Reducing prescription complexity

My last full prescription was RE -7.00 SPH -1.00 70 Deg CYL and LE -5.25 SPH -0.75 CYL 110 Deg. I am wearing my second differentials and I would move on to my second normalized after 2 weeks. I thought that it would be a good idea to plan ahead to reduce prescription complexity.

The things that I have learnt from blogs regarding reduction of prescription complexity is, first achieve couple of successful spherical reductions, remove astigmatism before equalizing, and insert spherical reductions between these changes. Another important general strategy is to attempt changes first for close-up range before attempting for distance. Jake also says that its best to have a clean prescription before touching 2 diopters.

I know that this is diopter specific, but I just want a general guideline. It is totally up to me to decide and navigate through. Please don’t ban me. :pray: If down the line I successfully adapt to LE -5.25 SPH -1.00 CYL RE -3.50 SPH -0.75 CYL, will LE -5.50 SPH -0.50 CYL RE -3.75 SPH -0.25 CYL be a sensible attempt to reduce cylinders?

Thanks in advance.


Sounds like a sensible strategy to me, well within EM guidelines about spherical equivalent for cylinder. But no-one can predict how your eyes will react to this, least of all yourself, so it remains a gamble. I planned what seemed a very sensible strategy, bought a lot of glasses in advance to accomodate the fast improvements in the right eye, only to now find that my left eye lenses in these reductions are not working so well, as my axis of astigmatism in that eye has either changed, or the astigmatism has reduced faster than I expected.
Plan ahead, but don’t plan too far ahead.


In that case, may be periodically rebasing my full prescription will help me correct my course.

I had to refer back to my baseline pair (full prescription) to discover what was happening to the astigmatism. This pair corrected my left eye to 20/20 wihout any astigmatic trebling and 5 months later no longer did so. This made me check with the astigmatism tool, again and again, to discover that I could hardly find any axis of astigmatism, and definitely not on the 110 axis which had been so clear at the start and was confirmed by an opto’s measurement. If anything, it was on the horizontal, but only by a small increase in clarity.

As it concerns astigmatism, I suggest that you check on your axis and degree of astigmatism with the astigmatism tool after you have taken this step of spherical equivalent and used these glasses for a while. Myopia overcorrection is easy enough to see on the Snellen, but overcorrection or mis-correction of astigmatism is more difficult to spot.

1 Like

That’s a sensible strategy, but I would recommend asking someone with a test lens kit to let you test drive that tradeoff for about 20 minutes to see if you tolerate the exchange.

Another strategy is a bilateral drop in cylinder with no rise or drop in sphere.

1 Like

This astigmatism started after an optometrist added 0.5 of it in my lenses to increase sharpness. I wish I would not have accepted it. Will have to attempt its removal sometime.

1 Like

Did you see the Astigmatism app on Google play?

A little concentrated work with those images for a few weeks might be all you need.

I did that in concert with an ill/advised total drop in greater than -2.5D of cylinder, and when I put cylinder back in, it was a diopter less.

Edit, I have a test lens kit and a total lack of self control



Thanks, I will try the app.

i believe astigmatism is more trick to reverse, because the refraction error occurs at the cornea, instead retina.
So, the deal is to left astigmatism untouched and move on to the spherical reductions, wich will estimulate only the focus-forming at the retina and decrease the eyeball lenght.
The hope is that astigmatism will spontaneously decrease as the spherical diopters reduce.


But wouldn’t this imply that cylinder reduction should accompany, or shortly follow, spherical reduction? If you don’t do this you are changing the ratio between spherical and cylinder correction, which could potentially worsen the astigmatism.

As far as I have understood the science behind EM’s methods for myopia, our objective should be to ensure that ciliary muscles don’t get locked in close-up mode and we provide it optimal stimulus to shorten the axial length. @miocardio’s thoughts may not be wrong. May be I will have to observe my astigmatism and change the glasses accordingly, while gradually reducing spherical dioptres.


there’s no ratio between astigmatism and myopia. If you have zero myopia you could have astigmatism as well.
I thought this way: If i have -4 myopia and -0,75 astigmatism, so if i reduce to -3 myopia, my astigmatism must reduce to -0.50…
Reduce astigmatism could be great. But i made this few times and the results aren’t quite positive.
The astigmatism will be spontaneously disappear due to syncronization between retina and cornea in some point during the reduction journey (i hope so).
Also, i use contacts with no CYL correction and feel great most of time.
Today i’m wearing -3 only spherical both eyes without any CYL correction and is great to give me blur challenge, but i have dizzy vision because the lack of cylinder correction on glass lenses.
I’m considering move back to my old cylinder (-0,75) and keep moving on with only spherical reductions.

