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

Why would latent phoria interfere with emmetropization? (let me know if you already posted around this somewhere)

2 Likes

Accommodative loop. Especially with esophoria, ciliary muscle works like viewing a near (sometimes a very near) target.

2 Likes

Now I guess they don’t. After all, when we sleep our eyes move everywhere. And not so many people I think have such a significant eso-deviation or exo-deviation to interfere with vision improvement. It has to be very bold and exceptionally annoying. Maybe just I don’t like that and lie, as I want to resume glasses (instead of contacts) and there’s a pityful chance to easily and cheaply implement a de-converging prism. At the end prisms are garbage in terms of seeing through them (@nycmao agrees)

The ciliary muscle IMO should be connected to other muscles. At least EOMs and ciliary have a common innervation. Extraocular muscles attach to cranial bones. Cranial bones in fact are not monolythic, there are 28 bones (including fully mobile lower jaw). They are connected through sutures which in fact do not ossificate till we become deeply old. Any trauma, birth trauma (90% is the case, less or more - horizontal birth is not physiological) is a risk factor for them to shift incorrectly. If they are shifted incorrectly, you’ll see that in how your teeth occlude. Osteopaths classify that in strains and there’s my quick cheat sheet how osteopathic cranial and classic dental diagnosis correlate:

Flexion - wide teeth rows, generally ok with palate width, trema/diastema might be
Extension - V-shaped or U-shaped teeth rows, narrow “gothic” palate
Torsion - cross bite, uneven back/side teeth height
SBR side bend rotation torsion - cross bite
Vertical strain (inferior) - distal class II occlusion
Vertical strain (superior) - mesial class III occlusion
Lateral strain - on upper jaw, left or right side where molars locate has convexity like normal and the other has a concavity
Compression - (my guess is: generally too short (too deep in bone) back teeth and normal front teeth)

Usually strains combine and we have more than one… The most prevalent is perhaps a bit of SBR + inferior vertical leading to class II occlusion and a slight crossbite. I have had mild SBR, superior vertical and lateral strain. Perhaps flexion. Dental class III and 2 right crossbites, crowding more on the right.

As far as eyes are concerned, there were a few studies correlating dental problem (and cranial, although they are just observations not studies) to eye problem.

So, crowding is related to astigmatism. Cross bite is related to strabismus and is even more related to astigmatism (working on it, strabismus reduces but not astigmatism). The myopia in children was associated with the presence of crossbite and with the presence of class II, division I malocclusions. Class II with deficiency of mandible is related to myopia. Deep bite slightly to hyperopia. Class III is related to strabismus and astigmatism (I have one case with class III and extreme myopia), in some studies it is related to myopia but worth noting there is always too few count of class III subjects in studies I seen.

I don’t know the quality of these studies, the random coincidence factor and so on, but that’s quite worth to be noted.

Osteopaths, in their observations, relate flexion (the ears very prominent or just their upper part is prominent) to myopia, extension (the pronounced sign is ears very deep behind the face) to hyperopia.


My style of writing is correlated to flood and offtopic. Although a significant improvement has been observed in terms of shifting to the strategy of more rare and more informative posts :slight_smile:

At the end, why did I write the text above? I’d like to say I switched from the latent phoria things to cranial deformities as a bold factor in sense of too slow emmetropization. For example, cranium which is by design myopic and astigmatic… the only thing needed is to have close up time and boom, myopia increases. No overcorrection, no fancy things, relative absence of the worst habits. The only need is to correct all astigmatism, also the newest 0.25 D, and oops there is another 0.25 D.

Or the other way around, “hyperopic” skull. You angrily play tons of games on your phone in efforts to see closer and not farther but it hardly happens. Or correct the underlying problem, by means of say functional orthodontics or osteopath of craniosacral direction… Then try to change the lenses in the direction you need. That’s what I currently do, and strabismus is the thing really going away. But I have had crossbite from maybe 12 years if not earlier and astigmatism appeared only at 16.


P.S. I analyzed your avatar and it appears I can see “fair” enough SBR, maybe some class 3 but I’m not a dentist or osteopath…

3 Likes

I don’t have a term for this, but there is a group of people who IMHO focus to excess or over estimate the interrelationships like the ones above.

Am I wrong? Yes, usually.

I’ll tell you though, your visual cortex will sort out astigmatism (which many of us likely have to some degree if we do a corneal topography). And the child will be myopia-free with managed close-up time and normal levels of distance time. Irrespective of teeth issues.

I’m not sure if there’s a benefit in getting quite that hung up on all the far out possibilities and details. Do you have kids and really just want them to have good eyesight? Or do you want to fall into a hole where everything has to be perfect and all these correlations have to be explored, and you’ll have a pretty difficult time to address a fairly simple issue.

