or AFing when they wander away from their groups in the school’s garden, etc)

But as a general rule if one’s lifestyle becomes sedentary with all day spent indoors and with stress then chatting and watching videos on mobile phones at 30-40 cms from the face is bound to ruin eyesight. It is just a matter of time. Yes, there will always be examples on the 2 extreme ends of The Bell Curve, that’s why those values are typically disregarded when running an analysis on the average population.

1 Like

Those are certainly things to consider and I’m sure have truths to it.

But I think it’s really just a matter of this:

The difference between Pranto and his Uncle is the difference between the sight equivalent of hearing vs listening.

Pranto spends a lot of time seeing but he does not look.