You have to walk down the cylinder. Otherwise you get or keep lens induced astigmatism.

1 Like

What would provoke this synchronisation? If both are a result of stimulus and response, there should be no problem with giving the visual cortex the stimulus to correct a mis-shapen cornea either before, after, or at the same time as giving the eyeball the stimulus to shorten, so why delay reduction in cylinder correction? As the axis of astigmatism is not as fixed as we may believe (certainly not for me) it would also make sense to tackle cylinder early on.
Astigmatism without myopia can be corrected as well, and this would not depend on any synchronisation between the shape of the eyeball and the cornea.
Your own experience has shown you that you should take it easy with cylinder reduction. Have you any explanation for the difference between contact lenses without cylinder correction and glasses without cylinder correction?
As I go about uncorrected, I have no problem with either too much or too little cylinder correction causing dizziness. I have cylinder correction in the left eye lens of the norms I use for driving, and this is only for about 1 hour a week. What now seems to be a cylinder correction at an incorrect axis and/or an incorrect amount for the left eye, does not cause any problems for this short a period of glasses use. But I now sure wish I had bought all my reductions without a cylinder correction for the left eye. The right eye has lost its need for cylinder correction quite a while back. Starting point 6 months ago was RE -3,-1 cyl and LE -6,-2 cyl. Now at -1.5, no cyl and -5.75, cyl???

Theorically astigmatism is caused by strain at the muscle around our eyes and could be easily cured (according to Bate’s method), but in real life i’m not sure if synchronization will occur (but i hope so).
But, i invite you to stay with this thought for a while:

The light has two behaviors while inside our eyes.

  1. By hiting the cornea and being magnificied by it

  2. Then, by focusing on retina

The enviromental stimulus that promove eyesight improvement is more likely to be noticed by our visual cortex while occuring the focus on retina.

If our visual cortex try to notice the defocus caused by cornea’s aberration, there will be to many information, caused the light hiting the retina with a missaligned focus, and the eyeball will be confused if it does need to grow longer or shorter to handly the focus.

That is the reason i think i have strain while going without CYL correction.

Otherwise, if we correct the astigmatism first, the light will hit the retina in a spherical way and will fit at it most sharpely, promoting a better stimulus to the eye ball grow shorter (in myopia’s case).

I think i go well with contacts without CYL correction, because i’m always used contacts with no CYL pretty much before endmyopia method, and i’m used to it. It’s not perfect and i need to blink more often, but it’s handy to play soccer, etc.

Each case is unique. I can use contacts (-2 SPH RE, -2,5 SPH LE) during day time with no problem, but with glasses the CYL correction is really handy for me.

i actually use -0.50 CYL when my actual astigmatism prescription is -0.75
Recently i ordered glasses with no CYL correction and my conclusion was it’s better keep CYL correction while using glasses, cause too much strain.
with contacts i can easily go without CYL correction. I don’t know why.

I have done so, and thank you for explaining why you do well with contacts without cylinder.

1 Like

Considering all that, I guess its best to check the current CYL before reducing SPH. Our objective is to provide the eye stimulus to shorten the eye. I came across this link.

Many of us have diopter gap between two eyes along with cylinder corrections. Would it prove to be futile to try to start equalising before totally fixing astigmatism? If we can only be hopeful, that progressing ahead with shortening our eyeballs, the shape of the cornea will get corrected, should we just go down spherical corrections to the low myopia zone without fixing diopter gap? We also know from Jake’s experience that we need to interleave sph corrections between equalising. Thinking of all this, now I understand that spherical equivalents is a calculated risk worth taking.


If you have high astigmatism, cyl for sphere drops give you room to drop sphere between. Some folks would run Sph to 0 first otherwise