Or perhaps this is more an academic theory discussion. :wink:

I can definitely tell you that myopia and astigmatism cause-wise is pretty well understood and from our experience here, not that difficult to correct. I’m not more popular likely in no small part because I don’t get into conspiracies about the industry at large, and also I don’t offer overly complex explanations that would make me seem like some kind of incredibly smart dude who you definitely need (think Jack Kruse and his myopia purple light writings).

I should be more open minded and marketing aware and consider including all of that to make more people feel like they really found a deep rabbit hole resource. Maybe @halmadavid could help me come up with a plausible hyper complex story that we can still apply our solution to, though with much more theatrics and complexity.

Apologies, @miffiffi. Not intended as a knock on you. You just got me thinking again about these things. By all means, do explore, it’s totally all good to dig around for yourself and share. Most of my comments just in case you’d like an easy answer that also might work. :grimacing:

5 Likes

Let’s complement each other - not argue :slight_smile:

Sometimes they can’t be overestimated - in my case, it seems astigmatism and eye movement disorder stem from a single root. I might have surgeons to cut my eye muscles to resolve my problems etc, but glad I’ve find the thing what causes both. And as a bonus, I reversed a scoliosis and got rid of gastritis. And after that, I will have a good bite, so what’s bad?.. :confused: A good thing is most people here need just EM or well-known medical procedures to work on their eyesight, but I tried few times and it appeared I needed to work on a few things before to start EM which can bring some fruits.

Either I don’t pretend to be true :slight_smile: I learnt in this life I can’t be 100% sure on anything. I form my choices on which things seem to me the most plausible.

Did not do in me in 6 months to a least extent… Yes of course, although Earth life isn’t a paradise and occasionally we work in far less than ideal circumstances :frowning: :slight_smile:

Some dental issues might induce a structural anisometropia and there could be left some difference in sph and cyl, although generally negligible. They also find a place in myopia progression, I guess.

While I may say what you say for myopia, astigmatism can be less than normal (even more so, ideal) if there’s a severe problem with occlusion. People having more pronounced age also have an increase in astigmatism, occasionally they begin to have strabismus. And one of the worst parts of age gainz :weight_lifting_man:t6: is an increased prevalence of missing teeth. Moreover, I literally felt myself half-dead and spirally twisted a year ago, before dental treatments and… So, so many people overlook that as a major factor in their health and wellness. This has to be studied decades before it will do things for a general public. And so many people confirm that’s not just a psychoemotional hyperbolization to what state you can get if you have all teeth but chew more difficultly than a person having them just for the name :open_mouth:

In my case, I recall, it was 100% :100: needed…

No, I don’t have children (yet) and although I survived adolescence, I still stop myself in failed efforts for adolescence to go from me fully :crazy_face: :muscle:t6: :sunglasses: thus my competitive adolescent thinking impulsively puts the mark: I strive for an ideal - no deep understanding there is not only white and black. By the way, several practitioners of the method I do to straighten my teeth :tooth::tooth::tooth: link my case (torsion, cross bite) to perfectionism. I found a person with the same traits and condition.

Yes, I am happy so many people find the (instead of just a) relief here, really reducing diopters and getting that confirmed by an optometrist :grinning:

In fact, I need to start to live my life and get departed from my health researches I was forced to complete durind the period I’d better at least play with my peers, although the latter part is somewhat debatable :neutral_face:

I clearly understood and became trained in the important skill in life - to make the better from bad which changed good. The ability I’ve found myself efficient in is also to make the summary from my bad to let others catch something if they pass though a similar.

I’ve failed to correct at least a tiny bit of my refractive state in almost 2 years however I don’t associate that with the method, just underlying problems I have or had.

I spotted David’s theory and it’s impressive; but a massive warning I’d put into the point of holism - the theory is limited to eyes only. And I already see organ-splitted medicine failure, to propose good equivalents to what we have before some problem onsets. I see a future in medicine finding the causes of causes and eliminating the problem until it’s only in the wrong coefficients or numbers at the practicioner’s desktop.

The guy started this research I dared to comment for by himself agreed that astigmatism might not end in the globe - it might go a very large path, not ending even in the eye muscles. You may find the respective topics…

Modern research can’t over-stress that all of our muscles, connected in a chain, two exciting (left and right) structures of countless muscles end in… our occlusion :kissing_heart: And if our occlusion is unbalanced on the left and right (also form front to back), the muscles with which we chew start to compensate that. The structures these muscles are attached to can with a united force lift as much as 600 kg! And imagine these crazy muscles shifting everything inside our body according to the imbalance, to compensate that, and to make the other muscles unbalanced. For example, to lift the right shoulder to compensate head tilt to the right, compensating less heighted teeth on the right.

