2 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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 agoNo, 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.