Endmyopia is still pretty simple, and there is not much to crack:
- reduce glasses a bit to have a bit blur challenge
- challenge the blur to provide stimulus
- reduce the glasses when there is no blur challenge anymore
- continue back to 20/20
But the devil is in the details, and currently Endmyopia looks a bit like this (sorry Jake )
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 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 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 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.