6 ms·
Since it takes so long to get to the point: > discovered a surprising relationship. The more time kids spent outside, the less likely they were to have myopia.
by katbyte 3y ago
Since it takes so long to get to the point:
> discovered a surprising relationship. The more time kids spent outside, the less likely they were to have myopia.
- dghughes 3y agoAs a child of the 1970s and a teen in the early 1980s I was outside more than in even in cold Canadian winters. I have bad astigmatism and I'm also near or far sighted (can never recall which). I know just my own life doesn't nullify the statement but all my friends were the same I mean outside but I don't know of them who has glasses as adults.
- netule 3y ago> can never recall which Do your glasses magnify or reduce things? The former is for aiding hyperopia and the latter for myopia. Also, as far as I can recall, astigmatism is present at birth and not developed over time like some other eye conditions.
- nottorp 3y agoYep, I have astigmatism. I spent my childhood more outdoors than indoors but I already had it. Only started to get dioptries at 30 ish but the astigmatism was with me all my life.
- antisthenes 3y ago> Also, as far as I can recall, astigmatism is present at birth and not developed over time like some other eye conditions. No, it's definitely not present at birth (at least to the same degree) and can be acquired during child development and even early adulthood.
- dghughes 3y agoI have astigmatism and now presbyopia too so if I remove my glasses and try to see if they magnify or reduce thing I'm not able to see because I can't see without my glasses. lol
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wozniacki 3y agoI know just my own life doesn't nullify the statement but all my friends were the same I mean outside but I don't know of them who has glasses as adults. This statement is confusing. And this is something I'm super keen to learn more about. So lets see if I understand this correctly. You mean you _do not_ know of any friends who _do not_ wear eyeglasses as adults? Let me rephrase that. You played outside as a child. You now wear glasses. All of your friends played outside as well. All your friends now wear glasses as well. Is that correct?
- dghughes 3y agoYeah it was a bit confusing. My friends and I played outside as children. I began to wear eyeglasses at age 17. My friends at the time to the best of my knowledge did not wear eyeglasses (ages 0 to 18). I do not know any of the same people now so I cannot say if they as adults wear eyeglasses or not.
- toast0 3y ago> I'm also near or far sighted (can never recall which). Take off your glasses and try to read a book at arm length, and close up. If you can easily read it at both distances, you might have good vision. If you can only read it when it's far, you are far sighted. If you can only read it when it's near, you're near sighted.
- dghughes 3y agolol I can't see either way and now I have bifocals too.
- nsonha 3y agoI don't know why western media always talks about myopia (in Asia) as if it's some sort of mystery. Where I'm from, everyone believes that myopia is caused by... the habit of looking at close objects for prolonged periods, such as electronic devices or books. Like how shocking (it should not if you know how muscles around your eyeballs work). I think it's even written so in the textbooks.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoYes, that's a common belief in the West as well, and used to be generally accepted. But there's a very strong correlation between looking at close objects for prolonged periods and being inside so it's easy to understand why it was misunderstood for so long.
- nsonha 3y agoyou seem to think the real cause is "being inside" and not using your eyes in a particular way? (looking at close objects...). What is the exact mechanism by which being inside affects your eyes then?
- croes 3y agoArtificial lighting? Less sunlight? Lower light intensity?
- nsonha 3y agoyes, there is a theory on how the muscles of the eyes become "miscalibrated", so to speak, if you only look at close things. What is the exact mechanism of the "lower light" theory then?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jgtrosh 3y ago
- mschuster91 3y agoThe problem is everyone and their dog wants urbanization, and dense urbanization at that. Be it for environmental reasons (land use, reduction of individual car traffic), for financial reasons (easier to supply dense areas with infrastructure like water/electricity/public transit, at least up until a certain point) or for the benefit of employers (a large, concentrated talent pool). The downsides however? We're completely ignoring them for whatever reason, and increasing myopia and rising child obesity rates are just one point on the giant list.
- munk-a 3y agoPersonally, I want urbanization to fight against obesity - walkable cities produce a lot more natural and casual physical activity than living in suburbia and needing to drive three miles to pick up a can of coke. Good urbanization also, I believe, would discourage myopia. I've spent the past few months living in Barcelona and nearly everything here happens outside in the sun - going for dinner, meeting friends, playing a board game... people tend not to do as much inside under florescent lights when usable, comfortable, and safe outdoor spaces are available.
- toast0 3y agoSure, but as someone with myopia, I can easily see it the other way. The more kids difficulty kids had seeing at distance, the less likely they were to spend outside. Once I started wearing glasses, swimming / pool time was less fun cause I can't see. Other sports were fine with glasses, but sometimes they fly off and maybe get damaged which is a big deal and dampers enthusiasm. Some amusement parks are real strict about not wearing glasses and roller coasters are less fun when you can't see. Etc I guess I'll just hang out inside with books and computers, thanks.
- danaris 3y agoOn the other hand: By the time I was...probably about 12, my myopia was bad enough that I could no longer read without glasses (or without holding the book uncomfortably close to my face). Similarly, attempting to interact with a screen would've been impractical, because it's all fine detail. Outdoors, however, most things that I would need to care about were large enough that I could see them just fine. I wouldn't have had much trouble, for instance, playing soccer without my glasses on, because I didn't need to care which face was which or even the numbers on the backs of the shirts—I just needed to see the colors of the shirts, and the position of the ball, well enough to maneuver between them. (Well, I wouldn't have had trouble due to my myopia. The trouble I had playing soccer was from a different source.) ...I have literally never encountered an amusement park where I couldn't wear my glasses. It seems to me that if there's really a danger, they should provide some kind of protection for you.
- amluto 3y agoThere are amusement parks that don’t allow non-prescription sunglasses on rides. But sometimes the operators don’t ask if they’re prescription, and you need to tell them that your sunglasses are prescription.
- lhamil64 3y agoRegarding swimming, you could get prescription goggles
- suby 3y ago
- slothtrop 3y agoI wonder if China will implement a policy to this effect, since they have the largest demographic dependent on eyeglasses in the world.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]