NottNott Fixes His Eyesight From -5 (video log!)

I just figure since I’ve already spent 30 days on -3.25/-2.50. Maybe not, might go for 60 days to be sure.

It’s looking like the 0.75-1 diopters a year prediction by Jake is true :scream:


Andrew drinks optometrist tears.

I was rooting for you… but yeah the biology does seem to have it’s own time frame. Unfortunately my progress has been slower still what with 6 months of winter :cry: but progress is progress even if it isn’t as much as I want.

Gotta repeat I am a serious fan of making sure all the data suggests the reduction. There are a lot of pitfalls in using only one standard…


Progress is progress. I’ve still made progress. I’m not going back up to -4, hell no. :sunglasses:

1 Like

Heard that! As I crawl to the low myopia line and start to get frustrated I just remember I was pretty close to the high myopia line for much of my life, so even if it takes longer than I want I am still so much better off than I was. I spent Sunday swimming and socializing without correction!! That is huge for me, And all without calling anybody the wrong name! :joy:


The general story on reductions:

First reduction for normalized can be up to 1 diopter.

More, usually doesn’t work out well. Doesn’t matter how much overcorrection or what can be read on Snellen, past one diopter things just don’t go right.

First reduction for differential, 1 to 1.5 diopters from distance glasses.

Same as above. Less doesn’t work out, more doesn’t work out. Few exceptions but very most likely, that.


The first reductions from there are a question mark. How your eyes adapt to the new world of less strain and stimulus, and overcorrection and maybe incorrect ratios, maybe cylinder you didn’t need, etc. There are one or two reductions where things are “adjustment”.

Still, in general, just quarter diopters in most cases.


3-4 months between reductions.

Nobody ever listens to me on this. It’s the thing that’s by far the most common and I don’t know why the convenience of just taking some of the advice. But … that’s how it is. I couldn’t count how many times people have said this and at this point I just totally ignore it.

Three. To Four. Months.

Whatever happened in the first couple of reductions, that was the margin. Overcorrection, stimulus, active focus abilities, environment, preference, whatever. Whatever didn’t get successfully reduced then, isn’t going to reduce faster than 3-4 months here.

Exceptions? Yes. Because what fun would it be otherwise, and if I was not a dummy I would never post faster improvement reports. Heh.

That exception isn’t going to be the guy though who spends 10 hours working in front of a screen and then another 10 hours playing on their phone, while pretending to themselves that they spent more than an hour or two on real distance vision (ie. everybody basically).

It’s once in a blue moon, surfer dude or the guy who isn’t actually a screen addict, or the random lucky :man_shrugging:.

That isn’t you. (“you”, non specifically speaking)

Three to four months.

Weird double vision that won’t go away? Yes you reduced too fast. Suddenly night vision sucks? Yes you reduced too fast. Dry eyes, strain, sitting closer to monitor not telling anyone about it, squinting at everything at the Starbucks menu, smiling it all random people because who knows they might be somebody you know?

Yes, you reduce too fast.

It’s an auto pilot project. It’s boring. It requires no attention. It doesn’t benefit from extra flogging or analyzing or squeezing. It’s still gonna take 3-4 months for your biology to adapt, regardless of how many times you go, “are we there yet”.

Best part? The more you monkey with up and down, up and down, uuuupanddown with the diopters, the less well diopter changes work to engage the visual cortex and biology in general (or however it works, the more you change diopters, the higher the chance that the biology just throws up its non literal hands and goes “ohhh wtf all of this”).

The cool part about endmyopia, you learn it once, you figure it out, you get the habits sorted, and then it just … works.

Yes exceptions and you hear about all those here and my million posts. But for every one person going “buuuuuuuuuuuuuut …” there are hundreds who just reduce and forget, reduce and forget. It mostly just works, in most cases (apparently anyway).

When it doesn’t, it’s mostly that the person spends way, way, waaaaaay too much time in front of screens (like bro, I love pizza and I hate the gym, but you said I’d get stronger … what’s going on here bro). That and a lack of real regular outdoor habits (going outside for 64 hours once a month is no substitute for regular outside time).

The difficult part here is personalities and lifestyles and how we interpret the vagueness of words and ideas.

This sh*t just works. Faster, a very vague maaaaaybe … if you happen to have a surfing habit and you don’t have Instagram and there’s an old Vespa in your garage that you’re fixing up, and you’re hanging out with friends and watching movies from projector distance and playing chess and going for hikes in your spare time. Still, just maybe. Probably still just once every 3-4 months.

