Another hypothesis how ciliary spasm gets resolved


You see the myopic eye has more length to thickness (height and width) ratio than emmetropic eye as well as the myopic lens is bulged more than emmetropic. And as EM claims AF is what natural eye has, logically I should get AF after those misalignments are gone.

EM, like any other natural drills (habit drills) does the same. Because in my opinion there is no other way than expand the thickness of eyeball and to restore the proper lens shape.

Natural drills address first the ciliary muscle instead of eye thickness and that’s why they take so long for some people to just unlock the eyeball from myopic neurology.

Source of image:


Very interesting. I think what you’re talking about is “embedded spasm”…where something causes that spasm (or lens deformation) to stay that way for a long time.

Now, what if the extraocular muscles had something to with this (maintaining the lens in the accommodated position by preventing the muscles from fully releasing zonule tension which would normally allow for flattening the lens)?

Maybe Bates was really onto something…


Bates was a trained surgeon who had lots of hands-on time with actual eyeballs. In my opinion he’s a “good guy” who identified a problem with the paradigm of minus lenses for myopia treatment and came up with a bunch of ideas for alternative treatments. He claims to have seen personally many cases where people can still accommodate when their cilliary muscles have been cut or paralyzed (I don’t see why he would lie about this) which is what led him to the idea that the extra-ocular muscles must be doing something in the accommodation process. So I also suspect he was on to something.

There’s a pretty well-established idea in physical therapy and weightlifting about “tension hunting” where there are chains of muscles and joints and tendons, and if there’s a failure somewhere along the chain then other muscles and joints and tendons have to take up the slack. For example, if you lack thoracic extension in your spine, and you’re trying to catch a weight with your arms extended above your head, your wrists will end up having to move back into a (bad and dangerous) position to balance the weight because the thoracic-spine didn’t move into the right position. If you didn’t use your wrists more, the weight would be too far forward and putting all kinds of torque on your ankles and toes which are pretty far away from your thoracic spine.)

So, it is likely that the same basic concepts extend to the eyeball, where the cilliary muscles are supposed to be doing the “heavy lifting” of accommodation. If they can’t do what they’re supposed to do, the task falls to all of the other nearby muscles to do whatever they can to help focus. (If your elbow was frozen you’d have to use your shoulder and waist and wrist more, or use your other arm and twist your body to move your hand where you wanted it to go…)

In fact if your cilliary muscles didn’t work and you had “fixed focal length” eyeballs you could use your arms to bring the book or computer monitor into focus, or use your legs to walk closer to the Snellen Chart. You can crane your neck forward or lean back. So we see there are more muscles than just the cilliary involved in the focusing activity.

Sherrington’ law is proposed to counter-argument this, like antagonist muscles couldn’t be concentrically contracted at the same time. Yet while e.g. left erector spinae is opposed to the right one, they both still can contract concentrically to make sway back. Thus there are cases in which antagonist muscles belong to a wider set of muscles to which they relate as agonists. And a possibility is that say, medial and lateral rectus, while opposing one another as a single, could act conjunctively (also with vertical pair of recti) as a whole.

For me, the key to not dismiss the feasibility of that was a knowlege about the different modes of muscle contraction: ones relevant there are concentric (most people mean this by “contraction”), isometric (the muscle contracts while remaining the same in length - imagine a tryout to lift some huge weight but not actually lifting it and the biceps or other muscles will contract yet the arms are in the identical position) and eccentric (didn’t know it’s possible, but if a force is too much for a muscle to hold, it lengthens while remaining contracted, although this force is usually gravity or weight and is usually absent in the eye).

Taking into account the info above, I can say that the simultaneous work of all recti and all obliques might not retract or protract the eyeball. And there are study ideas of checking the possibility of recti isometric contaction vs obliques isotonic (concentric or eccentric) in myopia, and if that was an idea debunked a long time ago, they would not waste their resources…

I’m certain accommodation can be partially done without ciliary involvement, because I have done it.

A few weeks ago I had by eyes dilated for an eye exam. From my previous dilation and subsequent research, I learned the drops work by paralyzing the iris muscles. As a side effect they paralyze the ciliary muscles too. This eliminates them from accommodation.

I found on my last visit, after the drops had fully paralyzed the front of my eye, that active focus was unaffected. Same 0.5 diopter active focus as normal. But this time, for the heck of it, I also tried focusing closer than my relaxed eye distance.

To my surprise, I could accommodate about 1 diopter closer (according to the Meow-Sure app). That was proof for me that part of my near accommodation is done with a mechanism other than the ciliary muscles. And this might also explain why people who get cataract surgery sometimes have limited accommodation.

So accommodation (mine at least) is more than just ciliary muscle action. My full range appears to be 0.5 diopters beyond neutral (we call this active focus), to 1.0 diopters nearer than neutral.

My current theory is this form of accommodation drives myopia/hyperopia. Basically, the squishing and squashing of the eyeball to aid in accommodation has long term eyeball shape consequences.

Pretty cool all the ways the eyes seem to work.


Eyes are definitely cool. I think Otis Brown may be correct when he proposes that there’s a slow adaption to “average accommodation”. Guys who work in a “near environment” like a missile silo or submarine get myopic. Eskimos outside the missile silo doing outdoors stuff are adapted to a “far environment”. It seems to work for monkeys and chickens too. “Virgin eyes” are +1 or +2 D, in an intense school setting where kids are reading all the time (or staring at their phones and tablets) the eyes start adapting at -0.5 or -1 D per year towards the near environment.

There’s an instant focusing system, and then there’s a gradual long-term (3 month) focal-adaptation system. By wearing “undercorrected” differentials and print-pushing (and going outside) you’re keeping the eye in the “far environment” state where it slides back toward 0D or even +1 or +2 D.