They are both equally important. You need binocular vision to keep your eyes cooperating properly and you also need to equalize.These things matter equally, you need both of these challenges worked out to get backto2020 the right way. So keep with the plan, patch when appropriate to close that diopter gap and alternate with binocular reductions. See @MattE’s video on Diopter Angst, he explains how he did it and that’s pretty the much the golden standard EM wise.
I’m trying to access the pro topic video linked in this post, but YouTube tells me it’s been made private and my action is not allowed. I’m logged into the LeMeow forum, but it doesn’t seem to help. Can somebody let me know what I’m missing? Here is the video title:
Pro Topic: Managing Diopters For Ocular Dominance
Pro Topic videos aren’t free since quite a while ago.
I’m doing those as special thanks and additional materials for supporters of endmyopia!
You have to buy at least Le Rough Guide to access this and a whole bunch of other pro-topic videos.
I see, makes sense. I’m just returning to the forum after sometime away. A few other posts said the pro topics can be accessed by regular contributors to the forum. Is that still a thing? What kind of contributions and support do you have in mind?
Not anymore. The only way to get the pro topic videos by buying of the course / guide which is includes them.
This is the BIG question I have.
I currently have no distance vision blur challenge but one eye is 20/20 and the other is 20/25?
What’s more important in this situation? Reducing to get blur challenge or waiting until both eyes are 20/20?
Anyone been in the same situation and how did you deal with it?
@halmadavid - didn’t see your question prior. Usually it’s “when the higher diopter eye has caught up to previous relative levels”.
So if it was always about that much difference, and maybe it was slower but it caught up, fine to reduce.
Easy way to check is to just get the next reduction, zero diopter reset, start it off in good daylight on a relaxing walk, practice active focus, refresh habits, all that regular stuff. Should be fine in that circumstance.
Later if eyes tired or lighting less ideal, that’s when there’s a possibility for some ghosting / double vision. Generally not if that relative focal plane is what visual cortex expects, but then we do tend to get optimistic with reducing (which is fine). If you end up getting a bit of that almost astigmatism-like vision, mental note for next time about being patient with reduction. If it gets annoying, just in low light / tired, fine to switch to previous normalized.
I don’t usually throw this kind of suggestion around since I found that it encourages reductions too soon (oh yea shortcut, I’ll just do nnnnnow). But for those who have restraint and a good understanding, the tell tale sign that focal plane ratio has changed for visual cortex, is if / when the change causes ghosting.
So practically what you say (and I know I’m just making it worse for the “reduce as fast as possible crowd” ) is that reduction is fine until no double vision appears. Interesting. And definitely aligns with my case I’ve just recently reached the point where double vision practically disappeared with my current normalized, which (although I think didn’t mentioned in my journal thread) is one of the reason why I starting to feel ready for the reduction.
Thanks for the reassurance
Thanks for picking this question up Jake. Really appreciated.
In my short 5 months on this journey I have definitely been in the reduce too fast hole and climbed my way out of it. Very hesitant these days. So I should.
I will take this sagely advice!
Anytime. Just tag me or message me anytime something comes up. It’s good for me also since if you’re missing something, that makes it very likely that I didn’t put it out there or explain it well.
Also generally takes a bit of extra time at the current focal plane after the ghosting is gone, before you want to reduce again. Otherwise it’s just likely going to be right back again.
Seems like everybody does. Either human nature or I’m doing a poor job of explaining things. I get a whole lot of “oh not me though bro, watch me I can do this way faster”.
Also how these opportunistic unicorn farmer Internet marketers (like Mark whatshisface) get an audience. Take our stuff, throw in “but this one trick” and claim massive improvements. Since fast reductions are something you can get away with for a while, those f*ckwits even appear legit for a while - long enough to take people’s money and also get on my nerves with people going “but bro what about x-guy he said he found a much faster way why don’t you promote him are you scared or something come on bro he’s so much better than you guys”.
Besides all of that nuisance though, I dropped from my -5 to a -3 for a start. So somewhere in there, seems like maybe just an experience that needs to be had.
I did exactly that…before I stumbled across EM though. Terrible idea
Thanks But that post happened more than 1,5 years ago, I was just a random (internet) citizen back then
Anyhow you are right, reduction was and maybe a bit muddy topic for me. Though I think your last post clarified a lot. Although I thought multiple times that “Now I get reductions!”, so… For me the reduction topic seemed as complex as the “finding active focus” topic, and I was always surprised why there are so few materials about them (especially if I discount the “don’t reduce too fast” and “now it’s obvious that you should reduce” ones). I had a hunch that it must be simple if there isn’t much to explain, but could not put my finger on it. But now I think I got it.
