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

I am a ninja, it’s seven days after this post. I’m basically wasting no time to reduce as my acuity with my right eye is back to where it was at the start of this reduction. CMs and Snellen are backing me up, at least in good lighting. This reduction was… 26 days.

New prescription is -3.50/-2.75, which is an equalising one. Will see how things go.

1 Like

You measure cm on Snellen? Or you mean you measure cm less, because you measure on Snellen more?

I’ve just wanted to ask when do you plan to equalize… :smiley: Grats for the gains :slight_smile:

I suspect that for cm measurement this should matter much less than it’s attributed. Theoretically light condition should not affect edge of blur at all. All perceived difference in blur based on light condition should come from visual cortex magic and/or AF. Neither should measured during cm measurements. Theoretically for cm measurement light condition should only affect pupil size which should only affect the depth of your blur horizon: the smaller the pupil is (so better light) the larger the field where it’s not totally clear, but neither totally blurry. With larger pupil (so lower light) the distinction between clear and blur should be much sharper.

So because of these two (more light helps AF + visual cortex and more light makes the detection of the edge of blur more ambiguous) theoretically lower light conditions should be better for cm measurement. At least in the sense of more precise measurement (which should be the aim, because otherwise why measure?). Yes, most likely you will measure smaller cm in lower light condition, but it should be more precise and should be closer to your “objective” edge of blur. I plan to experiment a bit with it when I find time :slight_smile:

On second thoughts…


Maybe another week at -3.75/-2.75, if I’m being reasonable. Probably a bit inconsistent on the Snellen tbf, although my CMs do back me up. In a week of staying here I’d be able to start equalising, and if I was being really smart I’d stay here two weeks xD

The latter

Awesome stuff on CMs too, I haven’t found that much change based on light levels tbh.

1 Like

Endmyopia is still pretty simple, and there is not much to crack:

  1. reduce glasses a bit to have a bit blur challenge
  2. challenge the blur to provide stimulus
  3. reduce the glasses when there is no blur challenge anymore
  4. continue back to 20/20

But the devil is in the details, and currently Endmyopia looks a bit like this (sorry Jake :slight_smile: )

I had the luck initially that my “usual” habits was totally fine for improvements, with a bit push on the weekends for distance vision. But I got out of those habits because of home office, and then I had no clue what I should change. I’ve experimented with a lot of things, like more frequent breaks, more distance time, more lighting for my desk, change prescriptions, etc. It took me around half year to realize that what I was really missing is around 1 hour of continuous distance vision every day. It was not the full windows office, it was not the driving to and from work, it was not the morning staring out of the window listening to something, not the occasional distraction by colleagues. It was my lunch break :sweat_smile: Which lasted usually ~30-40 minutes (starting with getting up from the table, walk to the other building for the canteen, waiting in line / microwave, etc.), and then about 10-20 minutes walking around the building with colleagues. So around 40-60 minutes, every weekday.

So while there is a lot of information about Endmyopia, a lot of tricks, and a lot of things to try when there is a problem, what we missing is what actually causes the improvements. I mean we know what “actions” lead to improvement for most people, but we don’t know why it leads to improvement. And without that we cannot pinpoint what is really needed and what is simply beneficial, because it promotes certain things (for example I suspect distance vision superior because of promoting the use of larger field of view and because it makes almost impossible to get into hyperopic defocus. But not because of how large the distance actually is between your eyes and the objects).
Like in the above example, I could say that you need to eat lunch for 40 minutes to have Endmyopia gains. Which is simply not true :slight_smile: What I needed is the continuous not close-up time.

We also don’t know what are the exact limits which still allows improvement. Of course when dealing with biology there are no clear cut rules, but at least what is the rough “frame” you have to stay inside. Like here @NottNott showed that using almost full prescription is enough to improve. Others shows that even with large reduction it’s possible to improve. But what are the limits? Or what are the trade offs? We know almost nothing exact about these.

Also the problem is that there is no objective measurement for eyesight currently. As I tested in the other topic, there can be around 1-2 cm difference even in the 30 cm range between cm measurements based on the conditions. If I tell that you should reduce only a tiny bit compared to your full correction, which one should you use? Reduce a tiny bit from 29 cm is still more correction than the “full correction” calculated from 32 cm. And Snellen is everything but not objective. Axial length is objective, but not possible for most people, especially not frequently and not on demand.

