Confusion about progression and cm-measurements

Hello guys,

it´s been some time since I posted my introduction, but I wasn´t lazy along the way. I have some questions regarding my progression and cm-measurements which confuse me a little bit, maybe you can help me out. A little bit of history first, so let´s get started:

My starting point last year in April was (according to optometrist):
R -1,75 with -1.25 cyl. 105°
L -2.00 with - 1.5 cyl. 90°

which seemed to be too strong for me.

My own measurement showed on average:
R -1,75 with -0.5 to -0.75 cyl. 105°
L -2.00 with 0.75 to - 1 cyl. 90°

It took some months to learn AF, played around with glasses with reduced cylinder, without cylinder, reduced spherical correction, but eventually towards the end of summer I found it by not using glasses at all, which seemed to give me some stimulus. It really was a huge thing, mainly focusing on the sensation of relaxing the eyes and letting them work. And then I noticed some improvements, here you can see the general progression:

Right now, my measurements on average show:

R -1,25 with -1 cyl. 105°
L -1.5 with - 1 to -1.25 cyl. 90°

According to the graphs, along with the spherical reduction the cylinder increased. In cm, the cylinder stayed more or less on the same values both right and left, only spherical improved.

Subjectively I notice that my vision became mostly double vision, often I can read even small writing on the tv (covered by multiple images). Looking outside, e.g. trees branches, license plates etc. kind of pop into sharp focus, but appear mostly doubled. All that without glasses, this seems to give me the most stimulus, with glasses I cannot manage to achieve that.

Now some things I noticed playing around with cylinder correction and measurements:

  1. Putting on glasses with cylinder correction, which make me see the lines on the astigmatism chart all perfectly black, I tried holding a +0.5 lense in front of my eyes. In theory I thought, all lines should become equally blurred, like having no cylinder should be. Instead, the blur showed on the exact same axis like with glasses without any cilyinder correction, letting me see only the horizontal lines black.

  2. Doing measurements with the same plus lense in front of my eyes, it gave me following results:

R -1,75 with -0.5 cyl. 105°
L -2 with - 0.75 cyl. 90°

Again, the spherical cm-measurements changed according to theory, the cylinder values stayed the same

SO enough reporting, now to my questions:

Do these things make general sense, or is there something off? Could it be the astigmatism (which in ratio is quite high anyway) is some kind of double vision/mental thing, and not like a biological/optical issue? Or do I have a logical error somewhere?

I know Jake mentioned that during the process of improvement, double vision acually may be mistaken for astigmatism, did my astigmatism actually get worse, or did the double vision increase accidentally on the same axis as my astigmatism?

I wonder what would be the correct approach, since I dont´t want the astigmatism to get any higher, but wearing glasses just doesn´t give me the stimulus for AF.

I also notice that if the image pops into focus, and I look at the astigmatism wheel haning in my living room, the sharp lines always switch in axis, like from 90° to 0°, next time may be 45° etc…

I hope you guys can set me straight.

All the best

4 Likes

Not sure if I can be of any help, but thanks :pray:t2: - this is how kittehs should post their questions, thanks for doing the work! :blush:

Did you try to reduce cyl and add more sph to your glasses? See “reducing prescription complexity”, search that on blog, explained there.

It’s not that unusual that axis changes a bit
here and there.
Mine wasn’t always the same when I tried - and I remember sometimes my opto would slightly change the axis in my contacts just to see if that makes a difference for me - tell me and we change it back if there’s a problem.
Didn’t do much for me tbh.
So maybe a sign to go down with cyl?

I’m no pro, but question 1 does make sense to me. I mean, you do have some astigmatism. You correct it. Now, you have astigmatism which is corrected by a lens for a certain distance. Putting another lens in front of eyes does “correct” them to yet another distance, so it makes sense astigmatism kicks in.
Also, when using the astigmatism tool, the lines do or do not blur at different distances.

So I’d guess your observations in q2 make sense as well.

Not sure here, but there are those wiser than me here… :wink:

4 Likes

This is a tough one and I don’t envy you, but a few things stand out: Your high cyl:sph ratio and the fact that you’ve already dropped sph by 0.50 in both eyes and cyl has barely budged. Has me wondering how your eyes might tolerate a sph for cyl substitution – adding -0.50 sph in each eye for every -1.00 cyl – as many EM’ers have done. Have you already tried that?

Some find this causes problems, others not. Only one way to find out. Potentially a way to iron out your cornea but the results are totally dependent on the individual.

Tagging @kem to see if he has any ideas because he’s in a similar predicament and has attempted the swap, with mixed success, I believe.

3 Likes

I’m in the first stages of a sphere for cylinder swap.

I added -0.25 sphere in exchange for 0.50 of cylinder. I have to work very hard to maintain clarity, but I think that’s part of the work.

Basic plan is to hang on to this correction for about six weeks, then try a quarter diopter spherical drop. Usually those don’t last as long.

Stage after that, I’m not sure. Maybe one quarter or one half diopter cylinder drop.

I do know cylinder improves much more slowly than sphere.

I’ve been prepping for a professional certification, so eyes are taking a beating right now.