You’re not that guy though (again, not “you” at anyone here specifically)

You sit in front of screens for work for 10 hours a day and then oooops you watch some movies on Netflix on your iPad and oops 700 “just real quick bro” times checking your phone? 3-4 months of successful reductions is like, how you are still improving at all is beyond me, but yay for apparently very permissive biology.

It’s not gonna be faster than 3 to 4 months, I guess is the tl;dr.

But bro, what about this guy in that podcast you did, he improved way faster, bro.


I think you have written another awesome blogpost here :wink: Maybe even draft script for a future animated video :thinking:

I think the biggest problem (at least it’s definitely what mislead me, and I think @NottNott too) is that you mention that “don’t do diopter changes sooner than 4-6 weeks”. And for the general human mind - which always think that it’s a special snowflake - it’s translated as that “those noobs usually reduce every 3-4 months, but for me with the superior habits and genetics and knowledge and determination 4-6 weeks are enough” :smiley:
But really, without any joke, for a long time my understanding was that “reduction is possible every 4-6 weeks, but at most it’s 3-4 months”. Instead of “Reduction happens around 3-4 months in usual cases. And if for any reason you need to experiment or troubleshoot or whatever, still don’t do changes faster than 4-6 weeks”.
I can’t point out exactly why I had this misunderstanding, or what material lead me to this, but this was my general impression.

Because it seems to be that 1 hour of close-up can be negated with just 20 minutes of non-close-up:

So even 10 hours of true hyperopic defocus can be negated with just only 3.3 hours of “distance vision”, and for that practically everything counts which is not actual hyperopic defocus (so most likely some amount of “close-up with differentials with correct distance” also counts), so there is no need even for “blur challenge” for the negation (although for improvements most likely at least 40 minutes of “blur challenge” is needed, see the last section in my comment linked above).


Agree completely. The best advice I could give people to improve their eyesight, after they know the fundamentals is, STOP CARING ABOUT IMPROVING YOUR EYESIGHT. Just get a good normalized, schedule the reductions at 3 - 4 months and then live your life. How I wish I’d taken that approach and how many times have I had to backtrack.


So I would love to see this pinned… like everywhere

This too.

But you must know from experience that is easier said than done. Especially for people in say their first year or so, at least for me. I deff. found a better rhythm, not trying to push push push by then. I still can’t forget it altogether and sometimes I still get frustrated because there is nothing for it in the winter, I don’t improve at all for about 6 months and then it takes another 4-6 weeks to pull out of the rut and start moving again. But as much as I am in a better space about it now, I suppose everyone has to go through the stages…


Oh for sure. I’m really only beginning to grasp this now, 7 years after first stumbling onto EM. And it’s way easier to say when I can get by without glasses then when I was starting at a 5+ year timeline.


Fully agree.
And I agree with @Jakey, too, even if I was one of those mentioned exceptions - just to annoy everyone a bit yet again. :yum:

But! During my EM journey I have always worn the corrections that I needed to see clearly (not more but not less). I didn’t care how long I had been wearing those corrections, I didn’t care what the centimeter measurements were, I didn’t care how they compared to previous corrections. Visual acuity on the given day. That was the only thing important.
I wore the corrections that I needed for the same level of clarity each day. If the clarity wasn’t good enough then time or cm didn’t matter. At all. Pre-pandemic I arrived somewhere and I had to read signs to get around, then read presentations from several meters away and then faces. No room for adjustment of corrections during the day, no allowance for missing out details due to blur or my work suffered. Made it super easy for me not to want to pretend that my eyes improved more than they actually did.



I’m here for the long haul. I’ll be laughing all the way down to 20/20 :grin:

Non sequitur: I walked through my town centre and there’s 5(!!!) optometry shops. I don’t even think there’s that much demand for the population but somehow they’re still in business?


I have long wondered, do you find the rate the same in children? We don’t see much on the statistics for improvement in kids…



Yea I get it. Part of the issue is also the “filing cabinet” style of everything. I’ve been piling on notes and articles and things just whenever things come up or people ask questions, and it’s definitely not necessarily all crystal clear.

Or correct.

Or accurate.

Mostly just one halfwit having a morning coffee and adding up what seems to be the case. Terribly unscientific and will never get a proper title this way at all.

But yea. For whatever reason, 3-4 months seems to work. The 4-6 weeks bit is for not changing focal planes sooner / more frequently. Sometimes people will get a new pair and while there’s no major discomfort or alarm, they go “ohhh I think I picked wrong”. And then starts back on forth of changes, and in the end nothing seems to be right or work anymore. So the 4-6 weeks thing is more the minimum time before you could change focal planes without heading in that direction of issues.

