4 ms·

Yes. I've felt this way since reading thick science fiction paperbacks as a kid. It's a pain to hold these things open for hours at a time. And, making matters

Yes. I've felt this way since reading thick science fiction paperbacks as a kid. It's a pain to hold these things open for hours at a time. And, making matters worse, these paperbacks were printed in small fonts. It's no surprise I've had glasses since I was 12. As to bindings, I've always been a fan of spiral bound books. There's also the Japanese style of printing shorter books in multiple volumes (at least I think this is the case - correct me if I'm wrong). Given my aversion to paper-based reading, I've enjoyed using my Kindle, smartphone, and tablet to read. However, now there's two more problems. First, my smartphone is a constant source of distraction (calls, texts, work emails, personal emails, app notifications, etc.). Second, it feels like I spend the majority of my waking life looking at either a computer screen, a smartphone screen, or a Kindle screen -- it's kind of unsettling.

jessriedel 8y ago
> It's no surprise I've had glasses since I was 12. You might have been facetious, but FYI, the favored theory for the cause of normal myopia is insufficient UV light exposure during childhood. Eyestrain and close focal distance are not thought to produce it even though the latter is correlated with low UV light from being indoors.
- mallomarmeasle 8y ago
  I guess you mean most favored theory by you? I do not find UV exposure to be a consensus opinion after a brief glance at the subject. There is at least some support for myopia being associated with close focal distance activities, as mentioned in this meta analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618477/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618477/
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    No, I was going based off my memory of this 2015 article, which summarizes the evidence and expert opinions: https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120 https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120 In particular, my article discusses randomized experiments and the opinion of multiple disagreeing experts. Your article (also from 2015) is a meta analysis of observational studies on the correlation between near work and myopia, not the overall question of myopia origins. As far as I can tell, I don't think they try to test whether light exposure is the underlying cause, nor does you article claim represent the opinions of anyone besides the three authors. I welcome links to more recent and comprehensive reviews, though. I definitely don't think this case has been closed.

jessriedel 8y ago

> It's no surprise I've had glasses since I was 12. You might have been facetious, but FYI, the favored theory for the cause of normal myopia is insufficient UV light exposure during childhood. Eyestrain and close focal distance are not thought to produce it even though the latter is correlated with low UV light from being indoors.

mallomarmeasle 8y ago
I guess you mean most favored theory by you? I do not find UV exposure to be a consensus opinion after a brief glance at the subject. There is at least some support for myopia being associated with close focal distance activities, as mentioned in this meta analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618477/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618477/
- jessriedel 8y ago
  No, I was going based off my memory of this 2015 article, which summarizes the evidence and expert opinions: https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120 https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120 In particular, my article discusses randomized experiments and the opinion of multiple disagreeing experts. Your article (also from 2015) is a meta analysis of observational studies on the correlation between near work and myopia, not the overall question of myopia origins. As far as I can tell, I don't think they try to test whether light exposure is the underlying cause, nor does you article claim represent the opinions of anyone besides the three authors. I welcome links to more recent and comprehensive reviews, though. I definitely don't think this case has been closed.