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

So yeah as Hannie says we should probably avoid the word ratio as the ratio will always change when reducing. Where it might be interesting is sph to cyl ratio…

1 Like

So, diopter gap for difference between eyes, and difference between diff and norms is difference between diffs and norms?

If we go with this terminology it might make things easier.

ALSO, blur adaptation. Jake says it’s when you don’t wear glasses for a long time, clinical studies show it when you’re undercorrected. They’re surely the same thing, and blur adaptation can be expanded to mean not wearing glasses or being undercorrected.

There’s the physical effects of blur adaptation as well as the mental ones, so the high contrast of stimuli that your visual cortex adapts to, and the mental aspect of ignoring the blur when you look at normal things in the distance. It can all come under one umbrella :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Inter-ocular diopter gap and inter-lens-set diopter gap :grin:

2 Likes

I remember the first time I heard this, and I had to think about it for a long time to understand what it means.

It is a way of passively taking responsibility. Instead of saying, I’m sorry, my mistake, it’s, “My bad,” as in, “Oops. There was a big ol’ s-- pile of bad over there, and somehow I cruised right through it, and you got splattered. Dang.”

I think it started with sports people, who also brought us the replacement word “myself” for both “me” and “I,” because they were unable or unwilling to learn when which was appropriate.

</rant>

2 Likes

right, but… at 3:2.5, it’s 120%, so the same half diopter gap is twice the effect on disparity of vision. And if we keep that 0.5D difference all the way down to low myopia (at say, -1.00:-0.50), it becomes a whopping 200%.

Probably speaks to trying to get to 1:1 as early in the process as possible, rather than as late as possible.

edit: I guess I’m late to the party on this one, just finished reading the full thread, but whatever. I think the comment about choosing to equalize earlier rather than later in the process should stand.

2 Likes

No, they are not. I’ve even written a long post about what’s the difference between them:
Blur adaptation clarification

3 Likes

I’m the best example for that. 2.5 years of not improving at all, although I was wearing normalized and differential (no worsening though, which is a huge improvement compared to my previous 25 years).
I did not needed stronger glasses, just had to make a conscious effort for a few weeks maybe months to not forget active focusing.

4 Likes

I have a similar experience. Reduced “distance” and “near” lenses from 1995-2019, and roughly no change, but no improvement, either (in sphere; cylinder got worse at the rate of about -0.25 every couple of years until it matched spherical).

Improvements of about 1.25 spherical equivalent over the past 10 months, more or less.

3 Likes

My eyes are just flat out bullying me to make a reduction now. Vision is far too good with these norms, no doubt.

So, reducing to -3.75/-2.75 today, my hands are tied. This reduction has lasted 33 days

I have not gone for distance vision walks since about 18 Mayish due to exams. Still though, feel like my eyes improved between then and now. "can i just AF on screen instead of distance vision CONFIRMED???"

(i’ve actually become a horrible cynical person after moderating the Facebook group for this long, i regret to report :frowning: )

2 Likes

Maybe try to reduce only weaker eye? Better start dealing with this now that later.

3 Likes

Next reduction is -3.50/-2.75. Soon!

2 Likes

Blur adaptation reducing too quickly reality check: this reduction is by far the safest one I’ve done, post the early days of reducing like crazy

1 Like

I’ve gotten a bit lazy with measurement :scream:

However, I do heavily rely on objects like car number plates parked outside my house to check my vision and how it changes over time. I definitely remember things like the level of blur, and the ease of doing active focus before and after. I’ll start measuring lightly here and there at some point, and this will never be with diffs again, naked eye all the way. I think once an eye is below -4.25 is when naked eye is a good idea - because -4.25 and above the entire range for that degree of myopia is within a single cm or less.

1 Like

I still don’t see the merit of that argument (had it in other threads as well). I don’t care if at high myopia a single cm covers more diopters - this is counterbalanced by the fact that it is easier to measure up close and you can even measure to 0.5 cm accuracy if you have a good technique - see my how to in the how to section for how I do it - and also, later, you are not using it to convert to diopters so it doesn’ matter, you’re just using it to track progress and long-term average improvement in the cm measurement, where slight measurement errors will get averaged out

Fair enough then. I think once it gets really high though then it would be more of factor, like -10 or something?

If using it to convert to diopters, sure it would be a problem. But if using only to track cm to blur you can still do it but I guess the changes would be so slow in the cm that it’s indiscernable from noise

1 Like

why don’t you reduce it to -3.75 / -3.0 to make it easier to equalize and not make the visual cortex work too hard

That would be an increase, not a reduction. He is currently using -3.75 / -2.75

2 Likes

Hey! -3.75/-2.75! You’re good. I’m noticing those day to day subtle improvements like with other normalised.

4 Likes

Sorry for replying to a so old comment, but my current problem is directly related to it. 19 days ago I increased my normalized up to -2.5 (see the long post). Which seemed to be fine then, but I’ve realized that maybe it was not enough the get back to clarity. I see 20/50 with them (indoor) and even in bright sunny days there is some residual blur / dv after AF. Which would be fine for a new reduction but the goal here would be get back to clarity. So I’m inclined to increase it a bit more to -2.75 (about 20/30 indoor), but there was only 3 weeks since the latest focal plane change, and I also made a differential change in the meantime (because of similar quality of life changes).
So my question would be, this 4-6 weeks only for reductions, or generally for any kind of focal plane changes?

2 Likes