Yea. That stuff is indeed fascinating.

Check ciliary spasm too though, and how quickly after a phone browse it’s back. That’s more my metric for when I’m overdoing the close-up. :slight_smile:

Yea. So many podcasts I’ve been a guest on, the same thing - “what, that’s all there is to it?!”. Once you’re all excited about a new project, the process is a bit anticlimactic.

We should make up things to keep the engaged preoccupied.

5000% profit margin on a sale might help that. :joy:

Strangely, no.

I don’t feel I have enough data (consistent) on kids. Age ranges, and not enough details on what parents are doing, I haven’t done any work collecting and analyzing (BackTo20/20 has long been my personal test bed for really keeping track of what people do and what works and doesn’t).

Also really wide diopter ranges with it, and the improvement is seemingly often really quick. It’s actually a bit of a red flag and I have the vague feeling that you could reverse child myopia rather quickly. But that’s nothing more than a hunch.

Also with kids so much more is going on. Communication is a question, how the child perceives this intervention, then you still have motor skill development, social development, etc. all affect by the child’s vision potentially. I really am super careful about not getting too involved there since there are a ton of moving parts that I’m not qualified with whatsoever.

But yea, there is probably something there and if one were to be serious, I wouldn’t be surprised if child myopia ran by different rules (rate of change).


According to Bates (I know, I know…) and Haberfeld and some of the ancient plus lens people (Raphaelson? forgot his name, the eye doctor who decided to drop his Dr title so he could just prescribe plus lenses against the medical advice of the day) some high percentage of myopic kids are just bad cases of pseudomyopia who basically stop being myopic after a couple of weeks using plus lenses (or plus with prism in the case of Haberfeld) for all their near work. When they come in for the second visit two weeks later a lot of them are no longer myopic. They were probably just locked in close up mode and never got any actual axial myopia. Presumably these were kids who couldn’t read the blackboard anymore and ran into one of the few myopia-reversal doctors the first time they ever got brought in by their parents to have an eye exam. I’d guess a lot of them were mild hyperopes who presented with a bad case of cilliary spasm or lock-up from intense book-work at school. So, as I understand it, about half of the time kids would get brought in with complaints of near-sightedness without ever having worn minus lenses, and a few weeks of plus-lens use would solve the apparent myopia problem permanently. Haberfeld would only prescribe minus if they were still myopic after a few weeks of plus-lens use for all near work. I would guess in kids who have never worn minus lenses about half of the cases of up to -3D myopia can spontaneously resolve once the conditions creating the cilliary lock-up are removed.

These days it’s probably a lot harder because play-time involves phone screens. A hundred years ago when kids weren’t reading or attending school they were probably running around unless they were bed-ridden or sick.

According to the textbooks from the late 1800’s, hyperopia is more common than myopia, and it was very common and unfortunate that people who lost their distance vision would be improperly prescribed minus lenses by optometrists. The proper thing to do is first try them out with plus (anti-fatigue lenses in today’s jargon) and maybe atropine to try to get rid of the cilliary spasm, and then once latent hyperopia and cilliary-spasm has been ruled out, prescribe minus, only in the smallest quantities that lets them do what they need to do (“task lenses” in today’s jargon, “differentials” as we call them here.)

Minus lenses are the instant band-aid fix that seemingly solves the problem while actually making it worse. The medical community “learned” it’s hard to explain to parents that kids who can see a book fine should wear glasses to read a book, when Johnny across the street had a doctor that gave him glasses that fixed his distance vision instantly.

A better protocol would be to hand the kids a pair of +2 glasses and say “wear these whenever you’re reading, doing homework or playing with the phone or computer and come back in two weeks and we’ll check your distance vision again.”


@NottNott see, that’s what I was talking about :slight_smile:

Yeah, of course. In the study they introduced hyperopic defocus for 60 minutes. It’s hard to tell how well you can extrapolate from that for longer close-up times. But the “ratio” is pretty-well aligned with your “Do at least 1 hour of distance vision after 3 hours of close-up” recommendation.

Yeah, that’s the problem with kids: the parents :joy: Most kids will just do what you say to them, but if you cannot convince the parents they will just go like “yeah, that doctor speaking gibberish, don’t do what they said”. (of course we also have the opposite problem, even if the doctor is not correct, if the parents are convinced then the children will have to do whatever they said).




I am betting on fasting to increase the production of HGH.

1 Like

This could be a better way to express what I was going for. Maybe, stop obsessing about your vision, pay attention to it, focus on other things in life, and reduce every 3 -4 months.