8 ms·

Interestingly enough, scientists have been able to induce myopia in all sorts of animals by making them wear contacts. My suspicion is that staring at objects

Interestingly enough, scientists have been able to induce myopia in all sorts of animals by making them wear contacts. My suspicion is that staring at objects closely and under dimly lit conditions causes pseusdo-myopia which is later exacerbated by wearing glasses, causing actual axial elongation in the eyeballs through hormesis. Especially since this is what seems to happen in other animals when we dissect them.

batter 4y ago
Doesn't this prove that glasses/lenses ruin your eyesight?
- R0b0t1 4y ago
  They do. Not just for me, but for many Americans in some study I found previous, and many people I've talked to. However there is a conflicting Philippine (iirc, or Malay) study that concludes the opposite. Most go with this latter study, though both are likely correct, myself having experienced the former. Having explained this to my optometrists they will take me seriously and give me most any prescription I want, though unfortunately I don't exactly know what to do. I just make sure I have dedicated outdoor glasses and limit screen time with them. I avoided wearing contacts for a while due to this but also other concerns. I think this may have limited my romantic success somewhat, at least at the time. In retrospect contacts with readers may have been the better option. I keep holding out for LASIK but don't know how much longer I should.
  - yourapostasy 4y ago
    > I keep holding out for LASIK but don't know how much longer I should. I think the Holy Grail should be eye surgery that is a permanent fix. Current options wear off with age (and not that many decades at that), and then you are back to corrective lenses. There are usually very few who can qualify for another surgery later in life...and then it wears off again anyways. It's a consumable elective surgery that consumes the benefit and the body, so in my opinion it is a net loss over the long haul.
    - nsonha 4y ago
      Any source for that they wears off? I've never heard it
      - 411111111111111 4y ago
        From my understanding of lasik, it basically just etches the lens on your eye. Must people need different lenses over the years, so it's inherently a temporary fix. And one that comes with the risk of going blind and is almost guaranteed to come with various sight issues a few years after the operation such as having more issues seeing in the dark ("night blindness") etc. Wearing contacts comes with it's own risks however, so if glasses aren't an option for the patient, LASIK isn't that dangerous. I could've gotten the operation for free (paid by my insurance) but decided against it, as my superlight glasses really aren't that bad and the risks just weren't worth it to me.
      - automatic6131 4y ago
        It doesn't wear off, however as the eye muscles weaken in old age, you become farsighted. This is why you have to wear glasses again.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- johnisgood 4y ago
  They do ruin your eyesight. There is an experiment you can do: if you watch your screen without glasses for an hour (make sure you do not watch it from up too close, the further away you are the better, let it be a bit blurry but still readable), a weaker pair of glasses will work, too.
User23 4y ago
Exactly. For some reason this upsets people.
- rajeshp1986 4y ago
  I can say this anecdotally based on my observations of my elders in my village in India while growing up. They used to avoid getting glasses and eventually their eyesight became worse. I don't think the hypothesis that wearing glasses is causing near sightedness epidemic.
- epgui 4y ago
  Well, the optometrists I know seem to think this explanation doesn't make sense.
  - User23 4y ago
    Why is that? Also what do you mean “seem to?” They do or they don’t, right? Have they not actually told you what they think?
    - epgui 4y ago
      I'm modulating my language simply because I don't have a firm grasp on expert consensus, I only have a handful of optometrist friends, and I usually like to defer to consensus. I'm not sure why you'd think they wouldn't be honest with me: you should assume good faith.
      - User23 4y ago
        I am assuming good faith. I wouldn’t ask you why they believe that if I didn’t. Incidentally you didn’t answer my question: “why is that?”
        epgui 4y ago
        I thought I did answer it with my first paragraph, but if that still seems odd to you we can probably chalk it up to English as a second language or to a misunderstanding.
tmlb 4y ago
> My suspicion is that staring at objects closely and under dimly lit conditions causes pseusdo-myopia Are you implying that cell phones could be a factor?
- DantesKite 4y ago
  That wasn't my intention, although I imagine they do play a role. The human eye (specifically the ciliary muscles) are most at "rest" when staring at objects in the distance. The human eye doesn't seem to be as well-suited for staring at distance less than ~20 feet for long periods of time. I imagine learning how to read and write in general, the shift from an agrarian society to cognitive labor, and the invention of glasses all were just as important factors.
  - forum_ghost 4y ago
    Myopia is also correlated with spending less time outdoors. Your theory about 20 ft is literally correct. Atropine is successfully used to relax the cilliary muscles. However, there is lots of anecdata that rigid contacts don’t make your eyesight worse over time.
    - graeme 4y ago
      Interesting, why would rigid contacts lead to less degradation?
      - forum_ghost 4y ago
        just guesses, because they are so infrequently worn these days, is that it somehow prevents eyeball deformation due to its rigidity and so the axial elongation does not occur. I'm a little sceptical about that theory, but my own rx did not go increase much when I wore RGPs. After that I did have some progression, but also a million other things changed, so who knows. RGPs however, are quite distinct in that they give absolutely perfect vision. better than soft contacts by a mile. Maybe some refractive thing as well, optometrist told me numerous times under-correction would lead to further progression. Ortho-K is popular in Asia for prevention, those are rigid lenses worn at night. Deforms cornea a little, so it's like a reversible lasik thing. So, in this case, not only its rigid lenses, they also have weird geometry. Many report significant success.
ummonk 4y ago
Is this controlled for the partially UV blocking effect of lenses though? I.e. is it the prescription in the lenses that does it or the lack of UV rat exposure?
- Loic 4y ago
  It has been shown again and again that the eyes require exposition to the sun to produce locally vitamin D to form themselves correctly [0], [1]. Go out and play (no citations needed)! [0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30018147/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30018147/ [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6951132/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6951132/
  - vbezhenar 4y ago
    It’s fun that one freak suggests regularly looking at sun (with closed eyes, of course), as one of his therapies for myopia. May be there’s something to it.
  - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
    > the eyes require exposition to the sun to produce locally vitamin D to form themselves I don't follow this. The articles use blood serum concentrations of Vitamin D in their methodology, are you saying there is a separate Vitamin D production/concentration in the eye's vitreous?
    - Loic 4y ago
      It is not clear if vitamin D in the blood directly affects the formation of the eye or if the creation of vitamin D directly in the eye because of the Sun exposure do so. Here is an article[0] which is easier to read than a study. [0]: https://www.optometrytimes.com/view/time-outdoors-and-myopia-case-vitamin-d https://www.optometrytimes.com/view/time-outdoors-and-myopia...

