Prefer no correction (high myopia)

I moved this to private category to not get public readers out of the way.

I feel neck discomfort from wearing glasses. Contact lenses are hard to take off when not needed. So, I tried to go without correction when I don’t need it. Basically, that is now 99% of time.

Several studies proposed that axial length still decreases with more (2-3 D) amount of spherical myopic defocus. Then, what is wrong with formula “axial length reduction in mm from one-hour 3 D myopic defocus * 365 days”? The result is 0.01 mm * 365 days = 3.65 mm per year! So basically even more axial length reduction than I need to reduce to see 20/20!

That is from 3 D spherical myopic (positive) defocus. But, I will have then about 9 D of positive spherical defocus (8 sph 2 cyl) at infinity distances (5 m and more).

Jake warns about blur adaptation. Well, I have glasses I see relatively well in them (20/25 indoor sunny, 20/80 night - my eyes have big spherical aberration that cuts off night vision considerably, but it isn’t present with higher spheres, e.g. -9 glasses not enough, then -9.5 or -10 should work around 100% of problem). I use them when I need to see something clearly at distance. Full correction should give vision up to 20/10 and more despite in-eye aberrations and astigmatism, but I am (or should be) not that wealthy for now.

I can use contacts (even spherical) for close up - in spite of 1.5-2.5 astigmatism I can read medium-size text on computer fairly easy without cylinder especially with less astigmatic left eye from 40-45, 50, 60-70 cm depending on sphere value. Yes, tablet wouldn’t do the job then. But I am too lazy to take on -2 glasses for distance - I am satisfied with leftover -1 cyl -2 vision -7 contacts give me.

Spherical equivalent gives worse visual acuity than slightly less sphere (in the latter case, double vision appears). Yes, I know that each astigmatism is different, and I dare to say, unique to some extent.

Life without correction is fine for me! All is good until I know I can see very, very much clearer (just saying, let I will not look weird), need to be alone (and, want to go back to 20/20?)

Really I need correction that much?

-9 myopia 99% of the time? That would make anyone go insane, and you won’t improve your eyes ಠ_ಠ

Study for 3D of myopic defocus that you mentioned may not apply for 9D of myopic defocus. You might reply with another study saying something else… okay - but even assuming you can reverse 9 diopters of myopia without any correction (doubtful), the quality of your life will go through the floor for many, many years. This is super not worth it, and you’ll be much better off just following EM as stated, with minor undercorrection instead of 9 diopters(!) of blur. I’m still not sure why you’re not keen on following EM as standard.

2 Likes

For close up, we may use glasses or go with close up contact lenses only for close up or all distances. Squinting is not allowed at all.

Maybe, but I am fine and who need will also be.

Perhaps. Correct to 3 D then?

Maybe. Maybe not so floor as glasses are with me, if I need them, I will take them on.
Maybe not for so many years. Who said you improvement rate is equal in all diopter ranges and is very the same for every person?

9 diopters or so are worth exclamation mark?!? 39 diopters, maybe.
Every 10-15th Earthian can have -9 ±3 by 2050.

I am not a judge for you, but how do you read? You read that it’s 99% of time, but skipped text quoted upper.

You’ve said you don’t want to wear glasses at -9 myopia, that’s cool, and if you can put up with -9 blur who is anyone to stop you. You’re unlikely to improve with this strategy though, and I half expect a new thread that will pop up with a ‘new way’ of doing things which will still be really not ideal, and then the discussion goes around in circles. Do what you like with your eyes, but you’ve just told the forum ‘I’m not gonna wear glasses at -9 myopia’, it’s like, good for you? Don’t expect a seal of approval or something :wink:

1 Like

I just play. Who said I need an approval?

I am happy to see different opinions. You or any person on this forum can’t deny me anything in these matters. Isn’t it logical?

Super exactly :slight_smile: , but who knows?

Anyway, who obliges you to read, reply?

Yes, I think you do. You can do what you like with your eyes, you don’t have to announce to a forum following a very specific method of improving eyesight that you’re doing something entirely different.

If your goal is to improve your eyesight to 20/20, are you not better off following what has worked for many people?

It’s the matter, because it doesn’t work for me, while works for many fairly good.
In terms of comfort and QoL.

EM is really easy to get wrong, I’ve done it several times despite trying as hard as possible but the small details can mean you fail to see improvement. You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, try doing EM, and redouble your efforts. I don’t think your biology is different to other people for eyesight, and I’m unsure what makes you think your approach will work for you whereas EM supposedly hasn’t worked in the past. It’s the same mechanism in theory - this will work but EM won’t?

Well, I don’t want to tilt my head up because I have glasses.
I’d rather will have healthy neck.

A good pair of glasses means you shouldn’t have to tilt your neck :slight_smile:

Nay. Chromatic aberration is common much more than eye biology.

This doesn’t make sense.

Does. Because for improvement, I need to look at infinity. Image should be without aberration. Otherwise, my eyes get pain.

I don’t want to rotate my head so often, as well I can’t move my eyes.

So you have more chromatic aberration than… the concept of eye biology?

Have you seen any improvement, and why do you need to look at infinity for it?

Yes, I improved and deteriorated faster than expected. But the last deterioration is fairly stable.

Contact lenses SE -9.25 -> -8.87 -> -8.5 -> -8.25 -> -8.75 -> -8.87 -> -9.37 -> -9.5 -> -9.25

Something like that, in terms of 1 year.
Including reducing normalized more than 1 D spherical or SE.

Eyesight doesn’t deteriorate and get worse, unless you cause that stimulus to happen, namely distance correction for up close. Depending on how you measured this as well, your measurements may have been affected by blur adaptation, and your eyes might actually not have changed at all over the year you measured your eyesight change.

So ultimately, you haven’t improved your eyesight at all. You’ve written off EM, but I’m unconvinced you did EM properly.

That is confirmed by various autorefractors, test lens kits, test contact lesnses, centimeter measurements with and without trial glasses.

And I don’t have any blur adaptation, as well as active focus.
Hyperopic defocus is well visible for me - it always has an orange shadow (unlike myopic defocus which sometimes have very dull blue shadow).
I barely use close up correction, and use distance correction for close up maybe 30 mins for month.

Don’t put your biases. The world is different from any person’s (including me) expectations.

What is responsible for your eyesight getting worse when it got better?

Vision begun to get worse while using -8 contact lens without cylinder.