Listen To Our HPO Podcast Episode

Shawn Baker from Human Performance Outliers had a recent episode of his podcast featuring the endmyopia bits (and el Jaques). Shawn has also been on Joe Rogan’s podcast recently and has lots of interesting ideas about nutrition and of course, human performance.

Check out the podcast episode and Shawns other work!


Great listen @jakey while I was grooming my pooch tonight :grin: You’re definitely at your best in Q&A format… it’s EM packed in a punch. When the hosts are sincerely interested and enthralled by the content, it makes EM that much more appealing.

Forget the Meow quiz… maybe use the podcast as a mandatory orientation for admittance :wink: Hearing EM principles never gets old and repetition is the core of learning.


I do second that, but only if you’re new to EM. If you are familiar with how and why it works and want to join here it should be optional. It would be hard to distinguish though. We could use invites to circumvent the entrance-quiz and mandatory podcast.


@Laurens… .yes, mandatory podcast might be asking too much due to its length. Since the quiz answers are embedded in the blog and fragmented videos, maybe develop quiz questions based on the podcast Q&A and the podcast can be used as a cheat sheet if they don’t know the answers :blush: or maybe pin one of the podcasts on Categories Q&A or How To’s

1 Like

Great interview! I’m going to email Shawn and Zach with a thank you. I’m in touch with the hosts of two podcasts hosts who I know listen to the HPO podcast. I will contact them and tell them to have a listen.


You mentioned using a laptop is better because your ciliary is not working as hard but if I use my phone at a blur distance and then put on differentials for the laptop, is it still better? Or does that only apply for low myopia?

As long as you are working on the blur horizon and challenging yourself a little bit it doesn’t matter. Low myopes cannot hold their phone far enough away with their arms to reach that horizon, hence the difference.


@MattE That’s a super awesome idea! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Great show Jake, you really explained so much in such a great and comprehensive manner. This will bring a lot of positive attention to EM. These HPO guys do know their stuff it seems. Great podcast :sunny:


Scott Myslynski, the host of Carnivore Cast, will be listening. On my YouTube channel, I made two videos about High Intensity Training (reference the Corporate Warrior podcast with Lawrence Neal and Body by Science by Doug McGuff).

After making that video, I emailed Lawrence Neal, who reposted on his social media. Scott, the host of Carnivore Cast, commented, and we had an exchange. I know they both listen to the HPO because I first heard Shawn Baker on Lawrence Neal’s Corporate Warrior podcast.

Unrelated, but I don’t understand nutrition well enough to make solid arguments about animal food consumption other than that common sense tells me more real food less processed is the right trajectory.

Major point for podcasts is that if we’re commenting on ones we like and, there’s an opportunity to reach out to those folks.


I did say this on FB too, that’s an excellent idea and very logical next connection point. Nice one!

1 Like

Awesome! The spreading word!

I could feel Jake’s urge to enlighten when the reference to weight training was made. Thinking our eyes are weak is a big obstacle. They’re highly over tensed. Getting back to normal eyesight is a process of creating the right circumstances and allowing suitable use.

I can’t agree that close-up can’t be a relaxed activity or that aboriginals spent a far less amount of time doing close-up activities (they made weapons, clothes, embroidery, paintings etc.).
It’s more to do with the nature of close-up. Reading is very two dimensional (one focal plane) whereas playing with lego, knitting, jigsaws require a lot more ciliary activity.

A painter’s hand rarely grows tired from hours of holding a brush. The muscles are always moving. If the hand was held still for a long time while gripping the paintbrush, it would gradually lock up just as in ciliary spasm.

This business of the eyeball ‘growing longer’ and then in almost the same breath, ‘axial length has been seen to change in the course of an hour’ creates a lot of vagueness.

An eyeball which has ‘grown longer’ can only be interpreted as a permanent, organic state.

So then how could reversal be possible?

Can I un-grow my fingernails?

‘The extra ocular muscles have nothing to do with refraction’

I beg to differ because;

Perfect sight requires very delicate and precise eyeball movement (especially distance vision) .
This is carried out by the recti muscles (sluggish in myopia) and this is why, in normal sight, small distant black letters seem to move. Constant re-targeting to maintain information coming from retina to brain to ciliary.

Ciliary staying relaxed and pulling the suspensory ligaments to bring the lens into a flatter shape.

Close-up vision; ciliary engages to release tension on ligaments to allow lens to bulge appropriately.

Single focal plane close up tempts ciliary spasm, pseudo myopia ensues and if not addressed the oblique muscles step in to alleviate the ciliary and squeeze the eyeball into a longer shape. This becomes a chronic state as evidenced by the remaining myopia when ciliary spasm and lenses which are over prescribed have been removed.

Appropriate stimulus encourages the obliques to relax and the recti to tone up and perform as intended. This allows the eyeball to resume an emmetropic state, not to ‘un-grow’ itself.

Ultra rant almost finished…

I can’t think of a way that plus lens use in myopia could trigger presbyopia. Used at reading distance to make close-up vision slightly worse when low myopia doesn’t allow print pushing.
I’d say just occasionally and in full daylight. That Todd Becker dude sometimes does it and he’s 20/10 I heard.

Finally, when I was about 15 years old, my emmetropic friend put on my -4.5ish glasses one night and said if he ‘tensed’ his eyes he could see clearly through them. Of course he was simply focusing for near point while maintaining the same convergence. Asking a presbyope to wear -0.5, for example and look at and then bring into focus a distant object may help to re-train their accommodative abilities.

I’d like to try it on the missis but she only believes what she sees on television.

And yet, it happens. And … I base most of my assertions not on theory and perhaps-es, but rather the collected experiences of participants. Why, I can’t say, but that it happens, I can.

What anyone does with that information, up to the individual. :man_shrugging:


Yes, basement of assertions upon collected experiences. Very nice but equally or more likely best to base them upon one’s own. You will remain as ‘you’ until the end. Whatever that is.