batter 4y ago

Doesn't this prove that glasses/lenses ruin your eyesight?

R0b0t1 4y ago
They do. Not just for me, but for many Americans in some study I found previous, and many people I've talked to. However there is a conflicting Philippine (iirc, or Malay) study that concludes the opposite. Most go with this latter study, though both are likely correct, myself having experienced the former. Having explained this to my optometrists they will take me seriously and give me most any prescription I want, though unfortunately I don't exactly know what to do. I just make sure I have dedicated outdoor glasses and limit screen time with them. I avoided wearing contacts for a while due to this but also other concerns. I think this may have limited my romantic success somewhat, at least at the time. In retrospect contacts with readers may have been the better option. I keep holding out for LASIK but don't know how much longer I should.
- yourapostasy 4y ago
  > I keep holding out for LASIK but don't know how much longer I should. I think the Holy Grail should be eye surgery that is a permanent fix. Current options wear off with age (and not that many decades at that), and then you are back to corrective lenses. There are usually very few who can qualify for another surgery later in life...and then it wears off again anyways. It's a consumable elective surgery that consumes the benefit and the body, so in my opinion it is a net loss over the long haul.
  - nsonha 4y ago
    Any source for that they wears off? I've never heard it
    - 411111111111111 4y ago
      From my understanding of lasik, it basically just etches the lens on your eye. Must people need different lenses over the years, so it's inherently a temporary fix. And one that comes with the risk of going blind and is almost guaranteed to come with various sight issues a few years after the operation such as having more issues seeing in the dark ("night blindness") etc. Wearing contacts comes with it's own risks however, so if glasses aren't an option for the patient, LASIK isn't that dangerous. I could've gotten the operation for free (paid by my insurance) but decided against it, as my superlight glasses really aren't that bad and the risks just weren't worth it to me.
    - automatic6131 4y ago
      It doesn't wear off, however as the eye muscles weaken in old age, you become farsighted. This is why you have to wear glasses again.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
johnisgood 4y ago
They do ruin your eyesight. There is an experiment you can do: if you watch your screen without glasses for an hour (make sure you do not watch it from up too close, the further away you are the better, let it be a bit blurry but still readable), a weaker pair of glasses will work, too.

