"No BS guide to vision improvement" and reduction by 0.5-1 D

Says it’s fine to reduce by 1 D while high myopia or use spherical equivalent with no-matter-how-big astigmatism.

Your opinion, how much there is no BS?

1 Like

While it’s a great guide, it’s not Endmyopia guide and also it is heavily generalized. It works for 60-70% of people, for the others it won’t. So take everything with a grain of salt in it.

1 Like

The argument he uses to justify the recommendations for huge reductions is purely theoretical, as in, not based on any actual observations, and biophysically not sensible.

He is basically saying, look, the last diopter of reduction makes up for so many meters of blur horizon, but the first ones don’t change much. Therefore, high myopes should reduce at breakneck speed.

If you look at the actual magnitude of biological changes in the eye, you will find that change in diopters is a much better approximation of biological change than change in uncorrected distance to blur. Therefore, thie basis on which he is recommending larger steps in distance lenses for high myopes does not hold.

Hayes never had high myopia. For all we know, he seems to be putting untested opinions as if they were facts. This doesn’t mean the guide is all bad, but like David said, a grain of salt is warranted. (Or maybe more than one.)

2 Likes

Yes, but sometimes high myopes progress fastly whereas there are people that stuck in the last diopter. Some studies propose that opposite is also true: highly myopic eyes could elongate due to near tasks significantly more than eyes with low myopia.

Maybe it can make some sense for me or similar people (as sometimes more undercorrection = more stimulus, at least in contact lenses), in past that worked for me. But in present, 0.5 reduction seem to be enough. When I will switch to glasses as the main aid, I will start from either full correction, 0.5 less sph, equalisation or spherical equivalent.

P.S. I don’t want to dive into the discussion, I just want to note that this idea in fact has some reason behind it, unlike @Varakari’s skepticism, giving also the fact that @Varakari agrees eye is very far from understood. Thanks to the same person mentioning that Hayes puts alpha/beta stage ideas as stable usable strategy, but EndMyopia is also at least in beta stage, as it is seen from the site footer. Though, it has worked and works for many people. About the guide we talk about, there’s difficult to find a person had high myopia and reversed it using that. And I would not estimate ANY progress, because I estimated progress, but encountered not only no progress, but regression.

Long story short and better worded, I on the contrary want people to take with grain of salt tireneck speed EndMyopia estimations and even if they are true, find something faster and of course without breaking neck or anything.

@Ursa, to find a short solution, because the life is alive and demands us to. It’s better to spend time you dedicate for vision improvement to something more useful.