In an ideal world, I’d take marketing to the side and let the people be marketing!

It’s great we have the most necessary for myopia reversal in one method. The method spreads Russia, and Ukraine (from which I am). There are local chats showing at national languages. So yes, I am happy I went here and also thank you, dear Jake


Some fun at the end :rofl: and let my English be improved by writing these.

R.I.P. Ursa who pointed out my other weakness to always have the last word. I’ll do my best to counteract that… Maybe kids are so happy that they listen more than speak :question: :exclamation: The bad in our life oftentimes has a tendency to make us think ourselves as “better”.

And, to return into the topic someone might help Die Gut Ale Kitteh Georg to find out why his progress is so modest by so much time he’s into it… At the end he is a one person measuring things so thoroughly for an entire community. Because I’d classify the people on this forum according to their progress: improving, ciliary relieved and halted, improving painfully slowly, no improvement and worsening with good habits. Perhaps some are empty.

I like it. :+1:t2:

Share what you find! Links! I love to see where all we pop up.

Also, Ukraine. Spent a few weeks in Kiev and was quite in love. Had been wanting to go back for a more extended visit.

Note that this development is also affected by diet. The mechanical action of chewing fibrous or tough foods on a regular basis correlates with larger jaw development. Could diet be an indirect factor in myopia progression in children through cranial bone development?

I might be one of them. I think there’s a group of people that over-simplify the multi-factorial causes of most observed effects. I hardly believe that bone development is the primary factor in myopia progression, but could it be a contributing factor? Sure. There’s plenty of other reasons to avoid skull injury and give your kids a healthy whole foods diet, I don’t think we need to over-stress the possible remote relationship to myopia.

We know that near work and strong lenses are primary drivers of myopia progression, but we also know that two kids with the same level of near work will have different rates of progression, the relationship between near work time and rate of progression is a loose relationship. I am not totally dismissive of the idea that genetics can play a role, although it may be through secondary factors from personality traits to arm length to base growth rate, and is certainly not a straightforward “you’re -17D” gene (there’s no reason to believe there has been a global simultaneous gene mutation for myopia, but only among countries with good education systems…)

As far as I know it’s not proven, just a theory. I could find proof for increased jaw muscles (make sense), increased bone density (in mouse), but not for that chewing tough food leads to actually larger jaw.

1 Like

Conventional wisdom sees correlation based on hundreds of years of chewing tobaccos and gums.

(I know, for some people conventional wisdom is irrelevant unless backed up by an individual internet famous expert who has run a well designed study in the 21st century. :roll_eyes: )

The problem with conventional wisdom is always the same: they not necessarily connect the cause and effect correctly. Which in some case means that the “wisdom” is simply not true.
By the way honestly I’m not even aware of conventional wisdom here. This “tough food - large jaws” connection seems to be a modern invention for me. Could you point me to some traditional sources for this?

I can only find traditional sources regarding jaw from Asia, but there they emphasize the tongue position and how you swallow. Not what you chew.

The first association of “tough food” and “strong jaw” I was able to find is from 1930s, from a dentist:

As early as 1894, a Canadian dentist named Weston Price became interested in the relationship between nutrition, dental health, and overall health. Over time, this interest became something of an obsession. In the 1930’s, he went on to investigate his theories about diet and dental health by studying groups of people around the world who were still eating the traditional diets of their area.

The article I’ve found it also mention (unfortunately without any reference) that:

Research has shown us that people who eat more refined foods have smaller and less developed jaws than those who eat traditional diets with tough foods.

But wait a bit… why refined foods equated with soft food? Maybe, just maybe… what if the connection is not between soft food and underdeveloped jaws, but rather refined (processed / modern / whatever) food and underdeveloped jaws? I’m more inclined to believe the latter.

It does not have to be an individual internet famous expert, I’m totally fine with any study where they could show at least in animals that there is a connection :slight_smile:

Edit:
Since then I was able to found a human study, where they concluded that softening of food caused less developed jaws:

What did they do? They measured modern human’s jaw size, compared to genetically similar ancestor’s (from archaeological findings) and concluded that because the former has smaller jaw, it must be because of more soft food :man_facepalming: Why do I have the feeling that (again) somebody planted an earworm in science community and since then everyone concludes to the same without questioning the original theory?

2 Likes

Obviously you are post the last generation of people who used to chew gums non-stop.
Who started chewing right after breakfast, kept chewing in school, took out for lunch, parked it on its foil but then chewed again and spit it out just at the end of the day. To save on cost and reduce muscle ache you could tear off quarter or half only.
The generations for whom chewing it with open mouth while talking to friends, the pulling it and blowing bubbles (and nicking it from shops) were normal and part of their life for 15+ years. Parents didn’t order observational studies on the stupid annoying youngsters. :woman_shrugging:

(In retrospect: how disgusting that was but we did it :see_no_evil: Ah, feeling old :rofl:)

So you mean all people from that generation has perfectly developed jaws, without any cranial deformities? And so nobody needed orthodontics :slight_smile:

I don’t think I’m that younger than you though. But in Hungary chewing gum never got that popular and was largely frown upon even at it’s height even by youngsters.

Btw. we actually has some gum chewing and jaw studies… :slight_smile: Effect of Gum-Chewing on Facial Appearance and Stomatognathic System -Journal of Korean Dental Science | Korea Science.

Sounds about right

That’s the only one I cannot think of an example.

This two is a bit overrepresented on this forum I think :slight_smile: I know there is a tiny bit (or not even so tiny) bias here, because I would assume who are in the “improving” category from the start would not even join this forum, because why do it? (@BiancaK is maybe the only exception)
But at this point we could even say that based on the data we have the second the worst thing you can do with your vision (after using full prescription in close-up) is to join this forum :sweat_smile:

1 Like

Yes, Weston Price is a major figure in that camp. I know in the 50s my father went to an orthodontist and they actually gave him a rubber dog bone to chew. He was a kid, thought it was disgusting, didn’t do the exercises, so we have no evidence there if it worked.

To some extent processed food is softer food. Plant materials are ground, animal materials are chunked, minced, ground… And it’s really hard to do a controlled study on lifetime diet effects, so we will probably have any real proof/disproof a long time in coming. Children of immigrants is the best observational group we have.

Some people got to a conclusion already :upside_down_face:
Jawline Exerciser Define Jawline - Jaw Exerciser - Slim and Tone Your Face - Reduces Cravings and Stress - Restore Young Age Face
All these for $7.99 only :laughing:

Not enough layman

No, your earlier assessment of the science is correct. This is the science consensus. Chewing hard is for proper muscle development.
image

Too lazy to look for the rest but if I recall correctly, the proper muscle development providing good structure for jaw development but it in itself does not develop the jaw.

And there’s even groups that have soft foods in their diet, such as yams, but develop healthy jaws as long as they have the proper chewing, swallowing, breathing and other postural mechanics. There’s a group that would gently close their baby’s lips after breastfeeding to promote proper development. So, it seems to be more about how we do things. rather than the act of chewing itself.

There’s no literature on this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s something about refined foods that promote improper eating habits. But I think the more likely case is that people who have healthier eating habits just coincidentally tend to be the same people that avoid refined foods and/or soft foods.

The Price mentioned below is Weston. Price himself was the one that actually started the earworm about soft refined industrialized foods = bad. With ideas of it being bad because it’s soft and/or it’s not as nutritious. But the funny thing is, his own research points in the direction of those not mattering as much, and what matters is how we eat food., but more so how we are eating them. So, proper chewing/swallowing/breathing/tongue-position/other.
image

Yeah, I used to be the underestimate camp.
But the more I learn about modern psychology research, the more I’m leaning towards overestimating interrelationships.

In my psych perspective, If there’s anything here. Malocclusions promote an inability for people to make gains from doing AF. Because people become too focused on creating results through AF, rather than doing AF and seeing what results come out of that. Worse mouth => worse breathing => more anxious => more results-oriented rather than process oriented => less in tune with body + more focused on being methodical => Fails to make visual gains but successfully prevents vision from getting worse

2 Likes

Also inuits living near sea. They eat mostly soft food, because they cook everything in water. And fish is not even to tough to start with. I just don’t wanted to start with a “carnivore” example :slight_smile:

That is a possibility, yes.

I think nutrition also have a role here. Refined foods generally has high energy density, but low nutrient density. So the more refined food you eat, the more chance that you develop some deficiency (even though you may not be hungry). Obviously low vitamins and minerals can easily lead to bad bone (and so jaw) development.

I think both you and @jakey is right :slight_smile: But you speak about a bit different things. @jakey talks and concerns about direct effects. Eg.: close-up causes myopia. In that regards he is right: there is no overarching theme here, you can have crippling anxiety, but if you don’t have close-up with full prescription glasses, you don’t end up with myopia.
But you are also right, that there is a lot of things which influences the end result. If social anxiety changes your habits, and because of that you spend more time indoor and alone you have more chance to do close-up, and so more chance to get myopia. But the direct effect is still not social anxiety, but the close-up itself.
And I think @jakey even agrees with that, just as he also says that while myopia don’t have genetic causes, genetics can influence myopia, for example by how much close-up affects your eye (so two person with exactly same habits and close-up time can end up with different amount of myopia because of different genetics).

1 Like