10 October 2020
Opening this new thread with the public search option. If you’re not a forum member and you found this, my old threads are in the supposedly non-searchable section available to members of the forum. Last one of four and links to prior three are here. I’ve been doing this just over a year, at this writing, and have cut down from OD -3.25 -3.25x170 OS -2.75 -2.75x180 to OU -2.00 -0.50x180.
My last post indicates I’m a week or two away from my next normalized reduction. I’m writing this to say that now I have to revise that. I’m going to wait until I reach certain milestones before dropping again. I don’t know how long that’s going to take, but I’ll wait for it.
I’m seeing a lot better than I was even a couple of weeks ago, as I mention in my previous thread. But yesterday as I was driving I realize I still have a definable blur horizon. I have to work pretty hard active focusing in the far distance to clear it up, and it’s still not clear. I think some of this is attributable to astigmatism, but surely some of it is spherical, i.e., undercorrection. As an aside, I’m still amazed at the amount of astigmatism I’ve been able to clear. Concomitantly, I’m still dismayed at the amount of aberration I’m getting (ghosting), but happy this seems to be diminishing as it goes.
I still contend that going back to -2.00 -0.50 x180 OU was a great move. I’m less under-corrected than I was at the -1.75 -0.50 x180 OU, but still under-corrected. This feels like an optimal level of under-correction for consistent gains.
My goals are to be able to see star constellations on a clear night with my current norms, and not have a noticeable blur horizon during the day. Once I get those milestones, I’ll be ready to drop. No predictions about when from me. I’ll wait for those events to come to me.
For a long time, I thought for sure I wasn’t getting improvements as I got to the “bottom” of a correction. I could just taste that desire for the next, larger under-correction gap and its blur challenge. This past two months have shown me that the improvements actually seem to come faster the more closely my eyes come to adapt to the correction I’m wearing. I want to take advantage of that because I anticipate going into the next reduction, I can take advantage of that by being further into that level of correction. I hope all this makes sense.
I have to keep reminding myself that it does not matter what correction I’m wearing, what really matters is how my eyes are responding (improving) and the level of myopia I experience without correction at all. In other words, the facts of improvement and the level of improvement.
I have had the device for just over a year. My initial subscription to the backend/cloud database account expired a few weeks ago, but I haven’t been using the device all that much anyway, so it didn’t really matter. In fact, the last time I used it was in
I pulled it out this morning and took a test, and of course it gave me an “EyeGlass Number” (EGN) in the -3.25/-2.75 range with outrageous cylinder values, too. I went to look at the account, and then realized it didn’t upload the numbers from the most recent test because the account had lapsed. So I renewed the account for another year (it’s only $5 per year), and then looked to see the numbers I got from the device on this morning’s test. Amazingly, it shows a half diopter improvement in both eyes over the last test I took in August. Now that I’ve renewed the backend account, I’ll take a test every week or so to see if I get consistent and improving results.
As I have mentioned before, the EyeQue PVT device seems to provide slightly higher numbers than actual need, i.e., it’s biased towards over-correction. It probably why they get so many reviews from people saying their prescription is “amazing.” Little do they know they’re going to pay for that in the long term with much higher lens-induced myopia, Caveat emptor.
I also discovered this morning browsing the EyeQue website that they have “test eyeglasses,” which are $19 including shipping, which they will send you according to your latest EGNs. I might try this once for fun; as I mention above, the EGNs tend to over-correct, so I’m not going to want to wear these long term but it would be interesting to see how far off my normalized they are. and 20 bucks isn’t a huge cost for the information gain.