I think the problem was that I did not connect the dots. I understood quickly the need for blur challenge and the 20/50 “rule” (I know, it’s revised a bit now). But both points to the “reduce too fast” direction. What I did not understand is that the “blurry -> double vision -> clear” path directly connect to this topic. It’s not just a general description of the process, but a rule to follow.
So a simple, but concise description for reduction:
- You are ready to reduce when you don’t have enough blur challenge and you don’t have any double vision (astigmatism like symptoms) with the current normalized. If both is true you can do a reduction (obviously can postpone if life happens).*
- You are not ready to reduce, and you should absolutely not reduce if you currently have double vision. If you reduce at this point it will lead to stalls and slower progress in the long run.
- If you do a reduction, and you experience: too much blur challenge or double vision with the reduced normalized, that means you’ve reduced too fast. It’s not the end of the world, you can either go back to the previous normalized or stay with the current. But in the latter case note that now you should give yourself more time than usual to adapt to the normalized, and to reach the next reduction. Whichever you choose, stick to your decision. You should not make frequent focal plane changes, because that confuses the visual cortex and lead to sideeffects and/or stalls. So going back means waiting 4-6 week to do another change.
* Postponing may result in slower improvements if you really don’t have any blur challenge anymore (unlikely though, you still have blur challenge at 20/20). Reducing with a bit more blur challenge is not a problem if there is no double vision and it does not lead to too uncomfortable vision. But also does not lead to faster improvements. So the “not enough” blur challenge is a subjective part.
These three points exactly describe:
- when reduction is possible
- when reduction should be avoided
- and how to verify that the reduction was made in the correct time (and what to do if the reduction was not correct).
I had the first point, but was missing the other two, especially the second one.
Yes that is accurate.
I think a possible issue is that I have been cataloging topics over the years as I think of them or as people ask or just whenever something prompts me to cover it. So the whole site is like boxes filled with notes.
And I hesitate breaking things down to a point where somebody might feel like they got all the pieces because then they’re not forced to do enough research to figure out how to research (the site contents) and then when things go wrong, I get blamed. Better to keep it this way and set the expectation from the start as “it’s mostly all here but I better dig through it and use search and all that”.
So … yea.
Along with your very accurate assessment above, the other thing to go with that is being careful about focal plane changes. Something happens when there are too many changes (back and forth or ratio changes) where the biology just stops responding. Example, somebody goes down with diopters, then double vision, then goes back up with diopters, then a week later feeling motivated, goes back down, then wears full correction driving, then … just not keeping consistency in one distance, one focal plane.
At some point the (visual cortex?) just goes, yea, no, I don’t get what’s going on here.
And from there no matter what, nothing changes. Or worse yet, weird things like ghosting that doesn’t want to resolve, sensitivity to not exactly correct (familiar) focal planes, etc.
Not commonly a problem, but with some people who just starting throwing around the focal planes, that’s the result. As most things easy enough to fix, but just better avoided in the first place.
Which is why I often say, as few changes as possible. Once the initial focal plane choices have settled (after the fist diopter or so), not changing diopters more often than 3 months or so is best and avoid any issues.
The rabbit hole goes deep if you prod me enough on specific scenarios.
and @halmadavid THANKYOUUUUUU. This is golden.
So what happens when equalizing then? You’re looking at at least two different focal planes at that point when you introduce the first monocular reduction. Does that mean you should drop differentials and norms at the same time to keep the same diopter gap instead of waiting 4-6 weeks between them as normal?
Yeah, I forget that. And that’s make the ruleset above much complex And yeah, sooner or later I always realize why you don’t do such clear rulesets: because reversing myopia doesn’t work like that
Edit: I added this point to the above
You do want to adjust both in short order for equalizing. Works out a lot better if the higher diopter eye is showing signs of being ready for that, generally by improving at the same rate or even tending to focus quicker.
Yup. Making people do their own research shifts accountability to them, so I don’t get blamed when various nuances aren’t initially considered. Also once digging in one quickly realizes how much of the devil is in the proverbial details and may become less tempted to imagine this all being that much of an easy quick fix, “oh it’s just reduced lens therapy, easy”. Training them by means of encouraging use of search and reading to look for answers and think about what’s going on.
Not saying this is the best way. At least part of it, me being less tempted to reduce life’s mysteries to baby formula of da stepz.
Though also bla bla, in many cases things work out fairly straightforward without the minutiae considerations so …
This is one of the very unique things about EM. I can’t think of anyone off the top of my head that does the something similar…