Why eyes return to normal?

Found this article on Reddit

Which shows the eyeball shortening by 13 microns after 60 minutes of defocus, but returns to its normal state soon after the experiment. Not only is this effect temporary, but it is already known that the eyeball changes its length on a daily basis anyway, up to 45 microns.

Could anyone explain me this?

I think this might proves the EM method effectiveness on Axle shorten in a way. Just Imaging by doing AF and wearing normalized and differentials, you are actually constantly putting your eye in defocus (myopic defocus to be specific) mode. then this short term shortening are happening all day long which might just leads to some permanent shortening of the axle length and becomes a long term effect that leads to sustainable eyesight improvement.

of course, that’s just my guessing to motivate myself to keep on the EM track :rofl:

1 Like

I have just read the post you link to, and Varakari’s reply a year ago. Now, a year later we need to look at his changes in axial length relative to his increase in focal distance to see if his experience confirms the hypothesis of axial shortening being the reason for myopia reversal.

I have benefitted from clinical blur adaptation for 30 years, as I did not wear correction other than for a little driving. That on its own did not improve my vision. So the improvements I have made since starting EM 15 months ago are not the result of permanent myopic defocus and blur adaptation. They are the result of challenging the myopic homeostasis by paying attention to my edge of blur, wherever that is, pushing a little past it, and trying to clear the blur. I have no way of knowing whether there has been any axial shortening in my case.

There are probably processes other than clinical blur adaptation or axial shortening that could explain the reduction in myopia. We would need more people measuring their axial length at the beginning of EM and after considerable improvements in vision to give more weight to the axial shortening hypothesis, or to falsify it. In addition, although axial lengthening seems to be the most common cause of myopia, it is not the only one.

Eyes returning to ‘normal’ after the 60 minute or longer experiments are the result of removing the myopic defocus. The normal could refer either to the natural emmetropic state of the experimental subjects or their full correction for myopia. This is only to be expected. It happens to me as well when I put on glasses for measurement purposes, or did so in the past for driving. It takes some time again before I regain the visual improvement of clinical blur adaptation. But this does not change the fact that my full correction has been considerably reduced since starting EM, so something has changed.


I can’t actually find where in the study they say this. Could you take a screenshot or something of where in the study it’s mentioned?

1 Like

at the end of the study

Which sentence or paragraph in particular? I really can’t find it.

While I have no proof of any axial shortening happening in my case, I can say without a doubt that the refractive error has changed and it is supported by an autorefractor’s measurement.
Whether the shape of my eye has changed or my lens became more flexible or something else altogether, there is certainly a physical change in the light. Not just blur adaptation. So the OP’s scepticism is not justified and their explanation does not hold water (in fact their “research” seems awfully biased); we have a change in refraction, just not the data to explain it.


This is what we need plenty of reports of. :grinning:


I find autorefractor results quite compelling - even if the axial length isn’t measured. The refractor bounces light of the retina (picture of a little house or so) and can measures how distorted the image is that returns… so that cannot be blur adaptation. Checking in with the eye doctor or an optician when one feels one has made substantial gains should be good way to check for objective results in the eyeballs, no? I see the challenge in obtaining the print out from the optician :wink:


need jakes advice?

We need you guru?

You are dispeller of the darkness.

Absolutely, since the first diagnosis was also based on refraction and not on axial length measurement. The tendency of the autorefractor to overestimate cylinder resulted in a single one (out of many) deciding that my right eye needed -.25D of cylinder correction, and no checking of my cornea’s shape or my lens’ shape was required for that “prescription” to bind me legally when I drive.
Axial length might be the scientific explanation, but the parameter used for diagnosis is refraction, so that is the parameter we need to follow. Also, given that my AL was never measured before the onset of myopia, even if I start now, it won’t have any meaning by itself. Not even if I reach 0D of refraction, as I don’t think my measly -1D will require any drastic shrinking.

1 Like

I’m still at -4D (L) and -7D ( R ) stage, so I took my first AL data last weekend, we shall see :rofl:


You have a big diopter gap, so it will be interesting to see if there is also a big difference in the axial length of your eyes. I also have a big diopter gap but am in no situation to have my axial lengths measured.

I do, 25.6mm for the left and 27mm for the right. they are consistent to my diopter gap.

1 Like

Thank you. It will be very interesting to see what happens to these lengths when you get to the point where you want to equalise. I have made no attempts to force equalisation and although both eyes have improved, the driopter gap seems to have remained the same. This has not bothered me, and as long as the weaker eye does not deteriorate I will make no effort to equalise. I have binocular vision of -0.75 and perfectly adequate stereopsis, and see no point in wearing glasses.

I do want to equalize as I do need to wear my glasses, my right lens is almost twice as thick as the left one :rofl:

so I have being intentionally putting more challenge on my right eye. so far, 1D reduced from my right while 0.75 dropped from the left. so seems it’s working on the right direction I hope:)


So, 1 mm of axial length = 2.25 D of myopia?
I have had axial length R 27.12 L 27.26 and it meant a spherical equivalent of -8.87 in both eyes accoring to an autorefractor (left cornea had 0.5 less average power than right)


1mm is about 3D by theory, but it variants between person to person, it’s just an average number

1 Like