User23 4y ago

Exactly. For some reason this upsets people.

rajeshp1986 4y ago
I can say this anecdotally based on my observations of my elders in my village in India while growing up. They used to avoid getting glasses and eventually their eyesight became worse. I don't think the hypothesis that wearing glasses is causing near sightedness epidemic.
epgui 4y ago
Well, the optometrists I know seem to think this explanation doesn't make sense.
- User23 4y ago
  Why is that? Also what do you mean “seem to?” They do or they don’t, right? Have they not actually told you what they think?
  - epgui 4y ago
    I'm modulating my language simply because I don't have a firm grasp on expert consensus, I only have a handful of optometrist friends, and I usually like to defer to consensus. I'm not sure why you'd think they wouldn't be honest with me: you should assume good faith.
    - User23 4y ago
      I am assuming good faith. I wouldn’t ask you why they believe that if I didn’t. Incidentally you didn’t answer my question: “why is that?”
      - epgui 4y ago
        I thought I did answer it with my first paragraph, but if that still seems odd to you we can probably chalk it up to English as a second language or to a misunderstanding.

tmlb 4y ago

> My suspicion is that staring at objects closely and under dimly lit conditions causes pseusdo-myopia Are you implying that cell phones could be a factor?

DantesKite 4y ago
That wasn't my intention, although I imagine they do play a role. The human eye (specifically the ciliary muscles) are most at "rest" when staring at objects in the distance. The human eye doesn't seem to be as well-suited for staring at distance less than ~20 feet for long periods of time. I imagine learning how to read and write in general, the shift from an agrarian society to cognitive labor, and the invention of glasses all were just as important factors.
- forum_ghost 4y ago
  Myopia is also correlated with spending less time outdoors. Your theory about 20 ft is literally correct. Atropine is successfully used to relax the cilliary muscles. However, there is lots of anecdata that rigid contacts don’t make your eyesight worse over time.
  - graeme 4y ago
    Interesting, why would rigid contacts lead to less degradation?
    - forum_ghost 4y ago
      just guesses, because they are so infrequently worn these days, is that it somehow prevents eyeball deformation due to its rigidity and so the axial elongation does not occur. I'm a little sceptical about that theory, but my own rx did not go increase much when I wore RGPs. After that I did have some progression, but also a million other things changed, so who knows. RGPs however, are quite distinct in that they give absolutely perfect vision. better than soft contacts by a mile. Maybe some refractive thing as well, optometrist told me numerous times under-correction would lead to further progression. Ortho-K is popular in Asia for prevention, those are rigid lenses worn at night. Deforms cornea a little, so it's like a reversible lasik thing. So, in this case, not only its rigid lenses, they also have weird geometry. Many report significant success.

ummonk 4y ago

Is this controlled for the partially UV blocking effect of lenses though? I.e. is it the prescription in the lenses that does it or the lack of UV rat exposure?

Loic 4y ago
It has been shown again and again that the eyes require exposition to the sun to produce locally vitamin D to form themselves correctly [0], [1]. Go out and play (no citations needed)! [0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30018147/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30018147/ [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6951132/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6951132/
- vbezhenar 4y ago
  It’s fun that one freak suggests regularly looking at sun (with closed eyes, of course), as one of his therapies for myopia. May be there’s something to it.
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  > the eyes require exposition to the sun to produce locally vitamin D to form themselves I don't follow this. The articles use blood serum concentrations of Vitamin D in their methodology, are you saying there is a separate Vitamin D production/concentration in the eye's vitreous?
  - Loic 4y ago
    It is not clear if vitamin D in the blood directly affects the formation of the eye or if the creation of vitamin D directly in the eye because of the Sun exposure do so. Here is an article[0] which is easier to read than a study. [0]: https://www.optometrytimes.com/view/time-outdoors-and-myopia-case-vitamin-d https://www.optometrytimes.com/view/time-outdoors-and-myopia...