Dark Days' Diaries: Can I Achieve Significant Year-Over-Year Shortening?

End of Dark Season Update

For my purposes (and by reasonable measures), today is the last day of the dark season. Solar power here has more than doubled since Christmas, and is rising very fast now. Here are my plots of a little over a year, to show my results from this dark season in perspective:

There’s clearly some worsening on both eyes, but so far, it’s not very fast. Of course I am hoping that this will turn around as February ends, like it did last year. But one event doesn’t make a statistic, so I’ll have to wait and see. (Into the distance, hopefully. :upside_down_face:)

The AL EMA now spans a full year! This yields objective YoY numbers: -78 µm for the left eye, and -102 µm for the right.

So we get a result very similar to the outdoor experiment:

  • Yes, I could achieve year-over-year shortening
  • But it is slow, at only at about a third of the suggested standard rate.

At this point, naysayers can still argue that this small level of annual change can be random. But I believe that if I could repeat the same pattern of shortening over a second year, this would be rather hard to explain away, serving as noteworthy evidence that the mainstream is incorrect about dismissing the Reduced Lens Method.

Which puts a timer on this experiment. One one hand, if my improvement doesn’t return soon, I have a problem. :no_mouth: On the other, if it does, the mainstream will have a problem in the not too distant future. :face_with_monocle: :stuck_out_tongue:

I will continue updating for a bit longer to show if my improvement troubles resolve with the dark season’s end.

16 Likes

Your results bring me hope. Good luck for this 2020!

2 Likes

thanks for the continued servings of info :smiley:

but the axial shortening seems extremely small…0.1 mm (in the context of what you read that 1mm is around -3 D)

2 Likes

Well, it’s not wrong. My improvement is that slow… or rather, it seems to stutter on-and-off over periods of months.

Spring 2019 had great improvement, and it looked like it was accelerating near the sudden end. I don’t understand why, nor why summer was so terrible. It’s not total outdoor time for all I can tell, because that was really high in late summer. :face_with_monocle:

2 Likes

Any strain to see far may also hinder it. I notice my stamina to see being low and I want to go back inside. The longer you’re outside, the worse the technique gets?

1 Like

That could be a sign of too much blur challenge

1 Like

I’ve also been suspecting something like too much blur / strain to see far. But if that’s it, then why didn’t my improvement accelerate a lot Aug-Oct last year? If improvement is really possible at 0.75 dpt per year, there is something holding me back, something I did better when my eyes were shortening.

If I get another phase of good improvement, I’m going to take an extra close look at my habits, to see what is changing between the months of improvement vs those without.

1 Like

Well I’m just speaking from my limited experience when I had eye strain for several months I wasn’t really improving except for getting rid of ciliary spasm. after I resolved the eye strain I noticed some improvement in my vision with my normalised glasses. my explanation for this is that when your eyes are straining you are not able to active Focus effectively because your body’s natural reaction is to protect you from pain so you stop doing whatever is causing the pain in this case focusing and you end up shifting your gaze to closer and blinking more and just basically focusing less into the distance

1 Like

I promised to post finishing updates, but then with the pandemic chaos got sidetracked. A bit late, but here goes the…

All-time AL chart (showing about 18 months):

So, um, yea. Over the recent months, my eyes changed a tiny bit, and in different directions. :sweat_smile:

This is actually an equalization. My right eye just likes to be longer at the same refraction.

Trying to make sense of this, if this is not random, only one explanation comes to mind: it looks like my eyes are calibrating to my daylight distance glasses, but with a huge offset!

I’m saying this because I reduced these from -2.75 to -2.5 in Feb 2019, and been using these for most of the time since, except for a period in fall 2019, where I stepped down to -2.25. The improvement since 13 months ago, about 90 µm on both eyes now, is just a tiny bit higher than what would be expected to correspond to the 0.25 dpt reduction. My computer glasses wouldn’t make sense as the reason, since I reduced these twice since, which wouldn’t match the numbers at all.

However, my right eye’s much better refraction in fall 2018 doesn’t match anything…? :no_mouth: :thinking:

To test this hypothesis, I have now reduced my daylight distance glasses to -2.25 again, and use these on afternoon walks to create a similar situation to spring 2019.

Let’s see if improvement comes back with this. It is notably late compared to last year, and the only difference I can think of is again that I didn’t step down the distance glasses yet. It’s weird because these have so much residual blur at the center; however, the periphery is weird, and the eyes might care more about that than the center.

11 Likes

I’ve noticed that lens index of refraction/material, lens size/shape, center thickness, base curve, and spherosity/aspherosity all seem to impact the apparent lens power. I have a pair of 1.50 index glasses of -3.50 OD and -3.25 OS, and it seems stronger in the periphery than my two other pairs, which are both 1.57 index. One of those is the same frame and is -3.50 OU. The other is a different frame and is -3.75 OD and -3.50 OS. I, too, seem to respond better with a bit more peripheral power, as in the 1.50 index pair. But I have to use what I have.

And yes, I’ve noticed the residual central blur, especially apparent in low light. Adding 0.25 D of sphere did essentially nothing to improve it. It’s kind of unnerving.

3 Likes

Yea, the nonsense optics of most glasses are a problem. I’m thinking about trying different lens types for next winter… one option would be to get the raw lenses from Zeiss MyoKids Edit: MyoVision and have them cut into an adult frame. Alternatively, maybe the rare face-form lenses with peripheral blur, or contact lenses…?

If I understand the math correctly, the problems with typical lenses should diminish with total lens power. The extra AL difference might be caused by this, but I’m not improving fast enough so far to see if the offset goes down along with the total lens power.

4 Likes

0.3 D or so of axial shortening in about a year is not bad at all!

You started at what…-3.25 for distance? And you are now able to use -2.25 with similar clarity. Who cares even if it turns out that adult eyes only change by like 1/4 to 1/3 D axially per year? That is still significant. I bet the other mechanisms (ciliary, choroid, binocular positioning, etc.) are responsible for some of the average 0.75 D per year change reported by many. And that, my friend, might have something to do with why there tends to be a slowdown after the final diopter is reached during full speed reduction programs.

5 Likes

Hi Georg, incredible helpful and motivating results you have, these measurements are so valuable and are really hard facts, they should convince some scepticists (hopefully) :slight_smile: may I ask if you made follow up/up-to-date measurements? :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

3 Likes

People report shortening of 0.4 mm (about 1 D) in children (although in 5 months), I doubt adults are different - this is not “growth” but “recession”.

The quick improvement is a riddance of lens myopia (due to lens’ myopic shape) and usually not related to close up after “rapid” myopia progression - in fact that was axial elongation plus incomplete range of the ciliary muscle.

1 Like

Right, I haven’t posted many updates lately, largely because changes have been unimpressive in 2020.

Here’s the rest of the AL log:

I’m still wondering why in the world there was that bit of shortening in January and what made it stop again.

8 Likes

That chart looks impressive to me. Remember you’re doing something “impossible”. So it’s like saying you’re disappointed because the data show your time travel machine only sent you back a few minutes in to the past or your unicorn breeding program has only produced a few baby unicorns so far, your re-animation experiment only brought a few corpses from the graveyard back to life…

Your vision is getting better and your axial length is also decreasing instead of increasing (as a grown adult).

In the blurry comment (don’t know where it was originally posted, probably Kate Gifford’s Facebook) some eye doctor is shocked to see some axial length reduction in a patient.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/opo.12812

Across the study, they found that a 0.1mm change in AXL corresponded to a 0.24D change in myopia, in both treatment and control groups, giving a ratio of 2.40D/mm.

There hasn’t been a lot of research done on myopia reversal or myopia regression and axial length.

4 Likes

You have AL shortening but you don’t have a good progress, unlike some on this forum.

What do you think, why do you make such small progress? Did you check for latent phorias which could interfere with emmetropization?

1 Like

I agree that’s a good thing to investigate. The tests aren’t particularly high-tech or difficult to perform (a lot cheaper than buying an IOLMaster!)

That will not reveal everything - I have orthophoria with one eye closed and esophoria after both eyes closed.

And, exophoria when I wake up.

Indeed, there are many tests. I was simply providing an example of one of them.