So, there is definitely myopia that’s not lens-induced. For example, it could be the result of another eye procedure, or possibly other causes. Anyone here personally or know someone who has had success using these methods to improve that other type of myopia?
Partially on topic, Jake discusses non lens induced myopia here:
as long as the myopia happened because the light fell behind the retina then the way to reverse it is jake’s method.
if there are other causes to myopia, then you will might need to address them differently, every cause needs the relevant treatment, if there are other causes for myopia other then light fell behind retina (I don’t know)
I’m wondering the same thing. My two daughters and myself have some sort of non lens induced high myopia that also wasn’t brought on by too much close up…
Interesting. Please post progress, and let us know how it goes. Is your myopia stable? Do you know what caused it?
I would think that due to the same biology/neurology, everyone would be able to apply these methods and be amenable to change. The only question is, in people who have another factor that is causing myopic increases (e.g. tissue disorders, cataracts, eye surgery, injury, etc.) can the improvement rate keep pace with the increasing myopia fast enough to offset it and result in actual improvement rather than stabilization?
My guess would also be in these cases, minimal under correction at distance and more under correction at near would be the way to go. But that’s just a guess, and we’ll have to wait and see.
We don’t know what caused it. We could go for genetic testing but then we’d just end up in some study or something. If I felt like testing would help something I’d do it, but I don’t want us to just be part of some study.
From what I remember, bad light or no periphery vision may cause myopia as well.
I believe @Varakari might have some more ideas?
Judging from personal stories and animal studies, there are various ways to cause a myopic shift. Just strapping a diffusor onto an eye for a long time can make it elongate. Constant near work without breaks should do the job too. Yes, it’s NITM at first, but if you keep overdoing it for years, some of it will turn into axial myopia.
My guess would be that axial myopia is similar no matter how it’s created. Except maybe for cases like @MommaBird’s, which may be a genetic defect, so I don’t know if it behaves like other types.
A weird “detail” here: there’s practically no data on what smartphones do to the eye’s length and form. My intuitive guess is, nothing good, but since medical financing pays for sickness instead of health, nobody has bothered to look into that.
My guess is it confuses the focus direction signals when it’s too bright or used too long, inducing poor focus (your chromatic aberration idea might be involved too). And it obviously bleaches photo receptors faster than reflected light screens or books. Plus, the disproportionate amount of blue might be bad for the eye tissues when overdone. I think shifting focus back to mid range often and not using it too long is the best defense. And maybe activating blue light blocking apps. That’s my guess.
The thing with smartphones is how small and close they are. They can easily cause lots of accommodation, and still, most of the field of view will be a blur, because their angular size remains small.
If we had data on how this affects myopic progression, this could be very useful to determine how the mechanism works. After all, the main question here is, how does lens-induced myopia work? Is it caused only by the extra hyperopic defocus in the periphery? If so, how do babies emmetropize? If not, why does the eye choose to elongate with minus lenses on? The answer would shine light on many questions, including the main question of this thread.
@Varakari, it would be interesting to see how the periphery changes with screen size and distance.