If I were in your shoes, I’d probably try working with cylinder in smaller increments or trade cylinder for sphere a round or so.

Good luck!

Kent

3 Likes

Would also point out that, like you, Kent is low sph.

1 Like

Sorry @Tii_Chen that was meant for @zimstar :grinning:

1 Like

Yes, I’d also point out that while myopia is eyeball shape, astigmatism is cornea shape. I feel like it takes longer to adjust the ciliary and corneal tissue. That’s pure pathology reversal where there’s a stimulus and response for myopia.

It’s just harder to deal with astigmatism.

Kent

1 Like

At least you got me seriously thinking for a minute: What the hell did I post again…?!? :joy::joy::+1:t2:

@ topic: search blog for “high astigmatism” or “high cyl sph ratio”, something like that.
Don’t remember exactly as it’s not applying to me.

2 Likes

Did you ever address the cyl by doing .25 reductions or just skip that process? I am currently at -1.75 -1.5 and it is midway through this reduction for me. I removed all cyl from my right eye and reduced the left. So I have DV with this.
The left eye is the weaker of the 2 and so there is blur challenge there but my right sees very well with the -1.5 and the cyl makes a bit of DV challenge. So the problem only really bothers me if I am looking at texts or far distant things. But I did experience this in a past reduction. It resolved at the end of the reduction time.
If you are unable to clear things up are you wearing glasses at all? Also a little trick I dis to try and see what was causing the problem was to turn my head and see if things cleared up. And this was the case with me, I turned my head to my right shoulder and it improved vision.
This told me it was about the astigmatism than blur. But at this stage I also think my eyes tend to fight for dominance in a way. Because my left is in more blur i think it causes a shift in which vision is better. Hope that makes sense.
Before I started EM i never used cyl correction in my contacts. But i didnt lose the astigmatism by ignoring it. Some people just increase dioptor or completely drop cyl out but I was glad to reduce it. And it was only .50 so it seems to small to notice but I do notice. And through out the time I have paid attention to how lights look at night without my glasses on. I have seen a very big improvement in the shape of lights going from almost eye shaped to circular. That’s why I ask if you ever addressed the cyl with reductions.

2 Likes

Thank you all for your responses and suggestions, I´ll try to clear some things up mentioned here:

Maybe I should have pointed out more clearly that I basically don´t wear glasses throughout the day. I only use them if I actually have to see clearly (driving, sometimes for TV etc.), and they are also without cylinder. In the beginning I played around with it and found that dropping it is not that big of a deal for me, and I hoped maybe it would resolve along with further improvement.

Before I started with EM I did it mostly the same, I read a post on endmyopia.org where this topic was also discussed (I think it was something like “Never wore glasses” or something, can´t find it right now). It was explained that you could keep it that way, and only wear slightly reduced glasses in low light situations to give your brain a reference. So the Improvement so far is based on mostly no glasses, I found that with glasses I just don´t get the same AF-experience.

So no, I never followed the approach of gradually reducing cylinder or using spherical equvalent. I just followed my feeling that the glasses are kind of a limiting factor, since I also noticed if I wear my glasses for extended perdiods of time my vision gets blurrier, as if my eyes are getting lazy/tired wearing them. So to be honest, based on this experience, I avoided sph. equvialent and generally longer glasses-sessions on purpose, because I was afraid that it could kill my gains so far. But who knows, maybe this path isn´t expedient?

@Jenn I also discovered this head-tilting :grinning: quite helpful, and by tilting I also noticed that the horizontal double vision, which is definitely more pronounced, is causesd by the astigmatism.

What I currently try, if the weather is good enough, is looking outside (without glasses) at tree branches and try to focus specifically the horizontal blur. After some time it sort of converges, which I also notice at the astig. wheel. The vertical lines appear more pronounced (instead of the usual horizontal lines). But I´ll have to investigate this further. Maybe this kind of “excersise” could help if done on a regular basis?

Or would it possibly make more sense to do this kind of sessions with properly reduced cylinder/sph. equivalent to tackel it more specifically?

Thanks again and kind regards

1 Like

Well people are able to overcome challenges in different ways and I dont know if the glasses can be purchased with only cyl. I’m just thinking that if after a year it didnt clear up it’s time to look at a different approach.
I can only say that for me personally the astigmatism has improved through reducing it. And like I said I never corrected it in contacts and I wore those for nearly 20 years. And based on that I believe it doesnt correct itself. There are people that can go with little correction and do fine but they are still seeing improvement. So maybe dig in here and see if there are some more tips you can try or perhaps habits you should change. There are some low myopes like Mat that could be helpful.

2 Likes

I’m having to do modified versions of active focus challenging my non axis vision in order to clear up the cylinder. Just dropping the cylinder alone has not worked for me.

It just made vision more challenging.

2 Likes

Alright, I think Jenn has a point. After one year not the slightest change…then slow reductions will probably be the reliable way to go.

I guess you described your modified active focus version in your thread. i’ll dig a little deeper into that topic.

2 Likes

Generally, Jake suggests to make one change at a time. And wait for some weeks, usually no longer than 3-4 months.

Should stick to both: one change, and wait long enough. But not too long :wink:
A year does sound too long to me :slight_smile: