Who has solved a plateau by increasing correction?

Hi lovelies!
I am still sitting here, plateauing from ages ago.
Planning to go up again in my correction.
I was asked ages ago to make a video on plateaus, but at the time I had not had one XD
Now I definitely have.
I think my habits are pretty good over all, so I think going up may be the way to go for me.
I was wondering who else has resolved a plateau by increasing their correction?
I would love to hear about it, gather some anecdotes, and talk a bit about them in an upcoming YouTube video.
Am really hoping a lot of people have experienced this.


I did.

Not much to say really. Plateaued for about a month. Gave a 0.25 reduction a go. Didn’t turn back.
When I was doing it I did say I was going to do it for a week to test it out.
I also think I was introducing it just as a Peak Prescription on super sunny days.

U can see below the plateau for about a month. Then I reduced and my eyes took off!


I just went up to -1.50 because I think I might be slightly blur-adapted with the -1.25s.
Planning to go down again after winter.


I get confused by ambiguous references to “up” and “down” and “increase” and “decrease” in many of our discussion.

1 Like

Starting out on -4/-3 and realising my starting point should have been -4.75/-3.75 five months later


Still fighting my way out of a plateau myself. So no great advice here… I’m going out on the lake later though :smiley: Hoping my kayak is going to be my secret weapon for gainz :grin:


Haha. Fair enough. Maybe I should have said “Who has solved a plateau by wearing stronger glasses?” or “Who has solved a plateau by … decreasing their diopters… as in… increasing them, but in the negative direction?” XD


But it’s not just you. In English, if you “tie up” something, it’s the same as to “tie down” something. And to “gobble something up” is the same as to “gobble something down”! If we say “higher diopter” or “lower diopter,” there’s no ambiguity.


No decisive results from me, but I’m seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. I will report back when I already know if it was a train or not :sweat_smile:
Anyhow, for me increase alone was not enough, I’m only seeing some improvements signs since I’ve done the unequalization too (but keep in mind I’ve done equalization for my first normalized, which is not the case for you)


Indeed, I have done this a couple different ways. Mostly working on my non-dominant eye, I’ve tried a couple of approaches.

  1. Your basic, “this isn’t working, I want to move back up by 0.25 D,” strategy. I was having a very hard time with OD at -1.75 and went back up to -2.00 in both eyes. That seemed to help clear up more of the astigmatism (I think this is around giving the eye something it can actually make out in order to improve the overall clarity). I did notice after about six weeks of that I still have a lot of issues with clarity. I tried popping a test lens kit -0.75 on top of my -2.00 and realized…I still have quite a bit of blur. I decided to order new, no-cylinder lenses going back almost up to my starting point: -2.75 OU, -2.50 OU, and -2.25 OU. The idea is to get closer to clarity (without going too far) to get the eye moving (which I know it can, because I see better, with less distortion from astigmatism, than when I started in 2019.
  2. I’m also using the test lens kit -0.75 with my norms and distance vision. This is something like patching, but what I’ll do is spend a few minutes alternately increasing and returning to normal my distance vision in one eye and then the other. Basically, this gets the focusing muscles going. One accommodates for “normal” vision, then “better,” and then when you return to “normal vision,” it’s possible to see the accommodation return. So basically -2.00, -2.75, -2.00, repeat a few times. I don’t think I’ll do as much with my increased lenses (I’m using -2.50 for a few weeks now).

A note on patching. I’ve successfully used it to help equalize (I’m not quite 100% there, but it’s getting very close), and I’ve used it to help me get both eyes working at about the same level of efficiency. I was very cautious with patching early on, and I think rightfully so. As I’ve progressed, I notice that I’m able to (need to?) patch more often each day. I tend not to “formally patch,” just close my better eye and use the weaker one. I might spend about an hour a day like this, in 15-20 minutes walks or drives.

Hopefully this is helpful



yes thats funny. I just read it how I wanted to read it!
I’ve also solved a mini plateau in the other direction too. By going “up” or “increasing” go going back to a stronger correction…whatever we call it.


But then you think about plus and minus numbers and their vertical visualisation and may say that -3D is lower than -2D? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

So definitely @gemilymez got it correct:

I always corrected to the same visual acuity during my journey. Which often meant stepping back.

I’m more in favour of temporary nudges and triggers nowadays. Reminders of clarity, but not 100% of the time or not for a longer period. But mixing in a few times a week.
With the exception of the first winter when I indeed added back a significant amount of correction.

1 Like

Well, in a word, No.

1 Like

I think “increase correction” is pretty clear :thinking: The more correction you have the more the lenses distorts the light rays. Or in other words the larger your numbers in your correction after the minus sign. So -3 D is increased correction compared to -2 D. Because it corrects more.
It gets ambiguous if we talk in diopters though. But maybe it feels differently for native English speakers or for people with other native language than mine :slight_smile:


I have never really increased my norms before. I have dabbled into wearing stronger norms for a day or so but definitely not more. I have increased my diffs by .25 and definitely found that helped.

ALso, agree with david here, increasing correction, is any direction away from 0.

IMO, There’s definitely nuance between tie up vs tie down. Tie down implies anchored down. Tie up doesn’t necessitate it and is more about getting it done quickly.

Like wise gobble something up has more emphasis on how quickly the food is finished. And gobble something down has emphasis on finishing the food.


Gobble up seems to refer to removing the food (from the plate).
Gobble down seems to refer to putting it into the body.


I love how this thread has become totally about semantics rather than answering Gem’s question. ahahaha


As a fan of language, words and grammar, I must say…
semantics is where the fun is at.



I think the big thing with increasing correction to beat a plateau is that if your current correction is too low your eyes just don’t seem to ‘lock on’ when you do active focus properly. When I first came here someone used the analogy of a magic eye picture where you have to go cross-eyed to see a hidden image. I understand that now, active focus kind of lets your eye lock on and make a clear image. (it’s not going cross-eyed ofc)

If your correction is too low this becomes too hard. We don’t understand how everything works in strong detail, would be interesting to know why this seemed to stop improvement with me.

I’m keen to believe all eyes respond in exactly the same way, I don’t see how one person could reduce -2 and somehow make improvements where in the same diopter range me dropping -0.50 is still a problem. Or maybe our eyes really are different, we just don’t know. I feel like conservativism with reductions is definitely the strategy that works for the majority of people though. When someone reduces too much their eyes are not at that new level, they’re still catching up at probably the same rate. Always better to make your life not hell by taking it slowly.