I think this is @Varakari’s problem too :slight_smile: And that’s why he do the axial length measurement and why he tries to come up with some correlation between his activities and measurements. To get clear on what actually causes the improvements. Not just what activities (we know that), but what components in those activities. So you can more easily deduce and apply that knowledge to other situation and lifestyles.

5 Likes

Another problem is that we are not all owls. I , for one, am a swan, a black one. :crazy_face:

yeah these factors could be genetic, and hence different for everyone

so the only important thing is to have the same conditions each time you measure not to be the same as everyone else

Not necessarily. If for example if we find out that fastest improvement would be 0.1 diopter reduced compared to full correction, then you have to get your full correction really precisely. And then it’s not enough to be consistent. For current Endmyopia recommendation sure, it’s enough. But the current recommendation are broad enough anyway that you don’t even need to measure anything for them.

“No BS guide to vision impromevent” thoughts are:
“If you see any amount of myopic blur, you will improve. But most people don’t like to be blind, so go with small reductions”.

1 Like

That’s one opinion, another opinion is if you reduce too quickly, your results will stop even if you keep up the other habits. I wonder what explains the biology here.

Period of about April to October I reduced too much, improvements on my cms stopped. Identical habits to now.

2 Likes

Yes, some people can tolerate a good deal of blur - especially if there is no need for very clear vision at distance, and so different degrees of myopic blur will suit different people. I did well enough with full myopic blur.

1 Like

I don’t deny this happens. But some people reduce whole 1 or 1.5 D and still improving… That’s other side of medal.

1 Like

I’m not saying @Ursa is wrong either, it’s just all so weird how there’s a massive difference between two people in a mechanism that should be identical.

2 Likes

The mechanism is identical - challenging the myopic homeostasis. It’s just that most people prefer to do this in small doses, and others can do it in larger ones. I changed from living comfortably in uncorrected blur for 30 years, to consciously challenging it on a daily basis, several times a day. As Jake has said often enough, it is not reducing glasses that reduces the myopia - it is challenging the edge of myopia, wherever that may be. Mine was closer than that of people who wear correction, but the mechanism is the same. I also didn’t have any bad vision habits to change.

I’ve found this for sure. 30 minute drive to work, an hour away from the screen, and 30 minute drive home. This adds up to two hours. By the time I eat dinner, play with my kids in the evening, and engage in something else that’s not a screen, it’s easy to accumulate 3 -4 hours of distance vision a day.

3 Likes

I’d say the key word here is strain. If you reduce too much and challenge that new blur you get too much strain (and no improvement). That’s why reducing just a tiny amount works - you only work with slight blur and that is enough stimulus to improve.

Maybe people who reduce 1D and still make gains don’t walk around challenging blurry horizon - they might just try clearing up close signs and taking it from there.

Either way I believe that improvement stops when you start exhausting your eyes.

2 Likes

I had a similar experience- I went down thinking that I was ready to reduce but I had to go back up again because I wasn’t really making progress.

I think one variable here might be related to the problem of accurate measuring, example:

Person A and person B both wear -5 glasses. Both reduce by 1dpt. Person A improves their eyesight, Person B does not. One possible explanation might be that Person A was overpresribed and actually reduced way less than 1 dpt, while Person B was on the verge of actually needing a even higher prescription and thus reduced at least 1 dpt, if not more. Both people state they “started out with -5 and reduced by 1 dpt” when acutally there was a difference in myopia that they subjectively did not notice/report. When it comes to these things we really have a problem of valid data and thus comparability. I would say that using the -0.25 reductions is a conservative rate that allows for such differences to not take a huge toll and enable gains for most people.

2 Likes

On this bright and sunny day, it’s -3.50/-2.75 time.

A few notes, didn’t actually get much distance vision at all in past 10 days. I’m following the ‘wear less correction if you can get away with it’, holistic approach that Jake’d recommend for low myopia with this one. So, at least for today I can wear less correction. I reckon probably in bad lighting too. On this sunny day, it’s feeling fine, and just like where I’d reduce for my last reduction.

I’m getting a comfortable 26.5 on cm in my right eye, which is 3.77 diopters. Time to drop by 0.25.

That puts the previous reduction of -3.75/-2.75 in at 40 days, from 5 Nov to 15 Dec.

Also, reduced my diffs today finally, from -2/-1 to -1.25/-0.50.

7 Likes

Today was terrible sunlight and raining, but -3.50/-2.75 still held up. There we go, those are my norms

#gains

5 Likes

Congrats !

1 Like