Oops, a year in and forgot to introduce

It’s almost a year into my Endmyopia journey and I just realised I haven’t made a proper introduction, oops.

So hello! I’m Wirayuda from Jakarta, Indonesia. I’m 17 years old now, and like pretty much all of you here, I started with 20/20 eyesight. In fact, I remembered in the first grade of primary school, I went beyond 20/20 during our eye checkups. Then, one day, I met the computer. And you can guess the rest :’)

I have always wondered if one can improve one’s myopia, but everything online says otherwise. Any ‘natural’ vision improvement programmes involve avoiding certain types of foods, doing strange eye exercises and even stop using your glasses and just ‘accept the blur’ – yes, the Bates method: I tried it for a DAY and I didn’t even bother. It didn’t make sense to me.

But after scavenging the world of Google for a short while, on 9 February 2020, I stumbled upon Endmyopia. At first, I was a little skeptical, but as a man of science, everything Jake said – his science, his method, and admittedly, his rants, struck me like an earth-shattering crash of a meteor.

I vividly remember the moment I read this particular sentence from the 7-day email – *The single worst thing, what you really don’t want to be doing at all, ever, is wearing your full-distance correcting prescription while looking at a screen 60 cm from your eyes – I literally kicked myself so hard off the ground that the office chair and I slid all the way across the other side of the room.

Yep, that wasn’t exaggerated.

Anyway, let’s get to the real stuff. Sorry to rub this on for some of you, but I found active focus in a day and took about a week or two to get consistent with it. But unlike most of you here who started largely overcorrected, I actually started undercorrected. I was pretty obstinate in getting stronger glasses so that stopped me from going into that lane. But that meant I didn’t get the first 90-day super reduction. Anyway, I was reading a lot and really taking my time in understanding stuff. I am fortunate to be desperate without being blind.

I remember when I was getting my differentials, the optometrist literally said, 'You don’t need that. It’s only for old people.’ I persisted, and he let me do whatever I want. And I’ll take a second to say that I am quite fortunate to be in a developing country in Indonesia where people here let me do whatever I want with the test lens kit! And also offer very cheap lenses (about 8 pounds each pair).

But here, just as I was thinking about my normalised, the COVID-19 pandemic broke loose. I was forced to retreat into my home and couldn’t continue in this journey. A few months after, when things have settled a bit and this new normal beginning to unfold, I checked my eyes again. I lost over half a dioptre of spherical even though I was undercorrected in my normalised!

Eventually, I got my proper normalised and things have been going well so far.

My eyes started out with these in September 2020:

OD -3.00+1.00
OS -2.75+1.00

And now I am in my second normalisation to

OD -2.50+1.00
OS -2.25+1.00

I am in bliss every time I wipe my glasses clean and feel that these lenses are getting thinner and thinner! I have formed a long-term plan for my vision up to -1.00 dioptre, provided it takes me 4 months to normalise. Let’s hope for the best! Here’s to 20/20.

(I like how I started this journey back to 20/20 in 2020, hehe)

My Plan.pdf (479.6 KB)


Welcome, how nice to have someone from Indonesia. Yes, sometimes it is an advantage to live in a country where you can get most things you want from a lens seller, or even a pharmacy, although the latter may sometimes be dangerous.

I notice that you use the + notation for cylinder. That is the custom here in France for optometrists, although ophthalmologists use the - notation for cylinder. This can be confusing.

Good luck on your EM journey through 2021. Your long term plan looks good, but as they say, the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray. :mouse2: :smile:

1 Like

Your myopia is going into mild now - you have basically -2.00 and you could try eliminating cylinder if you will be eliminating differentials.

Actually, my total spherical equivalent is still around the -3.00 dioptre range since that 1.00 dioptre of cylinder basically corresponds to 0.50 dioptres of spherical.

Well done.
As the saying goes: plans are strategies for the successful completion and are made to be changed.
You spread the drops out equally and surely you will find that one drop will take longer and the other one will take shorter. Depending on how the drops in the cyl goes, you may shift the equalising a bit.
But the direction is clear :slightly_smiling_face:

No. Because you subtract cylinder as it’s +, not -.


So -1.50(-1.00/2)=-2.00.

1 Like

I still hold my comment on your plan in the sense that the order of drops and nicely mixing cyl reduction with sph drops and equalising look good. Obviously: your eyes, you will see how it works in action :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

But @miffiffi has a good point, you are closer to the finish line than you may think.
You have positive cyl ( :see_no_evil: I always have to be reminded and then look up to understand what that means).
Here is a converter to help:

That is interesting. It is the opposite here in the US. Optometrists tend to use minus cylinder while Ophthalmologists prefer to use plus cylinder.

When logging my spectacle prescriptions, I always convert my plus cylinder scripts into minus cylinder and include spherical equivalent so I have them for comparison purposes.

Oh sorry! There must be some ambiguity in the use of notations here and elsewhere. I’m pretty sure the cylinder is negative if we’re talking in scientific contexts. They contribute to more spherical equivalence and don’t actually negate it. I didn’t even know plus cylinders are a thing!

Do you not have a written prescription for your glasses? That would confirm whether it is plus or minus. This is important to know if you are going to be ordering your own glasses.

Put your SPH and cyl values in this converter with plus and with minus.
Plus diopter is not negating, but in some countries traditionally used for one half of the possible axis (as you can see below, the axis flips around by 90 degrees).
I don’t know your axis but here is an example let’s say for -3.00 with 1D diopter (+/-)

-3.00SPH with +1.00CYL @90 axis = -2.00D with -1CYL @180 axis
-3.00SPH with -1.00CYL @45 axis = -4.00D with +1CYL @135 axis

1 Like

Nice find - the lazy person’s way of figuring it out, or to check up on one’s own understanding of cylinder and the small amount of maths required to convert.

Yes, it’s a minus cylinder. I just happened to search online as to ‘how to write eye prescription’ and apparently the cylinder sign was written with a positive sign. I thought that was the international convention but it seemed like it created some ambiguity. Oops!

1 Like